1968-10-09

UNVEILING OF PORTRAIT OF FORMER PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, last evening we had the pleasure of hearing some remarks made on the occasion of the unveiling of the portrait of a former prime minister of Canada. Fortunately a verbatim transcript of these proceedings is in existence, and I will take the liberty of suggesting to the house that this transcript be made an appendix to today's Hansard. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For document referred to above, see appendix A.]



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act, to which the concurrence of this house is desired.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I should like to set the record straight, and submit an extremely serious problem to the house. In addition, I base my question of privilege on a principle which strikes me as being of prime importance.
As shown on page 459 of the House of Commons Debates, I put on the order paper question No. 123 in which I ask details with regards to the Northern Canada Power Commission, which body is answerable to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). In the first part
of that question, I asked whether the Northern Canada Power Commission had, within the last three years, bought or nationalized-I said "bought or nationalized" private hydroelectric concerns, and the minister replied: "None". With regard to the other part, the replay was: "N/A."
However, on page 20 of the annual report of the Northern Canada Power Commission and subsidiaries, for the fiscal year terminated March 31, 1967, we read the following:
On September 30, 1966, the Northern Canada Power Commission purchased the registered capital of the companies Yukon Telephone Syndicate Limited, Dawson City Water and Power Company Limited and Dawson Electric Light and Power Company Limited. The consolidated balance-sheet which accompanies these observations reveals that the financial situation and the operating statement of the commission and its subsidiaries-
Mr. Speaker, the matter is most serious, since it proves beyond a doubt that the government gave erroneous information to parliament. Without being an expert in parliamentary procedure, I understand that this is completely contrary to the fundamental principles which govern the business of parliament.
When the question period comes, each day, we try to put questions of general interest or urgent questions. We make an effort, on the opposition side, to obtain information which the public asks of us, and with the new procedure which allows the ministers to be absent from the house, the answers we succeed in obtaining are usually very vague. Sometimes one does not get an answer or is told: Put your question on the order paper. That suggestion is followed and inaccurate answers are given.
I therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, that steps be taken immediately by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with regard to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in order that the officials and some of his ministers stop making fun of some opposition members.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the hon. member has not followed up his question of privilege with a motion, it is obvious that no debate is possible. I must therefore rule that there is no question of privilege which can be discussed at this time.

October 9, 1969
Administration of Justice



PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carlelon)
presented the first report of the special committee on procedure of the house and moved that the report be concurred in Motion agreed to.
[Editor's note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in connection with an answer given by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) on October 4, 1968, and which appears on page 795 of Hansard.
The Minister of Justice was then answering a question from the member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) who had asked him whether the province of Quebec had been in touch with the Minister of Justice concerning the setting up of a royal commission to examine the spreading of crime across the nation, and I quote:
The minister has not received any request from the province of Quebec to set up a royal commission.
According to newspapers this morning, the Quebec premier, Hon. Jean-Jacques Bertrand, denied the statement of the Minister of Justice, pointing out, as can be read in today's issue of Montreal-Matin:
After having recalled that, in a letter dated November 21, 1967, addressed to Mr. Turner, he had personally suggested that the proposed national centre be given the name "Canadian Criminality Information Centre".
Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this: the hon. minister has given out information which led the people to believe that the province of Quebec was not interested in cooperating with the federal government in matters of crime, and that reply is contrary to the documents the minister has on file. I ask the right hon. Prime Minister, in view of the absence of the Minister of Justice, to kindly tell us exactly what the situation is.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Since this matter is the responsibility of the Solicitor General perhaps I should deal with 
it now. I have read the answer reported in Hansard at page 795. It is precisely correct. What is being overlooked by the hon. member is that the newspaper article deals with collaboration and co-operation among police forces. There is excellent working co-operation among the police forces at this time, as stated by the Minister of Justice in the passage of Hansard referred to, in which he says:
I can say from experience that the R.C.M.P. are in constant co-operation with provincial and municipal police forces in this country.
The working co-operation is excellent. It is a fact, however, that at the moment the Quebec provincial police are not members of the Canadian criminal intelligence system.


Georges-J. Valade: That was not my question of privilege. The Minister of Justice implied in this house that the province of Quebec had not shown interest in collaborating with the federal authorities. A spokesman for the Quebec government has stated, according to this morning's newspapers, that on November 26, 1967 a letter was addressed to the Minister of Justice on this question. That is the point I wanted to clear up.


George James McIlraith: I must not let that statement go unchallenged. That is not a fact. The minister from Quebec did reply to a letter from the Solicitor General of November 6, and that reply was dated November 21, 1967. That correspondence is in the Solicitor General's office.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	What was the total amount of money on the
books of the pension funds of the Canadian National Railways as at (a) December 31, 1964 (b) December 31,	1965	(c) December 31, 1966	(d)
December 31, 1967?
2.	What rate of interest does the C.N.R. pay on this money?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the above noted pension funds during the year ending (a) December 31, 1964 (b) December 31, 1965 (c) December 31, 1966 (d) December 31, 1967?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the above noted funds in pensions during the years ending (a) December 31, 1964 (b) December 31, 1965 (c) December 31, 1966 (d) December 31, 1967?
October 9, 1968


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. The total amounts of the investments, cash and other current assets on the books of the pension trust funds were: As at 31 December 1964, $531,627,361; 31 December 1965, $575,887,009; 31 December 1966, $626,818,658; 31 December 1967, $684,962,758.
2.	The C.N.R. does not pay interest on these assets which are held separately in the pension trust funds.
3.	Net earnings on the investments of the pension trust funds were: Year ended 31 December 1964, $23,830,471; 31 December 1965, $25,932,593; 31 December 1966, $28,763,156; 31 December 1967, $34,541,149.
4.	Total amounts of the pensions paid out of the pension trust funds were: Year ended 31 December 1964, $32,145,649; 31 December 1965, $34,575,142; 31 December 1966, $37,595,615; 31 December 1967, $40,688,714.


PRESIDENT OF AIR CANADA
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Has the President of Air Canada been appointed?
2.	At what date did the position become vacant?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	The board of directors of Air Canada appointed Mr. N. J. MacMillan to be acting president of Air Canada at the meeting of the board held at the end of May this year. In a statement at that time, the board said that Mr. MacMillan's appointment was of a temporary nature.
2.	Mr. MacGregor retired as president of Air Canada at the end of May, 1968.


INCOME TAX ON TELEPHONE COMPANIES
Mr. Forlin: 1.	Do the telephone companies in Saskatchewan and Manitoba pay income tax?
2.	Do the telephone companies in Quebec and Ontario pay income tax?
3.	Does the government intend to bring the telephone companies under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act (Statutes of Canada 1966-67 c. 43)?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1 and 2. All companies providing telephone service are subject to income tax except a corporation not less than 90 per cent of the shares or capital of which is owned by Her
Questions
Majesty in right of a province or by a Canadian municipality or a wholly owned corporation subsidiary to such a corporation.
3.	No.


AIRPORTS AND MILITARY AERODROMES IN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 78
André-Gilles Fortin: 1.	How many airports are operated by the Department of Transport (a) in Quebec (b) in Ontario (c) in British Columbia?
2.	Has the Department any intention of establishing in Quebec a corresponding number of airports to those existing in Ontario and British Columbia and, if not, for what reason?
3.	How many military airdromes are there (a) in Quebec (b) in Ontario, and, if there is a difference in number, for what reason?
4.	How many U.S. military airdromes are there in Canada?
5.	Under what agreement are such airdromes established in Canada?
6.	What compensation is received by Canada for the establishment of such airdromes?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Transport and National Defence as follows: 1. (a) ten; (b) eighteen, and (c) seventeen.
2.	The maintenance of a numerical balance among the several provinces of Canada is not a basis on which airports are established.
3.	(a) two, and; (b) six (two of which are unmanned and used as emergency aerodromes only).
In addition, three civil airports in Quebec and two in Ontario, which are near Canadian forces bases, are used by military aircraft. The size and type of forces stationed in Ontario require more military aerodromes for their specific function.
4.	One, at Argentia, Newfoundland. In addition, the United States of America has a leased area with airport access rights at Goose Bay, Newfoundland.
5.	Argentia was leased for 99 years by agreements made on March 27, 1941, and October 23, 1947. These agreements have been valid for Canada since April 1, 1949. The leased area at Goose bay was made available by Canada for a 20 year period by an exchange of notes on December 5, 1952. (See the Canada Treaty Series, 1952; Numbers 14 and 22).
6.	None.

October 9, 1968
Questions


LOCATION OF COASTGUARD COLLEGE
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The: Sydneys):
1.	Is it the intention of the department concerned to change the local of the Canadian Coast Guard College now located in Cape Breton?
2.	Has consideration been given or discussion taken place with regard to the removal of said College from its present location and, if so, who were the parties to such discussions?
3.	Has the Minister concerned received a letter from the North Sydney Board of Trade suggesting that if such a move take place, consideration be given to locating the College on the north side of Sydney Harbour?
4.	Has consideration been given to this suggestion and what reply was provided to the North Sydney Board of Trade?


Hon. James Richardson (Acting Minister of Transport):: 1 and 2. The Point Edward location of the Coast Guard College is being developed as an Industrial Estate and this is making the satisfactory operation of the college increasingly difficult. Continued industrial expansion must lead eventually to such encroachment on the college that it will be necessary to move. In view of the great importance of industrial development in the area, this is regarded as inevitable and possible alternative sites are being studied. No decision has been made and no discussions have been held with authorities in possible relocation areas.
3.	Yes.
4.	The reply was that consideration would be given to the suggestion.


MOTOR VEHICLE WASHING FACILITIES, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The: Sydneys):
1.	Has the Department of Agriculture in conjunction with the Department of Transport and/or the Department of Public Works commenced the construction of motor vehicle washing facilities at Port aux Basques, Newfoundland?
2.	If so (a) what is the estimated cost of such an installation (b) what is the estimated date of completion of this project (c) on what date will these facilities be in operation?
3.	Is it planned to construct motor vehicle washing facilities at Argentia, Newfoundland and, if so, what is the estimated cost of such installation?
4.	Has consideration been given to the construction of one such facility at the Port of North Sydney, rather than two in Newfoundland?
5.	What is the reason, in detail, for the construction of such facilities only in Newfoundland?
6.	Are there any such facilities now in operation in Newfoundland?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) $1,021,800; (b) April 1, 1969; (c) May 1, 1969 estimated.
3.	No firm plans but consideration is being given to such a requirement.
4.	Yes.
5.	To prevent the possible introduction on to the mainland of the pest, Golden Nematode, and potato wart disease, which are prevalent in areas of Newfoundland, it is highly desirable that soil which might be contaminated should be removed from vehicles prior to their arrival in Nova Scotia. Space for the construction of a vehicle washing facility is not available in the dock area in North Sydney, and the cost of acquiring land and providing access to a location outside the immediate area of docking was found to be prohibitive. Ferry traffic is occasionally diverted from North Sydney to Mulgrave due to weather conditions, and in these instances a vehicle washing facility at North Sydney would not provide the required protection.
6.	No.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, ST. GERVAIS, QUE.-MINIMUM MILK PRICE
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Does the government intend to build a post office at St. Gervais, Bellechasse County and, if so
(a)	what is the estimated cost of that construction
(b)	when will the work start?
2.	Is the Minister of Agriculture in a position to say that financial measures will be taken to guarantee industrial milk producers a minimum price of $5.50 per hundred pounds of milk for the next fiscal year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am informed by the Depart-ters of Public Works and Agriculture as follows: 1. Yes, (a) a contract has been awarded for $26,200, (b) immediately.
2.	No.


REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE TO N.S. CO-OPERATIVE ABATTOIR
Mr. Coates: Why was the recommendation made by the Atlantic Development Board for assistance for the Nova Scotia Co-operative Abattoir refused by Treasury Board and what was the amount of the recommended assistance and what was the purpose of the proposed assistance?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am informed by Treasury
October 9, 1968

Board and the Department of Forestry and Rural Development as follows:
When the request for assistance to the Nova Scotia Co-operative Abattoir was considered tlie Treasury Board decided that it could not approve assistance at that time pending the outcome of the review of the whole question of assistance to individual firms by the minister responsible for regional development.
The amount of the requested assistance was $770,000, of which $270,000 was for capital expenditure to improve and enlarge the physical capacity of the plant and $550,000 was for working capital to enable the cooperative to gain greater flexibility in arranging its inventories and to reduce its reliance on heavy bank borrowings.


TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION, ROCKCLIFFE AIRPORT
Mr. Code: 1.	Referring to the answer to Question 524 of the last Session (Hansard, page 4171-2), has any decision now been taken regarding the transfer of the Rockcliffe Aerodrome from the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence to the Department of Transport?
2.	If so, what is that decision?
3.	If the decision is not to transfer the Aerodrome, what are the plans for its future use?
4.	What plan does the government have for the establishment of a secondary or satellite airport in the National Capital Region?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am informed by the Departments of Transport and National Defence as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	The decision is that the Department of Transport will not take over the operation and maintenance of the Rockcliffe aerodrome.
3.	All scheduled service flying has been discontinued at CFB Rockcliffe airport. Future disposition of the land which comprises the aerodrome is under study.
4.	There are no firm plans at the present time for a satellite airport in the national capital region as the traffic at Ottawa international airport has not reached the point where such action is necessary. However, the Department of Transport is watching developments in air traffic in the national capital region and will recommend the development of a satellite airport when the need arises.
Questions


CANADIAN FORCES PERSONNEL
Mr. McGrath: 1.	What is the total strength of Canadian Forces personnel stationed in each of the four Atlantic Provinces-Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick?
2.	What defence establishments are located in these Provinces?
3.	What is the total strength of Canadian Forces personnel for each of the other six provinces, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. As of
30 June, 1968: Newfoundland: 424; Prince Edward Island: 1,353; Nova Scotia: 13,865; New Brunswick: 6,121.
2.	It is not departmental policy to make
public lists of all defence establishments in each province giving precise locations. However, the following is a list of major bases and stations: Newfoundland: CFS St. John's, CFS Gander; CFS Goose Bay; Prince Edward Island: CFB Summerside; Nova Scotia: CFB Greenwood; CFB Halifax; CFB Shearwater; CFB Cornwallis; CFS Mill Cove; CFS Shelburne; CFS Barrington; CFS Sydney; New Brunswick:	CFB Gagetown; CFB
Chatham; CFB Moncton; CFS Coverdale.
3.	Quebec, 9,734; Ontario, 28,769; Manitoba, 6,729; Saskatchewan, 1,683; Alberta, 6,746; British Columbia, 8,583; Yukon, 171; Northwest Territories, 298.


EXPENDITURES ON URBAN RENEWAL STUDIES
Mr. Paproski: What is the total amount of expenditure by the federal government in the last five calendar years on urban renewal studies relating to (a) slum clearance (b) urban transportation (c) housing?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Pursuant to the National Housing Act, the federal government, during the five year period January 1, 1963, to December 31, 1967, approved contributions totalling $2,069,000 to provinces and municipalities for urban renewal studies including special studies relating to social aspects and housing rehabilitation in urban renewal areas. Expenditures during this same period, relating to these approvals amounted to $1,048,000. In addition, since the amendments to the National Housing Act in June, 1964, contributions under section 23A toward the preparation of urban renewal schemes were approved in the amount of $1,840,000. Expenditures relating to these approvals amounted to $832,000.

October 9, 1968
Questions
Contributions toward urban transportation studies under the National Housing Act were approved in the amount of $30,000 of which $23,000 had been expended as at December 31, 1967.
Urban renewal studies and the preparation of urban renewal schemes include elements of slum clearance, urban transportation and housing. The costs of these elements are not separately identifiable.


POLYMER CORPORATION
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Has the percentage of net profits with respect to sales of the Polymer Corporation Limited been dropping and, if so, what steps does the government, the Board of Directors and the management intend to take to prevent the situation from worsening?
2.	Has the Board of Directors already considered, is it considering or will it consider establishing a subsidiary or production division in Quebec?
3.	Has the Corporation considered directing its production more toward the manufacture of plastic products?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Defence Production):: Insofar as Polymer
Corporation Limited is concerned: 1. Polymer Corporation's net income for 1967 as a percentage of net sales was below the level achieved in previous years and resulted from the continued rise in the cost of doing business and the decline in world prices for most of the Company's products. The management has intensified its efforts to improve productivity and reduce costs with very satisfactory results to date.
2.	The capacity of the Company's existing Canadian operations is sufficient for its current needs and the Company, therefore, does not have any current plans to establish a subsidiary or production division in the province of Quebec. However, it is continually seeking attractive opportunities for further expansion and growth in Canada.
3.	The Company now produces ABS resins and polystyrene, which represent only a small proportion of its total output, and is interested in strengthening its position in the plastics field.


AMENDMENT OF FARM IMPROVEMENT LOAN LEGISLATION
Mr. Alkenbrack: 1.	When does the government intend to reconstitute and amend the legislation pertaining to the Farm Improvement Loan Act?

2.	Will the Act be broadened to serve a broader sector of the Agricultural Industry?
3.	What will be the new rate of interest on farm improvement loans?


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. Appropriate
amending legislation received first reading on October 3, 1968.
2.	The measure now before the house would, in addition to making the interest rate prescribable by orders in council, increase the maximum loan amount, broaden the loan purposes to include the purchase of additional land, add credit unions, caisses populaires, trust, loan and life insurance companies as eligible lenders, and make a number of other improvements to this credit facility which serves the farming sector.
3.	This rate has not yet been determined. It will be established when the amending legislation has been passed.


ROAD EXPENDITURES, TACHIE INDIAN VILLAGE
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Since January 1, 1965, has any money been spent on the Tachie Indian Village for roads, or with respect to roads leading to or from the said Village?
2. If so, what amount of money was spent in each year and how much of this was used to employ native Indian workmen and how much to rent equipment owned by people who were not native Indians?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes, money has been spent on a road leading to the Tachie reserve.
2.

1965-66	30,000.00
1966-67	30,000.00
1967-68	-
1968-69	12,500.00 (commitment)
Total	72,500.00
This road is being constructed under an agreement between the British Columbia provincial government and this department on a fifty-fifty cost sharing basis. As all of the work is being carried out by the province, there is no information available within the department on the details of expenditures.
October 9, 1968


INDIANS AND ESKIMOS IN TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAMS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many (a) Eskimos (b) Indians, are enrolled in the Teacher Training Program at Fort Smith announced by the Minister for Indian Affairs last spring?
2.	How many (a) Eskimos (b) Indians, are enrolled in the Teachers' Aid Training Program at the University of Manitoba and the University of Saskatchewan?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. There is no teacher training program being carried out in Fort Smith, N.W.T. However, such a program is in effect in Yellowknife, N.W.T. with the enrolment including one Eskimo and eight Indians.
2. University of Manitoba:	(a) Eskimos,
none; (b) Indians, eight. University of Saskatchewan: (a) Eskimos, none; (b) Indians, 14.


LOCATION CHANGE OF MANPOWER CENTRE, EDMONTON
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 175
Mr. Paproski:: 1.	What was the date of the transfer of the offices and quarters of the Manpower Centre to the Centennial Building in Edmonton?
2.	What are the terms of the leasing arrangement of the premises in the Centennial Building viz, floor space, terms of years, annual rental, responsibility for repairs and alterations, options for additional space, name of lessor, names of signing officers on behalf of the lessor?
3.	What solicitors acted on behalf of the Crown in connection with this transaction?
4.	What was the floor space, vacated, and the number of employees using the said premises?
5.	What is the number of employees presently using the new premises?
6.	For what reasons were the offices of the Manpower Centre removed from a public building built specifically as an employment centre which is housing, as well, the related offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission?
7.	What government services are presently occupying the vacated premises and how long did the latter remain unoccupied?


Hon. Arihur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. August 18, 1967.
2. Terms of lease: floor space, 17,580 square feet; five year term from August 18, 1967 to July 31, 1972 at 92,295 per annum ($5.25 per square foot); lessor responsible for all services and supply of original partitioning, 100 feet
Questions
partitioning per 1,000 feet floor area leased; five year option to renew at same terms and conditions; option for additional 1800 square feet space with rent to be negotiated when option to renew is exercised, all subject to tax escalator clause 100 per cent over base year 1968 proportion of occupied premises; owners, Centennial Investment Ltd. and Edper (Alta.) Ltd.; signor for Centennial Investments, Gerald Seniw; signor for Edper (Alta.) Ltd., Peter Caffera.
3.	No solicitor.
4.	Floor space vacated, 8,758 square feet; 128 employees using premises.
5.	Employees using new premises, 130.
6.	Insufficient space available for both Unemployment Insurance Commission and manpower in the Unemployment Insurance Commission building.
7.	Departments presently occupying the vacated premises: Department of Labour, Department of Defence Production, Canadian government repair services. Space was unoccupied for approximately four months during alterations to provide improved accommodation for U.I.C. and renovations for Departments of Labour and Defence Production and Canadian government repair services.


VETERANS AND WIDOW'S, LOTBINIEIRE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many world war I and world war II Canadian veterans, between the ages of 65 and 70, are there in the federal constituency of Lotbiniere?
2.	How many veterans' widows, between the ages of 65 and 70 are there in the federal constituency of Lotbiniere?
3.	Is the government considering the payment of old age assistance to veterans and their widows without a means test?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am informed by the Departments of Veterans Affairs and National Health and Welfare as follows: 1 and 2. Statistics of the number of veterans and veterans' widows are not maintained by federal constituencies.
3. No. The government is not considering the amendment of the Old Age Assistance Act to permit the payment of old age assistance to veterans and their widows without a means

October 9. 1968
Questions
test. However, the eligible age for the old age security pension, which is paid without a means test, is being reduced, and effective January 1, 1970, the pension will be payable at age 65, thereby eliminating the need presently filled by old age assistance.


CHARTERED BANK SHARES
Mr. Laiulippe: What was the number of shares of chartered banks and their value at par on October 31, 1934, 1944, 1954, 1964, 1967?


Edgar John Benson: Chartered Banks Shares Outstanding October 31st
1934	1944	1954	1964	1967Number	1,455,000	14,550,000	16,695,300	28,195,800	139,979,000Par Value	$145,500,000 $145,500,000 $166,953,000 $281,958,000 $287,958,000


ECONOMIC RESEARCH PROJECT, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	How many Members of the Public Service of Canada are employed in the research project being carried out in Prince Edward Island by the Economic Improvement Corporation?
2.	From what Department of the Government of Canada have such people been drawn?
3.	To what department will the report of the E.I.C. be submitted?
4.	Is any undertaking been given to the Province of Prince Edward Island regarding the implementation of an economic plan for that Province?
5.	What amounts of federal expenditure are in contemplation under such a program?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	To the Department of Forestry and Rural Development and to the advisory board established under the Fund for Rural Economic Development Act.
4.	The objective is to implement a development plan, but undertakings depend on agreement between the governments on the nature and cost of programs.
5.	Expenditures will depend on the agreement referred to.


RENOVATION OF TERMINAL BUILDING, CALGARY AIRPORT
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	Will the building of a new air depot for Calgary's International Airport proceed in 1968?
2.	If the said new structure is not planned for 1968, what renovations will be made to the old depot?

3.	What will be the cost of the building of the said new depot?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1,	2 and 3. Renovations to the existing terminal building will provide a finger with departure rooms along the aircraft apron which could allow the addition of nose loading bridges. A new arrivals concourse including an inspection area will also be developed. In addition modifications to the existing aircraft apron, access roads, and car parking areas are planned. The department's planning for the proposed new terminal complex has not been finalized and, as a result, the cost of the new terminal building has not been established at this time.


DISPOSAL OF BUILDINGS, CALGARY REPAIR DEPOT
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	Who purchased the 23 buildings at No. 11 Repair Depot in Calgary?
2.	How much was paid to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for the buildings in question?
3.	Were tenders called for in reference to the sale, and were the said buildings sold to the party tendering the highest price?
4. Were the tenders confidential and conducted by an independent body?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. The 23 buildings were sold to the Adby Demolition Company Limited, 7204-118 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, for demolition and removal.
2.	$6,371.
3.	Yes.
4.	The corporation, under its normal procedures, called for sealed bids by a specific closing date.
October 9, 1968


BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM COMMISSION
Mr. Coates: 1.	What has been the cost to date of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, how long has this Royal Commission been in operation, how much longer will it operate and what is the final estimated cost of this Royal Commission?
2.	What are the names of the Commissioners now associated with this Royal Commission and how much has each received in salary and expenses to date?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the royal commission as follows: 1. Total expenditures by the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism up to September 30, 1968, were $7,408,802.48. The commission has been in operation since July 19, 1963. At this stage it is not possible to estimate the length of operation or the final cost.
2. The total salary and expenses to date received by the commissioners now associated with this royal commission are as follows:
		Honoraria	Expenses
	Name	to date	to date
		$	$
A.	D. Dunton	60,550.00	4,256.08C.	Cormier	37,050.00	13,830.69R.	Frith	69,300.00	18,333.84J.-	L. Gagnon	91,750.00	17,891.65P.	Lacoste	24,300.00	2,442.80G.	Laing	48,800.00	30,036.29J.	Rudnyckyj	44,550.00	19,461.65F.	Scott	41,550.00	8,812.89P.	Wyczynski	44,950.00	3,967.66


MAIL SERVICE, GEORGIAN BAY AREA
Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many contracts are in effect, at the present time, covering mail service in the Georgian Bay area from Midland to Parry Sound?
2.	Is this service (a) daily (b) semi-weekly, or (c) weekly?
3.	What is the total cost of this mail service?
4.	What is the increase in servicing for the summer months?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: 1. There are two services in the Georgian bay area, between Midland and Parry Sound, as follows: (a) Midland and Wah Wah Taysee; (b) Parry Sound and Sans Souci. Both services are seasonal operations only and are being performed under temporary arrangements.
Questions
2.	The service between Midland and Wah Wah Taysee is performed daily, except Sunday, from July 1 to Labour day. The service between Parry Sound and Sans Souci is triweekly in May, daily except Sunday from June 1 to September 14, and tri-weekly from September 15 to November 15.
3.	The service between Midland and Wah Wah Taysee is performed at the rate of $35 per trip or approximately $2,000 per season. The service between Parry Sound and Sans Souci is performed at the rate of $945 per season.
4.	The frequency of the service between Parry Sound and Sans Souci is increased from tri-weekly to daily except Sunday during the period June 1 to September 14.
I should have been glad to provide this information to the hon. member without taking up the time of the house.


HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
Mr. Pringle: 1.	Will the announcement of the termination of the Hospital Construction Grant Act on March 31, 1970 impose a hardship on Hospital Regional Districts who have approved projects, or intend to have approved projects underway, but uncompleted, at the termination date?
2.	Will the amount of $13,304,165 shown under the heading 'Revote' on page 22 of P.C. 1968-12/529 remain at credit as allocated to provinces for use of Regional Hospital Boards, or will availability terminate with the Act on March 31, 1970?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. There will be no repercussions on projects approved as of March 31, 1970 under the federal grants for hospital construction.
2. It is unlikely that the government will give some assistance under the federal hospital construction grants to projects submitted after March 31, 1970.


UHF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, MONTREAL-LES ESCOUMINS
Mr. Dumont: What was the installation cost of the UHF telecommunications system along the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Lescoumins?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The UHF telecommunications system between Montreal and Les Escoumins that is a part of the marine traffic control facilities of the Department of Transport is provided under a rental contract for approximately $130,000 per annum.

October 9, 1968
Questions


MOOSE JAW-DECLARATION AS DESIGNATED AREA
Mr. Diefenbaker: Will the government, in view of the detrimental effects on the City of Moose Jaw by the removal of some large industries, give favourable consideration to declaring that City a designated area?


Russell Clayton Honey: On September 25 the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development announced that he was reviewing the whole area development program with a view to new legislation early next year. This review will take into account the situation in areas such as Moose Jaw that cannot be designated under the existing program. Meanwhile officers of the department are assisting provincial and municipal officials in the attempt to attract new industrial activity to Moose Jaw.


REPAIRS TO HMCS &quot;QU'APPELLE&quot;
Mr. Anderson: 1.	Have repairs to HMCS Qu'Appelle, demaged when run aground on Wiers Beach near Victoria earlier this year, been completed?
2.	If so, what was the total cost of such repairs?
3.	If not, what is the estimated cost of repairs?


David Walter Groos: 1. Yes.
2.	$12,446.00.
3.	Not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 22-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
1.	Since January 1, 1963 has the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission made any reports regarding inquiries which it conducted?
2.	If so, what is, with respect to each such report (a) the name of the report (b) the matters inquired into (c) the recommendations (d) the action taken on each such recommendation?
Return tabled.

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many Indian families have benefitted under the Off-Reserve Housing Program since it was inaugurated?
2.	How much money has been expended under the Program?

3.	What cities and communities have been involved in the program and how many houses have been located in each of these centres?
4.	What branch of government is administering the Program?
5.	What funds are available for this Program during the current fiscal year?
Return tabled.


OVERTIME WORKED, AIR SERVICES BRANCHES, B.C.
Mr., Howard (Skeena): For each fiscal year since, and including, 1965-66 how many hours of overtime have been worked by each employee without revealing the names thereof, working for the Department of Transport (Air Services) at (a) Sandspit (b) Prince Rupert (c) Terrace, and (d) Smithers.
Return tabled.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 2, 5, 15, 16, 21, 22 and 23 are agreeable to the government subject to the usual limitations regarding confidential papers and authorization of the government authorities concerned.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


WINTER WORKS INCENTIVE PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 2-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all letters and other communications dated since, January 1, 1968, concerning the abandonment or continuation of the Municipal Winter Works Incentive Program, and for a copy of all the replies by government.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5-Mr. Burton:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces on the subject of the discontinuation of the municipal Winter Works Program since January 1, 1968.
Motion agreed to.
October 9, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	981
Inquiries of the Ministry
POLLUTION STUDY OF B.C. RIVER BASIN	THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Motion No. 15-Mr. Anderson:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all letters, telegrams and other communications between the Government of Canada or any of its representatives, and the Government of the Province of British Columbia or any of its representatives, since January 1, 1967, concerning the Government of Canada's offer to carry out a pollution study at Federal expense in a river basin area to be designated by the Government of the Province of British Columbia.
Motion agreed to.
JOINT FEDERAL-B.C. POLLUTION COUNCIL Motion No. 16-Mr. Anderson:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of letters, telegrams and all other correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada or its representatives and the Government of the Province of British Columbia or its representatives, relating to the establishment of a joint Federal-Provincial Council on Pollution and its Control.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 21-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a report, prepared in December, 1967, relating to the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act and entitled "Indian Affairs Branch Report on Development of Mineral Resources on Indian Reserves in British Columbia".
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 22-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a report of June, 1967, prepared by one William J. Worrall relating to the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 23-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Government of Canada or any agency or branch thereof and any other government, person or organization since January 1, 1960 relating to the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat to the right hon. Prime Minister the easy question I asked him yesterday, as to whether his government intends to act on the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada, twice repeated in its reports, relating to the establishment of a joint Senate and House of Commons committee on economic affairs, to which the council's reports should be referred, and also relating to the establishment of an independent economic unit for study, as recommended by the Economic Council of Canada.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, this has been under advisement since yesterday afternoon.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a further easy question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to support the establishment of a committee on poverty in the Senate as recommended by the Economic Council of Canada?


Mr. Trudeau:: I do not think I can comment on what happens in the other place, Mr. Speaker.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Transport in charge of housing is here, may I put to him a question?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Having given the minister the opportunity for this reception, I hope I will get a good answer. I want to ask the minister a question which I asked yesterday as to whether he can assure the house and the country that the $170 million which he announced will now be made available to private builders for housing in no way cuts into the amount of money set aside for public housing.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think I can give my hon. friend the assurance that we will in no way reduce the expenditures for public housing

October 9, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry during the current year. The reassessment of the applications for public housing, in various stages of processing, including low rental subsidized housing, housing for elderly persons, housing for students, etc., gave us an indication of what the total would be for the fiscal year and enabled us to make a decision which would allow us to use during the current fiscal year all the funds available for housing and maximize the construction which would take place during the current fiscal year.
I can therefore say to my hon. friend that in so far as the expenditures that were announced last week are concerned, this will mean a net addition to the housing starts for the current year and a very real aid in providing additional accommodation for Canadians who need it, without at the same time making it necessary to cut back on any of the other programs which are intended.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand the minister to say-whether or not one agrees with his suggestion that housing will be available to those who need it-that in effect the amount of money which had originally been allocated to public housing will not be spent this year, but that some of it has been added to the amount which is to be spent in private building?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The majority of the money for this program had originally been allocated for family accommodation. This was supplemented by an increment of about $50 million which was estimated to be a shortfall in other programs due to the fact that a reassessment of the various stages of planning indicated that money would not be spent on them during this year.


David Lewis: I am sorry to press this, Mr. Speaker, but I have a further supplementary question. The minister said there was a shortfall in other programs. I am asking him whether that shortfall, as he calls it, was in the public housing sector.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it is only a question of estimating the expenditures. At the beginning of the year Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation had to estimate the projects which would come in from the provinces and other agencies in all these categories. Their estimates and their anticipation were in some cases greater than the facts proved, and it was because of this that we felt we should take a decision now to use all

the funds that were available, notwithstanding the fact that it meant a reallocation. I think my hon. friend should rejoice that the government has taken such a .decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The two hon. members seem to be entering into a debate on this subject.


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport.
The honourable minister says that at the Montreal international airport, at Dorval, the Murray Hill Co. takes care exclusively of the transportation of paying passengers. In view of the fact that many petitions have been submitted to the department by the Montreal Taxi Owners Association, requesting permission to carry passengers from the international airport to Montreal or outside the city, I should like to ask the minister if he can tell us today whether his department has reached a decision so as to recognize the undeniable rights of the people involved in taxi transportation in Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: This question goes quite far back I think, in the history of the previous session of parliament, so that it could be placed on the order paper.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since it goes back rather far, I wonder if you would not allow the minister to answer. Indeed, it is becoming urgent after such a long time.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether it is the intention of the federal government to set up a royal commission or a quasi-judicial body to conduct a full probe into crime in accordance with Prime Minister Bertrand's suggestion. He has alleged that crime is on the increase and that there has been a continual increase in gang murders.
October 9, 1968


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is using as the basis for his allegation as to Mr. Bertrand's position. If he will explain exactly what he means by that I will be glad to answer his question. However, if his question is merely whether it is our intention at this time to set up a royal commission, I should like to take it as notice and give a specific answer tomorrow or Monday.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister taking the question as notice. Prime Minister Bertrand has alleged that he wrote a letter on November 27-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly ask a direct question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister indicate whether the government received a letter from Prime Minister Bertrand in reference to the central intelligence mechanism set up by the federal government, and whether Quebec is actively taking a part in this regard as are other provinces in Canada?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bertrand wrote a letter on November 21, 1967 in reply to a letter from the then Solicitor General dated November 6, 1967. This subject was referred to and dealt with in that reply.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister answer the last part of the question? Is Quebec actively taking part in this central intelligence mechanism set up by the federal government, as are the other provinces?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, Quebec is not a member at the moment, but there is very good co-operation between the federal and Quebec police authorities. There is a very good and continuous working relationship at the present time between the R.C.M.P. and the Quebec provincial police.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbill (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Agriculture is back with us I should like to ask him to answer the question I put to the acting minister last Monday. It had reference to his visit with the United States secretary of agriculture in Washington concerning the dumping of United States corn in Canada.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the question the hon. member for Oxford posed on October 7 and repeated today, discussions on this problem have already commenced between the officials of the government of Canada and those of the United States government in Washington. Indeed another meeting is to be held and further discussions will take place tomorrow morning. I have been attempting to get in touch with Secretary Freeman to talk with him about this matter. Perhaps I should advise hon. members that there was a death in his family early this week, which has made this situation a little more difficult.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, will the minister indicate whether he has agreed to the request of the farmers that their representative accompany him on any visit he may make to Washington?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think there is a wrong assumption being made that I am going to Washington. I said we would approach the United States government. We have done that, and discussions are taking place at this time. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would not want me to frustrate in any way the success of those discussions by making statements here while they are taking place.


Mr. Horner:: You told the farmers their representative would be going.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since he is now considering the problem of U.S. corn imports, can he also consider tomato imports, more especially in the eastern townships where the crop has to be left on the fields due to such imports.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, my department has not been informed that the problem in respect of tomatoes is as severe as the hon. gentleman has indicated, but I can advise him that the Department of Agriculture is vitally concerned with all commodities.



WHEAT-REPORTED FRENCH OFFER TO SELL AT BELOW AGREED PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of

October 9, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry Trade and Commerce whether the government has received any information that France is offering to sell wheat to Japan at lower prices than those provided by the international grains agreement.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I read the same report in the newspaper this morning, and I have asked officials of my department to provide me with information on this subject. If France does this it would be contrary to the agreed position taken by exporters at Canberra, and we would certainly protest as strongly as we could about these matters.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mouniain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question posed by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. In view of this problem in respect of the dumping of grain at prices below those accepted in the international wheat agreement, will the minister indicate when a discussion can take place in this house regarding the Kennedy round agreements in order that we may debate this matter, which is costing the agricultural economy millions of dollars?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Legislation on this subject is to be brought forward.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to the question put by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. Is it not a fact that France has just recently made a sale to Japan, and is there any question as to whether or not they have violated the international agreement? What is Canada doing about it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is certainly not in order. The hon. member cannot ask the minister to verify or deny an alleged fact.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Perhaps I could word my question in a different way. What is the minister and his department doing about the recent sale by France to Japan, which many countries believe to be in violation of the international grains agreement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the question begs the answer, in the sense that the hon. member admits this is the opinion of other people. It may not be the truth of the matter. As the hon. member well knows, there has been a sort of mutual accusation society around the world in recent days regarding this matter. Every country is anxious to say that it has

not violated the international grains arrangement, but I will look more deeply into this subject. My impression is that there has been no such sale, but I will find out.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I ask the minister whether representatives of the wheat board have recently been in Japan in order to retain that traditional market which we have had in the past.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am often questioned on these matters and am always tempted to say that the House of Commons is not a market place. Obviously if the wheat board wants to sell wheat, one of the first conditions they must observe is to be rather quiet in announcing where they are going to sell wheat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



EXPO '67 SUGGESTED REDUCTION IN MONTREAL SHARE OF DEFICIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Luc Pepin: While I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, and before I am asked to do so, I should like to answer two questions put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), who first inquired of the right hon. Prime Minister whether I had received a request from the city of Montreal to reduce its share of the Expo '67 deficit.
I have not received any such request myself.
The hon. member then asked what happens in such a case. The other day, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the province of Quebec was asked the same question, he answered that an agreement is an agreement, and a contract is a contract. I found that answer extremely interesting and intelligent, and I intend to support it wholeheartedly.



REPORTED INVESTIGATION OF SALES ABOVE QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville asked yesterday whether I
October 9, 1968

had received a number of reports from Alberta and other western provinces of farmers who have allegedly sold grain over their quotas.
The administration of the quota system is the responsibility of the Canadian Wheat Board. Each year a number of quota violations are brought to the attention of the board and the board decides what action is necessary, including prosecutions of producers and agents involved, as circumstances warrant.
The Canadian Wheat Board has received reports during the current crop year of overdeliveries, and in these instances the board has requested the R.C.M.P. to investigate these violations. After completion of the investigations the board will decide whether prosecutions are warranted.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce with respect to the answer he gave me earlier. In view of the cash shortage of farmers faced with growing debts because of the failure to sell wheat, would the minister not consider suspending the penalties provided under the act?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, to what cash advance payment is the hon. member referring?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This is with respect to over-deliveries.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We have new legislation to increase the amounts provided.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my question refers to prosecutions with respect to the over-delivery of quotas.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if somebody is in some way violating the quota system, he must be prevented from so doing, because other producers in the west will be damaged by his action.



PROVISION OF DRYING AND STORAGE FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture a brief but urgent question of which I have given him notice. Can the minister inform the house what action the government is taking to provide drying and storage facilities for tough, damp or damaged grain resulting from irregular harvest conditions on the prairies?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question, although I did not get it until after I reached the chamber. The board of grain commissioners have facilities at five of the inland terminals, Lethbridge, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon and Moose Jaw, where there is a capacity of something like 7,000 bushels per hour for drying this grain. There have been discussions to move sufficient grain out of these elevators so there is enough space aroung the drying facilities that maximum use can be made of them. In addition, the drying capacity at the lakehead is somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000 bushels a day, depending upon how much moisture needs to be withdrawn from the grain. The Minister of Trade and Commerce may wish to comment further on this matter, but I understand the wheat board has now given priority to the movement of some lower grades, which would include the grades of which the hon. member speaks.



TEXTILES-REQUEST FOR LIMITATION OF IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Early this week, representatives of the textile industry and the labour unions of that industry recommended strongly to the government limitations the importation of textile products from low income countries. Has the government made a decision as to this recommendation?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, at that meeting, the other day, which was very useful for all parties concerned, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) talked on behalf of the government and explained that the whole matter of imports was under study at the present time, that we were negotiating with other parties, and that we had even suggested to the industry some terms of reference for an investigation which might, if the industry is agreeable, get to the bottom of some allegations.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. When additional information has been collected on that matter, does the government intend to make a statement in the house?

October 9. 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if a new policy is to be announced, this will be done by one of the ministers.
The question of importations from less developed countries has been of concern to us for a long time, because both the Canadian producer and the Canadian worker are to be protected, while at the same time developing countries should not find closed markets everywhere, in more prosperous countries, like our own. Those two factors have to be assessed and interests in both cases protected.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Because of public concern as demonstrated by the 10-day vigil of Claire Culhane on parliament hill, and in view of his firm statement about non-intervention in Biafra, will the Prime Minister make an equally firm statement about non-intervention in Viet Nam?


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: My question is directed to the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. Can the Solicitor General assure this house he is quite capable of carrying out the responsibilities of his department, despite newspaper reports-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the question asked by the hon. member is out of order.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Mr. L. W. C. S. Barnes, an employee with the Department of National Defence, was given a temporary leave of absence and in view of the publication of an article against bilingualism, would the right hon. Prime Minister tell us since when a civil servant may take the liberty of criticizing government policy regarding bilingualism?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of National Defence but, in his absence, I shall put it to the Prime Minister.
A meeting of the NATO nuclear plan group is taking place tomorrow and Friday in

Bonn, Germany. Could the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to send a Canadian observer to that meeting?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, could the member repeat his question and especially the name of the place? I did not hear it.


Gérard Laprise: The NATO nuclear plan group is meeting in Bonn, Germany, tomorrow and Friday. Is it the intention of the Canadian government to send an observer?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice. I am not sure to what meeting my hon. friend is referring.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the minister investigating the plight of the five refugee Czechoslovak dentists who were qualified and experienced in their own country and have now been prevented from practising in Ontario for 18 months because they have to undertake a retraining program?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have been made aware of the circumstances surrounding these particular dentists and have discussed the matter with my predecessor. It is obviously a question of standards within individual provinces, and that is a matter for the province and the association, although my predecessor has from time to time suggested that these standards might be reconsidered in the light of refugee situations.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Were these men advised of this situation before they were encouraged to emigrate to Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would have to examine the specific conversations to answer that question, but generally the immigration officers attempt to explain to all immigrants the conditions that will prevail in their new country.
October 9, 1968	COMMONS



INQUIRY AS TO ACTION TO CONTROL INCREASED NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monieilh (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On October 1 I asked the minister whether he would consider making a statement on motions on the use or misuse of marijuana and related drugs. At that time the minister said he would give this matter very serious consideration. I wonder whether he has given it consideration and can make such a statement forthwith.


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will be prepared to make such a statement early next week.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys asked whether negotiations will take place between Devco and the unions concerned before any early retirement program, as recommended in the Donald report, is implemented. There have been constant discussions for some months between the Devco management and the union involving all aspects of the early retirement program.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister stated the day before yesterday that this report must be considered from the viewpoint of both governments, can he assure the house that no enforced early retirement program will be imposed upon these railway workers and coal miners until there has been full discussion and a mutual decision has been reached between the unions and Devco?


Jean Marchand: I think, Mr. Speaker, we are now in the first stages of negotiation. We will have to wait until negotiations have been completed.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easi Richmond):: I should like to ask the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development a supplementary question, but before doing so may I welcome him back to the house. When will the minister be in a position to table the Devco report?
DEBATES	987
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the legislation which compels us to table the Devco report in the house. This is a report which should be brought forward in the cabinet. At the next opportunity I shall discuss this with the members of the cabinet and we shall see then what is to be done with the said report.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: May I ask a further supplementary question. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to clear up the impression the minister has that the government is being forced to table this report. This is not the case at all. Since portions of this report are being leaked by the minister's department bit by bit, perhaps he should table the report now. He has just leaked a bit of the report now.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Crowfoot. The hon. member asked whether the administration of P.F.R.A. comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development or whether the government is dropping the whole project. The answer is yes to the first question, and very definitely no to the second.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: On
Friday last, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Shore asked whether it was the intention of the government to submit a report to the house on the conclusions of the recent federal-provincial conference on fishing vessel construction materials. I should explain that this conference, which wound up last week in Montreal, was sponsored by the federal and provincial governments in the Atlantic region. The conference was essentially technical in nature and did not prepare recommendations on policy. The complete report of the conference will be published soon. It will be available to all hon. members on request.

October 9, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry
FREIGHT RATES	CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY



MARITIME PROVINCES-REQUEST FOR DELAY IN PROPOSED INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On. the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker, before he disappears again. In view of the decision yesterday of the Canadian Transport Commission permitting further rate increases on maritime products, will the minister say what is the position of the Atlantic provinces transportation task force and when the transport committee of the house will be able to reconvene to hear from maritime representatives?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I will very soon have a report from the Canadian Transport Commission in reference to part of the study, particularly that part concerned with less than carload lots. In so far as the convening of the parliamentary committee is concerned, as I indicated to the house before there is certainly no objection on the part of the government to the reconvening of the transport committee which was involved in this question at an earlier date. We would lend every assistance to that committee in pursuing the studies which were interrupted last spring.


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to thank the minister for that information. Since it appears it will be some time before corrective measures will be introduced, perhaps justifiably, may I ask the minister if he will give every assurance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the hon. member's attention the fact that there are just a few minutes left in the question period. He should really ask his question as rapidly as possible.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister give every assurance that the freeze which will run out in September will be continued by legislation if necessary?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Well, I note the hon. gentleman's representations, Mr. Speaker, which I can assure him will be given careful consideration by the government.



PROPOSED CLOSING OF STATIONS IN SOUTHWESTERN SASKATCHEWAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. I would ask the minister to inquire into and report to this house on the decision to close all Canadian Pacific stations in the Moose Jaw division serving southwestern Saskatchewan, and to ascertain whether this action can be postponed until such time as the farm and business associations in the areas affected can make representations to the appropriate bodies.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making representations to the minister, and at this point I have to call orders of the day.


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I rephrase my question. In view of the words I have just uttered, will the minister see that this action is stopped until representations can be made to that body?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have waited until the question period expired, but I feel that at this time I should bring to Your Honour's attention something which you must have noticed. When a minister of the crown who is pursuing his occupation somewhere other than in this house comes back and answers several questions, as did the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce today, confusion is created when a number of members would like to follow up with supplementary questions. They find difficulty in being recognized in order to pursue this line of questioning in a normal, orderly way. If the government intends to proceed with this improper and silly method of answering questions, I should think they would at least work out a system which would permit supplementary questions following the several questions which may have been answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I might say that I have noticed the difficulty created when more than one question is answered by a minister. We easily get into trouble later on in ascertaining which supplementary question is being asked. Perhaps the representations now made by the hon. member will be noted by the ministers.
October 9, 1968


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: On this point of order, Mr. Speaker, I suggest the task might be made easier as soon as the opposition has learned to ask questions of the appropriate departments.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I understood when the program was announced that it was quite proper to ask questions, and if the minister concerned could not deal with them a parliamentary secretary would take the question as notice. Am I to understand that the program is being further refined by the Prime Minister, and that he is now suggesting questions relating to a particular department might be asked properly only on the day when the minister of that department is present?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister is nodding his head in approval of what the Leader of the Opposition just said. I should like to make it abundantly clear that the minister answering on agricultural problems is in attendance only three days a week, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Surely that important industry demands more than three days a week from this government.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on the point of order and on the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister.
He said that he would ask the opposition to make an effort so as to direct questions to the ministers concerned. I would like him to ask his ministers to make an effort so as to give correct answers to the questions they are asked. Otherwise, he thinks we are fools, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I had risen earlier in connection with the same point of order. On Monday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was here very briefly and left before we had the opportunity to ask him a question. He was not here yesterday and has not been here today. I should like to know when the minister will be here so that he can be questioned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps by unanimous consent the minister could be allowed to answer the question now.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps in response to the inquiry by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka I should point out that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is attending the meeting of the council of resource ministers. We hear a great deal from members on the other side about federal-provincial cooperation, and I think it is important that my colleague should be attending this meeting.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Does that mean you don't believe in co-operation?


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the house leader what happened to his expressed intention the other day to bring about a longer question period on Wednesday, when all the ministers are here?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I indicated at the time that if hon. members wished I would make that offer to them; but they did not take it up. If they are prepared to reduce the question period on Monday to 40 minutes, the government would be quite prepared to agree to a one hour question period on Wednesday. Perhaps if there is general agreement to that proposition we might make the order right now for inclusion in the provisional rules.


Thomas Miller Bell: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely necessary. For example, the Minister of Transport, who has a very important folio, has been away twice this week on days when he should have been here, and we shall not have the opportunity to see him again for another 10 days.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I respectfully suggest that the house leaders get together on this point and try to agree which question periods should be either extended or limited.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) has just said that ministers are often busy outside the house. I think that all the members of the opposition as well as those on the government side of the house realize this.
However, according to the list, all the ministers are supposed to be in the house on Wednesday. Yet about half a dozen are missing today. Will they be here tomorrow? If half of the ministers who are supposed to be here are busy outside the house and some of the others are away, what is the use of
October 9, 1968

Canadian National Railways having a question period if we cannot meet the ministers or ask them questions?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to deal with that point too. It seems to me that whatever system we follow with regard to the question period it would be desirable for ministers, such as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to be able to participate in the way he is participating with his provincial colleagues. Although I agree he is not in the house today, I understand the meetings will be over on Friday, and that he will be in the house next Monday to respond to questions.


David Réal Caouette: That is the situation with regard to one minister, Mr. Speaker, but what about the other ministers who are missing today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I serve notice on the Minister of Defence Production, who is an infrequent visitor to the house, that I will be questioning him tomorrow on a matter of some urgency.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the point of order has not been disposed of yet.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I sent yesterday to the hon. Minister of Transport a notice of the question I intended to put to him today. In view of the fact that I cannot put it under the rules, I wish to give him notice that I will discuss it at ten o'clock, on the adjournment motion.


Mr. Speaker:: This is insufficient notice according to the rules of the house.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Paul Theodore Hellyer: the third reading of Bill No. C-109, respecting the construction of a line of railway in the province of Alberta by the 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 property of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited and its associates.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to debate the question on third reading, but surely the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), in a preliminary way at least, is going to answer many of the questions that were raised earlier during his absence, and which went unanswered?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Richardson) has taken responsibility for this bill. If there are any questions that he would care to reply to at this time, then I am sure this would be agreeable.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, all of the questions which were put were discussed thoroughly in committee, and I do not know of any that are outstanding at the present time.


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


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) seems to be on his way out of the chamber so I suppose we are expected to agree to third reading of the bill, even although there are a number of points that have not been adequately dealt with. This is not the fault of the Acting Minister of Transport (Mr. Richardson). I do not for one moment suggest he could possibly be in a position to answer some of the proposals that were put to him the other day.
My colleague the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and also the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) put to the acting minister the proposition that, within the terms of Bill No. C-109, provision should be made to require by statute that the Canadian National Railways, in the contracts that it enters into with road building and railway line contractors, should specifically recruit from the immediate area a certain percentage of the labour force required.
I know the Acting Minister of Transport said that in his personal opinion this would be a desirable course of action to take, but that was where the matter was left, Mr. October 9, 1968
Speaker. The Acting Minister of Transport obviously feels that he is hardly in a position to go further, other than to give such a tentative outline of what he personally thinks will happen. One would have thought that during the last two days the acting minister would have taken this matter up with the Minister of Transport and other officials of the department to see whether they were prepared to go beyond the simple voicing of a personal opinion, to the point where they would agree to the inclusion of such a desirable proposal- I am using the minister's words-in statute law.
In recent months, Mr. Speaker, we have heard more and more about the problem of poverty in our country, about the inter-regional disparities in income and the inter-regional disparities in job opportunities. We are now faced with a bill to provide for the building of a line of railway in the northern part of Alberta. One assumes that this is an area where job opportunities for the local Indian population are not that easy to come by.
If one wanted to do something tangible and concrete about this problem. Mr. Speaker, rather than resorting to studies and still more studies under the aegis of the Economic Council, under the aegis of ARDA, of FRED and a host of other government agenices, studies that have been proliferating over the last few years, we now have an opportunity to do something specific through the vehicle of this bill. Poverty remains as a cruel fact, and we are doing little in a tangible way to tackle the problem.
I do not know whether other hon. members would agree with this, Mr. Speaker, but when we do have the chance to do something specific and tangible to get at the problem of low employment opportunities in certain parts of the country it does seem a pity if we do not take that opportunity. This bill gives us the chance to act. The Minister without Portfolio agrees that it is a good idea; why not do something, then?
I see that the Minister of Transport has left the chamber, and probably has the attitude that he is all right, Jack". He does not care; he has gone. The Minister without Portfolio, who is acting for him here, is hardly in a position to say much about this proposal. Again I repeat that one can hardly blame the Minister without Portfolio for this situation.
There were some other questions put to the minister two days ago, Mr. Speaker, which the acting minister cannot possibly answer. One of the questions put previously was why 29180-63J
Canadian National Railways the Minister of Transport, after the passage of seven or eight months, could not come to a decision about the validity of certain claims having to do with a line of railway built by the C.N.R. some few years ago. This was an important matter which was raised two years ago, and since then the Minister of Transport has been dealing with or procrastinating on the question. The Minister without Portfolio from Winnipeg South is hardly in a position to answer that particular question.
I do not know at this stage, Mr. Speaker, what more can be said, except to express indignation at the fact that when the bill comes before us for third reading the minister has not given some tangible response to the questions asked, and that he has left the chamber. What is one to do?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any further
questions?


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the Prime Minister said that the opposition was confused about how to ask questions, and I agree that that is true. Questions ought to be directed to the right minister, and in that I do not disagree with the Prime Minister. I submit the Acting Minister of Transport is in an odd position since he was, so to speak, handed a bill he did not expect to guide through the house. He has said that the Minister of Transport would be back here to discuss this matter. The Minister of Transport came in and left, and the question is, who is responsible for the bill, and who will guide it through the house? I appreciate the acting minister's words. I believe if he were head of the department worth-while action would flow from our discussions. I am not sure that, in our actual situation here, that will be so. The Minister of Transport may return to the chamber but he may leave to the acting minister the actual carrying out of certain proposals.
One problem I wish to speak about is that pertaining to the employment of local people-that is, people local to an area where a contract is being carried out. Clause 2 of this bill sets out the method of tendering, and what Canadian National must do in relation to contracts. We in this group suggest that in the areas where work is to be done, as far as possible local people should be hired to undertake some part of the construction. I think the minister is sympathetic to this idea. All the

October 9, 1988

Canadian National Railways same, we cannot be certain that the government will insist that the Canadian National in its tender documents will say that a number of people local to the area involved in the construction are to be employed. That may be a roundabout way of saying what I want to say. Perhaps the only way to bring this matter forcefully to the government's attention is by moving an amendment. Therefore, Mr. Speaker I move:
That this Bill C-109 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering clause 2 thereof.
We seek, by our motion, to bring this matter to the attention of members of the house and in a roundabout way to the attention of Canadian National Railways. The Fifth Annual Review of the Canada Council, on the topic of the challenge of growth and change, says that in remote areas in the country it is difficult to find employment for the local people who, very often, are not trained to take advantage of any employment opportunities that do exist.
To make sure that local people are employed, a clause specifying their employment will have to be included in contracts, and that will be a factor in assessing costs. The government must insist on this if it wishes to see people in remote localities gainfully employed.
Actually, we are not dealing directly with a crown corporation; third parties are involved and the crown corporation will deal with those third parties. Third parties will be employing those local people, and Canadian National must be informed that in preparing its tender documents consideration must be given to the employment of local people.
Sometimes local projects, from the point of view of providing employment, are of no value to the local people. In my area large sums of money are being spent for a hydro development. In the main that development does not help our local people. They do not need the project; they have all the electricity they can use, and even more. This hydro project is to provide electricity for southern Ontario. Since our local people are not working on it it is worthless in developing our area.
The government has suddenly decided that it has a role to play across Canada in providing employment for our Indians. We have the responsibility of seeing that subcontracts which are let in connection with the subject matter of this bill have clauses in them specifying employment of local people. We think


this is only fair. Naturally we are not saying that 10 per cent or 20 per cent of any work force must be local people. Often local people may not be able to fill jobs. We are not tying this matter down rigidly. On the other hand, we do want to see local people employed and we do want to see contracts specifying the employment of local people. This matter will be raised again when the Canadian National estimates are before the house. We assure the Canadian National that we shall follow its actions closely in this matter and that we have ways of keeping this matter current. We have moved the amendment so that the house may express itself in the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has not indicated whether he has a seconder for his motion.


Frank Howard: I could second the motion, Mr. Speaker.


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


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: suggest, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the motivation of the hon. member in putting forward this amendment, that the first calculation here ought to be with regard to the availability of labour in the particular area, and as to who lives in the area northwest of Whitecourt, Alberta. This is not in the far north where a sizeable percentage of the population is native.
First let us determine what is meant by a local area. Is it within a radius of 100 miles? Is it the area within that 100 mile radius? What is the incidence of unemployment in the area? This is close to the Fox Creek area, near to what is known as the Valleyview oil area. In my view, if a person is out of a job in that area, in most instances it is, frankly, because he does not want to work.


William Arnold Peters: Really!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is the hon. member so conversant with the area? I would say, with regard to this particular area, that to try to impose these kinds of terms on the construction of the extension of a spur line for the sulphur plant and the absorption plant is not realistic.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Suppose we prescribe by statute that a certain percentage of local labour must be used, and this local labour is not available; what will be the situation? Hon. members in their
October 9, 1968

amendment have failed to provide for any alternative. I maintain that the proposal in its present terms is unrealistic and that it ought not, therefore, to be supported.


James Armstrong Richardson: I should like to say first of all in replying to the debate that as acting minister of transport I am responsible for this legislation. I have the complete concurrence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) and what I say here reflects his views as well as those of the Department of Transport.
I should like to say, further, that all questions which were put during the committee stage were answered, and that the particular question which is being discussed now on third reading about employment in the local area was answered by me. I said I was in agreement with the general thought that local people should be employed. I undertook, also, to refer this matter to the officials of the Canadian National. I shall go further at this point and say I shall be pleased to send copies of the letters I shall write in this regard to hon. members who have raised this matter, that is copies of the letters I intend to write to the Canadian National in this regard.
As to the point which has been raised in connection with the Great Slave Railway, I suggest that this has no bearing on the legislation we are considering today. The difficulties which arose under that contract should properly be discussed when the affairs of the C.N.R. are before the appropriate standing committee of the house, not during the passage of another piece of legislation.
I should like to conclude by saying that this legislation really boils down to something very simple. There are two new sulphur recovery plants in the Alberta gas field west of Windfall and in order to remove the sulphur and the liquid petroleum gas produced by these plants the two companies involved have entered into long term traffic guarantee contracts with the C.N.R. These contracts not only pay for the construction of this new branch line but cover all operating costs, and also, as confirmed by officials of the railway, they provide a surplus to the Canadian National. Construction of this line is therefore clearly in the interest of the railway and therefore in the interests of the Canadian taxpayer.


Frank Howard: Would the minister permit a question before he ends his remarks? The hon. gentleman has indicated he will be prepared to make available his
Canadian National Railways communications to the C.N.R. in connection with this employment question. Would he also make available the replies received from the railway company so that we may know what reaction is forthcoming?


James Armstrong Richardson: I do not believe I can undertake to reveal the correspondence of another party. I will reveal my own correspondence.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I was wondering whether I could ask the minister a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister prepared to receive an additional question?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes.


Edward Richard Schreyer: What the minister has said is reasonable enough. Since he has stated that the subject matter of the Great Slave Railway and claims arising therefrom could properly be raised before the standing committee, will he undertake to have this subject matter placed before the standing committee on transport and communications?


James Armstrong Richardson: I assume that the responsibility for bringing that matter forward would rest upon those who are concerned about the matter. I simply said that the committee was the place where a matter of that kind ought to be considered, rather than in the house during the passage of this legislation.


Edward Richard Schreyer: On a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to remind hon. members that we are no longer in committee. We are on third reading and we should not return to the type of discussion or debate which is normal during the committee stage of a bill.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I rise on a point of order. The minister indicated that whoever was concerned with this matter of the Great Slave Railway should bring it before the committee. But since it is the rule that only the minister can refer subject matters to the standing committee I ask him whether he would be prepared to do so. It is his prerogative.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not a point of order. It is an argument about the interpretation of the rules of the house.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: The minister has given an assurance to the house that he will bring this principle in relation to local employment to the attention of the Canadian National, and this gives us some cause for rejoicing.
994	COMMONS
Farm Improvement Loans Act
Would he also bring to the attention of the railway company the problem which affects many workers in respect of contracts of employment which contain the non-fraternization clause. I am thinking specifically of the Marconi v. Whitfield case. Marconi had a contract from the government and the company's employment contract with one of its employees contained a clause that the employee was not to fraternize with Indians or Eskimos. This railway, as we know, is to be built in an area in which large numbers of these people are living. I wonder whether the minister could give us some assurance that he would seek to ensure through his contacts with the C.N.R. that this non-fraternization clause is not included in the work contract.


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


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made a speech on the amendment. He cannot make a second speech on the amendment unless he has the unanimous consent of the house to do so.


William Arnold Peters: I do not wish to make a speech. In the light of the assurance the minister has given us that he will accept responsibility for making representations to the C.N.R., I ask leave to withdraw the motion, if I am given the unanimous consent of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) have leave of the house to withdraw the motion now before us?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Peters) withdrawn.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)



FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, October 7, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-lll, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act-Mr. Olson (for Mr. Benson)-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
On clause 1.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, before the minister makes a statement may I ask him an ancillary question related to this, and to some extent having an effect on the nature of our

DEBATES	October 9, 1968
business. Has the minister given any consideration to the matter I raised with him, that when this bill is completed he might be prepared to change the order of priority and proceed after this with the bill relating to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act rather than with the bill to amend the Farm Credit Act?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I did give consideration to it, although I think it was only about a ten minute consideration. I agree it is urgent that the cash advance legislation be put through as quickly as possible, but I would not like to admit that the bill with respect to the Farm Credit Corporation is not also urgent. The reason I say so is because there is a necessity to increase the cash for the corporation so that it can continue its operations. The corporation usually gets a large number of applications for credit at this time of the year, and it would be rather helpful to it if the bill relating to it were to go through also.
I am sure the hon. member realizes there is the other problem of having the legislation come through in some kind of order, so that the officials who are required to answer hon. members' questions may be on hand and ready to come into the committee when needed. Since the hon. member raised this matter with me, a few minutes ago, I have been unable to get in touch with the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) from Saskatoon, to ascertain whether or not he and his officials are ready to proceed at once.
My hope is that we could get this bill through, then the farm credit bill, and get on to the cash advance legislation as well. As a matter of fact it is going to be called, once these other bills are through. I should also say I would be willing to wait with the bill to amend the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act until the cash advance legislation has gone through, because it is not as urgent. There are some important amendments in it, but it would not cause any great difficulty from the point of view of administration or from the point of view of people who use that act, if the amending bill were delayed for a few days. I would be willing to put the cash advance legislation ahead of the farm syndicates legislation, but I would not be willing to give any other assurance at this point. We shall have to assume that as soon as the farm improvement loans legislation goes through, the Farm Credit Act amending bill would follow, until or unless I have made other arrangements.
October 9. 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	995
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to make a statement which I suppose will take ten or eleven minutes about a matter that was raised by many hon. members, that of the prescribed interest rate in the Farm Improvement Loans Act, if hon. gentlemen opposite would like me to do that. I have to say that this very comprehensive statement was prepared by the Department of Finance and by the Minister of Finance. However, much of it was contained in the remarks that I made the other night at the close of the resolution stage and I would not like to deprive hon. members of the time we have left today, if they would rather not hear the statement.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let us have it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make these few remarks on a point that is of real concern to members on both sides of the house, namely the proposal that the statutory interest of 5 per cent on farm improvement loans be changed. But before commenting on the interest rate itself it may be useful to recall the circumstances in which F.I.L.A., as farmers and bankers alike have come to call it, was first established.
The origins of F.I.L.A. are rooted in the great depression. Financial disaster had then overtaken a large number of farmers, and relationships between borrowers and lenders were strained, to put it mildly. In the years that followed farmers had to rely for credit for the most part on people with whom they dealt in marketing their products, like merchants, and from whom they bought their equipment. But this was very expensive credit, apart from the fact that it often prevented farmers from dealing freely with whomever was going to give them a favourable price.
It was in this setting that the government introduced the Farm Improvement Loans Act as an incentive for chartered banks to enter the term lending field in rural areas on a major scale. This incentive was a twofold one-the government guarantee, and a rate of interest that afforded the banks a reasonable return. It may be interesting to recall for hon. members what was said by Hon. Mr. Ils-ley, who was minister of finance at the time. He said in part:
The rate of interest is to be limited to a maximum of 5 per cent simple interest per annum, which is considerably less than rates generally obtaining for this kind of accommodation to farmers from merchants, dealers or other present sources and is, I believe, somewhat less than the average rate charged to farmers by banks on short term loans. It is reasonable that the rate should
Farm Improvement Loans Act be lower since an important part of the risk is being borne by the government. Nevertheless, earnings must be sufficient to cover the banks' costs of operation and to give them an incentive to go out after business.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this principle is essentially the same as the one we have to look at today if we want this program to be again as effective and useful as it had been until recently-and when I say recently I mean until interest rates in the market went substantially above 5 per cent.
When the 5 per cent under F.I.L.A. was established, yields on government of Canada five year bonds were 1.92 per cent. The bank rate, the rate at which the Bank of Canada lends to financial institutions, was 2 per cent. The rate at which banks were then making loans to their prime customers was 4J per cent, that is, half of one per cent below the F.I.L.A. rate.
I mention the banks' prime rate because reference was made to it during the debate. It relates of course to interest rate levels generally, and an even better measure of this is yields on government of Canada bonds. I would therefore prefer to look at changes in interest rates more in terms of changes in yields on government of Canada bonds. And if we really mean it when we say that F.I.L.A. should be reactivated, then we must take into account changes in the level of interest rates.
F.I.L.A. loans are made by private lenders from funds placed on deposit with them by other customers, and if they are not afforded a return that is commensurate with their costs, then they are just not going to make loans. What we have to aim for is a rate level for F.I.L.A. that is sufficiently high so as to give lenders "an incentive to go after the business", in the words of Mr. Ilsley, and that is at the same time sufficiently low so as still to represent a cost factor to farmers that is appreciably less than what they would have to pay without the guarantee program.
Perhaps I should emphasize that the cost of credit is not the only consideration in the interests of farmers. I have in mind in particular the small farmer. Farming generally has come a long way in the last two decades, and there are many farmers today who run highly successful commercial type operations for which they can get credit quite readily, and at rates probably not much above those that will prevail under a reactivated F.I.L.A. program.
October 9, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act
While F.I.L.A. will be helpful also to this group, it is much more vitally needed by the smaller farmer whose creditworthiness may not be as well established, and chances are that it is this smaller farmer who will have to depend on F.I.L.A. to get at reasonable cost the credit he needs to buy equipment for the improvement of his farming operation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Back in 1944, when the farm improvement loans program was being formulated, it was quite feasible to have a rate established in the legislation itself, and to leave it unchanged for an extended period of time. This approach did indeed work quite satisfactorily for quite a number of years. In recent years, however, there has been an increasing need for greater flexibility and quicker responsiveness to change in the economic environment. The need for greater flexibility in the rates of interest on guaranteed loans was recognized as early as 1960 when the government of the day brought before the house, as a companion measure to the highly successful F.I.L.A. program, the Small Businesses Loans Act, under which guaranteed loans may be made to small businessmen. This act, which became operative early in 1961, provides that the interest rate is to be prescribed by regulations. Another more recent example can be found in the Canada Student Loans Act which was passed in 1964. I find myself in full accord with opposition members when they suggest that the F.I.L.A. interest rate be determined by a formula, and I can gladly assure the house that we expect to prescribe a formula for the determination of the interest rate, and not a new fixed rate.
I cannot give the house at the moment full details of such a formula, because they have not yet been fully worked out. In the case of guaranteed loans, such as those under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, it is appropriate, and it has been the practice, to consult with the lenders before finalizing the details for a formula on interest rates on loans to be made by these lenders that will apply after the measure now before the house has been approved. I should like to make a small correction here and say that with respect to the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Canada Student Loans Act there have been consultations with the lenders before the prescribed rate, which in this case would be the maximum rate under which the guarantee is available, has been set down. But I would be glad to outline the general principles which we are currently considering in connection

with the construction of such a formula. The formula will certainly relate the Farm Improvement Loans Act rate of interest to generally prevailing levels of interest, and this will probably be measured by reliance on yields on government of Canada securities of comparable term to maturity. In addition, I would expect that there will be a mark-up in respect of administrative cost. There should be provisions for periodic adjustments in the rate, perhaps quarterly, but the guiding principle should certainly be that adjustments would come about automatically, triggered by changing circumstances in the capital market.
I should add that this approach is much more likely to work to the advantage of farmers over the long run than would a rate fixed for a long period of time. True, when interest rates go up, farmers along with all other groups of borrowers, have to pay more, but farm improvement rates would also go down more quickly as monetary conditions change. This is the kind of flexibility that we are confident will work to the full advantage of the farming community, keeping in mind, again, that what is of importance to farmers is not only cost, but also availability.
I should like to say in conclusion that it would be nice if at this point we could state the specific amount, or give all the factors which would be included in the formula; but I am sure hon. members opposite will realize that in view of the availability of funds of those people who will actually be lending their money, and in the hope that this measure will be enthusiastically supported we have to consult with the lenders and arrive at a rate that, as I have said many times, is high enough so that it will be used and yet low enough so that the guarantee does in fact constitute a real assistance to some of the borrowers whose credit rating may not be such as to warrant their obtaining the most favourable rate at the present time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, the minister's remarks have been a perfect example of what should be done at the very beginning of the debate on a subject such as this one. Many hours of questioning of farm representatives have gone into the preparation of this bill. If the minister had made his ten minute statement the day before yesterday, I am sure that much of the concern which many hon. members on this side of the house feel would have been alleviated. However, all this goes to substantiate the belief that, in a democracy, debate is very necessary and is one of the freedoms we enjoy-the freedom to express
October 9, 1968

ourselves and the freedom to be concerned about this vital industry.
However, when I look at the minister I cannot help remembering the time when he was a member of the party to my left, and I find it somewhat amusing that he should go back to speeches made by former ministers of finance to support his own beliefs today. A former minister of finance said that the rate of interest on this type of loan shall be considerably less than on loans made to farmers for other purposes by the same banks. This is the interpretation we have put on that quotation. I see concern on the minister's face, as if he wished to say I was misinterpreting his remarks; but I listened very closely to them. The hon. Mr. Ilsley said:
-considerably less than rates generally obtaining for this kind of accommodation to farmers from merchants, dealers or other present sources and is,
I believe, somewhat less than the average rate charged to farmers by banks on short term loans.
I am still in complete agreement with this principle upon which the Farm Improvement Loans Act was founded. I am sure hon. members on this side will agree with me when I say we cannot accept the excuse the minister gave us for not giving us a formula today, that there has not been sufficient time for consultation. I urged him to proceed with this legislation yesterday, but the government did not respond to my urging. I was under the impression then that he may have been consulting with the banks. I would like to think the government had done so perhaps last February. Surely to goodness he can do better than come to the house and say, "We cannot announce the formula beforehand because there has to be further consultation". We cannot accept this, after we have heard the government say they had this legislation last February. I know that the Canada Student Loans Act legislation was passed with the open end interest rate clause in it. I know that the Small Businesses Loans Act was passed with a similar arrangement. Because of this fact, during the early stages of this bill I stressed how badly the agricultural industry needed an enticing interest rate. The farmers needed more money. Some months ago the Prime Minister expressed his concern in Winnipeg about the cost of input into the agricultural industry. I am not trying to compare in any way the needs of the agricultural industry with those of small businessmen or university students, but may I refer to the report of the Economic Council of Canada which stated that the agricultural industry needs more capital to catch up with the output of

Farm Improvement Loans Act the agricultural industry in the United States. This is what we are arguing for here.
We want that output put into the agricultural industry at no greater increase. This is what the Prime Minister said in Winnipeg on June 2-that the agricultural industry cannot stand a higher cost of input. This is what we are worried about.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The minister has referred to an interest rate comparable to the yield on five year government securities. In order to make sure I understood him correctly, I should like to ask him whether that is what he said. Is that going to be the guide line for this fluctuating interest rate? We would like to know what it is going to be.
The minister went on to refer to the cost of issuing loans and suggested this would have to be taken into account. I immediately became concerned, because when he was speaking as a member of another party that sat to my left he indicated it would only cost 2 per cent to issue these loans. Will that 2 per cent added to the interest rate be comparable to the yield on five year government securities?
The minister did make a comprehensive and clarifying statement, and I commend him for that, but he has left me in doubt on a couple of points. I should not like to see him compare agriculture with any other industry. We know that thousands of dollars are being spent on educational facilities for students. One might well suggest that this is subsidizing the students. I do not think it is fair to compare government guaranteed loans to the agricultural industry with similar guaranteed loans to other segments of the economy. We must consider this as direct aid to the industry without making any comparison. Will this move the industry in the right direction? I hope the minister will clear up this matter.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I can answer this question immediately. I said the rate would be related to comparable term securities. The hon. member has read the bill and I am sure he knows there are some terms longer than five years available on certain type of borrowing under this act.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I realize that previous to this time there has been a ten year clause but I must consider the practical applications of this bill. The terms of loans in the past have rarely exceeded five years, and I would suggest that the average has been three years up
October 9, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act until the last year or two when there has been a movement toward terms of four and five years. The minister says the rate will be comparable to the yield on government securities, but there can be a great difference. If the minister bases this on the average of long term government securities there could be a difference of 1 per cent. Surely the minister can clear up this matter.
I thank him for his statement in which he expressed for the first time during this debate his concern for interest rates. I thought he had forgotten all about the farmer's desire and need to obtain money at interest rates which would allow him to pay back the loan. However, while he did express concern, I think he should be a little more specific.
No amount of talk can convince me that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance have not had ample opportunity to discuss this matter with bankers. This bill has been under consideration for at least three or four months and they have had enough time. If these ministers believe in democracy they should not hedge or be secretive about this formula. Perhaps the minister does not have to write this formula into the bill, but at least he could tell us exactly what he is attempting to relate it to without comparing it to the yield on government securities. He has not even indicated whether he has in mind terms of five years or ten years, a short term of 91 days or a long term. The minister has given us some information but he has not given us as much as I am sure he could if he made an attempt.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Let me say to the hon. member that we are not attempting to be secretive, but I should like to be as accurate as possible. I do not want to say things on speculation, as I am sure hon. gentleman wants accurate answers. I have said I agree with the hon. member that the availability of funds is very important, as well as interest rates. When this bill is passed we want to be sure we will have the flexibility to guarantee a continuity of sufficient funds to make the act operative. The hon. member said at the outset that if I had made this statement a few days ago I might have cleared up a lot of problems. I went into great detail on this point and I think I said essentially the same thing I will say again. Perhaps it was not quite clear.
The hon. member will realize that the government wants our statements to be up to date. When things change we want hon. members to know so they will have information that is as current as possible.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Will the minister indicate what government securities this will be based on? Is it to be linked to five or ten year bonds, the long term average or the short term average?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, there would have to be an assessment made and perhaps some averages worked out. We may have to make an arbitrary decision as to what those averages should be based on. There will have to be negotiations with the bankers, because the money belongs to the banks.
What we have in mind is what we have stated. If some of the averages under the Farm Improvement Loans Act turn out to be in the area of five to six years for similar types of loans, then of course we would have to take that into account and base it on securities of the government for a comparable period of time.
When we have passed the amendments there will probably be some longer terms involved for land purchases than for farm machinery purchases. All of this is not clear as yet, and we would like the flexibility to prescribe the rate in order to take into account these factors. I have said very clearly that this will be related to government of Canada bonds over a comparable period of time.


Mr. Douglas:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture several questions. Many farmers are waiting for this act to be passed in order that they can make loans under its provisions. I was wondering whether the minister could tell us how soon after the bill is passed and enacted into law farmers will be able to obtain loans under it. Also, how soon after the bill becomes law will the prescribed interest rate be set? Farmers who have been making time purchases of machinery and other items in the last few months are paying a high interest rate. Will it be possible for them to re-finance their loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 
Mr. Gleave:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to speak at any length on this bill. Possibly the reason it is not proposed to continue the interest rates within the act is the financial condition of our country, which is such that interest rates and the cost of money have become rather uncertain things. I believe this could be the reason. Whatever the formula will be, if it is a stable rate there is no reason why it should not have been included in this bill. Then we would know what it was going to be. The fact that it is not included in the bill will mean, of course, that the government, the lending companies and the banks will get together and ask (a) how much must we have? (b) how much will the traffic stand? and (c) what can we get back? These are the questions that have to be answered. They might as well have been answered right here in the house as later, because these are the factors that govern the setting of the rate in respect of the hiring of money. That is what we are talking about, namely how much the farmer will have to pay for hiring money with which to run his operation. These are
29180-64*
DEBATES	999
Farm Improvement Loans Act the factors about which a former minister, who was mentioned earlier in the debate, was talking. As I said before, Mr. Chairman, whatever method or formula is to be adopted, it might just as well have been brought before the house and incorporated in this bill.
The other matter with which I should like to deal, if I am in order in so doing, Mr. Chairman, is that of including loans for land within the provisions of the act. As I mentioned the other night, this does not really add up. I do not know why we bring land under the provisions of this act rather than leaving it within the terms of the next act to come before us. There can probably be a good case made for farmers needing intermediate term loans with which to buy land. If it can be made, this has not been done. No satisfactory answer has been given to this question. The fact is that short term loans in respect of land is a pretty good way to get the farmer into a fair bit of difficulty in trying to repay the loan. Too much has to be repaid in too short a period of time.
If we do need an intermediate term loans program in respect of land, it should have been left to one of the other bills. It should be part of the function of the Farm Credit Corporation to supply money for this purpose. I have never seen any recommendations by the Farm Credit Corporation that we need short term money for land. This is what a 15 year repayment program is; it is short term money as far as land is concerned.
I tell the minister that I speak with some experience in this regard because I bought land when there was no Farm Credit Corporation, and had to make heavy payments on a short term loan. This just raises heck with one's living standard because the loan is paid back so fast that you find it difficult to maintain the standard of living you should enjoy.
Therefore I say again to the minister that this provision of the bill just does not make sense, unless there are trust and insurance companies who feel they would like to participate in the program. Those are the points I wish to make, Mr. Chairman.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has asked why it is that we include land in this bill rather than in the one dealing with the Farm Credit Corporation. We think there is a place in this bill for a provision in respect of smaller amounts and smaller parcels of land because, as my hon. friend knows, it is easier to make application to the bank in respect of them. In addition, it is less costly
October 9, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act to obtain credit in this way for smaller parcels of land than to go through the process of making application to the Farm Credit Corporation, with the legal fees involved in mortgages, and so on, which is the way in which the F.C.C. must operate.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: What is the approximate cost of processing a loan through the Farm Credit Corporation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not exactly sure of the total cost. I think they used to charge an application fee of something like $50. I believe this has been reduced to $10. But I suppose the legal fees for each mortgage are not identical. I understand there is a cost involved here of anything from $50 to over $100, because inspections have to be made by the field staff and one has to pay for these. We do not have any assurance at this stage as to how the banks will respond to lending money for the purchase of land; they have not been in that business for some time. From time to time we are prepared to make available for assessment purposes, in an advisory capacity only, the competent people that we have in the Farm Credit Corporation, if some kind of arrangement can be worked out with the banks and provided they want to make use of this facility.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Might I suggest that the fee, whatever it may be, whether it is $10 or $50 for inspection is not very significant when you are borrowing $15,000. Might I also suggest there are legal fees involved in the transfer of land whether you are buying it on a 15 year or 30 year mortgage; you are going to pay legal fees anyway. I had hoped that the minister could surely come forward with a better argument than that. I do say that this is a departure in lending policy and unless it can be justified it should not be followed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In reply to that, Mr. Chairman, we are of the opinion that there is a place for a government guarantee. Until this amendment was written there was no place where the government guarantee was available to farmers for buying small parcels of land except through the Farm Credit Corporation. Unless there is a major change in the manner in which these loans are processed, then I do not see how these changes can be made. It is easy and simple for these smaller purchasers to go to their local banks. There are not nearly so many government offices close at hand. I am not saying that this is a problem which is

insurmountable; but for convenience sake and the cost of processing, there is a place for government guarantees for loans on purchases of small parcels of land.


Mr. Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question on his earlier statement, when he was referring to those interest free deals that are supplied by machinery companies. The minister stated that if the farmer goes to the bank to make a loan on an interest free deal, the bank cannot make a loan at this time because it is then a used piece of equipment. Does this mean we are going to have a rate for new machinery and a rate for used machinery? Previously only a down payment was required.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, I was not saying that you could not make a loan under the Farm Improvement Loans Act for used equipment. I can understand the hon. member's apprehension because when I finished saying what I said I wondered at that time if I left some misunderstanding. What I intended to say was that under the provisions of the previous act there was no possibility of refinancing; whether it was a piece of new or used equipment was not that important. I do not know all of the answers. This could be handled by regulation I suppose. Most farm equipment dealers have an arrangement whereby they finance within the company a piece of equipment with no down payment at the time, and sometimes the first payment is as , much as six months or more later after the delivery of the piece of equipment. This does in fact constitute re-financing, whether the machinery is new or old. We have to take this into account. I do not think the statement of the Minister of Finance included that kind of re-financing. What the minister was talking about was that a government guarantee would be made available to loans that were made by the banks from July 1 until the date that this act becomes operative, to attract the lower rate.


Donald Craig Stewart: I would like to ask a further question, Mr. Chairman. A lot of this farm machinery is used seasonally. An example of this is a combine. This may be purchased right after the harvest season and not put into use for another 10 to 12 months. The farmer may wish to take advantage of a price reduction by ordering equipment in the fall. If he does not use the machine for 10 months, he can get an interest free program from the implement company. It is not uncommon in this day and age for a farmer to obtain a loan of $8,000. If you use the rate
October 9, 1968
of interest of 6 per cent and if he can take advantage of an interest free loan from the machinery company, then he can save himself around $400. I should like to see such a provision in the act.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I realize that this practice has grown up recently, as my hon. friend knows. There are some distinct advantages in accepting pre-delivery because of discounts and that sort of thing. I know there have been legal questions. I have discussed this matter with many bankers-I will reveal no names-and they have in fact granted farm credit loans as if there had been no re-financing. However, they have been a little disturbed about the legal implications because there was, in fact, re-financing. We will look into it and try to cover that matter in the regulations.


Donald Craig Stewart: I think this
should be looked into because in some areas re-financing can be arranged through the banks while in other areas it cannot.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have heard the statement from the Minister of Agriculture, which has cleared up some problems. I am afraid that he has not reassured me on one of the most important points of all. I am concerned about farming, as I am sure he is-about whether or not his department, and the government generally, are putting their finger on the real problem today. If we are going to support agriculture, and I am sure we are, is the money that we are providing going to the right people?
The group we are trying to help are the family farmers of Canada. I have been intimately in touch with this group of family farmers for the last ten years, and they have indicated almost unanimously that they are not getting the help parliament is trying to give them. When financial institutions are given the responsibility of parcelling out the money they want an efficient operation; they want to make as much money out of the transaction as they can. The cost of putting out a large loan is very much the same as the cost of putting out a small loan. If you look into the statistics as to where money has been lent, you will find that the average loan is quite large. I am referring now to all the areas covered by these bills.
Most of these loans are going to people who really do not need the money at all because their credit is good. You can tell this by the amount of money being paid back. This money is being repaid in spite of the lack of
Farm Improvement Loans Act markets, and in spite of the holdover of grain on our farms. Most of these loans are being repaid, and you know why; they are being repaid because the money is being lent to people who do not really need the money. There are hundreds of farmers who need a small loan of $5,000 or $6,000 and they are not able to get it because priority is being given to the large, well guaranteed loans, the loan that no bank has to worry about. These loans are guaranteed by 6,000 or 7,000 acres of good arable wheat land. These farmers do not need to go to the government to borrow money when they are engaged in that type of operation. In many cases these farms are owned by corporations or by rich men who are plowing their income back into farming in order to escape income tax. If you lend such a man $17,000 or $20,000, of course he is going to pay it back.
I must say I have had literally hundreds of complaints from the little fellow who needs a loan most but cannot get it. Apparently the selling point of the government to parliament today is that we are short of money; but there is money for good purposes. We have to justify to the people of Canada the fact that we are going to ear-mark $500 million or $600 million to help agriculture. I do not think that the taxpayers of Canada want to subsidize the wrong people. I think the government of Canada should take the trouble to find out exactly who needs help in order to try to steer this money into the right channel.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, who has just taken his seat, knows the problem intimately. In this very building, Mr. Chairman, he at one time asked me to take my seat at a farm union meeting because I had asked the farm unions to define what is a family farm. I do not know why such a definition was not forthcoming five or ten years ago. Certainly I should like a definition today.
I am sure the minister knows what is the problem here. I would ask whether there is not some way in which to write into all four of these bills the principle that the money that is lent should go to those who need it the most. I think that we should, we can and that we must supply money to these people, and I do not think we need worry too much about the formula the Conservative administration established, which set an interest rate at 5 per cent.

October 9. 1968


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, could I help the hon. member here. He said that loans have been in region of $18,000 to $20,000. I should just like to quote him some figures in this respect. In 1950 there were 58,969 loans under the act, the average being $1,075. In 1957 there were 57,988 loans made, the average being $1,199. In 1967, which is the last year the act was fully operative, 78,249 loans were made, the average being $2,602. So I am unable to follow the logic of the hon. member when he says that this legislation is not for the small farmer. There were literally thousands of loans made below $1,000 and between $1,000 and $2,000.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I presume, Mr. Chairman, that the minister refers only to loans made under the farm improvement legislation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is the only act that is under consideration at the moment.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I know that that is the only act under consideration, Mr. Chairman, but to prevent speaking four separate times on the subject I thought it would be acceptable if I talked about the principle behind farm loans under all four bills, Nos. C-110, C-lll, C-112 and C-113. In my opinion, the principle behind all these bills is the same. I should like to know how we are spending the taxpayers' money and guaranteeing these loans on this general principle.
October 9, 1968

Health and Welfare


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The answer to that, Mr. Chairman, is that we are making this money available to thousands and thousands of farmers with all sizes of operations.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Chairman, my experience has been that there are many smaller farmers who are unable to qualify for loans because the supply of money runs out. Preference is given to the larger, more efficient-I put that in brackets-farming units.


The Chairman:: Order, please. So that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members business, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions, public bills.



EXPROPRIATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private members notices of motions:
No. 5-Mr. Chappell-September 18, 1968
That, In the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of giving immediate consideration to amending the Expropriation Act so that an owner whose property is expropriated will be dealt with in a more businesslike and just manner, and more particularly so as to provide for a notice before the expropriation takes place, for a substantial advance of money at the time of taking property, for the spelling out of measures of compensation, for the change of interest rate to the bank rate of interest, and, finally, to provide that if property is affected or invaded in part by an act on the part of expropriating authorities, the owner may call upon authorities to take all his land or property.
Mr. Hyliard Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to proceed with the motion but the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), who wishes to be present to speak to it, is absent on government business. Therefore I ask that the house grant unanimous consent to allow the motion to stand until the house next deals with private members notices of motions, and that the motion retain its position.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to amending the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and the Medical Care Act to provide that the imposing by any province under its own hospitalization and medical care plans of deterrent or utilization fees upon recipients of these services, will disqualify such province from receiving any share of costs from the Government of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as the house is aware the purpose of the resolution is that this government should give consideration to amending the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and the Medical Care Act and, as Your Honour read, to provide that where any province imposes utilization or deterrent fees upon hospital or medical care services under its own provincial hospital or medical care plan, it be disqualified from obtaining any share of the costs of its hospitalization and medical care plan from the federal government. This would apply whether the deterrent fee is a co-insurance fee, utilization fee, or anything else that one may want to call it.
Universal public hospitalization and medical care plans in theory imply, and in fact require, that the total population prepays the cost of hospital and medical care benefits that any citizen may incur in the event of illness. Despite organized opposition from some individuals and groups, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Canadians wish to participate in a collective way to protect themselves and their families from being faced with large financial obligations at the time of or immediately after illness strikes.
During many years of experience-much of it bitter-which led to a demand by the people for a method of insuring themselves against the day when sickness or injury might strike, various organizations, then municipal governments and then provincial governments moved to implement plans that gave a citizen this kind of protection and service. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the consumers of medical and hospital services decided, through their governments, to prepay the costs of their hospital and medical care needs.
Underlying these measures is the principle that good health is a right-I emphasize-is a

October 9. 1968
Health and Welfare
right of every citizen, and not a privilege. It is a basic tenet of such public programs that, regardless of financial means or station in life, the right to good health and treatment for illness shall not be denied to any citizen because of financial barriers.
On December 8, 1966, this house passed an act to authorize the payment of contributions by the government of Canada toward the costs of insured medical care services incurred by provinces under their own medical care plans. On July 1 the act took effect. It was a great milestone in Canadian history.
An earlier great milestone was the passing by this house of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act in April, 1957, and the amendment to it in June, 1968, that brought the act into force on July 1 of that year.
The intent and purpose of universal hospital and medical care plans is to provide full and equal access to the best possible health care for every citizen, regardless of his station in life, financial means, race, colour or creed, or his place of residence. They are a way of spreading the cost of health care over the entire population and removing the financial burden of hospital and doctor bills from the patient.
The great majority of citizens have decided through their democratically elected governments that they wish to pay in advance for their hospital and medical care, through yearly premiums, through income tax and sales tax, and other similar measures. Premiums are a fixed charge on every citizen. Most of the money that is raised by our governments is raised through income and sales taxes, which are based in some measure on one's ability to pay. This, then, brings me to the purpose of this resolution.
Experience has shown and is showing that some provinces are imposing additional charges that completely negate the intent and purpose of public hospital and medical care plans. The imposition of so-called deterrent fees, or utilization fees or co-insurance fees, as they are sometimes called, on a patient is in fact an extra tax on those who become sick or injured. This in fact means that people who have already paid for their hospitalization and doctor's care through their premiums and taxes are being taxed again, and must pay again as soon as they are sick. Such charges fly in the face of the intent of our

national Medical Care Act and are perpetrated because of a loophole in the hospital insurance legislation. Section 4(1) (b) of the Medical Care Act says that medical services are to be provided for insured persons and that nothing, directly or indirectly, whether by charges or otherwise, shall impede or preclude an insured person from access to such services. Certainly, no co-insurance or deterrent fees are mentioned. In fact, the federal act discourages such charges which could have the effect of impeding reasonable access to insured services by insured persons, since their fees are not considered as a cost to be shared.
The government says in the act that the provincial plan must provide for the furnishing of insured services upon uniform terms and conditions to all in the province in accordance with the various tariffs, and so on, set out under the law. That service must be provided on a basis that provides for reasonable compensation for insured services to medical practitioners and-
-that does not impede or preclude, either directly or indirectly whether by charges made to insured persons or otherwise, reasonable access to insured services by insured persons;
The effect of these kinds of charges must be to deny reasonable access to medical hospital services to the poor, the old, the very young and the low income people. This is happening in more than one province. In particular I speak of my own province, Saskatchewan. There it is possible to pay a $1.50 deterrent fee four or five times in a single day, since it is charged by each doctor the patient might see for the same illness. You could go to a general practitioner, and when you say you have a stomach ache he will charge you the deterrent fee and refer you to an internist, who will charge you a deterrent fee and turn you over to a radiologist, who will take an X-ray and charge you a deterrent fee and then refer you back to the general practitioner, who will prescribe medicine. At each step you will be charged a fee. Even though you have already paid for your medical care through your income tax, sales tax or other form of premium payment you will pay again if you are sick. In addition, the fee is charged for every single office and house call you make for the same illness or injury, no matter how often you must go to the doctor.
Cancer patients, particularly, are victimized because of the number of times they must visit their doctors, or the number of times the doctors must visit their homes. They are victimized also because of their
October 9, 1968

numerous hospital visits, which vary in length. Someone unfortunate enough to be ill with cancer has enough trouble, I submit, without being saddled with these various additional unfair and unjust costs. Someone sentenced to death by cancer and forced to lie for weeks or for months in a hospital bed should not, at such a time, be saddled with extra costs which an unconscionable government, either provincial or federal, has imposed on him.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The problem of deterrent fees imposed on treaty Indians is still not cleared up. It is quite clear that the department of Indian affairs and the federal government feel that the exaction of these fees would prevent Indians from receiving reasonable access to health treatment, and has decided to pay the fees on behalf of the treaty Indian people in Saskatchewan. But what about the Metis people, whose incomes are in many cases as low as, if not lower than those of the Indians? Is it not logical to suppose that these fees will affect them adversely, too? What about other classes of people with similarly low incomes? We hear it said that no one will be turned away. But anyone who goes to a hospital at ten o'clock at night in an emergency and does not have the required $25 deposit will not get in, and no bureaucrat will be able to convince me that anyone can get $25 from a social agency at that hour of the night.


Mr. Francis:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have only a few more minutes left and I should like to conclude. Perhaps the hon. member would ask his question when I am through.
The deterrent fee in connection with hospitalization is equally vicious. At $2.50 a day for the first 30 days and $1.50 a day for the next 60 days a total extra tax of $165 is imposed on a sick person who has the misfortune to be hospitalized for 90 days. The reason most often given to justify the imposition of deterrent or utilization fees is that they serve to curb abuses of the hospital and medical services. This is pure baloney. In fact it is no longer pure: It is old, it is bad, and it smells to high heaven. Abuses by whom? Where, when and how? Not the slightest evidence has ever been researched or presented to indicate that there is any significant amount of abuse. The infinitesimal number of people who might be considered hypochondriacs should not be deterred either, because
Health and Welfare
they are sick, too, only in a different way. They need a doctor, just as someone with a real illness does. They particularly need a psychiatrist.
To suggest that deterrent fees will correct abuses of the use of hospital beds is to ask us to believe the unbelievable. No patient can admit himself to hospital or stay in hospital one day longer than his doctor says he can. If there are abuses in the use of hospital beds, charging a patient extra for something over which he has no control is both callous and unjust.
In the short time available to me I should like to call one witness-Dr. Neilson, head of the Ontario Hospital Services Commission. I quote from an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail on November 3, 1964.
Frivolous use of hospital beds in this province is a minor problem. Criticism of such abuses has been exaggerated.
The report continues:
Dr. Neilson went on to suggest to the hospital association members that where such abuse did exist it could be blamed on their failure to set up proper admission standards.
In 1961 the Hall commission was empowered by a Conservative government to recommend such measures, consistent with the constitutional division of legislative powers in Canada, as the commissioners believed would ensure that the best possible health care would be available to all Canadians. In its report the commission recommended, as a primary objective of national policy, a comprehensive, universal health services program to achieve the highest possible health standards for all our people.
The commission came out strongly against co-insurance or deterrent payments which, the report stated, would simply deter the poor and have no effect on the unnecessary demands of those in the middle and high income categories. Such a policy would mean that Canada was simply continuing to ration health services on the basis of ability to pay. This position was subsequently endorsed by the Canadian Welfare Council.
I submit that this principle was accepted by the federal government on the day in 1966 when the Medical Care Act was passed. The criteria then established included comprehensiveness of medical service, universal coverage, administration by a public authority and portability between provinces. The imposition of deterrent fees negates the principle that provincial plans must be universal-that the

October 9, 1968
Health and Welfare
provinces must make health services accessible to all without regard to financial circumstances. In giving effect to the medicare plan the federal government is rightly accepting responsibility to see to it that every citizen in Canada no matter where he might reside, will not be denied the basic right to reasonable access to hospital and medical care. According to the act of 1966, reasonable access means financial access.
Each province has a perfect right to establish whatever kind of hospital or medical care plan it wishes. But if a province chooses to implement a plan which is unfair or unjust to the consumer of those services, then that province should not be aided and abetted by the resources of the federal plan. The effect of this resolution, should it be agreed to by this house, would be to ask the federal government to consider making amendments to its legislation.
The result would be that the province of Saskatchewan, for example, would have to choose either to continue to collect $7 million dollars worth of blood money from the sick each year or to get $15 million from the federal government under the national medicare legislation. 1 hope hon. members will agree that these amendments to the federal legislation need to be made so that the unjust treatment of the sick, the poor, the young and the old, can no longer be meted out by provinces which wish to share in our federal plan.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, this motion put forward by the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) would have the effect of telling the provinces that they cannot impose utilization fees in respect of hospital and medical services and still expect to receive a contribution to their insurance funds from the federal government.
I suspect the hon. member's motion has been precipitated by the establishment of utilization fees during the past year in Saskatchewan, from which province the hon. member comes. Now that the fees are a fact of life in that province we have this motion before us in Ottawa for consideration.
We need to consider the motion in terms of what would be desirable for the country as a whole. In doing so we must realize that Canada is a diverse country with wealthy areas and poorer sections. If this motion were adopted we might be preventing some of the poorer provinces from establishing a medical care program; they might be able to afford to do so if utilization fees were permitted, but if

they were prevented from charging such fees they might decide they could not go ahead with a provincial scheme.
Let us for a few minutes consider the history of hospital insurance. When the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was passed by parliament it was drafted in a form which included the necessary guarantees to ensure that services would be provided on a uniform basis to all residents and had regard for the fact that under our constitution hospital care comes within the sphere of provincial legislation. For this reason it was particularly important to respect existing practices as much as possible, provided these did not conflict with the basic purposes of the federal program.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The federal hospital insurance program was preceded by several provincially administered plans, notably the two programs in Saskatchewan and British Columbia. In Alberta too a program was in operation prior to the inception of the federal plan. At that time two of these three programs were providing insured services in hospitals subject to the payment of a modest utilization fee.
Therefore provision was made in the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act for these so-called deterrent or utilization fees, which were described in the law as authorized charges. In order to sign an agreement under the act the provinces were required, in a schedule to the agreement, to set out the actual amounts of these authorized charges, thus enabling the federal government to be assured that the amount of the charges would remain at a nominal level.
Furthermore, in revising the formula on which the federal contribution is calculated, regard was had to the per capita amount of authorized charges in a province by reducing the federal contribution where such charges were levied.
In section 4(a) (ii) of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act it will be noted that the federal contribution, which in part is based on 25 per cent of the per capita cost of in-patient services in the province, is described as being "less the per capita amount of authorized charges in respect thereof." The effect of this provision is that provinces which impose authorized charges receive from the federal government, by way of a contribution, an amount which is less than that to which they would have been entitled had they not levied an authorized charge.
October 9, 1968

It is of interest to note that only two provinces and one of the territories made provision in their respective laws for authorized charges during the first decade of the program. Only in the last year has Saskatchewan also chosen to levy such a charge. In all circumstances, however, the charges are subject to the terms of the federal-provincial agreement, thus ensuring the maintenance of a reasonable level.
The situation with regard to the Medical Care Act is somewhat similar to that of hospital insurance in so far as the principle of provincial jurisdiction is concerned, and to the necessity of leaving to the provinces the right to operate their own programs in their own way as long as general principles are maintained. The general principles do not extend to the details of provincial financing, except in so far as ensuring that there are no financial obstacles imposed to insured services.
The Medical Care Act, unlike the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, does not envisage the use of the agreement mechanism, which had been a feature of shared cost health and welfare programs over a period of some years. Thus the federal government lacks the same opportunity, made possible through the hospital insurance agreements, to judge the level of authorized charges. In order to compensate for this lack, however, the Medical Care Act does require that insured services be provided to all residents upon uniform terms and conditions on a basis.
-that does not impede or preclude, either directly or indirectly whether by charges made to insured persons or otherwise reasonable access to insured services by insured persons.
The effect of this provision in section 4(l)(b) of the Medical Care Act is to permit the federal government to consider that one of the essential principles has been breached, in the event that a province should impose, deterrent or co-insurance charges at a level which impedes access to insured services.
Furthermore the formula for the calculation of the per capita cost of insured services, as set out in section 5(2)(a), specifies that this shall be based on costs incurred by the province. If a co-insurance or deterrent charge is levied, the income from such charges is not considered to have been incurred by the province and therefore does not form a part of the amount on which the federal contribution is based. The effect of an authorized charge, therefore, both under the hospital insurance legislation and the medical care legislation is
Health and Welfare
to make such a levy a disadvantage to the province in so far as the amount of the federal contribution is concerned.
As an ideal, Mr. Speaker, I believe we all like the idea of free medical and hospital care insurance programs, but we have to take the matter of human nature into consideration. It is not uncommon for people to go to a doctor even though they have nothing wrong with them.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Maurice Brydon Foster: We have to consider the diverse nature of our country. We have a federal state because our country is so diverse. We make provision for the provinces to carry out the programs the best way they can within their jurisdiction. I believe this is primarily a provincial matter and that we should allow the provinces to decide how they will administer their respective programs, because it is constitutionally their responsibility.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on the motion of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). We listened with a great deal of interest to the arguments he put forward, but I think we have to keep in mind certain other facts. There are facts on both sides of the coin. For instance we have seen Great Britain go full cycle. The medical authorities there are now imposing deterrent fees for drugs. So the problem of what is to be done about galloping hospital costs and medical care costs is not a closed book.
Any form of so-called free hospitalization or free medical care constitutes in effect an open ended program which can escalate very quickly without proper and necessary controls. It is a fact of life that where you have third parties who do the paying there does not appear to be the same concern about the costs of the plan involved. Previous to 1959 there was no so-called-and wrongly called- free hospitalization federally. The patient had a hospital pre-paid plan-Blue Cross or some other plan. There were certain checks on this, but the costs even then went up with those plans. Blue Cross was selective, as it operated on a group plan, mostly with payroll deductions.
With the advent of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act the costs began to skyrocket. In 1953, for instance, before the measure was enacted, the cost of active treatment hospitalization in Canada was $280.4 million, in mental hospitals it was $57.8 million and in the federal hospitals $36.4 million,

October 9, 1968
Health and Welfare
making total hospital costs of $404 million in that year. Then, in 1958, with the advent of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, the active treatment hospitalization cost $422.9 million; mental treatment was $99 million and the t.b. hospital service $30.4 million. Federal hospitals cost $48.4 million, and the total hospital care across Canada cost $640.1 million.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In 1963 active treatment hospitals and diagnostic services cost $900.1 million, over three times more than in 1953. Mental treatment hospitalization cost $163 million, or a little less than three times more. Tuberculosis hospitalization treatment was less than it was ten years previously, falling back to $28.1 million. Federal hospitalization was $69.6 million, or just under twice as much. All hospital care was $1,154,100,000.
In 1965 hospitalization and diagnostic services had risen to $1,125,900,000, increasing at the rate of over $100 million per year. This is of concern to everyone in this house as well as to the federal and provincial governments and to the individuals who have to pay the premiums.
Physicians' fees rose from $176.6 million in 1953 to $545.1 million in 1965, and now in 1968 are estimated to be around $1 billion. This does not include dentistry which cost in 1965, the last year for which I have the figures, $160 million, nor does it include paramedical services such as osteopaths, chiropractors, optometrists and physiotherapists. Physiotherapists are now included in special cases, as are chiropractors, osteopaths and optometrists.
What is the reason for these escalating costs? First, there does not seem to be the same careful surveillance of accounts when third parties do the paying. The second reason is the over-utilization of beds which are for active treatment. Surgical wing operation costs far more than medical care operation. We are doing surgical work which was only dreamed of ten years ago, such as transplantation of organs such as kidneys and hearts, with the required operative teams, the elaborate scientific equipment and the intensive nursing care units. Probably in the next ten years we will be transplanting every organ with the exception of the brain.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: There is hope for the Liberals yet.
[Mr. Rynard.l


Philip Bernard Rynard: All this is tremendously
expensive and greatly adds to hospital costs, but it is worth while and it saves lives. We are keeping people alive today who in 1953 would have died. It is true that we still have transplant rejections and this has to be overcome before the operation can be called anything but palliative.
From the medical point of view we are now keeping people living longer with the newer drugs developed since 1948, and every year we have added to our armamentarium. Actually, outside of anatomy and basic facts, 50 per cent of our medical knowledge has gone out the window in about eight years. This creates a problem in that we have continuously to re-educate not only the medical profession but we have continuously to train new teachers and do research to keep up with the vast amount of new knowledge. New ideas and new equipment to meet the discoveries and the new challenges are all tremendously costly. There must be no cutting of costs in this field.
Dr. E. J. Hinchey, F.R.C.S., a young Canadian surgeon, one of our bright young surgeons in Canada, and a graduate of Queen's University, said that our problem is that we are not spending enough on research, that we are not keeping up with the training of research teachers and that we should be spending ten times more on research than we are doing today.
There must be no cutting of costs in this field. This is a research oriented field. In the care of the chronically ill all of the scientifically equipped rooms are not necessary. Nursing skills are not as urgently needed and more nurses aides and other help could be used. Cheaper construction in all hospitals is a requirement. Some buildings are outdated before they are completed. The federal government should have something to say about the cost of the buildings. In 1958 the Conservative government doubled the amount of grants for the construction of hospitals. This government should have something to say about the millions of dollars which have gone for that purpose because this is a shared program.
It is true that the small grants which are made of $2,000 a bed, and so on, are minimal today. At that time, if I remember correctly, it cost about $7,000 a bed to build a hospital. Today the cost is close to $15,000 or $17,000 a bed, and no change in the grant. We can see how tremendously the costs have risen. We should seriously consider cutting down capital
October 9, 1968

construction to enable the building of hospitals for $8,000 or $9,000 a bed for those who do not require intensive care. Many patients require treatment with the newer drugs but they do not require oxygen masks on tents or intensive care units. We should cut those costs, as well as nursing care. Many of the chronic cases are kept in hospitals although they could be sent home, if they were provided with proper nursing care. This is a field which should be explored. Nurses aides could be trained to do this work very well.
The emergency departments in most hospitals today are overcrowded simply because we do not have enough doctors to go around. The reason for this is that there are not enough teachers, and medical schools are crowded and cannot take in more students to train as doctors. At present we are training about 900 doctors a year, we lose 200 to the United States and we bring in 600 from foreign countries. Most of them are not adequately trained according to our standards, and yet we allow them to practise, instead of building our schools and training our students from every area in our country. We would be getting much better medical care if we did this. However, we do not do it, and I was very annoyed to see the government was cutting back on some of the research grants, and that cutbacks are being made in the health resources fund. This is a backward step. We should be supporting the recommendations of the Hall commission report which made reference to the training of more and more doctors. We have fallen far short of the schedule laid down in that report, yet the government has seen fit to bring in medicare without the proper facilities and personnel to carry out the extra work.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Doctors are overworked because of an increased utilization of their services. Because of the increased number of people using emergency departments, hospital costs have increased. Many of these people could be treated in a doctor's office, but they are crowding into these emergency rooms. In large centres like Toronto these people might have to wait from one to four hours before they are seen. It is almost impossible in any major city in Canada for a patient to see a doctor after 6 p.m.


An hon. Member:: Or on Saturday or Sunday.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Unless you have your own doctor and he happens to be available you are
Health and Welfare
almost always sent to the emergency department, where on many occasions you are admitted to the hospital. Many of these patients are seen by an intern who is not quite sure of his problem. All of us know there have been a number of cases where people have been sent home, and some have died. Had they been in the hospital with proper care and treatment some probably would not have died. This situation makes doctors a little leery. When they see a patient in the emergency department they will very often say: Well, he is here, perhaps I should admit him. Admissions are increased in this way because the doctors do not want to take a chance. The government has done little to correct this problem.
To recapitulate, approximately 900 doctors are graduated each year, but we are losing about 200 per year to the United States. These are the doctors who want research facilities and the opportunities to do research or teach. I refer to people like Dr. Hinchey who, as I have said, was a graduate from Queen's University. He is now gone to working on research at Royal Victoria hospital, Montreal. I sincerely hope he will stay in this country.
This summer when I was in New York I saw many doctors who graduated from Canadian universities. They are now on the staffs of United States hospitals and they are doing an excellent job.
This whole problem is like a two faced coin. Will such a deterrent help? We brought in medicare and everybody immediately said that we were going to get free hospitalization and free medicare. Did we do the wrong thing as parliamentarians and have we falsely represented this measure? Medical care and hospitalization are not free. There is nothing man-made in this world that is free.
Again I ask whether this deterrent would help. Perhaps better supervision and control of our spending problems would be of more use. Would proper control and better supervision of some of these plans cut down the cost? Would the use of more nurses aides in homes cut down the cost of some of this work? Are these things more important than a deterrent? There is a serious question in this regard, and yet there is a serious problem to solve, in costs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? In view of the excellent case he has made for increased money for research and for the great things that can be done in the field of

October 9, 1968
Health and Welfare
medicine, does he not feel that this should be paid for by all of us rather than by imposing the extra cost of deterrent fees on the people who have to take advantage of these services?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, provincial governments must have something to say about this matter. Health comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces, but we must not stint on research or education in any way because they are the most important things. Many other things flow from these activities. If we will have more doctors, and more research they can earn millions of dollars which could easily be used as a substitute for the deterrent fee about which the hon. member is talking. I hope that answers the hon. member's question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
hon. member is moving in the right direction.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. J. A. Mongrain (Trois-Rivieres):: Mr. Speaker, it is often said, with regard to the business of the house, that we abuse the right to speak and that often, we use it for trifles. Many newspapermen poke fun at the house, saying that the members are not always serious in their interventions. I doubt that that can be said this evening about the debate on the notice of motion moved by the member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).
I listened with great interest to the speech of the member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), a new-comer to the house, who speaks like a conscientious researcher and whose arguments are indeed very serious.
The intervention of the member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), as usual, is that of a practitioner who, obviously, has far more reference material than the average member, and we always follow with special interest the statements he presents calmly, sedately, just as a university professor would. We will undeniably be the richer for this debate.
Unless I am mistaken, the notice of motion of the member for Regina-Lake Centre stems from a deep concern for the welfare of the Canadian people. The honourable member certainly deserves congratulations, although the house would not be justified in legislating on all good causes. I feel that the possibilities for legislation in this house are limited by certain circumstances such as, for instance, constitutional matters or barriers, if you wish.
I should like to spend a few minutes- briefly, I am sorry to say-even though I

respect the fundamental concern in this notice of motion, in demonstrating that this notice of motion is superfluous and even ill-advised, since it would encroach upon provincial jurisdictions; this cannot be accepted, and it would even run counter to certain well-known attitudes of his party. In addition, it bears the stamp of an excessive rigidity, which I would call "legislomania", if I may use that expression.
This notice of motion is useless, Mr. Speaker, as far as the federal government is concerned, if it tends to protect its own interests. In fact, I feel that the interests of the federal government are already protected by law, since the federal government contributes 50 per cent of the cost. If the provinces collect something else on what the federal government pays them, of course that will not justify the federal government to pay more than its share. That is why from the point of view of the provinces and certainly that of the federal government, that notice of motion is useless surely.
It is untimely, as I said earlier, because it constitutes inadmissible interference in the provincial field. Mr. Speaker, I believe that independently of everything that can happen in any of the provinces, it is unacceptable- and I will admit that the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre who told us about what is going on in Saskatchewan certainly impressed most of us-to go beyond the limits imposed on us by the provincial jurisdictions.
The Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and the Medical Care Act were drafted and passed after consultation with the provinces. Provinces are responsible for the administration of these various acts, but I think that the federal government would be ill-advised to overlook the limits of its jurisdiction.
The member for Regina-Lake Centre spoke about the situation in his province. For my part, I know that in the province of Quebec, a general outcry would be raised if the federal government would become so meticulous that it would provide in its legislation all specific cases which might raise differences of opinions and differences in the needs of the various provinces. I think that we should emphasize what the member for Algoma said: In an immense country such as ours, conditions are not the same in all ten provinces, and a province may wish to give particular characteristics to the agreement entered upon with the federal government as, maybe, is the case in Saskatchewan.
October 9, 1968

Perhaps this is the case of my own province which has not yet been caught up by medicare. Some may feel that the provincial treasury cannot for the time being absorb the whole cost of that legislation and that besides patients must pay part of the cost. Of course, there are two schools of thought in this connection, Mr. Chairman. Some people say that the health of Canadians is a human asset which should be the concern of every Canadian and that all citizens must contribute to its conservation, as they contribute to the preservation of our natural resources. This is a just and commendable idea, Mr. Chairman. Other provinces, however, express a different viewpoint and say that the paying potential of each individual and the taxing capacity of each province must be taken into account.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize, in my opinion, that under such circumstances, in the majority of the provinces, such an interference, such a minute legislation on the part of the federal government, even though its motives and its concern were quite commendable, would be considered wrong and would not be accepted.
I would add, Mr. Speaker, that the notice of motion presented by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre surprises me. I will go back to my earlier remarks but I want first to suggest, in a very constructive manner, to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, that he is knocking on the wrong door. Since his concern is commendable and acceptable, he should knock on the door of the provincial governments. There must be, in his own province, a number of people who share his political philosophy and if he were to knock on the door of his provincial government, he would probably have more chance to get quicker results with regard to his proposal to this house. He should perhaps get a little more active in the election campaign and, eventually, take office in his province, so that this legislation could be implemented. At any rate, in view of the fact that the New Democratic party is not very strong in our province of Quebec, we, the Liberals, shall try on the long run to bring our provincial government to reason with regard to national health.
Mr. Chairman, 1 am coming back to what I said earlier. I think that the notice of motion of our colleague is inconsistent with certain well-known views of his party. In the past, for example, I was one of those who knew quite well Mr. Robert Cliche, chief of the Quebec wing of the N.D.P. I am always very interested in his political activities and I have
Health and Welfare
always had much respect for the former leader of the N.D.P., Mr. Tommy Douglas. I have heard his speeches for many years and I note that there is some misunderstanding. Mr. Cliche, for example, advocates the decentralization of administrations, especially in the health and welfare fields. If the federal government would bring out such a legislation asking the province not to charge any other fees, we would immediately hear the shrill protests of the leader of the Quebec wing of the N.D.P.
That might be sufficient to make him give up the leadership of the provincial New Democratic party, because, apparently, he has a tendency lately to lean towards the M.S.A., Mr. Rene Levesque's movement. In fact, if I were the chief of the New Democratic party, I would be concerned with his attitudes and I would make a point of inviting him to Ottawa for a talk, because he also has ambiguous attitudes.
While Mr. Tommy Douglas has told us many times, in public statements, that he wanted a strong federal government, and, in other occasions, that he was in favour of a special status for Quebec, he was torn between two worries: that of granting to Quebec powers that it does not already have, and of ensuring at the same time a strong government in a number of fields.
Therefore, I say there is a certain amount of confusion therein. I realize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, who is new in the house, has not had like us the opportunity to analyse all the attitudes, all the positions taken by the leaders of his party, but my feeling is that his present notice of motion must sound false to those who have followed the course of events. In concluding Mr. Speaker I shall add that his notice of motion is far too rigid; I shall call this "legislo-mania". There are all kinds of manias. For instance, we have referred to Trudeaumania. Well, in this case it is Providence which wanted that state of mind to suddenly emerge in Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: -in 1968, a state of mind which seems to bring about an improvement in the physical and mental health of some people. You only have to look at the faces of those who sit on the front benches of the opposition in this house. It is a happy state of mind and nobody died as a result. On the contrary, everyone felt stimulated to act constructively.

October 9, 1968
Business of the House
But, Mr. Speaker, "legislomania" or our mania of legislating on a lot of small details in order to improve the administration of legislation in this country will, in the end, pester everybody and limit everyone's activity, particularly that of the provincial and municipal governments, thus doing more harm than good. There must be, somewhere, a little latitude left to provincial governments, municipalities and private enterprises.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, my conclusion is that the notice of motion of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, even though its intent is worthy of praise, is not acceptable because it is not necessary. It represents an incursion in the provincial jurisdiction, which is incompatible with certain positions taken by the leaders of the member's party. Furthermore, it is excessively strict-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house leader would indicate the business for tomorrow.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to completion, I hope, the committee stage of the bill with regard to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, thereafter we will call second reading of the bill to amend the Farm Credit Act and carry that through second reading and committee stages.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
October 9, 1968


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Stanfield and colleagues, Mr. Speaker Deschate-lets, honoured guests, members of parliament, members of the Senate, ladies and gentlemen: On behalf of the members of the House of Commons, and if my colleague Mr. Speaker Deschatelets, will allow me, on behalf of our colleagues in the Senate, I welcome you to this important and historic occasion. I extend particularly warm greetings to one whose portrait we will not unveil today, but who in my view is equally deserving of this recognition, namely Mrs. Diefenbaker.
We are very pleased to have with us today Mr. Horne, the renowned Canadian artist who has produced what is said to be a very fine portrait. Together with Mr. and Mrs. Diefenbaker we are all of course gratified that so many of their close personal friends have found it possible to be here with us today to share the honour bestowed on the former prime minister by the government and by the parliament of our country.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is fitting that this ceremony should be held on the very threshold of the House of Commons, where the Right Honourable John Diefenbaker gave his best to his country.
The portrait to be unveiled presently will be a special reminder of the notable contribution of a former prime minister to the Canadian parliament during more than a quarter of a century.
The parliamentary colleagues of Mr. Diefenbaker, those of yesterday as well as those of today, unite in congratulating him and in wishing him many more years of distinguished labour in the service of Canada.

I now invite the Hon. Mr. Stanfield to say a word.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister and Mrs. Diefenbaker: This is a gathering, of course, in honour of a prime minister of Canada, but if we were gathered today in another gallery to honour the relatively small number of Canadians who have worked effectively and with statesmanship in order to
strengthen parliament, we would still be gathering today to honour Mr. John Diefenbaker. If I have one regret concerning you, Mr. Diefenbaker, and perhaps I may be permitted one regret in this connection, it is that your career before you became prime minister, before you became party leader, as a member of parliament and as a fighter for civil liberties, is relatively unknown to a whole generation of younger Canadians. This is their loss because it makes them far less familiar than they ought to be with a great chapter in the fight for the enlargement of liberty and freedom in our country.
Mr. Diefenbaker's public career is one of contrasts. On the one hand, as party leader and prime minister of the country he has changed the nature of politics, indeed the nature of our country, whereas on the other hand in his capacity as a member of parliament he has fought long and constantly to preserve the old and best traditions of parliamentary life in our country. So, in the name of your friends and admirers, Mr. Diefenbaker, I salute you today; I salute you as a member of parliament, as a leader of an important party, the leader of the opposition, as a great prime minister of Canada; a man who in all those capacities has left an indelible mark upon the history of our country.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The Right Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker, Mrs. Diefenbaker, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: Just a few days ago in Regina I had the pleasure of visiting the buildings that had been the homestead of the Diefenbaker family. I thought that Canadians in general, and students of history in particular, would be grateful to the government for having preserved these buildings and having permitted the people to visit them in such a convenient fashion. As I looked at the buildings, I was impressed perhaps most by their very unimpressiveness. This, none the less, represents the very central aspect of life in Canada. They are the kind of buildings that remind us of the qualities developed in Canadians who were brought up in them, qualities of

October 9, 1968
strength, self-sufficiency and great independence of character. It takes a lot of imagination to think that one who had begun in such a homestead was to become the prime minister of Canada. The long road from those buildings to 24 Sussex street tells us a great deal about the man who walked that road, and about the kind of country in which he lives.
I don't think we are able to say that our country provides equality for all, but a look at the history of those small buildings and their inhabitants makes us realize that our country is one that does provide equality of opportunity. It is a great thing to think of our country as one which can permit a man to come from such humble origins and to reach the highest elected office in our land. I know, Mr. Diefenbaker, that this portrait will be hung in a gallery along with the portraits of other men who perhaps began a rung or two higher on the economic ladder. I think your presence here, and the presence of your portrait amongst those others says a great deal not only about our country but about your great strength of character and your contribution to the history of this country.
tTranslation]
I should like to say that, a long time ago, I heard Mr. Diefenbaker speak. Even at the time when I left university he could be identified with the struggle for the little people, for the humble people, for those who were in need of protection against the authorities.
Later, he brought that reputation to parliament. He identified himself with the Bill of Rights and, throughout his whole career in parliament, he distinguished himself through his constant struggle for the rights of the individual and the protection of minorities.

I will have to leave to others, sir, the privilege of talking about you as leader of a party and of a government, but I am qualified I think, to talk about you as a parliamentarian. I have had the privilege for the past few weeks of sitting across the aisle from you in the house, and I can testify to your great skill in that role. I sometimes wish that equality of opportunity would incite you, sir, to make sure that more ministers than myself learn by experience of your skills.
However, I do want to say that today is an important occasion. The rest of us here-Mr. Stanfield, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Caouette-are here as representatives of our parties and the people of Canada. Mr. Diefenbaker is here as a great Canadian. He is here as one who has
contributed in a lasting way to our history, and it is in this capacity that we are privileged to honour him today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: On behalf of the House of Commons, the Senate and the parliament of Canada it is an honour and a privilege for me to accept the gift of this portrait to parliament from the government of Canada.
I now invite Mr. Diefenbaker to say a few words.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Caouette and my leader, the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition: I am deeply touched by what has been said here today. It makes parliament what it is. To the Prime Minister may I say I was greatly taken by your observations when you were in Regina and visited my parents' humble home. I think it was an aphorism which will last for a long time. It was spontaneous, courteous, and humorous: "Sometimes when he is in the House I wish he were living here".
However, I want to tell the Prime Minister that from now on until further notice I am going to be the soul of moderation and I am going to await the arrival of the several ministers in absentia. I will do all this with that customary moderation that I always endeavour to display, but in greater form than heretofore, until I give further notice.
After the kind words that have been spoken here I think of the fact that in the years ahead each of those who has been prime minister will have a monument on parliament hill.
The Prime Minister mentioned my boyhood home. My father was a teacher who, in his day and generation, taught two who eventually became Prime Ministers of Canada, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King and me. History will tell in which case he did the worst job!
I think of the unveilings which will take place in the years ahead, and if the spirit that is present here today becomes translated into sculpture I can see the Prime Minister and me arm in arm with Lafontaine and Baldwin on parliament hill.
I understood originally that the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson was also to be present on this occasion but circumstances have prevented his being here. Perhaps it would have been better if he had been here, since it may well be that the words of Benjamin Franklin uttered in 1775 may apply, where he said. "If

October 9, 1968
you do not hang together you will hang separately".
The present occasion, for one in my position, is a touching experience. In the spirit of the occasion we see a manifestation of the spirit of parliament. Those who know not parliament do not realize that in the cross-fire of daily parliamentary life we, and I am speaking for all of us, form an immense admiration for those who sit opposite us. We may disagree on the course that should be followed; our views on many matters may differ, yet there is one matter on which we all agree: There is no institution to compare with parliament for the preservation of values and truth.
It is not for me to judge the quality of Mr. Horne's portrait or to offer my opinion about it. I may say that, considering the subject matter the artist had available to him, he did a magnificent job. I thank the Prime Minister for his courtesy. It may be appropriate to say that perhaps some measure of masculine pulchritude made it possible for the placing of my portrait here. The efforts of those who in the past produced portraits, drawings and caricatures of me will be obliterated by the realistic skills that Mr. Horne has brought to bear in producing the portrait that is before us.
Parliament is the place where we form deep and abiding affections for those who sit opposite us. We know the contribution they are making and the responsibilities they bear. I want to say to you, Mr. Prime Minister, that though you, who in common with 14 other men who have been termed prime minister of Canada, are adept at asking questions, in the last few weeks you have shown an adeptness at answering them that does
honour to you, and perhaps not so much to those of us who have put the questions.
I wish to thank all who are present here, our leader for his kind words and Mr. Speaker for that capacity which he possesses in such abounding measure-his kindliness and courtesy. To you again, Mr. Prime Minister, from the bottom of my heart, I express my appreciation.
After all, we are here for one purpose, whether we were raised in humbleness, or in circumstances which no one could expect would lead to the highest office of state. Whatever our background, to sum up the situation in a way which appeals to me, each of us in this country without regard to race, religion or colour, has an opportunity for service. It is up to us in our day and generation to play our part in bringing about a greater, more wonderful Canada such, as in our imagination, we can see today.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank you for your cordial welcome.


Mr. Speaker:: Before closing, ladies and gentlemen, may I transmit to you the regrets which were sent to me earlier by the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson that he could not be here today because of a long-standing invitation to address the Canadian club in Toronto. It will be his turn to be honoured very soon; we hope this ceremony will be held next week, but you will be advised in advance.
I take the opportunity to extend an invitation to my colleagues; I hope to see them in the railway committee room at seven o'clock, when we have another important function to perform.

Thursday, Oclober 10, 1968