1968-09-30

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The government has now received a reply to its letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations. I should like to table copies. In view of the interest shown in this subject I wonder whether the house would wish to have this reply, together with the original letter which was tabled in the House of Commons earlier, printed as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house wish these documents to be printed? Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of letters referred to above, see appendix.]


PLUTONIUM-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SALE TO FRANCE
Mitchell William Sharp: Officials of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the French Commissariat a PEnergie Atomique have for some time been engaged in discussions in order to work out satisfactory arrangements for the sale to France of plutonium produced in the Canadian nuclear power reactors at Rolphton and Douglas Point, Ontario. These arrangements have been completed and have now been approved by both the government of France and the government of Canada.
The French Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique has undertaken intensive research in the development of plutonium burning, fast breeder, nuclear power reactors. Although France is able to fill some of her requirements for plutonium domestically, additional quantities are required in order not to delay the development program. Current Canadian programs, on the other hand, do not fully utilize the plutonium being produced in our reactors. Discussions between the French Commissariat and A.E.C.L. on the possible
supply of plutonium from Canada, therefore, came as a natural outcome of the collaboration between the two government agencies.
It is a long standing policy of the Canadian government that nuclear materials be exported from Canada for peaceful purposes only. With the full agreement of the French government it has been decided that the plutonium which will be used in the French civil nuclear program will be transferred to France under the provisions of the agreement between Canada and the European Atomic Energy Community, of which France is of course a member. This agreement provides for the application of EURATGM safeguards, and for procedures whereby Canada may obtain assurance that the Community's safeguards and control system is satisfactory and effective for any material transferred under the agreement from Canada to the member states of EUR ATOM. The role is fully compatible with Canada's signature of the test ban treaty and of the NPT.
I	should also like to point out that the agreement concluded between Canada and India in 1963 regarding the construction of a nuclear power station in Rajasthan, India, similar to the Douglas Point nuclear power station, provided for reciprocal bilateral safeguards on the Rajasthan and Douglas Point nuclear power stations and any special nuclear materials produced in them. The government of India has therefore been consulted regarding the safeguards arrangements to be applied on transfers to France of plutonium produced in the Douglas Point nuclear power station.
Mr. R. Gordon L. Fairweather (Fundy
Royal): The statement just made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is interesting. It would be better, of course, if spokesmen for other parties had been given some warning so that useful comment could be made.
I am sure this party is delighted to know that emphasis has been placed on non-military use, and also that there is provision for full inspection. I hope France has been urged to sign the non-proliferation treaty.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we should simply like to congratulate the government on having taken

September 30, 1968
Proposed Legislation
a firm stand in connection with these arrangements, namely its insistence on the provision that the plutonium we are to export will be used for peaceful purposes only.
While I am on my feet I think it might be useful to suggest once more to this minister and to all ministers that when statements of this nature are to be made on motions it would be an act of courtesy if copies were provided to spokesmen of opposition parties.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. Real Caouetie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we are happy also to hear the minister's statement to the effect that the plutonium transaction with France has been concluded. It is true that, for some years, the Canadian government's policy had been to refrain from any transaction if that metal was to be used for war purposes. But since the French government gave the assurance that this plutonium will be used for peaceful purposes, in France as well as throughout the world, I feel that the Canadian government deserves to be congratulated on its firm stand.
Like those who spoke before me, I would ask the minister concerned and his cabinet colleagues to let us know before hand when they have important announcements to make to the house in order that we may be able to express more easily that we have to say on those various subjects.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Viateur Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-106, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-107, to amend the Canada Elections Act (political affiliations of candidates on ballot papers).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PUBLICATION OF STATUTES ACT


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-2 (from the Senate), to amend the Publication of Statutes Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT


Hon. Robert K. Andras (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to provide for membership on the board of an officer of the national museums of Canada, and to provide also that the remuneration paid to members of the board appointed by the Governor in Council for attending at meetings or to other business of the board shall be fixed by the Governor in Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to prevent the introduction or spreading of pests injurious to plants, to provide therein that the Governor in Council may make regulations in connection therewith, inter alia, providing for the establishment of inspection and treatment centres and quarantine stations, the conduct of pest surveys and the treatment of infested areas, and the awarding of compensation for matter destroyed or prohibited or restricted from sale, and to provide for appeals from compensation awards.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide compensation to farmers whose agricultural
September 30, 1968

products are contaminated by pesticide residue, and to provide for appeals from compensation awards.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act to remove from the act the amounts of compensation specified for horses and cattle slaughtered pursuant to the act, and to permit the Governor in Council to prescribe maximum amounts for such compensation; to provide also for an appeal by the owners of animals slaughtered where no compensation or less compensation than the maximum prescribed is awarded to the owners.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Caouetie: 1.	Does the Department of Agriculture pay an export incentive subsidy to cheese producers in Canada?
2.	If so, what was the total amount paid in each province in the last three years?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1.	No. The Canadian Dairy Commission pays an export subsidy on Cheddar cheese exported to Britain through its export equalization fund established by a deduction from the direct milk subsidy payments made to producers of manufacturing milk in Canada.
2.	Export subsidies on cheese for the past three years totalled:	1965-66,	$1,065,492;
1966-67, $1,349,731; 1967-68, $1,554,300.
Export statistics are maintained on a national basis only and it is not possible to identify the province of origin of the cheese exported. It is estimated, however, that approximately 25 per cent of the cheddar chese exported to Britain is of Quebec manufacture and the balance mainly from Ontario.
Questions


REFIT BIDS FOR GOVERNMENT SHIP &quot;NEW LISKEARD&quot;
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Has the government reversed its policy of calling for competitive bids on the refit of government-owned Canadian ships and, if so, on what date was the change announced by Cabinet?
2.	Were competitive bids called for the refit of the government research vessel New Liskeard?
3.	What are the names of the refit yards bidding on this work and the name of the successful contractor?
4.	Who determined the nature of the repairs required on the New Liskeard and the amount of money to be spent for this work?
5.	Is the New Liskeard presently under refit and, if so, what is the name of the company doing the work?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Defence Production):: 1. No. The government has not reversed its policy of calling competitive bids for the refit of government owned vessels. The shipbuilding procurement policy approved by cabinet in July 1965 is still applicable.
2.	Yes. An invitation to tender was issued on September 20, 1968.
3.	The following firms received the invitation to tender. Canadian Vickers Shipyards Limited, Montreal, Quebec; Davie Shipbuilding Limited, Lauzon, Quebec; Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation Ltd., Halifax Shipyards Division, Halifax, N.S.; Ferguson Industries Limited, Pictou, N.S.; Lunenburg Foundry and Engineering Limited, Lunenburg, N.S.; Marine Industries Limited, Sorel, Quebec; Newfoundland Dockyard (CNR), St. John's Newfoundland; Newfoundland Marine Works, Marys-town, Newfoundland; North Sydney Marine Railway Co. Limited, North Sydney, N.S.; Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. Ltd., Saint John, N.B.; Steel and Engine Products Ltd., Halifax, N.S.; Sydney Engineering and Dry Dock Co. Limited, Sydney, N.S.
4.	The Department of National Defence.
5.	No. The closing date for bids mentioned in part 2 is October 10, 1968.


REGULAR FORCE INFANTRY BATTALIONS
Mr. Harkness: 1.	As of July 1, 1968 (a) how many infantry battalions were there in the Canadian Regular Forces (b) what are the names and strength of each of these (c) what was the war establishment of each of these?
2.	What is the new war establishment of each of these infantry battalions to be consequent upon the announced reduction in the number of companies?

September 30, 1968
Questions
3.	Have any of these battalions been disbanded, or are to be disbanded?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. and 2. It is not considered to be in the public interest to divulge war establishments of military units, nor is it departmental policy to release individual unit strengths. However, as of July 1, 1968, there were Infantry battalions, viz:	1 RCR; 2 RCR;
1	PPCLI; 2 PPCLI; 1 RHC; 2 RHC; 1 CDNGds;
2	CDNGds; 1 R22eR; 2 R22eR; 3 R22eR; 1 QOR of C; 2 QOR of C; with a total strength of 8,557.
3.	None has been disbanded but 2 QOR of C was reduced to nil strength effective August 15, 1968 and 1 CDNGds will be reduced to nil strength effective October 1, 1968.


REGULAR FORCE ENGINEER UNITS
Mr. Harkness: 1.	As of July 31, 1968 (a) how many engineer squadrons or companies were there in the Canadian Regular Forces (b) what are the names and strength of each of these (e) what was the war establishment of each of these?
2.	What strength does the proposed new war establishment provide for engineer squadrons or companies?
3.	Have any of these squadrons or companies been disbanded, or are to be disbanded?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. and 2. It is not considered to be in the public interest to divulge war establishments of military units, nor is it departmental policy to release individual unit strengths. However, as of July 1, 1968, there were four engineer squadrons, viz: 1 Fd Sqn; 2 Fd Sqn;
3	Fd Sqn; 4 Fd Sqn; with a total strength of 1173.
3.	No.


REGULAR FORCE SIGNAL UNITS
Mr. Harkness: 1.	As of July 31, 1968 (a) how many signal squadrons or companies were there in the Canadian Regular Forces (b) what are the names and strength of each of these (c) what was the war establishment of each of these?
2.	What strength does the proposed new war establishment provide for signal squadrons or companies?
3.	Have any of these squadrons or companies been disbanded, or are to be disbanded?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. and 2. It is not considered to be in the public interest to divulge war establishments of military units, nor is it departmental

policy to release individual unit strengths. However, as of July 1, 1968, there were eight signal squadrons, or companies, viz: 1 Sig. sqn.; 2 Sig. sqn.; 3 Sig. sqn.; 4 Sig. sqn.; 6 Sig. sqn.; 1 Cdn. sig. regt.; 1 Sig. unit; 1 Line tp.; with a total strength of 1,132.
3.	One sig. unit was disbanded August 31, 1968 and its personnel incorporated in one Cdn. sig. regt.


REGULAR FORCE R.C.E.M.E. UNITS
Mr. Harkness: 1.	As of July 31, 1968, what RCEME units and detachments were assigned to active fighting units and formations, and what was their strength?
2.	What will be the war establishment of these RCEME units and detachments consequent upon the reductions in strength announced for armoured, artillery and infantry units?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. and 2. It is not considered to be in the public interest to divulge war establishments of military units, nor is it departmental policy to release individual unit strengths. R.C.E.M.E. personnel assigned to active fighting units are no longer identifiable as organizational entities. However, as of July 1, 1968, there were 3 field workshops with a total strength of 680. These workshops, as such, will be absorbed into service battalions.


REGULAR FORCE ARTILLERY REGIMENTS
Mr. Harkness: 1.	As of July 1, 1968 (a) how many artillery regiments were there in the Canadian Regular Forces (b) what are the names and strength of each of these (c) what was the war establishment of each of these?
2.	What is the new war establishment of each of these artillery regiments to be consequent upon the announced reduction in the number of batteries?
3.	Have any of these regiments been disbanded, or are to be disbanded?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1 and 2. It is not considered to be in the public interest to divulge war establishments of military units, nor is it departmental policy to release individual unit strengths. However, as of June 30, 1968, there were four artillery regiments and four artillery batteries, viz:	1 RCHA; 2 RCHA; 3 RCHA; 4
RCHA; 1 SSM Bty; 2 SSM Bty; 3 RCHA XBty; 1 Loc Bty; with a total strength of 2,881.
3. One Loc Bty was disbanded July 1, 1968, and 2 SSM Bty, 1 September, 1968.
September 30, 1968


USE OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL
Mr, Harkness: As of July 31, 1968 (a) how many officers and men of the Canadian Forces were serving in fighting units of the forces (i.e. ships, battalions, regiments, air squadrons, etc.) (b) how many personnel were engaged in administrative, training and other non-fighting jobs?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: All personnel of Canada's armed forces are trained for combat duties. It is difficult to distinguish between personnel engaged in "fighting jobs" as opposed to "nonfighting jobs". However, as of July 1, 1968, out of 99,817, there were approximately 9,900 and 23,400 combat officers and men respectively performing administrative, training, and other related duties.


REGULAR FORCE ARMOURED UNITS
Mr. Harkness: 1.	As of July 31, 1968 (a) how many armoured regiments were there in the Canadian Regular Forces (b) what are the names and strength of each of these (c) what was the war establishment of each of these?
2.	What is the new war establishment of each
of these armoured regiments to be upon the announced reduction in the squadrons?	consequent number of
Contractor	Amos $ Nil
Jean Boutin, Lac Lemoyne, Quebec	
Econo Heating, Ottawa, Ontario	40,170.00
Robert Dumas, Malartic, Quebec	42,840.00
L. D. Pilon, Noranda, Quebec	56,880.00
Drouin, Allard Inc., Amos, Quebec	59,635.20
Gagnon-Gelinas Enr., Rouyn, Quebec	Nil
Jean B. Boutin, Inc., Amos, Quebec	65,568.00
3. Contracts were awarded to Econo Heating for the Amos and Rouyn projects, and to Jean Boutin (Lac Lemoyne) for the Val d'Or project.
Questions
3.	Have any of these regiments been disbanded, or are to be disbanded?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1 and 2. It is not considered to be in the public interest to divulge war establishments of military units, nor is it departmental policy to release individual unit strengths. However, as of July 1, 1968, there were four armoured regiments and two armoured squadrons, viz: RCD; 8 CH; C Sqd 8 CH; LDSH RC; FGH; FGH Recce Sqn; with a total strength of 2094.
3. No.


TENDERS FOR HEATING SYSTEMS, VAL D'OR, ROUYN AND AMOS, QUE.
Mr. Caouelle: 1.	What are the names of the contractors who answered a call for tenders by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in July, 1968, for the installation of heating systems in Val d'Or, Rouyn and Amos?
2.	What was the amount of the tender in each case?
3.	To which firm did the Corporation award the contract or contracts for each of the said projects in Val d'Or, Rouyn and Amos?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: 1 and 2.
Project and amount of bid
Val d'Or	Rouyn
$	$
28,700.00	Nil
30,752.05	6,858.00
34,440.00	8,820.00
40,180.00	10,740.00
Nil	Nil
Nil	10,360.32
Nil	Nil


TENTS AND PORTABLE COTTAGES, PRINCE ALBERT NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development received representations

September 30, 1968
Questions
from the Cabin Tent and Portable Cottage Association and/or the Provincial Government of Saskatchewan requesting that the order made to discontinue shack tents and portable cottages of the Prince Albert National Park in the National Park should be revoked?
2.	Will the government give reconsideration to the decision made in this regard?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes. The members of this association have expressed concern lest the department revoke annual permits and summarily evict their members from the park. Nothing can be further from the truth. The department has not issued any such order. Effective May 1 new permits will not be issued for cabin tents but all persons who held permits in 1967 will be permitted to renew these annually for as long as they desire. The purpose is to permit long range development of prime public lands occupying the best beach areas in the park for the benefit of all visitors.
2. N. A.


ARMED FORCES PENSION FUND
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to initiate action to tie the serviceman's pension to the cost of living index and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, when?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to initiate measures to use the pension fund to improve pensions for servicemen, decrease the contributions now required of servicemen, harness the fund's growth for any purpose which may provide greater benefits to the serviceman, in each case, and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to allow this pension fund growth to continue indefinitely,
without adjustment, and, if so, does the government intend to use the fund for purposes other than those for which the fund was established, if not, what does the government intend to do with the growing fund's net surplus?
4.	Is this pension fund capable of sustaining the increase that would result from tying the pension of those now serving in the Armed Forces to the cost of living index, without increasing the financial burden to the taxpayer, and, if not, for what reason?
5.	What is the average number of monthly pension payments being made to a serviceman from his retirement to death?
6.	What is the current life expectancy of the male and female respectively, statistically?
7.	Will the government consider adopting measures to tie the pension of servicemen to the cost of living index and, if not, for what reason?
8.	Will the government consider adopting measures to tie the pension fund to improve pensions for servicemen, decrease the contributions now required of servicemen, harness the fund's growth for any purpose, provide greater benefits to the servicemen, and in each case if not, for what reason?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. The government is still studying its position on introducing amendments to the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act.
2.	No.
3.	As indicated in the report on actuarial examination of the Canadian forces superannuation account in the consolidated revenue fund as at December 31, 1965, which was tabled in the house on September 12, 1968, and the deficiency reported therein, there is no surplus available to use the fund for any other purpose than that for which the statute provides.
4.	No.
5.	and 6.
Average number of monthly pension
Members of the	payments from re-	Current lifeforces retiring at	tirement to death	expectancyAge	Male	Female	Male	Female40	396	499	32.96	37.4545	342	394	28.49	32.8250	291	340	24.25	28.3355	244	288	20.30	24.017.	See reply to 1. above.8.	In view of the deficiency reported in this latest valuation, there is no surplus available to carry out any of these measures.



Mr. Forreslall: 1.	(a) What is the current cost to the public for training a transport pilot, a combat pilot, a radio navigator, a dentist, a medical officer and
September 30, 1968



a lawyer (b) what were the total training costs to the public in each category for 1966 and 1967?
2.	What was the value of the servicemen's pension fund in the fiscal years 1965-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, respectively, and what is the current value?
3.	During these same periods, how much has the servicemen's pension fund paid out to retired service personnel, and how many officers and men respectively were paid?
4.	For the same years, how much money was paid into the pension fund by servicemen, and how many officers and men were involved?
5.	What was the growth rate of this pension fund for the same periods and what is the current interest rate applicable to the fund for calculation of the annual growth?
6.	Is it the intention of the government to initiate action to obtain professional pay for the Engineers of the Armed Forces and, if not, for what reason, and if so, when?
7.	Will the government consider adopting measures to establish and provide professional pay for Engineers in the Service?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. (a) Transport pilot, $112,500; Combat pilot, $197,000; Radio navigator, $90,900. In so far as a dentist, medical officer and a lawyer are concerned, the cost of their training is for the training they undergo when entering the service to become officers, having completed their professional training prior to entry. This amounts to approximately $3,500 per officer. It is not possible to isolate the individual cost under the subsidization scheme whereby medical and dental officers are assisted in completing their professional studies, (b) The accounting and financial system within the department is not designed to produce this data.
2.	January 1, 1968, $2,686,160,343.
3.	(a) January 1, 1968, $37,469,385.
See Hansard 5/12/66 page 10701, and 22/11/67 page 4562, for balance of reply to
2 and 3	(a).			
(b)	Officers	Men1964-65	4,075	8,7621965-66	4,972	11,3381966-67	5,690	13,610Jan. 1,	1968	6,106	14,8134. (a)	(b)	(Estimated)	Officers	Men1964-65	$35,431,743	16,768	98,0241965-66	34,391,596	16,003	91,8341966-67	25,349,494	15,651	87,693Jan. 1,	1963	26,853,077	16,388	86,3145.	See Hansard 5/12/66 page 10701.6.	This question was considered at the time of the 1966 pay reviews and the decision made
29180-36J
Questions
that the pay rates for regular line officers are appropriate for officers qualified as engineers.
7.	No.


OWNERSHIP OF LABRADOR
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Has the federal government received protests from Quebec about Labrador?
2.	Has the federal government carried out, or is it carrying out or does it intend to carry out a study on the problem of the ownership of Labrador?
3.	What is the position of the federal government on the Quebec-Newfoundland dispute over ownership of Labrador?
4.	Has the federal government held discussions with the Government of Newfoundland about Labrador and, if so, what was the nature of these discussions?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	The question was decided by the judicial committee of the Privy Council in 1927.
4.	No.


CHANGES IN RURAL MAIL SERVICE
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many rural post offices in Canada have been closed or are to be closed in the remainder of the present fiscal year and since June 25, 1968?
2.	How many rural routes have been cancelled by the Post Office Department or are to be cancelled by the Post Office Department in the present fiscal year and since June 25, 1968?
3.	How many extensions to existing rural routes have been approved since June 25, 1968, that involve the cancellation of existing rural routes?
fTranslation]


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: 1.	Sixty-four Rural Post Offices have been closed during the present fiscal year, and it is expected that approximately 250 additional Rural Post Offices will be closed in the remainder of the fiscal year. All closings have taken place since June 25, 1968.
2.	Fifty-six Rural Routes were discontinued since April 1, 1968, and it is not known how many more may be discontinued during the remainder of the fiscal year. Of these 56, 28 were discontinued since June 25, 1968.
3.	Extensions and rearrangements to 27 existing Rural Routes have been approved since June 25, 1968, to serve the patrons of the Rural Routes discontinued since that date.
Questions

September 30, 1968


AIRPORT ACCOMMODATION FOR SUPERSONIC TRANSPORTS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What are the lengths of the longest runways at Gander, Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver airports?
2.	Has the Department of Transport carried out studies to determine which, if any, of the above airports could accommodate supersonic transports thereinafter referred to as SST's) ?
3.	If so, what are the results of such studies with regard to (a) length of runways, and (b) weightcarrying capacities, of each airport?
4.	Who is carrying out the SST studies by the Department, and approximately how much money is being spent on same?
5.	Do such studies consider the noise nuisances created by SST's, and methods of overcoming the same?
6.	If the noise level is considered excessive to humans and domestic and wild life (a) is the Department considering the location of SST airfields where such nuisance would have a minimum effect, or (b) is it considering a legislative ban on flights, because of such circumstances?
7.	When are SST's expected to be ready for regular commercial travel?
8.	What is the average amount of time that is taken in Canada to develop new airports, or to make drastic alterations to older ones (with examples) ?


Hon. James Richardson (Acting Minister of Transport):: 1. Gander (8,900 feet), Halifax (8,800 feet), Montreal (11,000 feet), Toronto (11,050 feet), Winnipeg (11,000 feet), Calgary (12,675 feet), Edmonton (11,000 feet) and Vancouver (10,600 feet).
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) Preliminary manufacturer's performance specifications indicate that sea-level runway lengths of 10,500 feet (Concorde) and 7,650 feet (Boeing 2707) would be required when operating at maximum gross take off weights.
(b) With respect to weight loadings not all runways and taxiways at the specified airports would be capable of handling SST aircraft, however, each of the eight airports has at least one runway and adequate connecting taxiways to permit SST operations.
4.	A Department of Transport Air Services SST study group, in consort with the air services aviation systems planning group, is monitoring all developments of the SST programs and adapting Department of Transport planning techniques and philosophies to meet the emerging requirements. Consultations with major air carriers and manufacturers are held on a regular basis for exchange
[Mr. Kierans.l
and coordination of all pertinent information. Canada is also represented on the International Civil Aviation Organization technical panel on supersonic transport operations by an official member from the Department of Transport.
No direct expenditures are incurred by these studies. Members of the study teams are regular air services employees.
5.	Yes. This is an international problem being studied vigorously by all concerned. In the Department of Transport a sonic boom/noise "subcommittee" of the SST study group is engaged in continuing studies related to the over-all assessment of these problems.
6.	Considerable research is being conducted in the United States and United Kingdom on the physiological effects of noise and sonic-boom overpressures on human and animal life. These and many other studies are being closely monitored by the SST study group subcommittee on sonic boom/noise.
(a)	Locating SST airports in remote areas would certainly be given consideration if results of the research studies suggested this course of action. Hopefully, technological advances will preclude this necessity.
(b)	The Department of Transport has every intention of protecting citizens, animal life, and property from any inherent dangers associated with the noise and sonic-boom phenomena generated by SST aircraft. Under the authority of The Aeronautics Act (part I) a regulation has already been promulgated which states that "No aircraft shall be flown in such a manner as to create a shock wave, the effect of which is to create or likely to create a hazard to other aircraft or to persons or property on the ground." (The air regulations, part V, para. 515.(c))
7.	As near as can be determined the Concorde would enter commercial service in early 1972 and the Boeing 2707 in late 1976.
8.	Airports range in size and complexity from a simple, small, single runway to a sophisticated international airport with a complex and intricate system of runways and facilities. The former could take up to two years to complete from land acquisition to completion, while the latter could require anywhere from five to seven years. Pitt Meadows, B.C. fits into the first category (two years) and Edmonton international airport the second category (seven years). On the other hand Toronto and Montreal international airports as well as other major airports are constantly undergoing changes, alterations and
September 30, 1968

modifications to keep pace with the unprecedented growth rate of passenger and air cargo traffic.


CELEBRATION OF BATTLE OF BRITAIN
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Did members of the Canadian Armed Forces take part in ceremonial parades and church services marking the Battle of Britain and, if so, in what centre or centres?
2.	Were wreaths placed by the Canadian Armed Forces in such memorial services on Battle of Britain Sunday?
3.	Has the role of the members of the Canadian Armed Forces been restricted or eliminated with reference to Battle of Britain observances and, if so, on what authority?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Yes, as follows: (a) Ceremonial parades and church services were held at CFS Sydney, Moncton, Chibougamau, CFS Lac St. Denis, CFS Moisie, CFB North Bay, Ottawa, CFS Moosonee, Kapuskasing, CFS Falconbridge, Toronto, CFB Winnipeg, CFS Gypsumville, CFS Beausejour, Moose Jaw, CFS Yorkton, CFS Alsask, CFB Penhold, CFS Dana, CFS Beaverlodge, CFS Holberg, CFS Kamloops, CFB Comox, Victoria, (b) Special church services were held at CFS Gander, CFB Greenwood, CFB Summerside, CFB Halifax, CFB Shearwater, CFB Cornwallis, CFB Chatham, CFS Val d'Or, CFS Mont Apica, CFB St. Hubert, CFS La Macaza, CFS Sioux Lookout, CFS Armstrong, CFS Senne-terre, CFS Ramore, CFB Portage La Prairie, CPB Cold Lake, CFS Baldy Hughes, Venture Division Fleet School Esquimalt, 1 Air Division Europe, (c) Ceremonial parades were held at Saint John, Bathurst, Chatham, CFB St. Jean, Goderich, Peteborough, Brandon, Edmonton.
2.	Yes, at Moncton, Saint John, Bathurst, Chatham, Ottawa, Kapuskasing, Peterborough, Toronto, Brandon, Gimli, Moose Jaw and Edmonton.
3.	No.


BANK OF WESTERN CANADA
Mr. Paproski: 1.	What is the present status of the Bank of Western Canada which was chartered by Parliament over two years ago?
2.	Is it in process of liquidation and, if so, has or will the charter be surrendered and when?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.	A special general meeting of shareholders
Questions
of the Bank of Western Canada held on September 14, 1987 voted in favour of winding up the Bank. A winding up order pursuant to the provisions of the Winding-up Act was issued by the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench on October 30, 1967 and the Clarkson Company appointed as liquidator. On February 1, 1968, the liquidator made a payment to shareholders of $13 per share. On August 14, 1968 it was announced that the liquidator expected to make a final payment to shareholders in October 1968 and that the expected amount of that payment was between $1.60 and $1.75 per share.
2.	As indicated in the answer to question number 1, the Bank of Western Canada is still in the process of liquidation. The Bank Act is the charter of each bank named in schedule A of that Act. The name of a bank remains in schedule A until it is removed by act of parliament. If a bank's capital has been returned to its shareholders in the process of liquidation, in view of the provisions of section 37 of the Bank Act, such a bank would be unable to use its charter without specific government authorization.


HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, SCARBOROUGH TOWNSHIP, ONT.
Mr. Brewin: 1.	What is the present status of plans to develop housing on the approximately one thousand acres at Malvern in Scarborough Township on the property acquired by the federal-provincial partnership in 1953 for housing?
2.	Have definite plans been made for provision of services and on what date is it anticipated that the actual housing will be built and available for occupation?
3.	Are any of the houses to be made available to Ontario Housing Corporation or other authorities for public housing?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	Following a feasibility study, sponsored jointly by the federal-provincial partners in 1967, consultants were appointed in March 1968 to prepare a development plan for the Malvern Lands. Provided a plan of subdivision can be registered by mid-1969 it is expected that the installation of services will be underway by the end of that year.
2.	The appointed consultants have responsibility for the design of services and supervision of their installation, the timing of which is covered in 1 above. Actual house construction will follow immediately on the installation of services.
3.	Yes.

September 30, 1968
Questions


WINTER WORKS PROJECTS
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What was the total amount of money paid out by the federal government for Winter Works Projects in the fiscal years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 for the cities of (a) St. John's (b) Halifax (c) St. John (d) Quebec (e) Montreal (f) Toronto (g) Winnipeg (h) Regina (i) Calgary (j) Edmonton?
2.	How many man-days of labour were provided
by Winter Works Projects in each of the above cities during the fiscal years, 1965-66,	1966-67,
1967-68?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Figures by fiscal year are not available. The following are given for the program in the winters of 1965-66, 1966-67 and 196768. Those for 1967-68 are estimated since some claims are still outstanding.
1965-66	1966-67	(estimated) 1967-68(a)	$150,301.82	$49,259.70	$44,896.00(b)	45,281.33	14,864.55	8,670.00(c)	274,162.09	55,181.06	109,200.00(d)	265,112.01	172,166.14	437,491.00(e)	761,626.12	602,188.47	764,635.00(f)	1,718,576.52	1,320,427.49	1,117,736.00(g)	310,136.48	338,870.57	510,648.00(h)	59,055.34	64,022.06	12,103.00(i)	406,719.25	436,122.56	386,836.00(j>	727,057.82	564,889.99	539,857.00(a)	21,054	6,288	4,944(b)	5,028	1,676	1,156(c)	28,450	5,492	11,424(d)	1,622	15,673	39,862(e)	8,236	47,406	53,854(f)	181,716	97,282	76,389(g>	34,459	48,588	50,516(h)	7,432	6,510	1,287(i)	40,862	53,072	37,369(j)	71,653	38,105	45,711


WINTER WORKS PROJECTS, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What was the total amount of money paid out by the federal government for Winter Works Projects in Newfoundland in the fiscal years (a) 1965-66 (b) 1966-67 (c) 1967-68?
2.	How many man-days of labour were provided by Winter Works Projects in Newfoundland during the fiscal years (a) 1965-66 (b) 1966-67 (c) 1967-68?


Gérard Loiselle: Figures by fiscal year are not available. The following are given for the program in the winters of 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. [Mr. Hellyer.l
Those for 1967-68 are estimated since some claims are still outstanding. 1. (a) $341,788.42; (b) $225,962.36; (c) $140,000 (estimated).
2.	(a)	43,395;	(b)	32,875;	(c)	20,460
(estimated).


WINTER WORKS PROJECTS, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What was the total amount of money paid out by the federal government for Winter Works Projects in Prince Edward Island in the fiscal years (a) 1965-66 (b) 1966-67 (c) 1967-68?
2.	How many man-days of labour were provided by Winter Works Projects in Prince Edward Island during the fiscal years (a) 1965-66 (b) 1966-67 (c) 1967-68?


Gérard Loiselle: Figures by fiscal year are not available. The following are given for the program in the winters of 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. Those for 1967-68 are estimated since some claims are still outstanding. 1. (a) $427,176.54; (b) $644,887.13; (c) $202,000 (estimated).
2.	(a)	76,989;	(b)	107,885;	(c)	27,539
(estimated).


WINTER WORKS PROJECTS, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What was the total amount of money paid
out by the federal government for Winter Works Projects in Nova Scotia in the fiscal years (a) 1965-66	(b)	1966-67	(c)	1967-68?
2.	How many man-days of labour were provided by Winter Works Projects in Nova Scotia during the fiscal years (a) 1965-66 (b) 1966-67 (c) 1967-68?


Gérard Loiselle: Figures by fiscal year are not available. The following are given for the program in the winters of 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. Those for 1967-68 are estimated since some claims are still outstanding. 1. (a) $430,138.61; (b) $377,831.42; (c) $60,000 (estimated).
2.	(a)	78,675;	(b)	59,502;	(c)	7,760
(estimated).


WINTER WORKS PROJECTS, QUEBEC
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What was the total amount of money paid out by the federal government for Winter Works Projects in Quebec in the fiscal years (a) 1965-66 (b) 1966-67 (c) 1967-68?
2.	How many man-days of labour were provided by Winter Works Projects in Quebec during the fiscal years (a) 1965-66 (b) 1966-67 (c) 1967-68?
September 30, 1968


Gérard Loiselle: Figures by fiscal year are not available. The following are given for the program in the winters of 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. Those for 1967-68 are estimated since some claims are still outstanding. 1.	(a)
$22,712,086.21; (b) $16,379,469.03; (c) $13,457,000 (estimated).
2. (a) 2,910,883; (b) 1,977,388; (c) 1,531,159 (estimated).


WINTER WORKS PROJECTS, ONTARIO
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What was the total amount of money paid out by the federal government for Winter Works Projects in Ontario in the fiscal years (a) 1965-66 (b) 1966-67 (c) 1967-68?
2.	How many man-days of labour were provided
by Winter Works Projects in Ontario during the fiscal years (a) 1965-66 (b) 1966-67	(c)	1967-68?


Gérard Loiselle: Figures by fiscal year are not available. The following are given for the program in the winters of 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. Those for 1967-68 are estimated since some claims are still outstanding. 1. (a) $6,946,111.98; (b) $6,619,649.24; (c) $5,398,000 (estimated).
2. (a) 636,803; (b) 564,486; (c) 396,620 (estimated).


WINTER WORKS PROJECTS, MANITOBA
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What was the total amount of money paid out by the federal government for Winter Works Projects in Manitoba for the fiscal years (a) 1965-66 (b) 1966-67 (c) 1967-68?
2.	How many man-days of labour were provided by Winter Works Projects in Manitoba during the fiscal years (a) 1965-66 (b) 1966-67 (c) 1967-68?


Gérard Loiselle: Figures by fiscal year are not available. The following are given for the program in the winters of 1965-1966, 1966-67 and 1967-68. Those for 1967-68 are estimated since some claims are still outstanding. 1. (a) $851,642.22; (b) $1,036,516.81; (c) $834,000 (estimated).
2. (a) 93,933; (b) 115,977; (c) 91,052 (estimated) .


WINTER WORKS PROJECTS, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. MacRae: 1. What was the total amount of money paid out by the federal government for Winter Works
Questions
Projects in Saskatchewan in the fiscal years (a) 1965-66 (b) 1966-67 (c) 1967-68?
2. How many man-days of labour were provided by Winter Works Projects in Saskatchewan during the fiscal years (a) 1965-66 (b) 1966-67 (c) 1967-68?


Gérard Loiselle: Figures by fiscal year are not available. The following are given for the program in the winters of 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. Those for 1967-68 are estimated since some claims are still outstanding. 1. (a) $2,062,999.49; (b) $1,253,846.26; (c) $676,000 (estimated).
2. (a) 240,408; (b) 145,165; (c) 74,737.


WINTER WORKS PROJECTS, ALBERTA
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What was the total amount of money paid out by the federal government for Winter Works Projects in Alberta in the fiscal years (a) 1965-66 (b) 1966-67 (c) 1967-68?
2.	How many man-days of labour were provided by Winter Works Projects in Alberta during the fiscal yeras (a) 1965-66 (b) 1966-67 (c) 1967-68?


Gérard Loiselle: Figures by fiscal year are not available. The following are given for the program in the winters of 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. Those for 1967-68 are estimated since some claims are still outstanding. 1. (a) $2,839,563.18; (b) $2,612,150.74; (c) $2,344,000 (estimated).
2. (a) 306,196; (b) 265,980; (c) 226,761 (estimated).


WINTER WORKS PROJECTS, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What was the total amount of money paid out by the federal government for Winter Works Projects in British Columbia in the fiscal years (a) 1965-66 (b) 1966-67 (c) 1967-68?
2.	How many man-days of labour were provided by Winter Works Projects in British Columbia during the fiscal years (a) 1965-66 (b) 1966-67 (c) 1967-68?


Gérard Loiselle: Figures by fiscal year are not available. The following are given for the program in the winters of 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. Those for 1967-68 are estimated since some claims are still outstanding. 1. (a) $3,643,372.88;	(b)	$2,695,834.42;	(c)	$2,165,000
(estimated).
2. (a)	300,210; (b) 211,145; (c) 164,631.

September 30, 1968
Questions


RECIPIENTS OF MILK SUBSIDY
Mr. Fortin: How many milk producers are registered and have received the subsidies granted by the federal government during the year 1967-68	(a) across
Canada (b) in each province (c) in the federal constituency of I.otbmicrc?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: (a) 143,766 producers; (b) P.E.I., 3,407; N.S., 2,131; N.B., 2,713; Que., 48,015; Ont., 31,240; Man., 13,820; Sask., 20,099; Alta., 21,654; B.C., 687. (c) Not available.


DUMPING OF U.S. POTATOES IN VANCOUVER MARKET
Mr. Rose: 1.	Has the Minister of Agriculture met recently with British Columbia and Alberta potato growers to discuss the question of the dumping of small No. 1 U.S.A. potatoes into the Vancouver Market below the Alberta production and shipping costs?
2.	If so, what was the date of this meeting?
3.	What action has the government taken in this matter?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. A meeting was held with representatives of potato producers in western Canada to discuss a request for imposition of value for duty on potato imports.
2.	August 27th.
3.	The government has applied a value for duty of $2.48 per cwt. on potatoes entering western Canada.


FARM LOAN APPLICATIONS, LOTBINIERE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many persons in the federal constituency of Lotbiniere made applications for farm loans in 1962-63-64-65-66-67-68?
2.	Of these applications, how many were (a) approved (b) rejected?
3.	What was the total value of the farm loans approved?
4.	In each parish of the federal constituency of Lotbiniere, what was the total number of loans approved and rejected?
5.	Of these, what was the total value of loans approved and rejected?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Farm Credit Corporation does not maintain statistical records on a constituency basis. However, the constituency of Lotbiniere is made up of part of the municipal counties of Lotbiniere, Arthabaska and Nicolet, for which municipal counties the answer is as follows:
1962-63	1963-64
1.	Applications:	192	2182.	(a) Approved:	127	136(b) Rejected:	65	823. Amount approved:	$1,543,200	1,513,400
Fiscal years
273
62
3,147,708
152
8
2,491,555
248
7
4,131,092
230
22
3,824,324
4.	Statistics are not maintained by parishes and therefore the information is not available.
5.	Answered by 4.


FARM CREDIT LOANS, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. MacLean: 1. How many loans were made by the Farm Credit Corporation in the province of Prince
1st
Quarter
1. No. of loans	36 $
2. (a) Smallest loan	3,700
(b) Largest loan	40,000
(c) Average loan	17,258
3. Total amount loaned	621,300
[Mr. Loiselle.l	
Edward Island during each quarter of the fiscal year 1967-68, and in the first quarter of the fiscal year 1968-69?
2.	What was the (a) smallest (b) largest (c) average, loan made in each quarter?
3.	What was the total amount loaned in each quarter?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Farm Credit Corporation advises as follows:
1967-68			1968-69
2nd	3rd	4th	1stQuarter	Quarter	Quarter	Quarter56	19	9	43$	$	$	$6,100	2,400	9,000	8,40040,000	47,500	45,400	40,60018,716	22,173	21,822	22,1251,048,100	421,300	196,400	951,400
September 30, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry NORMANDIN EXPERIMENTAL FARM,	of Roberval during the years 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967
ROBERVAL CONSTITUENCY	and 1968?
2. What were the expenditures of this farm in 
Question No. 232-Mr. Gauthier:	each year?
1. How many employees were employed by the	. ,	.
Normandin Experimental Farm in the constituency Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):
1963-64	1964-65	1965-661.	29	29	292.	$181,863	$170,718	$186,213


FARM CREDIT LOAN APPLICATIONS
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the total number of applications processed by the Farm Credit Corporation in the fiscal year 1967-68 and of that number how many were approved and what was the total amount of monies loaned?
2.	Of the total number of applications received, how many came from the four Atlantic Provinces and of the number processed, how many were approved and what was the total amount of the monies loaned?
3.	What was the percentage of applications for loans received from the four Atlantic Provinces and what was the percentage, of the total, of monies loaned in the four Atlantic Provinces?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Farm Credit Corporation advises as follows: 1. National 1967/68:
No. applications	processed	14,233
No. approved	11,954
Amount loaned	$251,228,049
2. Atlantic provinces 1967/68:
No. applications	received	337
No. approved	312
Amount loaned	$5,789,020
3.	Percentage of applications for loans 2.46 Percentage of total monies loaned 2.30


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of reports that the United States has asked its allies to increase their defence budgets I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether any such request has been made of Canada. If so, what has been the reply of the Canadian government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as Secretary
1966-67	1967-68	1968-6929	29	28$189,231	$199,837	$186,640	(estimated)
of State for External Affairs I received a note from the Secretary of State of the United States at the end of the week in which the United States expressed its views concerning what should be an adequate response by the NATO allies to the invasion of Czechoslovakia. There was also a comment in particular about the kind of response they would like Canada to make. No reply has as yet been made. I doubt very much whether a reply will be formally made.
All these matters are to be discussed at the NATO council. At that time Canada will indicate its general position.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask, simply for clarification, whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not prepared at this time to say what are the suggestions of the United States with regard to this matter.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I expect that as matters develop there will be an opportunity to be more specific about Canada's plans, but at the moment we have simply received these representations from the United States and they are under study. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to reveal them at the moment. They were presented to us in the form of a general view of the United States that there should be a firm response from the NATO allies to the invasion of Czechoslovakia.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: After the government has had an opportunity to consider the request will the Secretary of State for External Affairs be prepared to make a statement on this matter, giving the house this information?


Mitchell William Sharp: At the appropriate time, when the government has reached a conclusion as to the general plans, I am sure the house would expect me to reveal them and would expect that indeed there would be some debate on the matter.
September 30, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the report is correct that he will not be attending the meeting of the NATO foreign ministers? If that is correct, who will represent Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows he must ask the question directly, and must not ask the minister to either confirm or deny a report.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask whether the minister intends to be at the NATO foreign ministers conference which has now been called.


Mitchell William Sharp: The meeting which is to be held in New York is a meeting of the foreign ministers who will be in New York to attend the United Nations general assembly. Unfortunately the invitation I received was for a day for which I had made a prior engagement some months ago. I felt that I could not break this engagement because of the inconvenience I would thus cause to a great many people. However, I shall have an opportunity later to discuss with the same foreign ministers the subjects which will then be under discussion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs be represented at this meeting of NATO, and if so by Whom?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain this will be necessary. This is not a meeting of NATO; it is a dinner being put on by Dean Rusk of the United States to which he has invited the foreign ministers who happen to be there, but not all of us will be there.


EXTERNAL AID
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's announcement that he is willing to make aircraft available for relief aid to Biafra, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to outline the conditions under which the Canadian government will make these aircraft available?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could best answer by reading from the press release issued today as a result of my meeting with General Wrinch of the Canadian Red
[Mr. Sharp.)
Cross, held at the end of the week. In that press release I said:
-the government was prepared to facilitate these relief operations by providing a Canadian forces Hercules aircraft and crew to the Canadian Red Cross for participation as soon as practicable in relief operations in areas under the control of the Nigerian government.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, since these voluntary organizations have raised supplies and money, and in view of the fact that the major problem seems to involve the cost of paying for these aircraft, is the Canadian government prepared to finance the use of the Hercules aircraft?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I made it quite plain that the Canadian government is prepared to provide a Hercules aircraft for use in Nigerian territory.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether the Canadian Red Cross made any request to the government for assistance in their efforts to get relief supplies into the area of Nigeria that is controlled by the Biafrans.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that particular question I will give you the relevant sentence.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: How about making a statement on motions and dealing with this properly?


Mitchell William Sharp: I felt that I had made a number of statements on motions today. I am very happy to answer these questions if anyone wants the answers. This is the relevant portion:
General Wrinch and the minister exchanged views as to how Canada might contribute most effectively in meeting the immediate needs as well as those that might arise in the somewhat longer term. General Wrinch said that in view of the limited response to the public appeal made by the Nigeria-Blafra relief fund of Canada, neither the fund nor the Canadian Red Cross was able to meet the request of the international committee of the Red Cross for an aircraft to participate in the International Red Cross' relief operations.
It was following that that I said:
-the government was prepared to facilitate these relief operations by providing a Canadian forces Hercules aircraft and crew... in relief operations in areas under the control of the Nigerian government.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should have tabled this press release which resulted from the discussions I had with General Wrinch. I will be happy to do so in order that it will be on
September 30. 1968

record when I answer the question. Would the house be agreeable to reverting to motions for the purpose of filing these documents?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince
Albert): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether about three weeks ago UNICEF asked the Canadian government to provide aircraft to get food into the starving areas of Biafra, and whether it is a fact that the Canadian government has not yet replied to that request.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such a request, but I may be mistaken so I should like to examine the record. I do not remember such a request being made.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Canadian government received any communication from the government of Nigeria to the effect that if the Canadian government delivered food or medical supplies to Biafra by any means other than that to which the government of Nigeria agreed, that country would in fact judge this act to be an act of war?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there have been no communications quite like that, but the Nigerian government, like most governments, has said it is very jealous of its national sovereignty.


John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he could refer the members of this house to any legal authority which would support-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he cannot ask the minister to interpret a statute or otherwise give his opinion as to the legality of a matter.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister. Will the acting

Inquiries of the Ministry minister make a statement on motions tomorrow concerning the activities of the task force on housing, with particular reference to the manner in which the task force is conducting its hearings in the city of Toronto? I ask this question because of the great criticism of the actions of the task force in Toronto, with regard to which the minister has been accused of being selective and of practising discrimination.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can only ask a question and may not put forward an argument.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether the acting minister could tell us if we might get a statement tomorrow.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to answer today. I am certain the hon. member knows that the task force on housing has set a very tight schedule. It has agreed to have its report finalized by the end of December. This is almost record time for an undertaking of this kind. Under the circumstances the task force may not be able to listen to all the briefs presented to it, but I am certain that the briefs directed to the task force on housing will be studied carefully by the chairman and the personnel making up the task force.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased the acting minister has been able to give us a statement. Now perhaps he could tell us why the task force has refused to hear the submission of the Toronto real estate board.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the acting minister whether the task force on housing, or the road show as it is sometimes now called, is committed to a definite number of days' hearings in the city of Winnipeg.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the schedule of hearings has been published, and I am certain the number of days in Winnipeg will be revealed in that listing of hearings.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the acting minister would bring to the attention of the minister the wishes of the members of this house that the submission of the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) and the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead) should be put on the record before the task force.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
COMMONS DEBATES	September 30, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
Can he tell the house whether a task force has been appointed to study the possible conversion of the Post Office Department into a crown corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether this question should be allowed. However, if it is urgent, I see no objection to the minister giving an answer.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, first, I have to set the record straight. Last Friday the member for Lotbiniere divided his question into two parts. Now, after reading the Debates report, I notice that I answered the second part only.
The answer to the question put this afternoon by the hon. member is yes. Such a force has been set up and its report will not be filed before a year.


INQUIRY AS TO METHOD OF REDUCING OPERATING COSTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General in reference to his announcement of last Friday and the planned reduction in the operating costs of his department. Can the minister advise whether the reduction is to be achieved through a diminution in the number of employees in the Post Office or through a decrease in the earnings of said personnel?


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


Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Perth):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question has not been accepted, so there cannot be a supplementary. The hon. member may wish to ask another question on the same subject.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether his announcement of last week means that rural mail delivery, which is the only method rural 
people have of obtaining newspapers, is going to be cut off on Saturdays?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, as far as the weekly newspapers are concerned I would-


Jay Waldo Monteith: These are daily newspapers.


Eric William Kierans: With regard to daily newspapers, I should think there would be some difficulty here and that they will receive the Saturday newspapers on Monday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Peters:: Horse and buggy days.


Eric William Kierans: I think we have to take account of the fact that we are attempting here to introduce some real measures of efficiency.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eric William Kierans: If there should be savings of the order of $13 million to $15 million, we must set this off against any disadvantages which there might be; and I understand, after listening to hon. members across the way speaking on the supply motion, that they are anxious to save money. If this is so, I think we might leave it to the newspapers to accept the challenge and find their own solution.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it this government's idea of efficiency to require people to receive their Saturday newspapers on Monday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: May I ask the
minister a supplementary question in connection with the proposed reduction in the quality of the mail delivery service. Has his attention been called to sections 55 and 56 of the Post Office Act, which state that it is an indictable offence for any person wilfully to delay or detain the delivery of mail-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked by the hon. member is not in order.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General. May I ask the hon. gentleman if the city of Montreal will continue to receive its mail every day including Saturdays in defiance of the Criminal Code; and does the minister not intend to take any action?
September 30, 1968


Eric William Kierans: I suggest to the hon. member that no complaint has been raised against the city of Montreal at this moment by the minister of justice of Quebec who is charged with the carrying out of the various articles of the Criminal Code.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: I should like to ask the Postmaster General how he is going to save money by discontinuing the rural mail service on Saturdays. Will it be by paying less money on the contracts with the rural mail carriers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is a point of debate.


An hon. Member:: This is a good question.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the current rumblings of possible trouble among the grain handlers at the Montreal waterfront, I wonder whether the minister could advise the house as to what action the government is taking concerning grievances, and especially the implementation of the Cohen report which was tabled in March?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, over the week end I was informed by the head of the National Harbours Board that the recommendations of the Cohen report will be implemented immediately.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I have a supplementary question. Is my understanding correct that one reason these recommendations were not implemented before now was that they were not passed by the Treasury Board?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It was described by the harbours board simply as an administrative error.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on September 24 the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings asked me whether we were initiating an investigation to find out whether or not cheese was being dumped in Canada. I have obtained a transcript of the speech of the president of the
Inquiries of the Ministry National Dairy Council of Canada which he delivered in Vancouver, out of which I should like to read part of one sentence, if I may. It reads as follows:
Practically every dairy country in the world is encouraging greater production by means ol artificial pricing and while, on the one hand, they are dumping their surpluses on the world market through heavily subsidized exports-
At the time I gave an undertaking that we were going to investigate whether this alleged dumping was a fact, but on the basis of this statement it is my conclusion that the allegation is hardly sufficient reason for an investigation.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is it a fact that cheese is being dumped in Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If the president of the dairy council or anyone else will refer us to any specific matter which would indicate that cheese is being brought into Canada in violation of what is contained in the anti-dumping code, we will investigate it. However, my reply now is that this statement does not indicate it.


George Harris Hees: I have a further supplementary question. Would the minister be good enough to get in touch with the gentleman in question to find out what he was complaining so vigorously about when he spoke in Vancouver, as reported by the Canadian Press?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. However, since this appears to be his day off in the house perhaps I can direct it to the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Port Arthur. Has the government taken steps to investigate the situation relating to Indian complaints at Armstrong, Ontario, brought to light on the initiative of the Company of Young Canadians at the Indian-Eskimo association meetings in Toronto over the week end?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister's
September 30, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry absence is quite understandable, since he is in Quebec today on an obvious mission.
May I say in answer to the hon. member's question that yes, investigations are under way with regard to the sad situation in the town of Armstrong, and a full report will be made in due course.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a supplementary question. Has the minister received or asked for a report in connection with the participation of the Company of Young Canadians in this affair?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it is known that the Company of Young Canadians has participated on this occasion, and I presume their activities will be described in the report which is expected very shortly.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Cliff Downey (Baffle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or in his absence to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the repairs to be made to the United States portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway, which it is indicated will shorten the current shipping season to a point that will make it virtually impossible to keep up our current wheat export commitments, are any efforts being made to arrange with the United States to repair the seaway after it would normally be closed because of weather conditions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question might be placed on the order paper. Its urgency is not apparent to me. The hon. member might wish to have it discussed at the time of adjournment.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I directed a question to the Solicitor General respecting the intention of the government to bring forth amendments to the Juvenile Delinquents Act, and the minister took it as notice. I wonder if he has the answer today.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: The question was whether we proposed to bring forward the amendments at this session. The answer is that the legislation is in the course of preparation. I doubt very much if we will be able to submit it to the house for consideration at this session.


John Gilbert: I have a supplementary question. Is it the intention of the government to set up a youth and juvenile research bureau in view of the serious juvenile delinquency problem we have today?


George James McIlraith: I would think not in that form, but a good deal of work is being done on this problem in the department, which I hope to be able to place before hon. members when the estimates of the department are before the standing committee.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the acting Minister of Transport. May I say that I am sorry I did not get Your Honour's attention at the minister's weekly brief appearance last Friday. In answer to recent inquiries, can the acting minister say whether the co-ordinating unit on highway safety within his department, as promised on October 17 of last year, is now functioning; and can he also report on any progress on uniform national highway standards?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the first question should be allowed, but I believe the second question is of the type which should be the subject of a statement on motions. If the minister so desires he could reply to the first part of the hon. member's question.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Transport wished to answer this question himself. However, in his absence I would like to make this statement.
During the last session the minister indicated that a public advisory board, composed of representatives from the provinces, industry, safety organizations and other interested groups, would be created to advise and guide him on the problems of road and motor vehicle traffic safety. Accordingly consultations have been held with the officials of the provinces in preparation for a conference with the
September 30, 1968

provincial ministers concerned. This conference will take place just as soon as the provincial ministers are prepared to convene, and it is expected that the public advisory board will be established immediately following these discussions.


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to thank the acting minister for this answer and ask him if he will consider a permanent appointment as minister of transport, because we do a lot better with him.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Onlario):: May I
address a question to the Postmaster General.
1	wonder of the government is considering changing its policy in respect of the payment of rural mail carriers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member is not asking a question which has already been asked and covered by the minister in previous statements.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, we have a number of different types of contracts, and we have met with the mail carriers. We are reviewing one or two of these contracts, and I may be in a position to make a statement further to the letter I mailed to the members of this house.



PROHIBITION ON SALE OF CANADIAN TURBOT IN U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question directly and not quote newspaper articles in support of his question.']
Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in view of the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as well as the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the appeal on October
2	against the banning of the sale of Greenland halibut in the United States after November 21 by the United States food and drug administration, and in view of the substantial contribution this fishery makes to the Newfoundland fishing industry, can the minister tell the house what role the government of Canada will play in supporting the fishing industry in this most important event?


Mr. Speaker:: Again, this is the type of information which would normally be given

Inquiries of the Ministry by the minister by means of a statement under motions. The minister may wish to indicate whether he is prepared to make such a statement on motions.


James Aloysius McGrath: I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs would refer this question to his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to see if he will make this statement tomorrow.


Mitchell William Sharp: I would be happy to do so.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he say whether the state of Israel received the approval or support of the Canadian government in its decision to vacate the areas it now occupies in Arab states, with the exception of certain strategic locations? Does the Canadian government believe this is a reasonable suggestion on the part of the Israeli government, and if so has the government given consideration to something which is vital to the continuing integrity of Israel, namely whether the Canadian embassy will be transferred from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the situation in the Middle East is, of course, of very great concern to the Canadian government. Our position has been, and remains, that the best hope for a settlement in that area rests in resolution 242 of the Security Council and in the efforts of Ambassador Jarring to see that it is implemented by both sides. I have heard that the Israeli government is now proposing some immediate measures. These will certainly be looked upon sympathetically by the Canadian government, and we hope they will appeal to all sides so as to promote a settlement.
On the second question, the moving of the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the Canadian government has not taken this step because the question of the future of Jerusalem has been a highly controversial one. The Canadian government did not feel it would contribute to the solution of that problem by moving its embassy now.
September 30, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for his reply, and I ask him whether the Canadian government gives support to the idea of the city of Jerusalem, with all its sacred monuments and places, becoming part and parcel of Israel.


Mitchell William Sharp: The best answer I can give to that is that this is one of the most vital parts of the settlement that is now being negotiated. I do not believe it would contribute to the settlement for outside parties to take a firm position on any of these questions. These are matters that I believe are now being negotiated between the Arab states and Israel under the terms of resolution 242.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but in his absence I shall direct it to the acting minister. Having regard to the statement the minister made to the house on Friday, September 27 concerning the Canberra meeting of exporters under the international grains agreement, will the minister elaborate on that statement in view of the fact that Mr. John Schnittker, under secretary of agriculture in the United States, is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question directly and not quote newspaper articles in support of his question.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: May I direct a most urgent question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the statement made in Vancouver on the immediate situation in respect of Roberts Bank, is the minister in a position now to inform this house whether a decision has been made that responsibility for the route and financing of the railway to Roberts Bank is federal and not provincial?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would think the matter is still subject to review and discussion. I should expect that the responsible minister,


the Minister of Transport, would be making a statement-


Harold Edward Winch: Where and when? Time is getting short now.


Arthur Laing: The Minister of Transport is a regular attendant in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Laing: I would expect he will be making a statement on this matter.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a supplementary question. If the Minister of Transport has been reporting to the house on this question, why did the minister make a statement in Vancouver since he does not know the answer?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is it the minister's intention to introduce veterans legislation before the end of this year as a result of the recommendations of the Woods commission?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: First of all the Woods report will be referred to the veterans affairs committee. We will have to ascertain what decisions the members of that committee will take before the minister can decide what legislation will be enacted.


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister realize that if this report is dealt with by a committee it will be another year before veterans legislation appears in this house?


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and ask whether it is his intention to follow the practice of the Postmaster General and continue sending out form letters to members who have written to the minister on behalf of veterans with problems. I am concerned about this matter, sir. Is the department to send out a form letter in every case to the effect that "We are very busy but we shall answer your letter at some time"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's remarks take the form of a grievance rather than of a question.
September 30, 1968



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Aloysius McGrath: My
question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker, but it is of such urgency that in his absence may I direct it to the acting minister. In view of the fact that Canadian automobile manufacturers have indicated that as well as increasing prices of their products for the coming year they also intend to decrease the value of what the consumer pays for, by reducing their warranty on new cars, will the minister say whether the government intends to take a public position on both the actual price increase and the fact that there is an obvious value decrease to the consumer, to say nothing of the decrease in protection, in that warranties apparently will be substantially reduced?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Since the hon. member's remarks are in the form of an argument rather than of a question, they are irregular.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. It is in connection with the minister's efforts to have the United Nations general assembly direct its attention to the Biafran question. Can he advise the house why Canada failed to have this matter inscribed on the general assembly's agenda at a time when Canada could have done so unilaterally?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that his question is argumentative. It is not in proper form and is not acceptable.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Elgin McKinley: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to say what assistance the government will give the corn growers, or will he wait until the tractors all arrive here?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Without replying to the last part of the hon. member's commentary, I want the hon. member to know that the Ontario and federal departments of agriculture are very actively considering proposed solutions as well as the legal and economic implications of those solutions.


Mr. Baldwin:: We are in for a long period of gestation.



REPRESENTATIONS AS TO DIFFICULTY OF BUILDING FARM STORAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: In view of the seriousness of the crop storage situation in western Canada, can the minister say whether he received a letter from the president of the junior board of the Saskatchewan farmers' union concerning the inability of young farmers to build storage facilities because of lack of money and lack of credit ratings?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is not in order for an hon. member to ask a minister simply whether a letter or message has been received by the minister.


Edward Richard Schreyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Two weeks ago the Minister of Agriculture indicated that he would look into allegations that there was a serious shortage of structural steel for the building of grain storage facilities. I take it the minister has looked for two weeks. Could he now make his report?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I, as minister, did not undertake to find out the reasons for a shortage of structural steel, or whether in fact there was such a shortage. I said I would try to ascertain whether any department of government was competent to make that sort of inquiry.


Edward Richard Schreyer: A further supplementary question. Can the minister say what department of government will be prepared to look into this problem?


Gerald William Baldwin: The department of active consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister of which is not present today.

September 30, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
André-Gilles Fortin: In view of the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), I shall direct my question to the acting minister.
Has the Department of Finance been informed or is it aware, one way or another, of the risk of a franc devaluation and, as a result, of the pound?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question of the hon. member is too general and, as such cannot be asked in the present circumstances.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Without questioning Your Honour's judgment, I believe that the devaluation of the franc is a very precise subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that the rules allow him to tell the Chair he wishes to discuss the question at the time of adjournment if he believes the Speaker has erred in his judgment.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Angus MacLean: I wish to direct a brief question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister any report to make to the house about the investigation conducted by his department into the placing of an incendiary bomb at the Black Watch armouries in Montreal. Especially, could he assure the house that this attempted sabotage was in no way instigated by foreign agents?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: We investigated this incident, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member knows, the bomb or device had already exploded without doing damage when it was found by the Montreal police. Therefore the matter was not worrying enough for us to conduct a more extensive investigation.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In his absence perhaps his parliamentary secretary might take it as notice. In the light of reports that the government of Canada has put up 45 per cent of the capital of Panarctic Oil Explorations but is represented by only one director on the 14 director board, can the minister say whether the government intends to act in order to alleviate this disproportionate representation?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, may I take that question as notice.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CANADIAN INDIAN LEADERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Knight Andras: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I direct Your Honour's attention and the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of some distinguished Indian leaders of provincial and national Canadian Indian organizations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $3,776,197,303.75 being the aggregate of-
(a)	nine-twelfths of the total of all items set forth in the revised main estimates, 1968-69, for the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1969, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $4,852,052,274.75;
(b)	an additional two-twelfths of Energy, Mines and Resources item 60, Finance item 30, Legislation item 15, Public Works items 25 and 30, Secretary of State item 2, Transport items 15, 25 and 90, Treasury Board item 25, Loans, Investments and Advances items L35 and L125, (Schedule A) of the said revised main estimates, $35,666,415,67;
(c)	an additional one-twelfth of Agriculture item 15, Energy, Mines and Resources item 75, Indian Affairs and Northern Development item 34, National Defence items 20 and 50, Privy Council item 15, Regional Development item 25, Secretary of
September 30, 1968
[Stage Direction]
State items 1 and 65, Transport item 5, (Schedule B) of the said revised main estimates, $6,681,409.50;
Less the amounts authorized by Appropriation Act No. 2, 1968, $1,118,202,797.17,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1969.
The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words about the Biafran question. After hearing the Secretary of State for External Affairs waffle for several days about the unfortunate situation in Nigeria, we heard the Prime Minister on Friday make a clearcut statement. I welcome the Prime Minister's participation in this serious question but I suggest that his line of argument of Friday last had as its basis bad legal reasoning and an even worse morality.
From the first days of this session of parliament we have heard nothing but evasive answers from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister says that our government does nothing to aid the Biafrans because the Biafran government objects to our using their one airstrip. The minister did not say that that airstrip could be used for the transport of military supplies as well as food; nor did he say that the Biafrans were prepared to build an alternate airstrip if we, in turn, were prepared to send in food and medical supplies.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Next we heard from the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the government was concerned about upsetting the feelings of the government of Nigeria. He suggested that the Nigerian government would be upset if Canada flew medical supplies and food to Biafra. Finally we heard the deplorable statement from the Prime Minister last Friday that any intervention by the government of Canada in the matter of Biafra would constitute an act of war against Nigeria. It seems to me we have gone all the way in the past ten days from evasive platitudes by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to a position of legal improbability and moral indifference on the part of the Prime Minister.
Let me say a couple of things on this point. First, it was by no means clear that if Canada, acting on its own as a nation, were to fly food and medical supplies into Biafra contrary to the wishes of Nigeria, we would be acting in an aggressive or warlike way toward Nigeria. The whole body of international law as it has developed since 1945 suggests that strictly from a legal point of
Interim Supply
view the Canadian government would be acting quite properly. The Canadian government could cite all kinds of precedents both in international law and in conventions passed by the United Nations to support its position. The United Nations convention against genocide, the United Nations statement on human rights, the legal precedent of the Nuremberg trials-all could be cited by the Canadian government in support of a decision to send food and medical supplies to the starving people of Biafra whether or not the government of Nigeria approved.
In saying this I am not suggesting that genocide is necessarily being practised in Nigeria. This would presuppose a deliberate policy on the part of the Nigerian government to murder a whole group of people, which is not being assumed by myself or by my hon. friends in the New Democratic party. But we do know that thousands of people are starving daily and we do know that from this point of view we could and should act. Surely this is all that is required. It is not necessary to presuppose that genocide is being committed. We do have good evidence from independent bodies all over the world that thousands are starving and this should surely be enough to justify us in going ahead.
Even in terms of international law Canada could present a good case, in my view, for going ahead and acting as a sovereign state. Of course, what many members of the house have suggested is that Canada should not act as a sovereign state but should act indirectly through the International Red Cross as Sweden has done. Does the Prime Minister, who comes here with his moral homilies about private behaviour and government behaviour, really suggest that the government of Nigeria would say that Canada, by bringing food and medical supplies to Biafra, was engaged in a belligerant, hostile and warlike action? Would Nigeria dare claim before the United Nations or any other international body that by bringing food and medical supplies to a group of starving people we were acting in a warlike manner? I suggest this is nonsense, and the government must know it is nonsense.
I placed a question before the Secretary of State for External Affairs a short while ago and received an answer to the effect that the Nigerian government has not suggested to the Canadian government that an action of the kind I am supporting in terms of providing food and medical supplies to the people of Biafra would be seen as an act of war. It would appear, therefore, that this is simply

September 30, 1968
Interim Supply
an assumption made by the Canadian government itself, or else it is a loosely worded, inflammatory statement made by the Prime Minister to avoid moral and political responsibility. Instead of helping starving people the Prime Minister has presented to the house an argument which I suggest is without legal foundation in terms of international law. At the very least, it can be thoroughly disputed in terms of international law. Yet he has presented this view as a self-evident truth which no reasonable and intelligent men should take for granted.
As I say, from a legal point of view it was probably an erroneous statement to start with. But beyond the question of legality lies the moral issue. I suggest that even if in terms of international law the position taken by the Canadian government in deciding to send supplies were seen to be incorrect, we do have nevertheless a moral responsibility when thousands of people are starving. The same thing happened in the thirties in Germany. Many governments at that time took the position that it was an internal matter; they did not want to upset relations with another government so they did not concern themselves. Are we to stand back now, at the end of the sixties, at a time when thousands of other people are starving and base our apology for lack of action on a dubious line of reasoning to the effect that we might be acting illegally? To me, this is a clear act of bad morality and something of which we in this house should be thoroughly ashamed.
I welcome the Prime Minister's decision to take part in a discussion of this question. He finally did have something to say to the house on this subject when he spoke on Friday. Unfortunately, what he had to say was illogical, misleading and morally offensive.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, just a few words at this stage of the debate on interim supply to refer to some assertions or insinuations made in this house last week, last Friday to be more precise, by a government member. I want to say that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), former mayor of his city, former independent member of parliament, stated in this house, after a referendum held in his riding, that 92 per cent of his electors preferred to see him remain an independent member rather than see him shift his political allegiance to any political party whatsoever.

Last Friday, referring to the spokesman of the Ralliement Creditiste, the member for Trois-Rivieres said:
The spokesman of the Ralliement Creditiste has of course referred again to the philosophy in which he believes-and I think he is sincere-but it does not seem practical to those who feel that one has to live within one's means.
The member for Trois-Rivieres was then speaking exactly like the ministers of the crown, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and the other members of the government party, today as well as in the past. In fact, when Conservatives were in office, they were saying exactly the same thing, that the Creditiste doctrine however good it may be is not practical, and that we must, indeed live within our means.
Mr. Chairman, in our opinion, the means at our disposal are those which allow us to develop our natural, intellectual and other ressources. We should adjust our finances to these possibilities instead of trying to adjust our development to our financial means. That is the realistic thing to do. We see and we face reality, while succeeding governments only see financial objections to the programs which could be undertaken in Canada.
If we ask ourselves: Can we build housing for those who need it; do we have wood; do we have nails; do we have bricks; do we have the materials necessary? In my opinion nobody knows the answer. Everybody without exception will answer: We have all that in Canada, but we do not have the money to put the materials together and to build houses for our people. And it is the same in all fields. There is an ever-growing need for universities, hospitals, schools, but it never occurs to a member to ask himself: Do we have contractors, engineers, talented men, people with a good head on their shoulders? Do we have materials to build hospitals and schools, or whatever we need? But we say at once like the member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain, who incidentally does not depart from the custom of the old parties, that we do not have the necessary money.
At present, Mr. Chairman, it is fantastic to see what is happening in Canada. Our municipalities kneel before the government, begging it not to discontinue winter works which helped municipalities during the difficult months of the year. To provinces which have to deal with great financial problems, the federal government says: Tighten your belt because we have no money either, no
September 30, 1968

credit, no financial means. We too have to cut expenditures, not because we do not need services, or we do not want to provide them, but because we do not have the means to financing them. That is the problem, but nobody is tackling it. On the contrary, we go on saying, like the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, and I quote:
I know that our friends in the Ralliement Credi-tiste have a magic formula, and I would be the happiest man on earth if it were adopted.
However, he does everything he can not to understand it, and he keeps repeating that the formula is magic. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres is certainly in the clouds, as all the others. If a war was declared to-morrow morning, I expect the hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Blouin) would also find it funny, but God knows that there are a good many destitute people on the North Coast.


Mr. Blouin:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Is this a point of order or a question?


Gustave Blouin: Would the hon. member allow a question?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.


Gustave Blouin: If the hon. member for Temis-camingue reads further in Hansard, he will see that I too, last Wednesday, spoke about the notice of motion presented to the house by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle).


David Réal Caouette: I take the word of the hon. member for Manicouagan, Mr. Chairman. I accuse him of nothing I simply quote certain facts. I tell him that the majority of the members in the old political parties who sat on the government side have always given the same answer, and the hon. member is aware that this government gives exactly the same answer as the previous one.
What I want to bring to the attention of the hon. member is the fact that in his riding as in mine, as in all the other ridings, we have to face the same problems which are not problems of production but problems of distribution of existing goods. The goods exist, if they did not, it would be different.
If we lived half a century ago, we would have to ask ourselves by what means a man could double or treble his production, or even increase it fivefold. But today this is not the case anymore. With automation, with the use of modern discoveries, science and machinery, the Canadian produces a hundred times
Interim Supply
more than he can consume and I have had, Mr. Chairman, a weeklong example of this. I happened to be a member of a delegation of French-speaking Canadian parliamentarians and to meet in Paris and Versailles Frenchspeaking parliamentarians from Africa, Europe and South America. We were able to witness each and everybody's problem while encountering people eager to reach arrangements and understandings as between members of the great French-speaking family. We are not against this; we are aware, however, .that their problems are not confined to the aspect of language but have also to do with economics. As for the black people of Africa we met, their sole desire is to enjoy the right to live in their homeland; they ask for nothing else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: In France, Quebec is often quoted as an example. They tell us: France is going to save you. Mr. Chairman, the contrary is far more probable, for Canada could perhaps help to save France.
During our stay in France, we learned that the Fiat Company is controlling today 30 per cent of Citroen, because the French did not have the necessary capital to save their own automobile industry.
Some tell us that France will save us financially. I studied the French standard of living. Please note that I am of French descent, but I am a Canadian, and if the two countries must be compared, let us not be shy about it. On the last evening of our visit we were invited to a formal banquet. There were men and women there who came from all parts of the world, or almost, and I had the opportunity of discussing with someone who is active in politics. But I was not content to attend that banquet only. I had the opportunity of visiting French workers, of seeing French farmers, their organization with regard to productivity, their means of distribution, of seeing what the standard of living of the French worker, of the French farmer is compared to that of his Canadian opposite.
Mr. Chairman, the difference is unbelievable. The salaries in France do not amount to even 50 per cent of the salary paid to our Canadian workers. The worker in France pays about 35 to 45 per cent more rent than a worker in Canada; and here, in Canada, how we complain about the rents being too high. You can imagine what the situation is like in France.

September 30, 1968
Interim Supply
I ask about the cost of a pound of butter and I am told it is $1.35 a pound. I am speaking about France, not about China, and their workers earn half as much as ours. To our question: How much does an automobile worker earn in the employ of Citroen or Renault? We get the reply: from $2,400 to $2,700 in Canadian dollars. It is higher.
And with regard to modern conveniences, they know nothing about it, absolutely nothing. I was staying at the Hotel Royal de Versailles. It is time-worn, it is old. They have not got around to installing toilets next to each bedroom: you have to go down the hall, as we used to do here in Canada 35 years ago. Their way of life is not at all like ours. They are perfectly happy with their traditions, and God knows there are many. We saw quite a number of castles dating from the reigns of Louis XIV and Louis XV, as well as huge and marvelous paintings, but this does not prevent the complaints of the individual dying of hunger. This is always something!
Mr. Chairman, meanwhile the farmers are stuck with their products. This is in France, not Africa. In Africa, the conditions are not any better, they are worse, Africans are asking France to help them. From the cultural point of view, I recognize that France has a part to play, but the Frenchman is mostly interested in economic matters.
In Africa, the same problem exists. A French-speaking priest from Madagascar told me that they had just received a gift from the United States:	three modern and wellequipped ambulances with drugs, lancets, and the like. They sent that to us in Madagascar, but imagine the difficulties we have encountered. They are too long for our roads and too wide for our streets, it takes the whole width of the street. We had to park the three ambulances in a field and it was hardly large enough for them. These are facts, Mr. Chairman. To turn in a Madagascar street, the ambulance would have to back up at least three times and go forward four times before being able to get around the street corner. It is not modern.
We must not bear a grudge against those people, but when we hear some people here clamouring that Canada is deprived of everything, it is false. However, Mr. Chairman, I do not mean that we must not try to correct abuses which do exist in Canada. This should not prevent us from seeing that a large number of our people lack the necessities of life.

On the whole, we have much greater opportunities here than in any of those countries, France included.
French culture is all well and good but if we have to go back 50 years, Mr. Chairman, we are not interested. Before going to France, I did not mind too much hearing "Frenchmen of Canada". But when I came back, last night, I much preferred to hear "French Canadians". It might mean the same thing, but I am not prepared to say so.
We are happy to be Canadians and in spite of everything we hear, the delegates from other countries respected us when they knew we were from Canada. There were only six Canadian parliamentarians and we were treated like kings with great tactfulness.
We noticed on the spot that their problems are still unsolved. Before trying to solve ours, they should deal with their own because that will keep them busy for a hundred years. For at least a hundred years, because there has been little change in a great many years.
All that, Mr. Chairman, to say that I have been asserting for the last 25 years that we live in the country with the greatest potential in the world. Our country has more natural resources than the United States. However, we must consider the fact that modern technology and evolution nevertheless originated in the United States which, no matter what people say elsewhere in the world, have rendered tremendous services.
We had the occasion, for instance-I mention that in passing-of speaking of satellites to extend the French-speaking community or enable citizens in French-speaking countries to see one another on television. But the technical facilities in all those countries are next to nothing while the United States controls 95 per cent of the facilities already in operation. Whether it is in English or in French does not matter, the technical possibilities belong to the United States.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Even if we wanted it to be otherwise, and in some areas Canadians are stirred up against United States, we should realize-as shown by facts-that our standard of living is closely related to that of the Americans. However, this does not mean that we should let ourselves be exploited or crushed. No. But let us begin by understanding that what we have, we have not created by ourselves; that we have been helped on our continent, not by Africa, not by China or Russia, but by a country on our continent. And before making wild gestures against our neighbours, let us
September 30, 19G8

start by watching what goes on in other countries oi the world, and then we will become realistic.
Mr. Chairman, we all wish to become fully independent and have a maximum of sovereignty. This is everybody's wish. This is each individual's wish, whether he comes from a family of 10, 15 or 20 children. Each one wishes to attain his own individual freedom and his own individual sovereignty. Whether he is a businessman, a professional, or a farmer, or whether he is working in another areas of the Canadian economy, each individual wishes to be respected and not to receive orders from anybody.
We are all individually and collectively in the same situation. We wish to be a sovereign nation. Unfortunately, there is a impediment preventing Canada from becoming sovereign. The impediment is of a financial nature. It is not because there is a shortage of intelligent people. Not at all. It is purely and definitely financial, but every government has managed to overcome that financial impediment or hindrance for war purposes. If a war were to break out tomorrow morning, no minister would rise to say: Unfortunately, we cannot participate in the war effort because we have no money. On the contrary, all of them would introduce a motion providing for the adoption of the necessary estimates in order to set up war industries and to set the whole system in motion. Nothing would be lacking, of course not. We would be told, this is an emergency.
Emergencies exist in peacetime just like in wartime. When Canadian mothers wonder what to give to their children the next day, it is essential for a responsible government to assume its responsibilities. It is urgent for a government composed of human beings, blessed with intelligence, to see through those fictitious impediments created by those who control the economic blood of the nation, those who control our money and credit are the real leaders of the country, those who grant permissions. But people like the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) do not see that.
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres continued and I quote:
I excuse most of my friends-
-he was talking about the Creditistes-
-for I believe them to be sincere, but, in my opinion, it is to mislead people who are uninformed-
Imagine if this is an intelligent remark. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres is no doubt
Interim Supply
well informed, and this is why he sits on the last benches of the Liberal party. We can be sure that he will stay there for a long time. I am convinced of this-because puppets never get very far in this world. To be a good backbencher you always have to stand up and fight. I continue my quotation:
-to make people who are uninformed believe that these things could happen thanks to a magic wand which would reform the entire system is to mislead them.
Why talk about a magic wand? There is no question of a magic wand. It is simply a question of passing legislation like any other which we have already passed. Let us pass legislation in order to suppress poverty in Canada-call it what you want-but it will be legislation which will make everyone reasonably well off.
This does not mean that everybody will be rich or a millionaire, but it does mean that every Canadian will at least be assured of a decent standard of living, of a minimum of comfort. He will be assured of having three meals a day, decent clothes, decent housing, medical care when necessary and of getting the education that is available and must be accessible to all. That is the vital minimum, a decent standard of living. Once that is provided, let competition and private initiative be free. If someone has enough initiative to build up a good business or to run an important industry, let him be free to do so, but at least let all the people without exception be assured a decent standard of living. We do not need a magic wand to bring this about, merely a law which will guarantee a decent standard of living.
The Prime Minister told us the other day: We have no money. However, he did not tell us that we have no schools, that we have no clothes, that we have no hospitals, that we have no doctors, that we have no professionals, that we have no different social classes, for he knows that we do have them. He did not tell us that all the stores in Canada are overstocked with goods, that not a single one of them has run out of goods because manufacturers have quit producing them. Nor did he tell us that the farmers had quit producing. No. We are even stuck with agricultural produce, with wheat, and in our own provinces stuck with our fruit and vegetables. Why? Because we cannot sell them. The Prime Minister did not say there was a shortage of those things.
He told us: For a lack of money, we are forced to discontinue those services, we are forced to discontinue winter works programs,

September 30, 1968
Interim Supply
we will be forced this fall to study with the provinces the possibility of decreasing social welfare to those who are totally destitute. We are forced to. By whom? By finance, by the financial system.
And at the same time, we are told through the interim supply bill that the interest alone on the national debt of Canada will cost this year, without taking into account the interests the provinces, municipalities, school boards, and individuals will pay, one billion and a half. The Prime Minister did not say: We will ask the financiers to wait ten years before we start paying them premiums or interest. No, that is sacred, we have no right to touch that.
In fact, the total interest this year amounts to $200 million more than what we paid last year. Two hundred million dollars! This is just peanuts according to the government. It is possible that Canadians are overtaxed to provide for the paying of interests to capitalists, that cursed race devouring Canada. We are caught in those conditions, but nobody considers introducing some legislation. We hear about a magic wand to change conditions.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to dwell on that matter. I simply wish to tell you how much some hon. members, such as the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, are oil the beam and that they are precisely those who prevent the passage of federal legislation which could guarantee decent means of living to which I referred earlier to all Canadian citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the consideration of the supply motion provides a good opportunity to emphasize and clearly state what is suggested by the Creditistes when they say: To make financially possible what is physically possible. Not create endless, unlimited credit, but according to what we can physically do. Newspapers will not say a word about that.


An hon. Member:: They are not there.


David Réal Caouette: They are not there; anyway, there is no one in the gallery. They are there when the time comes to attack the Ralliement Creditiste or Social Credit, or to say: The Creditistes repeat themselves. To my knowledge, newspapers have been repeating themselves by flattering the Liberals, then the Conservatives, for about 35 years. Nothing changes, but we do not worry about it. They did not give us our seats in parliament and they will not turn us out either.

However, we shall make every effort to have accepted the system we suggest, that is to make financially possible what is both physically possible and desirable for the people of Canada. It is as simple as that. It is not a question of a machine which will print endless dollars, it is a question of making credit available on the basis of the rate of production of the Canadian people. It is an economic system, an accounting system. It is Pius XI- and not I-who said in 1931, 37 years ago already: Economics will only reach its objectives when it will make available to everybody-not only to the Liberals, not only to the Conservatives, not only to the members of the N.D.P., but to everyone-a part of the goods that God's nature and men's industry can produce, and such a share ought to be large enough to provide for each and every one at least a decent living. This was said 37 years ago. StiU, up to now, the point has not been understood. Delegates and ministers are sent in Europe, and everywhere else. They are supposed to find world markets for the export of our current products, of Canada's production next year, and so forth. Ministers are sent to inquire from our own nationals and find out what they need. In our opinion, the first demand that should be satisfied is on the Canadian market. Now, let us first meet the requirements of that market. Afterwards, we might send ministers to France and other European countries, to Africa, Japan, China, the North Pole and the South Pole, and dispose of our excess products. But in the meantime, Mr. Chairman, I wish the government would take its responsibilities and give us a system that will help us satisfy the needs of each and every Canadian citizen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste spoke eloquently of the opportunity to help peoples in other parts of the world. I agree with him that we are happy to live here in Canada, where conditions can be changed and improved. I also agree with him in recognizing that we must work now to bring about the necessary changes and improvements, and that is why I want to speak of Canada this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Winona Grace MacInnis: I
feel that the Canadian people as a whole are very much disposed to give this new government a full chance to show what it can do,
September 30, 1968



knowing that it is the first government for a long time to be in a majority position, although some of us felt that the former government had a de facto majority. However, this time there is no doubt on the point. Therefore I believe that most Canadians are saying: Now that they are there for the first time with a big majority, let us see what they can do.
We are all in accord with the objective of the government in trying to streamline parliament and become more efficient in the ways in which we do things here. We are not going to be in accord if it comes to the point where the opposition will be silenced or restricted in bringing to the attention of the government the conditions in this country and the needs of our people. We, too, have suffered from the old-fashioned methods of carrying out the business of parliament and we are thoroughly in agreement that we need a greater modernization and streamlining of our parliamentary procedures. However, Mr. Chairman, I think there is a real danger that in streamlining the procedures of parliament the government may be inclined to take for granted that it can talk in terms of getting ready and proceeding to explore programs and policies for future years, and does not have to do anything in the immediate present to look after the needs of the people of this country. I would point out that those needs are very great at this time.
In short, I am afraid the government may be throwing out the baby with the bath water because people, tolerant as a great many people in our constituencies have been, are worried about certain moves which have already been made in respect of the needs of Canadians. I refer to the cutting off of the winter works program. I refer to the fact that we have been told there will be no increase in family allowances this session in spite of the rise in the cost of living. I refer to the fact that we have been told there will be no increase in the basic old age security pension even though the cost of living has risen tremendously.
I refer to the casual reply given today in connection with veterans legislation. I know such long range programs will take time but I feel there will be a terrible interim between now and subsequent sessions when, if these programs are not improved, people will continue to suffer hardship. People like ourselves, who are reasonably well off, know nothing about the hardship these people will 29180-37
Interim Supply
have to endure. We do not know what it feels like to live from pay cheque to pay cheque. We do not know what it feels like to be mortgaged to the hilt as a great many people are, even people fairly well off relative to the poverty line, in order to get all the things that modern advertising tells us are "musts" if we are to live like modern human beings. We do not know what it is like to suddenly have an increase in the cost of living, or to find oneself or one's family stricken with illness, or in one way or another to have the pay cheque removed. It is a catastrophe when any of these things happen.
I am afraid this government does not realize that there are in our country people for whom the just society cannot be put off until next year, the year after that or the year after that, that the beginnings of the just society must be made manifest in a great many more concrete ways this session. It is all very well to say that we cannot afford these things. However, I looked at the estimates the other day and saw that a very nice, big chunk of money, $27,246,000, had been allocated for a medical research council. I am not quarrelling with that, although I would like to know more about how this money will be spent. But I also note that in the estimates there is no similar allocation to start a human research council to carry out research into the conditions under which people in this country live and to which the leader of the Creditistes just referred.
It seems to me that so far in our deliberations in this house one thing has been almost overlooked. I refer to a brand new point in the report of the Economic Council of Canada. This feature of the report has been highlighted in the press. It was again highlighted in the Toronto Globe and Mail today. I refer to the poverty that exists in this country, poverty which we condone as the headline in the Toronto newspaper says. It is pointed out how very low the minimum wages in this country are relative to the needs of families living under today's conditions.
Evidence is mountain high that conditions in this beautiful, rich country of Canada, as we heard it described this afternoon, are far from what they must be if we are to develop the full potential of our population. We know that half our population, the lower income half, is living in varying degrees of insecurity and frustration. We know that one Canadian in five is living in poverty. I suggest to hon. members that when half of the population is living in varying degrees of insecurity and

September 30, 1968
Interim Supply
frustration we have an unstable, unsatisfactory situation with regard to which the government must take action. Even if the government's majority were twice as large, if it does not take action it is heading for trouble, in capital letters, because people will not stay indefinitely in such a condition.
I think there is still some misunderstanding, certainly in some government offices, about the modern meaning of the word "poverty". In order to do away with any misunderstanding on this point. I quote the definition given recently by the Economic Council of Canada. I do so because I do not think it has been brought home sufficiently. It is as follows:
To feel poverty is, among other things, to feel oneself an unwilling outsider-a virtual non-participant in the society in which one lives. The problem of poverty in developed industrial societies is increasingly viewed, not as a sheer lack of essentials to sustain life, but as an insufficient access to certain goods, services, and conditions of life which are available to everyone else and have come to be accepted as basic to a decent, minimum standard of living.
The economic council is at pains to point out that poverty is relative. This means that even if conditions in Canada are much better than those in Africa, France or anywhere else, conditions here are not, relatively speaking, much better because in Canada the difference between poverty and affluence is very great. People in this country who are poor can see others with wealth, affluence, comfort and security, to which they themselves have no access.
We in this group have worked very hard over the years to have measures of social security passed to close that gap. But I point out that we have today reached the stage where social security measures necessary and indeed essential as they are, are no longer enough. We have to go beyond social security. In a society where no one has a modern car, no one is poor because he does not have a car. However, in our society the great majority of people have cars. This means of transportation has become the accepted way of life and those without cars are regarded as substandard people living in substandard conditions.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It is all very well to talk about the dignity of poverty. There is no dignity in poverty and no status in poverty and we should not be thinking in terms of more handouts here and there and more social security here and there.
[Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) .1
This is not enough, necessary as it is. We have to give people access to those things which will make modern living possible for them.
Old age pension, family allowance and unemployment insurance measures have been enacted as well as measures during wartime to control the prices of goods and services. Again I agree with the leader of the Credi-tiste party that if during a war in an emergency something can be done to control the cost of living, this same action can be taken in an emergency in peacetime. If half the population suffers from some degree of insecurity and frustration and one-fifth of the population is in poverty, how many more people have to be in such a state before it is considered an emergency? There is an emergency now for 20 per cent of Canadian families who do not have the basic things they need.
We have enacted measures to help the provinces with various social security programs. Now we have medicare. I was glad to hear the announcement over the week end that on April 1 Manitoba will also join the federal medicare program together with Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. I have been prophesying for a long time that the old age pension story would be repeated all over again and that after the first province joined the others would dribble in one after the other, as they did with the old age pensions program, and it will not take nine years for them to do so in this case. The Prime Minister said with reference to medicare, "we have had enough of that free stuff", but the people of Canada have got to the stage where they are determined to live in a modem way.
Whether the government likes it or not, it is now deeply involved in the problem of ensuring that modern housing is provided for those who cannot afford it themselves. It is true that the Minister of Transport may now be riding off in all directions at once as did Don Quixote on his horse, Rosinante, with a task force which I believe is now creaking a bit in the joints. But all the same the government will find out that a task force on housing will not bring the horse to the stable. She will also have to be fed and looked after properly because the people want housing and want it badly.
When we find several cabinet ministers as well as the Leader of the Opposition advocating a guaranteed annual income, we can see that the pressures for social change are mounting fast in this country. These pressures are greatest in our big cities. I think
September 30, 1968

that the problems of the cities must be dealt with in a big way and must be dealt with now. We should not wait until we have the just society in a blueprint to deal with the problems in big cities.
Some hon. members may have seen the article in the Montreal Star of September 19, 1968 quoting Adolph A. Berle Jr. It said:
In a recent issue of Saturday Review, Mr. Berle launched an attack on the facade of the gross national product-that annual figure which politicians and economists love to cite as reflecting a nation's economic health. All the GNP tells us, Mr. Berle contends, is how much money is expended in any given year for goods and services. What it does not tell us is what he calls the gross national disproduct: the toll taken on a society by garbage, waste, air and water pollution, violence, vandalism, malnutrition, disease, deaths and injuries caused by motor vehicles, respiratory ailments related to consumption of tobacco-
Where is the hon. member for Surrey?
-and so on.
Until those things are also computed and subtracted from the GNP to arrive at true net national product (not as that term is used at present), we will not have an accurate picture of our society and its needs, says Mr. Berle. It is a refreshing theory and one that does not deserve to be brushed off, as it already has been by some economists. Their sole job, they argue, is to compute, not philosophize or indulge in value judgments; they have no way of determining what is "good" or "bad".
It is because we need so badly an accurate picture of our society and its needs that I would seriously urge an item in the estimates for a human research council. I submit that there is another reason for it apart from building a quality society-and how I was taken to task for that term when I referred to it last year in the committees. I think we badly need a quality society. I submit there is another reason why this government, beside building a quality society, should undertake human research with special emphasis on urban dislocations and urban problems.
If the government is to spend the taxpayers' money wisely and if it is to cut out waste and unnecessary spending, we must have an accurate picture of today's society and its needs. If we are to have a just or even a sane society, we will have to look hard at certain areas in our population. We will have to be prepared to spend money on them so that we can cut expenditures in other areas.
I wonder whether we have any idea of the cost of poor housing across this country. I wonder whether any estimate has been made of how much taxpayers' money is going into 29180-371
Interim Supply
the cost of physical and mental illness, delinquency and crime, family breakdown, divorce and all the other social ills which stem from bad housing. I think there is a scandalous waste of the taxpayers' money in these directions. To say simply that municipal, provincial or federal money will be spent on them is no answer, because John Q. Public and Jane Q. Public have to pay the bill whether it is spent through the federal, provincial or municipal authority.
Today we are spending millions of dollars of the taxpayers' hard-earned money on completely unnecessary expenditures which arise from bad conditions owing to bad housing, bad town planning and bad environmental conditions for our people. The same thing is true of pollution. We are just beginning now to realize the vast amounts of taxation which will be needed to cope with pollution if we allow it to continue. Pollution of water, air and soil and noise pollution all exact their toll not only in terms of human well-being but in terms of wealth production and in terms of having to pay hard-earned taxes to try to clean up the mess. Neglecting pollution means a scandalous waste of taxpayers' dollars.
Then we come to the people themselves, the waste of our human resources both from the standpoint of our own development and the development of the wealth production of this country. Thousands of people now on social assistance could and should be converted from social outcasts into self-respecting citizens and taxpayers.
I have been through the public housing developments in my own and in adjoining ridings and I know there are men and women there eating their hearts out because they are obliged to live on social assistance with its stigma of public charity when they know perfectly well that if they could get the necessary training for the kind of work they could do they would be able to hold up their heads with pride and contribute their share to the wealth of Canada instead of having to sit there and take handouts. These people are not down and out, except that they are shut out of our way of life; they are shut out of the community of life that the rest of us share. Research into human problems could aid enormously in developing a process for getting these people off social assistance and on to the taxpayers' rolls.
Interim Supply

and the old ways of governments, to realize that we are in 1968 and that a new century is just around the corner.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.

['It is my\nduty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment this\n\nevening are the following: the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway-Harbours-Roberts Bank (B.C.)-constitutional jurisdiction respecting railway line; the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville-Transport-potash-request for inquiry into freight rate; the hon. member for Hillsborough-the Biafra question on the United Nations agenda.', "It being 6 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."]
Mr. Drury moved:: That towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1969, the sum of $3,776,197,303.75 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-108, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1969.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
['That towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1969, the sum of $3,776,197,303.75 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By
leave, now.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the second reading of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before we pass this motion for second reading could we have a firm statement from the government as to its intentions with respect to the balance of the current year's estimates? When we have passed this bill we shall have passed over 75 per cent of the year's estimates, only the amounts for the months of January, February and March remaining to be passed. There also remains in the minds of hon. members of this house the notion that we ought to discuss estimates. Is it the intention of the government to refer most or all the estimates for this year to the appropriate committees for study?
Consideration of Procedural Changes


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, it would be the government's intention to refer the estimates we have been dealing with today to an appropriate committee for study and report.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
['Agreed.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


An hon. Member:: By leave, now.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, September 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):
That a special committee of twelve members, to be named at a later date, be appointed to consider and, from time to time, to report on procedures for the review by this house of instruments made in virtue of any statute of the parliament of Canada.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the motion which has now been called was being debated on Wednesday, September 25. A number of members had spoken and I believe I had the floor when debate was interrupted. Before continuing with my remarks I express the hope that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) might be asked to come into the house-if this is one of the days he is allowed to come-because I regard this as a matter of considerable importance.
I was talking last Wednesday and propose to continue talking about a particular order in council which was passed on April 25 of this year by the present government. I refer to this order in council because it shows, in an outstanding way, the need for the kind of committee we are proposing to establish, a
578	COMMONS
Consideration of Procedural Changes committee to consider ways and means of reviewing legislation that is enacted by bodies to which we delegate certain authority.
As was indicated in speeches last Wednesday, quite a few boards, commissions and other bodies are given authority to enact legislation. I wish to refer to one particular body, namely the cabinet itself. I think the committee to be established by this motion ought to take a pretty good look at the way in which the cabinet exercises authority under orders in council to enact legislation, and some way ought to be established of reviewing this practice.
The particular example I referred to last Wednesday bears mentioning again. By way of background I reminded hon. members that in June, 1962, the Conservative government of the day passed an order in council which had the effect of raising import duties. It is generally understood, I think, that the law of the land is that only parliament may impose taxation. The Conservative government in 1962, just after the election of June 18, found a novel and ingenious way of raising taxes by order in council. They did it in a one-two way.
Initially they raised taxes by a considerable amount under a section in the Customs Tariff. Then they reduced those taxes to the level they wanted to achieve by using section 22 of the Financial Administration Act, which gives the Governor in Council power to remit any tax if the Governor in Council feels that it is in the public interest to do so.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I will not go into all the whys and wherefores of the 1962 story but I repeat with emphasis that the Liberals of the day attacked this action bitterly and vigorously. One after another, led by Hon. Paul Martin who was in the front row and supported by the present Minister of Justice who was in the back row, they stood up and denounced what had happened. We were in the fight, too, but the main point of my story is that the Liberals contended that this action by order in council was invalid and illegal. Both they and we tried to get the government of that day to give us the opinion from the Department of Justice upon the basis of which it had been decided that this order in council was valid. The government refused. Hon. Paul Martin had a motion on the order paper seeking to have this opinion tabled. We debated it at length; it was talked out, of course, under the rules of that day. We could

DEBATES	September 30, 1968
not get what we wanted. The point is that the Liberals made a stand on that occasion. Here was the government using section 22 of the Financial Administration Act for a purpose for which it was not intended. They took the same position when they were the government by getting parliament to pass a bill validating the order in council to which objection had been taken, thus confirming that in their view it was invalid unless passed, or approved, by parliament.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these same people are back in power-I realize there are some new faces, but they belong to the same party. And they are now resorting to the very trick which they condemned out of hand when the Conservatives practised it in 1962. This time the Liberals found they wanted to change the customs law. I agree there is a slight difference of direction. The Conservatives wanted to put certain import duties up; the Liberals wanted to bring them down. The Liberals placed the appropriate motions on the order paper of the last parliament preparatory to doing this very thing. They were put on the order paper on June 1, 1967, and on November 6, 1967. But they were never passed, because parliament was dissolved before we got round to them. However, the fact that these resolutions were on the order paper clearly indicates that the government knew that the way to get the customs law changed was to get parliament to change it. But they did not get the law changed. Parliament was dissolved on April 23 and two days later, on April 25, the Liberal government of the present Prime Minister passed order in council PC1968/816 which relies on the same section 22 of the Financial Administration Act which they said in 1962 could not be used for this purpose.
This is somewhat technical, but I think the actual terms of this order in council should be on the record, so I shall read its operative sections:
1,	This order may be cited as the Customs Tariff Remission Order, 1968.
2.	Remission is hereby granted in respect of all goods imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after April 24, 1968, and all goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that date, of that part of the customs duty and sales tax payable thereon under the Customs Tariff and the Excise Tax Act equal to the amount by which
(a)	the customs duty and sales tax payable thereon exceeds
(b)	the amount of the customs duty and sales tax that would have been payable thereon if legislation had been enacted before the date of this Order based upon the resolutions relating to the Customs Tariff tabled in the House of Commons on June 1, 1967, and November 6, 1967.
September 30, 1968	COMMONS
I have read the entire operative part of the order in council. It says, in the plainest of language, something like this: By order in council we have brought in the law which parliament did not pass because it was dissolved before it could deal with certain resolutions which were on the order paper. Well, if this is not doing precisely the same thing as the Conservative government did in 1962 I do not understand the meaning of words.
The difference is, of course, that in 1962 the Conservatives used this device to raise import duties. There were companies and interests in this country which did not like this, and they were taking the government to court. In the present instance the import duties were reduced, so nobody is taking the government to court. But is this the touchstone of our political morality? Is this the basis upon which to use the power given by order in council-you use it when you can get away with it and you do not use it when you cannot get away with it? I think this is just as clear a violation of the proper use of these powers as that which was condemned so roundly by the Liberals in 1962.
I asked the Minister of Justice a question about this issue some days ago during the orders of the day question period. I asked him whether all aspects of it had been checked, especially bearing in mind the previous decision by the Department of Justice, before approval was given to the order. All I got by way of answer was the one word "yes". I am afraid I do not have a great deal of confidence in these opinions from a Department of Justice which can rule one way in 1962, the opposite way in 1963, then back again in 1968.
I shall not take the time to put the whole text of section 22 of the Financial Administration Act on the record. I read it again today, and it is clear to me that it is not the kind of provision which is to be used in a general way for reducing a tax for doing away with something which parliament has enacted. I believe this misuse of orders in council needs to be examined very carefully, and this is one of the reasons I am supporting the motion which is now before us, in the hope we can be given an opportunity to look into this kind of thing.
As a matter of fact, I suspect there have been a number of occasions upon which this power has been misused. I have another order in my hand-P.C. 1968-832, passed on April 30, 1968. It has to do with investment in the Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation,
DEBATES	579
Consideration of Procedural Changes popularly known as Brinco. This is a long order and I do not intend to read it all. But again it is a question of the government drafting an order in council which relies on section 22 of the Financial Administration Act.
The government decides that it wants to exempt from taxation investment in American dollars in a certain development, namely, Brinco. The law is there. The law says such investment is subject to taxation. But the government simply declares that under section 22 of the Financial Administration Act these taxes are to be remitted-they need not be paid because a decision has been made by order in council.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I know the law is there about many taxes and about a lot of income taxes that people have to pay but if we stand up and ask the government to pass an order in council to reduce income taxes, or allow workers a tax exemption for what they spend on tools and on travelling to and from their places of work we will be told by the government: We cannot do that by order in council; it can be done only by act of parliament. But when the government wants to do something which it is clearly prevented from doing by the wording of our statutes, either the Customs Tariff or the Income Tax Act, it uses section 22 of the Financial Administration Act in this very ingenious way to achieve its will.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, the rafters of this place, if there are rafters in it, really rang back in 1962 when the Conservative government of that day was blasted by the Liberals. We took part in the fight on that occasion. As a matter of fact, I think I was the first one to discover the matter and brought it to light, but it was the Liberals who took on the battle. The place just rang, debate was hot and heavy, over this dastardly act of the Conservatives, using this order in council to legislate by order in council in an area that was clearly restricted to the parliament of Canada. Now a Liberal government is doing the same thing, and they are getting away with it because what they have done is to reduce taxes in the case of import duties through order in council P.C. 1968-816, and in the case regarding Brinco through order in council P.C. 1968-832. As I say, nobody is taking this government to court, but it is still an improper use of the medium of an order in council.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I cite this because I think that on its merits it needs to be dealt
September 30, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes with, and on its merits the government has to tell us, especially with its record in relation to the 1962 incident, why it has taken this stand. But in addition to the merits of this particular case I cite it as an example in support of our contention that the time has come for a committee to work out ways and means whereby parliament can review the exercise of delegated legislation either by boards or commissions or by the government itself.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, as an introduction to my remarks on this motion I would like to refer briefly to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) speech to this house at the opening of this session. First, I would like to say I agree with much of what he had to say as recorded at page 73 of Hansard for September 16. As a Canadian I can say I hope his remarks were sincere, which will prove me wrong in my former interpretation of his political philosophy. I hope his words were not just mere window dressing because I wish to commend him for some of his remarks, but because of his actions since that occasion at the opening of the house I have now developed some reservations.
On that occasion the Prime Minister said, as recorded on page 72 of Hansard:
It is the government's function to propose legislative solutions. It is the opposition's task to question these solutions and attempt to improve them or propose alternatives.
We hope that the government will accept some of the alternatives that we have proposed and that we intend to propose. We are not opposed to change in our parliamentary rules, as some people in this house and in the press seem to think, provided freedom of speech is maintained. The Prime Minister went on to say:
Neither role can be subordinate to the other. It goes without saying that any proposal for procedural reform must assist both sides of this house to function more efficiently. Anything less would be self-defeating. Anything less would diminish the very institution which we seek to assist. The discussions which have been proceeding on and off for the past fortnight, or even longer, among the representatives of the several parties in the house must not be permitted to continue indefinitely.
Our house leader, the hon, member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), has stated that this party is willing to co-operate. He has stated that time and time again both in this house and outside it. But he has also said we
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
will not capitulate. I hope that the government understands our position in this regard.
The Prime Minister went on to say:
Nor should they be permitted to lead, either by agreement or in the absence of it, to procedural changes which will upset the delicate and essential balance between government and opposition so necessary to the proper functioning of parliament.
In regard to the proper functioning of parliament I say that with proper co-operation from both sides parliament will function, but co-operation actually is a two-way street. As I said before, it does not mean that the opposition will capitulate. I hope that the Prime Minister meant what he said. He went on to add:
Good legislation, effective legislation, requires the expenditure of extensive effort on both sides of this house.
We agree with that. He also said:
It is our responsibility as members to engage here in discussions which are as knowledgeable as possible.
But, Mr. Speaker, we as members of this house have many other responsibilities. We as private members have responsibilities that are possibly a little different from the responsibilities of members of the government, and I wish to refer to one or two of our responsibilities.
I would like to remind the Prime Minister that it is our responsibility, as members of the opposition, to see that the government does not always impose its will on parliament, and by "parliament" in this context I mean the people of Canada. It is also our responsibility as elected members of this house to see that freedom of speech is maintained. I think this is the foremost responsibility of backbenchers on this side of the house. However, it is also the responsibility of the government to see that freedom of speech is maintained.
It is also our responsibility as elected members to be accountable to the citizens of Canada for any authority that we delegate to other agencies, and that is what this resolution is about. It is also our responsibility to right some of the injustices we have inflicted upon the public by reason of authority delegated by members of parliament. It is also our responsibility to see that our democratic system of government is upheld and maintained, and that is one of the reasons that I am speaking on this resolution today.
September 30, 1968

If I may refer to a couple more passages in his speech, the Prime Minister went on to say:
Every opportunity to learn more about proposed legislation, and more about the social or economic or other situations which have given rise to that proposed legislation, must be followed by all of us. It is my feeling that the advantage in this respect has too long rested with the government.
With that I agree. He also said:
For that reason a most important concept which has been proposed to members, along with other procedural reforms, is the provision of public funds to permit opposition parties to obtain the services of researchers, advisers and experts to assist them. The government cannot function without expert assistance. For the same reason, neither should the opposition be expected to do so.
I understand from our house leader that there has been some talk of this but no action.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may I want to refer to two speeches that were made in the other house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member to remind him that the house is dealing now with a very specific motion. The speech which the hon. member is now making may have been very relevant to the original resolution which was debated and adopted by this house, but, unless the remarks he has made until now are purely introductory in nature, he cannot go on making a general speech relating to a resolution which has already been adopted by the house. This motion deals with a very limited aspect of procedure in that it provides for "the review by this house of instruments made in virtue of any statute of the parliament of Canada," and this has been the very limited scope of the debate we have had until now by all members of the house who have taken part in the debate.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


John (Jack) McIntosh: As I said, Mr. Speaker, it was my introduction. I am leading up to what the Prime Minister said about the matter of delegated legislation. I must lay the background because how we deal with the resolution will have a bearing on how the government will act upon it. This instrument must have teeth. I do not wish it to be simply an instrument of government. As I said a moment ago, two speeches were made on this subject in the other place by two hon. Senators. Senator O'Leary said:
The opposition must never accept research facilities as a favour from the government. Those facilities should be given to the opposition by parliament itself-

Consideration of Procedural Changes


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is entirely out of order to quote from speeches made in the other place about matters which are currently under discussion in this house.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Then I shall get down to the point in the Prime Minister's speech which deals with the resolution. At page 73 of Hansard he said:
A possible change, for example, but one which must be examined carefully, is the practice of delegating legislative authority, in terms of ministerial orders and orders made in council, and in the sense of decisions of quasi-judicial bodies. Whatever we decide, it should be based on a full knowledge of both the strengths and the weaknesses of our present practices.
I should like to deal mainly with the weaknesses of our present practices in respect of delegated legislative authority. This is very important. In my opinion the discussion on this resolution is long overdue. In my opinion it deals with one of the most important, most neglected and even one of the most dangerous aspects of the present method of governing our country.
We are, at last, opening the door on the question of the use of the delegated powers of parliament. This is a very large and formidable question that has created problems which, if not solved now, could eventually lead to our complete impotence as a governing body. If any member believes I exaggerate, let me simply refer him to the vast body of writing on the subject that already exists. Let the doubters search their own correspondence which they have had with their constituents, read the daily press and recall their own personal dealings with any one of the hundreds of government agencies. I am sure they will then agree that every day in this country there are hundreds of instances, some of insignificance, some of great importance, where the rights of citizens have been encroached upon by the unbridled use of power by public servants.
No one in this house is more eager than I to deal thoroughly and quickly with this resolution. My interest in the question is of long standing. It dates, in fact, from the day more than ten years ago when as a freshman member of parliament I suddenly became shockingly aware of the power of and the abuse of power by our national bureaucracy. This bureaucracy is not composed simply of the host of civil servants who man the ministerial departments of government. It includes the army of those who staff the crown corporations, the boards, the agencies, the commissions and regulatory bodies that have sprung
September 30, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes up like weeds as the business of governing the nation has become increasingly complex and difficult.
Let me hasten to say that the problem of the exercise of power and the misuse of power delegated to an unwieldy and largely autonomous bureaucracy is not peculiar to Canada. It affects all countries with a democratic form of government and, I suspect, even those countries which subscribe to monolithic and authoritarian forms of government. Many of these countries have attacked the problem over a long period with varying success. I know of none who believe they have found a complete answer. But it is my hope that by dealing intelligently with this resolution we will be taking a giant step toward our own satisfactory solution.
I have said that my concern with the question is of long standing. In 1962 I was concerned enough with the many examples of arbitrary and unjust use of power by bureaucrats at all levels to introduce a private member's bill seeking to establish some control over bureaucratic oppression. This bill came forward for debate as Bill C-39 of 1963. It was in the form of an amendment to the Civil Service Act. It would have made it an offence for "any person holding an office, commission or employment, temporary or permanent, in the service of the government of Canada, at the nomination of the crown or at the nomination of any of the officers of the government of Canada" to "deprive or attempt to deprive a person of any right or freedom recognized and declared in the Canadian Bill of Rights." My aim at that time was set out in the explanatory notes to the bill:
-to ensure the application of the Canadian Bill of Rights to the multitudinous and ever-multiplying federal statutes, rules, orders, regulations, bylaws and proclamations; to the end that the citizen may go in peace about his lawful occasions free of wrongful harassment in legal guise by holders of public office. The bill gives the Canadian citizen a voice to warn and a rod to chasten those of his servants who, in	pride of	the	power	he	hasentrusted to them,	corruptly	pervert his	laws	tohis own hurt; to crown servants it gives the Canadian Bill of	Rights as	the	golden	rule	bywhich to measure	the rights	and	freedoms of	the
citizen-
Perhaps that was not the right method by which to achieve my aim. Perhaps the time was not ripe. The fact is, however, that the problem was pressing then and is even more so today, six years of legislation later. My aim remains the same. However, this time there appears to be more chance of achievement. As everyone knows, a private member's bill has scant chance of becoming law.

Its fate is usually to be talked out as was mine. The measure before us today is a government resolution backed not only by the stature of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Drury) but the prestige of the Prime Minister whose remarks on the subject both inside and outside this house have left little doubt that he is in agreement with taking some steps to curb official licence. It has the further advantage, I am led to understand, of approval in general terms by all parties in the house.
It is true that the resolution as it stands is nothing more than an expression to set up a special committee to consider the problem of what might be contrived to enable this house to effectively police the powers parliament has already delegated or may in future delegate to various branches of the public service under statute. But I believe it is to be an historic start. It is my hope that the discussion of the need to adopt the resolution will go a long way toward helping the deliberations of any committee that may subsequently be set up and toward enabling this house to meet adequately the vital question of controlling the arbitrary exercise of power by the bureaucracy. I can think of no more urgent problem facing the twenty eighth parliament. We all are familiar with the chorus of criticism in recent years of parliament and parliamentarians. I think much of the criticism is exaggerated and misplaced. But we cannot very well blame our critics for confusing government, as seen through the activities of parliament, with government as experienced by the average citizen when faced with parliament's administrative apparatus, the bureaucracy.
Most critics, when their charges are examined, are found to have had a brush with the uncontrolled and unsupervised use of delegated authority and not with parliament. They have been understandably unable to distinguish in such cases between those in parliament who create the instrument of power and those outside parliament who anonymously wield that power. In my opinion this has been largely our own fault and the fault of our colleagues in previous parliaments. There has been a failure on the part of members to attach conditions and safeguards to the transfer of responsibility and power. Too often they have lightly passed on the responsibilities placed upon their shoulders by the fact of their election to parliament to appointed officials who are not subject to the harsh accounting of public opinion. Too often we
September 30, 1968

have given power without ensuring that those to whom power is delegated will exercise it unselfishly and with impartial justice.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
If there is a bureaucratic tyranny, if there is bureaucratic oppression, if there is periodic abuse of trust granted in good faith, and I for one believe there is, then it is we in parliament who are to blame. By adopting this resolution and endorsing the course of action it envisages I believe we can go a long way toward making restitution.
We can no longer slough off our responsibilities on others or give unrestricted grants of vast power with the attitude of "let George do it". If there is one thing we are charged with as members of parliament it is to ensure equal justice to all Canadians and to protect the rights and liberties of the individual and the rights and liberties of minorities.
There is no more deadly enemy of the democratic form of government, no more secret and sinister threat to our free way of life, than the arbitrary exercise of power beyond the forms and processes of ordinary law by hordes of anonymous officials.
By electing us to parliament, the people of Canada have placed in our hands tremendous power. If we transfer this power to others and fail to ensure that it is not used to victimize those who gave us this trust, then we are derelict in our duty and we will have opened wide the door to dictatorship by bureaucracy and we will have betrayed our cherished heritage of individual liberty and democratic government.
We are being asked to set up a committee that will study the problem of enabling the house to review instruments made in virtue of any statute of the parliament of Canada, that is to say, a committee that will recommend the establishment of some agency or procedure and some means of allowing parliament to make accountable to parliament those who exercise power in its name. I think this is a timely resolution and very appropriate.
If such a committee is set up I believe it is important that there be a clear understanding beforehand of what is expected of it. It is important that its members know exactly what this house wishes it to do, what general line it is expected to pursue and something of the dimensions and importance of the problems that it will be asked to consider.
First, let it be clearly understood that there is nothing essentially wrong about the delegation of authority. I believe this to be an 29180-38J
Consideration of Procedural Changes essential operation of modem government. Without delegation of power and authority government today, complex and fantastically detailed and growing more so every day, would scarcely be possible. Without such a device we would face a complete breakdown of government administration, chaos and anarchy.
It is not the delegation of power and authority which is dangerous, it is rather the imperfect manner in which, up to now, it has been done. We have been careless and irresponsible in the use of what should be an essential and effective tool of government. Professor Harold J. Laski was not among the many constitutional authorities in Great Britain who decried delegated authority and the increase in so-called administrative law. He did not agree that it was a dangerous trend which should be stamped out. In his "Parliamentary Government in England" he described the delegated power as:
-an elementary procedural convenience essential to the positive state.
Having said that he warned:
The vital thing is that parliament should be in a position to make objection to any use of it when it deems fit, and that it should be so able to examine what is done in its name as to make it certain that nothing to which objection can be taken escapes from its purview.
In other words, he says to use the device but to take sensible precautions. This sums up, I think, in my view what the resolution now before us seeks to do.
The question that will most closely concern any committee that may be set up as a consequence of our adopting this resolution will be the means whereby parliament will always be in a position to keep delegated power and authority within its purview. I feel sure there will be many who will immediately think of the old idea of an ombudsman. It is a theory that I favoured for a long time. But surely setting up an ombudsman would merely be establishing another government official. When we consider the scant regard paid by the executive to our present economic watchdog, the Auditor General, we realize how ineffective this would be. Besides, appointing another official outside parliament to do a job that is clearly that of members of parliament would be begging the suggestion that this was just another abdication of responsibility. We must not abdicate our responsibilities as members of parliament as has been done in the past.
In the experience of some countries, most notably and most recently the United Kingdom, the office of ombudsman appears to
September 30, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes have degenerated into a general complaint bureau or, alternatively, into a futile bit of window dressing for the democratic process. What we need, I believe, is a parliamentary body that will be armed with power to call witnesses and for the production of papers without regard to governmental rank or influence, and that will be empowered to pursue its own course free of direction or influence by the government. It must be strong enough and free enough to ride close herd on all recipients of parliament's delegated authority and to command their compliance and respect.
The pattern of the public accounts committee of this house with its chairman drawn from the opposition ranks might be a very good one to follow. To me the essential features must be that its findings, reports and recommendations must carry with them some compulsion on the executive or individually responsible members of the executive, the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers, to take subsequent action. The very least that must be done is to ensure that anything turned up by the watchdog group gets a fair and public hearing in this group.
I believe the relationship of the cabinet to any such body will dictate its success and also its failure. Let us never forget, when we consider the untrammeled exercise of power by the bureaucracy, that the executive, in light of recent parliamentary history, must be placed at the head of any list of those to be scrutinized. It would be my hope that any method that may be developed for overseeing the indiscriminate use of power would consider as a priority item the use of that executive device we know, as referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), as the order in council.
I would like to recall to members the words of a committee of the Canadian Bar Association as quoted in the Montreal Gazette on November 11:
Under democratic institutions the people expect to be governed, but on condition that the laws should be discussed in the open, traversed by the criticism of the opposition and be the result of free and enlightened decision by parliament.
There is no governmental device more murky and less open than the order in council.
Having suggested some of the forms which the proposed body might take and some of the lines along which I believe it should operate, I should like to warn against some of the things it should not be and some of the things it should not be allowed to do. There is

always a grave danger that what appears on the surface so fair and so promising can be perverted into something menacing and tyrannous. Such measures as are encompassed within the resolution before us can be looked at in two ways, viewed from the front or the rear according to the person who is looking with a purpose.
What I am seeking to warn against is this house establishing one type of thing and finding later on it is being used quite differently. A parliamentary body, ostensibly intended to police misuse of delegated power, could equally well be utilized by a skilful and cynical executive to cover up wrongdoing. An unscrupulous and dictatorial executive could turn it into an instrument for preventing exposure of anything embarrassing to it, for burying aggravating disclosures, delaying remedial action and for scattering dust in the public eye. Anyone who has any experience with parliamentary committees will realize just what I mean. In fact, mention was made of this the other night by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) when he referred to the use of the committees system. The use of a government majority and a government chairman to stifle discussion and frustrate action is not unknown. The embalming of a committee's findings by the simple expedient of tabling is not unknown. I realize that in many statements inside and outside the house the Prime Minister has endorsed the theory of parliament controlling the growing power of bureaucracy. I was reassured to find traces of this sentiment in the speech from the throne and more specific endorsa-tion, as I said when I started my speech, when he spoke on leaders' day in the house.
s (5:30 p.m.)
I also noticed in the speech from the throne mention of a plan to centralize all government information services in order to better inform Canadians about their government and bring individual Canadians closer to their government. This is a very estimable aim, a laudable endeavour if indeed those things are the end result. But just suppose that for one of many possible reasons the Prime Minister is not able personally to direct such bold new enterprises as the centralized information service and the enterprise envisaged in this resolution; suppose the initiative in these matters falls to others, particularly into the sphere of the advice and influence of senior civil servants. Both projects could change in the twinkling of an eye from
September 30, 1968

necessary and effective projects to dangerous props of arbitrary government.
I hope members opposite will forgive me for mentioning such an unlikely possibility as a Liberal government seeking to perpetuate itself in office, but I do so only to illustrate the care that must be taken in establishing any agency of parliament to carry out such a delicate and provocative task as policing delegated powers.
I have not attempted at this time, Mr. Speaker, to deal at any great length with the background and development of the problem of delegated authority, delegated powers, administrative law and related topics. There is already a vast amount of literature on the subject. I am taking it for granted that everyone here is at least aware that the problem exists and is urgent. It is a reality of our times in regard to government, but it is by no means new. The first world war, with its tremendous burdens upon government, its compounding of government responsibilities, accentuated something that had already existed for a long time. In 1929 the government of Great Britain studied it and took measures to control it. These measures are still operating today, however narrowly and faultily their critics may think.
In the same year the Lord Chief Justice of England, the right hon. Lord Hewart of Bury, described it as "the new despotism" in a book that has become a classic text on the subject. As early as that day he wrote:
A little inquiry will serve to show that there is now, and for some years past has been, a persistent influence at work which, whatever the motives or intentions that support it may be thought to be, undoubtedly has the effect of placing a large and increasing field of departmental authority and activity beyond the reach of the ordinary law.
He was concerned about parliament relinquishing its powers in the interest of expediency or apathy, to the detriment of our rights and liberties. On this he wrote:
Much toil, and not a little blood, have been spent in bringing slowly into being a policy wherein the people make the laws, and independent judges administer them. If that edifice is to be overthrown, let the overthrow be accomplished openly.
Never let it be said that liberty and justice having with difficulty been won, were suffered to be abstracted or impaired in a fit of absence of mind.
As members, we have all had experience at one time or another of misuse by public servants of power delegated to them by us and exercised by them against their fellow
Consideration of Procedural Changes citizens. I do not say that this is always deliberate, always calculated, always vicious. Sometimes it is mere bumbling, but bumbling the consequences of which can too often be escaped because there is no accounting. We should remember that delegated authority is wielded in the vast majority of cases by nameless, faceless bureaucrats who feel completely secure from retribution, hidden as they are in the maze of the public service jungle. Most abuses take place out of the public eye. I feel that publicity therefore is one of the chief weapons against abuse of power. I doubt if any department, including the Privy Council, any board, commission or other agency of government fails to contribute its daily mite to the staggering annual total of injustices done by government to its citizens.
It would serve little purpose at this point, Mr. Speaker, to cite individual cases. I am sure all of us could provide enough of these to take many sitting days and swamp Hansard. My files, in any case, are full of instances of bureaucratic injustice, and at a later time I will speak of some of them.
To my mind the worst aspect of the whole problem of the abuse of delegated power lies not with the actions of ordinary, middle-run civil servants but with the top brass of the public service and the opportunity it gives them to become a real threat to our chosen system of parliamentary democracy. I believe it is with them and their exercise of powers, especially in view of their position of tremendous influence and persuasion on ministers, that any parliamentary supervisory effort should be chiefly concerned.
I have said on other occasions in this house, and I should like to repeat it, that it matters not what party is in power and forms the government, it is really the power elite of the public service that runs the country. The government of the day is a captive of the top civil service brass; ministers are only hostages, completely dominated and directed by their top departmental officials.
This dominance is exerted by virtue, partly, of experience but principally through the power delegated to the appointed officials by statute. It is vital to oversee the use of this power if we are to maintain even the figment of elected government governing. As for the ordinary member of parliament, if the senior civil servant does not disregard us as being such small change as to be beneath his notice, he treats us like children who must be disciplined and never indulged. If any of you who
586	COMMONS
Consideration of Procedural Changes have been to departments have not yet found this out, you will do so in the next few weeks or months. I am talking from experience.
On this point I would like to quote what James Harvey and Katherine Hood have to say in their book, "The British State":
-delegated authority amounts to virtually uncontrolled making of laws by government .departments, and demonstrates the immense powers wielded by the senior permanent officials of the civil service.
They say further:
The cabinet would never be able to sustain the "dictatorship" which it nowadays exercises over the House of Commons without the indispensable assistance of the permanent civil service.
Later they say:
___a highly effective conspiracy of silence surrounds the activity of the civil service.


Gerald William Baldwin: And the cabinet.


John (Jack) McIntosh: As my colleague the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has just said, and the cabinet. Judging from the remarks of the Prime Minister in the past two or three weeks, there may in future be even more than we have been used to. I believe it is high time this silence was broken, that light was allowed into the dark places of the civil service power structure, and senior departmental officials were compelled to answer publicly and openly for the discharge of the trust handed them by parliament. If we set up a committee as suggested in this resolution, if that committee functions the way we want and expect it to function, it will give us this open criticism. We as members of parliament will be responsible for the power we have delegated. I think that is our main responsibility. I think this is one of the first responsibilities we should consider in this twenty eighth parliament, that we are responsible for delegated authority.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Writing of the implications of administrative justice, that handmaiden of delegated authority, N. C. Hinton in his "Government and the Citizen" noted:
The implications of this type of justice hardly need underlining. The citizen loses the benefit of the traditional impartiality of the courts. His rights may be adversely affected if they run contrary to government policy. Administrative decisions may fly in the face of true justice and logic.
I believe it is our duty in considering the purpose of this resolution to ensure that our citizens are provided with some means whereby parliament can protect them from

DEBATES	September 30, 1968
administrative abuse and injustice. I repeat that anything we do along this line must be effective and meaningful to ordinary Canadians, in other words, to our constituents. It cannot be mere camouflage, and I hope that the Prime Minister was not giving us just window dressing. I hope he was sincere in what he said. If we fail in this, we will have done a grave disservice to our people and our country.
I have never advocated that the practice of delegating authority be discontinued or even curtailed. All that is needed is supervision of its use. It can be an exceedingly valuable tool of government if properly handled. This is an opportunity to make it really effective. Let us cease the old practice of giving some anonymous group of appointed officials a blank cheque except for our signature with every piece of legislation we approve, which in fact is what we have been doing.
As some new members in the house may find out, the regulations are actually more powerful than some of the acts of parliament. I have found that out in individual cases. In other words, under our present system we have delegated our authority to these civil servants, and we have done so indiscriminately and with no responsibility. We cannot afford any longer to hand out so casually our power of attorney as members of parliament. Power to govern is our responsibility. Let us assume it fully by making sure that what is done in our name is done fairly, openly and with justice for all.
My early experience with the monster of bureaucracy wielding unregulated power has compelled me to fight it over the years. I am happy to take part in another such battle, as you well know, Mr. Speaker. Let me conclude by cautioning that in my view there is no surer way of poisoning parliamentary democracy than by abdicating our power without supervision of its use.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) bemoaned the fact that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) had replied too briefly to his question of September 17 in which he outlined a similarity of methods and tactics between the Conservative government of 1962 and the Liberal government of 1967.
The hon. member recalled that, in 1962, the Conservative government had levied a new
September 30, 1968	COMMONS
tax through an order in council, whereas in 1967 a Liberal government had reimbursed taxes also through an order in council.
Now, a mere look at the circumstances will show that the similarity of the two methods mentioned by the hon. member is more artificial than real.
In fact, in 1962, when parliament had not yet been convened, the then Conservative government had enacted a new tax by order in council under section 22 of the Financial Administration Act and section 4 of the Customs Tariff.
Now, in 1967, when a new method of tax collection had to be adopted, a budget and budget resolutions were put before the house. It is well known that when a budget resolution is tabled in the house, it is effective immediately. What happened is this: the Department of National Revenue started collecting that tax according to the Financial Administration Act in general and not under a section of the act, all that in accordance with the authority conferred by the said act.
That is, I think, the great difference between the two methods used and, besides, I am happy to think that the consideration of this resolution might bring a solution to those who complain about government interventions simply by orders in council.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Is it not a fact that the Department of National Revenue also collected a certain other tax that was on the order paper but had to refund that tax when parliament did not pass it? Therefore, is the government not doing precisely the same thing in this case, namely, legislating by order in council something that parliament has not passed?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, I think that this is the whole difference. As soon as a budget resolution is introduced in the house, the Department of National Revenue is compelled to start its collection as prescribed by the new resolution, and that is what it did.
Of course, the dissolution of the houses-


Stanley Howard Knowles: But
is that not subject to passage by parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think perhaps the debate might be continued in committee.
DEBATES	587
Consideration of Procedural Changes


Stanley Howard Knowles: Except for the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we do not go into committee on this resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am referring, of course, to the special committee which will be set up as a result of this resolution.
Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, as indicated item No. 6 on the order paper has been called. At the same time I wonder whether, for the purpose of the debate on this motion, there might be an agreement among hon. members that the debate might also range over the subject matters of items Nos. 5 and 7 on the order paper so that the subject of farm financing generally could be dealt with in the course of the debate. In this way perhaps it may be possible to have a broader debate.


Gerald William Baldwin: 
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps before the house expresses its opinion on the proposal made by the President of the Privy Council I might mention that there might be some slight difficulty in the fact that we are now starting a five hour period allotted to this resolution. A five hour period is allotted on each of these resolutions. I am wondering whether the house wants to agree on a five hour period for each resolution, that is, a total of 15 hours, and so commence a 15-hour period on these resolutions. Since we are just starting the five hour period on one resolution, perhaps there should be some agreement because there are procedural difficulties once we have started.


Stanley Howard Knowles: suggest that we agree to the proposal that in

September 30, 1968
Student Loans
any discussion of order No. 6 there be sufficient latitude to deal with orders Nos. 5 and 7, and let nature take its course so far as time is concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that we will report the three resolutions out of the committee of the whole after the debate has been completed in committee of the whole?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker, but I believe the provisions of standing order 34 would prevent hon. members from referring to Nos. 5 and 7, so this provision should not be applied during the debate on item No. 6. Members could refer to the subject matter of those two resolutions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


FARM CREDIT ACT
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Credit Act to broaden the classes of persons eligible for loans under the act; to increase the amount of the capital of the Farm Credit Corporation; to substitute for the present rates of interest on loans made under the act (except any such loans made pursuant to applications received by the corporation before September 13, 1968) such rate or rates of interest on any loans made after the coming into force of the said measure as may be prescribed by the governor in council; to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act and for other matters related or incidental thereto.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bechard in the chair.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I notice it is now six minutes to six. I wonder whether we could call it six o'clock so that I could make my statement on the three resolutions at eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment this

evening are the following: the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway-Harbours-Roberts Bank (B.C.)-constitutional jurisdiction respecting railway line; the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville-Transport-potash-request for inquiry into freight rate; the hon. member for Hillsborough-the Biafra question on the United Nations agenda.

It being 6 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.



STUDENT LOANS


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure which would allow loans to university students to be made interest free.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on August 21 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) announced that during the 1967-68 lending year, loans were made to 90,371 students. The total amount was $57,053,410. The government has estimated there will be a total of some 100,000 loans to students in the 1968-69 year, in a total amount of some $60 million. Since the act came into effect in 1964, 132,000 students have received loans totalling $160,900,000.
In his August 21 announcement the minister also gave the revised criteria for loan applications with regard to students independent of parental financial supervision. Formerly, such students were required to have completed three years post-secondary studies or be employed one year or be married. The new criteria demand four years of post-secondary studies, one year's employment and an age level of 21 years or marriage. The new criteria have been protested by the students union at the University of Saskatchewan. Student loans are interest free until six months after graduation at which time students start paying back and at which time interest at the rate of 5 J per cent is applied. Up to then, interest is paid by the government to the banks since student loans are government guaranteed bank loans.
Under the new formula proposed this summer, interest rates applied to loans taken out in the 1968-69 academic year will go from an estimated 7f per cent to 8 per cent, adding from $1.5 million to $2 million to student repayments. The argument is advanced that
September 30, 1968

the government should pay the total interest and make the loans interest free to students who in the year after graduation are faced with pyramiding costs of getting established in a profession and paying off multitudinous debts of which student loans are only a part.
Speaking in parliament on June 21, 1966, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) suggested a number of improvements to the student loan program, including reciprocity between the Quebec and national plans as well as a remission of debt for students achieving a certain level of scholastic excellence. At that time the minister stated he looked to the day when tuition fees would be eliminated. One would hope the government at this time would take to heart the recommendations he made then from the freewheeling position of a minister without portfolio, prior to assuming the cares of office associated with the senior cabinet position he now holds.
Certainly, if the government cannot see its way clear to accept the advice of the present Minister of Justice and remove tuition fees completely through remission of loan payments to outstanding students, at least it could move at this point to remit interest rates after as well as before graduation, since the amount involved is minuscule in the light of the government's total requirements but nevertheless could be very significant to the individual student.
The point raised by the present Minister of Justice in 1966, relating to the dovetailing of the Quebec and Ottawa plans, was certainly well taken and was evidence of his appreciation of the divisive nature of the two student loan plans, one for Quebec and one for Ottawa. Regrettably, no advances have as yet been made permitting total reciprocity between the two plans. It is to be hoped that in his present responsible position he will again speak out in the cabinet council in favour of a national Canadian plan, thus permitting students from every province to study in any other province rather than the present divisive and restrictve program introduced by the Pearson government.
The total of student loans in Alberta in 1967-68 came to $6.4 million for some 10,500 students; in Saskatchewan, $5.9 million for some 7,300 students Manitoba, $3.2 million for some 4,600 students. Thus, on the prairie provinces the student loan program is of vital importance. There is no question in so far as students across Canada are concerned that the loans should be interest free, and rather than
Student Loans
increasing the interest rate in the current academic year the government should undertake to remove completely from the shoulders of students the accumulative burden of high interest payments. Generally speaking, it is students from low income families who most require loans. It goes without saying that such students should be encouraged in every way to attain the maximum development of their potential.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
From the economic viewpoint expenditures on education cannot be considered expenses; rather, they are investments. The more highly educated a student becomes the greater become his earning potential and productivity. He therefore pays increased income tax and in the long run the state benefits.
A few days ago I talked with some students from a nearby university and it soon became apparent that students of slender financial means felt society had discriminated against them. Through no fault of their own they had to live in squalid conditions in inferior quality housing and be faced with the prospect of a large debt on graduation. Now that debt carries considerable interest. Their feelings of being treated unfairly become stronger when they saw fellow students from well to do families living a life of relative financial ease, through no increased effort on their own part and not being faced with a large debt to pay after graduation.
By and large, Canadian students are a responsible and dedicated group of Canadians. In no country in the world does education play so important a role in the development of a nation as in Canada. This is an added reason for the necessity of accepting a greater degree of governmental involvement in education. Above all, it is necessary to foster closer relationship between secondary educational institutions in Quebec and those in the rest of Canada.
For too long we have had education going one way in one province and another way in another province. Surely, Mr. Speaker, since we all have the same staggering responsibilities in every province for the development and consolidation of this nation from coast to coast, we ought to move heaven and earth to improve and co-ordinate relations between students and educators, and between those in the general education movement in Quebec and educators in the other provinces.

September 30, 1968
Student Loans
Nothing could be or is more dangerous to the future freedom, independence and prosperity of this nation than the separation and compartmentalization of its secondary educational systems. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, Canada's future as a free and independent nation today is trembling in the balance. We all know how difficult it will be for Canada to survive in freedom against the tremendous social, economic and political pulls of the United States and Europe. It will be difficult for this country to remain united under the present circumstances. How much more difficult would our survival be if our country became a conglomeration of petty principalities.
We all know how much freedom and liberal thought exists in those areas of the world where nations are divided and national boundaries have stimulated generations of hatred. That sort of thing must not be our fate. That must not be the fate of our continental destiny.
Our education must be more in tune with the needs of the nation. It must be at a modern pace and use the tools of the electronic age rather than at the leisurely pace of 50 years ago. We must have education in depth. Education must be available to all who can utilize it, be they French, English or members of those other races and cultures whose presence has added a new dimension to the power of Canada. In this connection I cannot do better than refer to remarks made recently by a former member of the government, hon. Robert Winters, president of Brazilian Light and Power. Speaking in Windsor, Ontario, on September 21, Mr. Winters said:
To bring such facilities and faculties to all who have the wish and the ability to use them is a financial undertaking of the first magnitude. It requires the resources of all levels of government and the private sector.
He also said:
The level of education and the standard of national economic well-being are interrelated. In our case, it is the major reason for the shortfall in our economic performance compared with our better educated neighbours to the south.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, education cannot be geared exclusively to economic performance. It must be related to advancement in the entire field of human knowledge-science, economics, literature, the arts and so on.
Unquestionably, since Canada's population as it relates to national development is smaller than a similar sort of population in most
[Mr. Yewchuk.l
other countries, we must derive the utmost benefit from our educational system so that each Canadian may make a maximum contribution to the national advancement. There was a time when education was largely a matter of self-improvement. Today education affects the progress of our country, the mutual understanding among its citizens, the unity and development of the nation and the scientific, social and political evolution of our times. For this reason the federal government must share a greater part of the burden, not only with the provinces but also with the students.
It has been said that it is easy to suggest programs that entail the spending of government money; but it is another thing to determine from where money to pay for such programs is to come. I know that those who will speak against this idea will say to hon. members in the opposition, "I thought you wanted the government to save money and here you are, asking for more money to be spent. You cannot have it both ways." The field of education, I submit, ought to have priority over a great many other fields. At this time it might be well for the government to reassess some of its programs and determine whether all or part of the money being spent in those programs is being spent to the best advantage. One program which comes to mind is an across the board handout to our entire family population, namely, the family allowance program.
I ask the government to consider one question at this time when it is short of money and is considering its priorities. Do families with a taxable income of $10,000 or more annually really need a family allowance? Do such families need this little handout which was inaugurated many years ago when economic conditions were so vastly different? That program could be reassessed, keeping in mind national priorities and spending money in areas of greatest need. Personally, if other sources of funds can not be found, I think education is important enough to warrant a little increase in taxation.
Recent changes in federal participation have resulted in federal contributions to capital and operating costs of universities being increased to approximately 50 per cent. At the same time very little has been done to ease the burden on students. It is illusory for those in the government to think that saddling a student with a large financial obligation which must be repaid shortly after
September 30. 1968

Student Loans
graduation is in any way a gift to the student. It is not. The debt makes it possible for the student to graduate. Then, when all his resources are needed to enable him to become established, he is faced with a large debt which he must repay.
If Canada is to keep pace with the advances made in the United States and elsewhere in the world in medicine, space, science, aeronautics and so on, and not be hopelessly left behind in the expansion of knowledge, nothing is more urgent at this time than assistance to our students. As a small beginning, I urge a total remission of student loan interest charges.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the mover of the motion. I agree with many of his points but I must say at the beginning of my remarks that though I support his motion my heart really is not in it. I feel that we must view education from the standpoint of Canada's place internationally and from the standpoint of its effects on our own population.
A couple of weeks ago the government was severely criticized for scrapping its winter works program. The government said that the winter works program was done away with because it was inadequate. Personally, I consider the student loan program totally inadequate. When the government thought its winter works program was wanting, so to speak, that program was scrapped forthwith. I know that we heard many vague mutterings on the subject of winter works. Nevertheless, a number of programs were suggested to take its place.
Today we are considering a reduction of loans and not the complete elimination of any particular grants. Perhaps we might consider this matter along the lines we considered the winter works program, if that is not taking our line of reasoning too far out of the way.
I do not think, as I said, that the Canada student loan program goes far enough. The house may recall that the inception of the program lay in some campaign promises in the 1963 federal election. We heard a good deal from the Liberals about 10,000 student scholarships. When the promise was transformed into legislation in 1964, as if by magic it became the Canada student loan plan.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
This plan has indeed helped to put thousands of students through university. It has also placed thousands of students in debt six months after their graduation. What we need today in this country is a greatly expanded
accessibility of education for students. Too few students go on to receive higher education; 16.9 per cent is the most recent figure I have heard, compared with well over 40 per cent in the United States. I think we have to consider education as being a right, not a privilege. Education should be considered as a means of enriching the human resources of our country, not only for the production of saleable skills but in the cultural aspects. The good life has to mean more than the ever-increasing consumption of goods. Accessibility means that regardless of income worthy students need travel allowances, better housing, far more in the way of educational and classroom facilities, much more by way of health facilities, books, supplies of various kinds. Our country is wealthy enough to provide a great deal more aid to students in all these directions-selfishly,	if you like,
because we depend on these students to provide the leadership in our society in the future.
There is a sociological side to accessibility. Even if we were to make university education completely free tomorrow it would take some sections of our society years to catch up with what this really means in terms of human betterment. I am thinking of the chronically unemployed, the chronically underprivileged, those who have checked out of our society and who do not understand that the way to a better life is through better education. So we must do more than provide free university education. We must set up a whole program along the lines of Headstart, a program which must be comprehensive and embrace our whole system of education. Only by such action can we put Canadians on an equal footing with students in some of the eastern countries and even in some countries of the west.
For too long we have depended upon the importation of skills. It seems to me there is something a little immoral about sending Canadian agents abroad to steal, if you like, the talent they find there, to drain the brains of other nations and make good the deficiencies that we have failed to overcome in our own. I am thinking of teachers, doctors, nurses; they are most welcome and we cannot do without them. But generally speaking they come from countries with a lower standard of living than our own which need the services of these people even more than we do. Their presence here indicates that we have failed to

Another 80,000 took technical or vocational training of one sort or another, thereby improving their employment potential and enhancing their contribution to the Canadian economy.
If the Canadian economy and the Canadian government's position are going to be enhanced by students going to university, then the government should do everything possible to assist them to do just that. It should not institute measures that are regressive. In my view the raising of the interest rate on student loans by 2 per cent is a regressive measure.
In this house we hear daily that we are in the midst of an inflationary spiral, and we also know that throughout the past summer many students had extreme difficulty in finding summer employment. If students are unable to earn money during the summer it follows that they will be more interested in borrowing money for their education. They should be assisted as much as possible when they go to borrow money from government sources, if it is the government's intention that they should do so, and I am not prepared to say I agree with that intention if it puts students deeper in debt.
The affluent can go to school quite easily. There is no problem there. Our problem in Canada is to broaden the educational base so that more of our young people can go to post-secondary institutions. I myself was most favoured to go with two of my high school classmates to university. My parents had the financial means to send me to university. However, there were a great many others of my age who had the ability to absorb university education but they did not have the means to attend university. I have always felt that others would have benefited equally, or perhaps to a greater degree, from the experience that I received by chance. Our job is to arrange our assistance so that it is no longer due to chance or accident of birth that students can go to university. The opportunity to go to university should be based on a student's ability to learn and not on his ability to pay.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment briefly on the ceiling imposed on student loans. The $1,000 ceiling really goes only two-thirds of the way toward meeting the cost of a student's year at college. I myself have a daughter at school, and most people estimate that a student living away from home is faced with a charge of some $1,500 per year for the various costs associated with going to university.
Student Loans
This session we have heard a lot about manpower training and retraining, about greater facilities, greater emphasis and greater opportunities. Is this just talk? Is this a case of what the Lord giveth He will ultimately take away?
This motion, Mr. Speaker, is a step in the right direction but it is only a timid step. We support it, knowing its imperfections. For years we have pressed and will continue to press for the provision of higher education at public expense in the same way as for over a century we have offered elementary and secondary school training to Canadian students.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make very brief comments.
In the first place, I wish to congratulate the mover of the motion which we wholeheartedly support, since it will help a class of very needy people.
Mr. Speaker, I will restrict my comments, in order to co-operate with the mover and prevent the motion from being postponed until Doomsday, as it happens most of the time.
Mr. Speaker, a student is a worker in the same capacity as a labourer in an industry and in a manufacture or as a farmer. A student is a worker since he must devote ten, fifteen or twenty years of his life to his studies. His sole difference with a labourer is that he has no income while attending school or university. He is a worker without any income and therefore must be helped. Then the government very imaginatively thought of offering non-existent jobs. I was one of those students a few years ago. I am now twenty-five and, since I finished my studies two years ago, I myself suffered from this practice. My debts at the present time total about $4,000, because I received no help from the government. I could not find a summer job because there were none to be had. As a result, I find myself today in the House of Commons. That is not too bad; however, all students do not become members of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important that we help the students. The work they are offered, to supply them with an extremely low minimum income, is obtained either through patronage or petty politicking.
Usually, the jobs are unimportant or the student must go to another province. This entails heavy expenses and he comes back


Mr. Judd Buchanan (London West):: Mr. Speaker although it may be strange, in some areas I find myself in agreement with the comments made by the members of the opposition. I feel, however, that to some extent we are going after a gnat with a shotgun. I do not believe the significant question is whether the young men or young women who have been through university do or do not pay interest on their student loans. I think we are attacking the problem from the wrong end. It would seem to me that it should be of far greater concern to us whether the young men and women in our society who have the ability also have the opportunity to go to university. Once they have been there and have graduated they are in a much better position to repay these obligations than are the individuals in our society who never have had the opportunity to attend university.
I have some interesting figures published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for the
September 30, 1968

year 1966. If one receives an elementary education during his lifetime he can expect to earn $131,000. One who receives up to three years of secondary school education can expect to earn $168,000. One who receives four or five years of secondary education can expect to earn $209,000. The university graduate on the other hand can expect to earn over his working life an average of $350,000. This is almost three times what the men and women without an elementary education will earn and about 50 per cent or 75 per cent greater than the individual who has had secondary school education. Therefore I do not believe the problem regarding those who have completed university education and who are now out in the the labour market is really as significant a problem as that regarding those young men and women who should be attending our universities and are not.
I believe all education-and here I share the opinion of some members opposite- should be free for all. This basic human right should be available to all to enable them to achieve their fullest development. This is a right which must not be restricted in any way by accident of birth, economics or geography. The right to education at every level should be free and within the reach of all who have the ability. This should be a guaranteed right to everyone without equivocation. There still are many Canadians who could and should be attending university but who are not.
It is interesting to note that a survey by the Canadian Union of Students found that 25 per cent of our university students are from the homes of wage earners who are in the top 6 per cent bracket. I am prepared to grant that much more than purely matters of finance are involved. There is the question of motivation. Reference has been made to the Headstart program and other programs which might be of assistance to students in the younger age group.
I still believe that the lack of financial resources unquestionably prevents many young men and women attending university. I believe also that we should be looking at the matter of some form of subsidy for the young men and women who live beyond the commuting distance of a university. It is much easier for someone who has the good fortune to live in a university town to attend university than it is for someone who lives 250 or 300 miles away. I am not concerned as much with those people who have gone to university and are now working as I am with the others who should be going to university and
Student Loans
who for one reason or another have not been given the opportunity to do so.
My friend in the New Democratic party must be using some figures which are different from mine. It is my understanding that approximately 23 per cent of all Canadians in the 18 to 23 age group are attending post secondary education facilities whereas the figure on the other side of the border is double that, 46 per cent. I grant that there may be some variation in this because someone might argue that in some areas our education is superior, while in others perhaps it is not. In our modern economic and social structure it is absolutely vital that we do not waste the resources of our young men and women. I feel this is the most vital resource we possess and that we must do everything in our capacity to capitalize on it.
Earlier I mentioned fees. It is my understanding that fees now account for less than 15 per cent of the operating revenues received by universities. Therefore, in that context, the malarkey we often hear of a person having worked his way through university really is not true. He may have provided 15 per cent of the cost, but the other 85 per cent of the cost is borne by the taxpayers at large. I believe that to set this up as a barrier to prevent men and women attending university, who should be there, is absolutely wrong.
I would like to make one additional observation. The government is already spending substantial amounts of money on post secondary education. The members of the opposition the other day berated the government for its fiscal irresponsibility. The biggest single factor in causing the government to be $400 million out in its estimates, in spite of cutting $80 million from its controllable expenditures, was the cost of the shared programs which we have with the various provinces. For post secondary education, instead of the estimated figure of $137 million this year we will require $375 million for that purpose. Therefore, $240 million of that $400 million is accounted for by the additional expenditure now being made on post secondary education. It is interesting to note that the present total amount paid in post secondary school fees in Canada is approximately half of that-$130 million.
I believe we should be examining this whole area very carefully to determine whether it would be possible to develop some scheme whereby we could eliminate the payment of tuition and provide some sort of subsidy for the young men and young women

September 30, 1968
Student Loans
who must travel from beyond commuting distance to attend university. However, to exhibit such concern for those who have graduated and who will be in a position to earn over their working life an income two or three times that earned by the less fortunate folk who do not attend university seems to be a very blatant example of locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like briefly to congratulate my colleague the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) for drawing the attention of the house to this most important subject. I congratulate him for doing so in his first notice of motion. Needless to say I agree with the motion. I am impressed by the arguments he has put forward.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I was concerned during the whole of the period between the dissolution of the last parliament and the recalling of this one about the number of students who came to me in anxiety because they were not able to find summer employment. I do not think that at any time since I became interested in this subject, and I have been in university work for a long time, have I seen a greater indication in these affluent times of difficulty on the part of individual students in meeting the basic needs of their university education.
While it may be said that of course this motion does not deal in toto with this immense problem, it is one practical and useful suggestion which falls within the purview of the legislature to which we belong. Certainly it would be very thoughtless of us if in what-the hon. member calls this electronic age we missed any opportunity in our search for education in depth for all. If we miss any opportunity to further the purpose which would appear to be in the minds of all who have spoken today, and the views which they hold so sincerely, it would be thoughtless.
Like one of the hon. members who has spoken, I have memories of going through that exercise which, in the archaic language of yesterday, we used to describe as working one's way through college. Some people recommend this as a recipe for all their successers. I have no patience with such a point of view. I think of the many opportunities to advance one's knowledge which are denied to young men or young women who

by economic necessity are forced to devote a part of their time to the hard, grim task of keeping body and soul together as they tread the halls of learning.
I welcome this suggestion of the hon. member. It is a very good one, and I think it is timely because, in spite of our affluence, I do believe there is a crisis in this very area of education. Hon. members in other parts of the house have pointed out documentation in respect of this very matter. We hardly need tell ourselves that the human resource is the one we dare not fail to develop to its fullest. If we compare what is going on in other countries we have no reason to be complacent.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) stated very simply-this has been said before and it should never be forgotten- that it is the ability to learn and not the ability to pay which should be the criterion. There is a wastage of human resources and I am sure that this very day there are young Canadians who are not at university because of financial reasons. I agree also with those who have pointed out that the $1,000 figure is now unrealistic. I agree too with what they have said about the interest rate. I am appalled at the number of students who have applied for loans as they now exist, and have been turned down. There is disappointment among youth. I suppose somewhere all across Canada there are 50,000 young people who are disappointed because they did not receive these $1,000 scholarships that were promised in 1963 at the rate of $10,000 per year. But I would say, as in all of these things, that we must deal not in the past and drink the sour wine of unfulfilled promises, but urge, and I am sure the hon. member had this in mind, that in all the planning this government may do, and in all its efforts to mobilize our resources we surely must begin with those resources the hon. member had in mind as he constructed this interesting, valuable and helpful notice of motion. I say again how much I appreciate his initiative and his thoughtfulness in dealing with this subject, one demanding great priority.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this notice of motion introduced by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) and asking that the government should study the possibility of removing the interest rate on loans to students.
September 30, 1968

The students loan program was put into effect in 1964 and I think it has helped many students already. Since 1964, 132,000 students have taken part in the program and approximately $160 million have been loaned by banks and guaranteed by the federal government.
I was fortunate enough to take part in that program because barely a few years ago I was a student. I can say that the program was welcomed with much enthusiasm by the students; they appreciated it and I think that it was at the time and still is a priority for the federal as well as the provincial governments.
On August 21 last, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) explained that new administrative principles had been followed mainly so that only the students who really needed the program could participate therein. To that purpose, the administrative principles had been studied by the federal government and the provinces participating in that scheme, and by the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
I think that when the government considers the possibilities of implementing a program and spending more money on a certain program, it must determine which one of the two would be of greater use to the country. Whether it is directly paid by the federal government, or under an agreement with the provincial governments, it is very important to decide.
I would like to point out to the house that there are still areas in this country where primary schools do not have the necessary facilities to give pupils as good an education as elsewhere in the country. The same is true for high schools, and I can give you an example. There is a lack of physical education facilities in many places, and I think especially of my own province, New Brunswick. In my opinion, there is a priority at the secondary level. There is also a gap in the development of a physical education program.
The hon. member for Athabaska now suggests a measure of assistance for the students. He and other hon. members have spoken of helping the students. I completely agree. I think that we should seriously consider the possibility of helping anyone who wants to study., only in that case let us help the students. A student who graduates is no longer a student.
Student Loans
For example, in the last academic year, between July 1, 1967 and June 30, 1968, about $57 million were lent to 90,371 students. At the interest rate of that time, which was 5J per cent, that amounts to about $3 million. The hon. members of the opposition agree that we must have priorities and that we must help the students. They ask us to give $3 million to students who have graduated and who have entered a profession, who are now lawyers, chartered accountants or professors, and to forget about the other programs. In my opinion, priority should really be given to students in secondary schools, in primary schools and in university. We should give priority to those groups that really need it.
The hon. member for Athabaska mentioned also that our graduate students are in debt when they leave college. Supposing a student borrows $5,000; now, according to the new administrative criterions, if a student is given a loan of $5,000, it means that he was unable to find work during the summer or that his parents are not well-off. According to the program, he may have nine and a half years to pay back that $5,000. My figures are not necessarily correct, however it would mean that he could repay $43 a month on the capital and about $25 or $30 on the interest, which would amount to about $68 a month or $816 a year. In my opinion, our country is now going through a period of inflation. Wages are going up, and I do not think that $816 a year could really inconvenience a student once he has graduated. It could, for instance, inconvenience a student who would have to pay back that money while studying, but not once his studies are over.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to speak on the motion, but I want to make one or two suggestions in the next minute. First, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) that this is just a halfway measure in meeting the problem. I think it will help in about a year with regard to student unemployment. I believe we should pass this motion, not talk it out.
Second, we should encourage the government members of the house to do something about university accessibility. This should be

September 30, 1968
Student Loans
a matter of government policy. The government should be doing things like paying university fees, expanding university facilities, facilities for students, and so on. Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the question be put.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the student loan program is to assist students to get an education. Once equipped, most of them are in a position to look after themselves. While I am not against the abolition of interest rates of this type, I believe the priority today should be in raising the ceiling of income which parents are allowed to earn before their children become disqualified from obtaining a student loan.
A number of people have discussed this aspect of the student loan program with me, telling me, as the case may be, that they had a son or a daughter turned down because the family income was in excess of the qualifying amount. At the same time, I sympathize with those parents, because their income was not really that much when one considers the responsibilities with which they were faced.
Many of the young people with whom I have spoken would look favourably upon there being an increase in the number of students who can qualify for a student loan by reason of a higher income ceiling which parents are allowed to earn. Their emphasis was on the importance of providing students with money while attending university. My strong feelings with regard to providing more funds for student loans under the federal-provincial agreement is conditioned by my own experience. Other hon. members have today mentioned students who are going through something of a state of depression because of their lack of funds while attending university. I am in full sympathy with the feelings of these people. This is why I am taking a very strong stand on increasing the amount of these loans. It is very depressing when a student sitting in a small room in a city a long way from home does not know where his next dollar is coming from.
Therefore I believe the emphasis today should be on the humanitarian aspect of educating our young people and producing the funds with which to educate them, because I believe they would be quite happy to look after themselves if they were provided with interest free loans during their university education and for six months afterwards.
Many favourable comments have been made here today about the abolition of university fees. This would of course help

immensely. But we must consider that a young person who borrows a great deal of money while attending university is faced with paying it back after completing his university education, at a time when he has to set up a new home and start a business career, with all the expense involved.
I think the day will come when we will abolish these interest rates. There is indeed considerable pressure for the abolition of university fees. If we remember our history, we will know that in Canada in the early days fees were payable even to attend many secondary schools. No one would think of doing this today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
have done it.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: May I call it seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Olson-Mr. Faulkner in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Credit Act to broaden the classes of persons eligible for loans under the act; to increase the amount of the capital of the Farm Credit Corporation; to substitute for the present rates of interest on loans made under the act (except any such loans made pursuant to applications received by the corporation before September 13, 1968) such rate or rates of interest on any loans made after the coming into force of the said measure as may be prescribed by the governor in council; to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act and for other matters related or incidental thereto.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Members in the opposition will realize that most of what little training I have was received on that side of the house, and while I know that all hon. members are sincere in wishing me well in this task and are also offering to co-operate, I am sure there will be occasions when their responses will sound like anything but full co-operation. Yet, I know this is part of the way in which business is done in this house, and since I participated in that kind of response over the last number of years I will understand fully when it happens.


Gerald William Baldwin: We think some of the minister's colleagues could stand a little more experience over here.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There is no prospect of that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I hope they do not get it for a long while.
I also wish to express my appreciation to the house leader for proposing that the three resolutions dealing with farm credit be considered almost concurrently. We are not asking that the rules be amended or suspended even temporarily, but certainly it is a fact that items Nos. 5, 6 and 7 on the order paper deal with farm credit, and the divisions between the various purposes of the acts following these resolutions is an arbitrary one. Indeed some of them overlap in many respects, and if the house accepts the amendments that I intend to propose, there will be even more overlapping of the acts.
I also wish to acknowledge the co-operation of the house leaders of the other parties in allowing us to proceed in this way with the discussion of the three resolutions.
The resolution in item No. 6 dealing with the Farm Credit Act which established the farm credit corporation and through it provides long term mortgage credit to Canadian farmers, is one of the most important government programs for the support and development of the agricultural industry.
I will not spend a lot of time on the background of these acts because I know that most hon. members, whether they were in this house prior to this parliament or not, are familiar with it, although I think a very brief explanation is in order so that the resolutions may appear in a more cohesive form.
The objectives of the program are to provide the capital to facilitate the organization of Canadian agriculture into viable farm units in the hands of our competent farmers so that
Farm Credit Act
agriculture may make the greatest possible contribution to the Canadian economy and provide farmers with equitable returns for their investment of capital, work and skills. It provides the opportunity for individual farmers, in consultation with credit advisers trained in farm organization and management and in farm financing, to obtain the capital required to reorganize, develop or expand their farm businesses, and thus is a most potent force in bringing about the adjustments and the rationalization in the use of farm land so essential to a viable agricultural industry.
Very briefly, it appears from statistics relating to the number of loans, that from the inception of the operations of the corporation in October 1959 until the end of March of this year, the corporation has made more than 72,000 loans for a total of more than one billion one hundred million dollars. About 50 per cent of these funds have gone toward assisting farmers to buy additional land to enlarge their farms. A very significant proportion has gone toward financing the construction of buildings and other improvements to farm land necessary for efficient production.
Between 1961 and 1966 the number of farms in Canada with gross sales in excess of $5,000 per annum increased from about 140,000 to about 192,000. In the same period the number of farms with gross sales of more than $10,000 per annum increased from 50,000 to 95,000 or 90 per cent. While there were many factors involved, there is no doubt that credit under the provisions of the Farm Credit Act made a very significant contribution to these adjustments. I also think that keeping agriculture efficient, not only in terms of cost but in terms of keeping an orderly flow of the raw material needed for our food industry moving into the stream, is also important to people other than farmers.
It is therefore important to emphasize that the beneficial results of a program of this nature accrue not only to the farming public but to the public at large in terms of the efficient and low cost production of food.
To keep pace with the rapid changes taking place in agriculture, there is a continuous need for adjustments in our farm credit program. Several of these adjustments are now being proposed. Further adjustments will be made in the light of and following the report of the agricultural task force which has been established to recommend guide lines for agricultural policy.

September 30, 1968
Farm Credit Act
As agriculture has developed, more and more farmers are arranging to conduct their farm businesses in co-operation with one another in various forms of partnerships, farming corporations or co-operative associations. It is important that these developments be recognized and that credit facilities be adjusted to meet the increased capital needs where two or more farmers wish to organize and operate their businesses together.
Another important amendment deals with Indians on Indian reserves. Indian farmers situated on reserves have so far been unable to borrow from the farm credit corporation because of their inability to mortgage their land. It would seem appropriate that the corporation be given authority to enter into appropriate agreements wth the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development so that appropriate arrangements can be made to provide credit for the development of viable farm businesses on Indian reserves.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Another important amendment that we will be proposing has to do with father and son business relationships. While the total number of farm operators is gradually decreasing, it remains essential for the future viability of the agricultural industry that there be a continuous flow of competent young men into agriculture. For this reason, it seems necessary, particularly in view of the increasing capital costs required to establish a viable farm business, to provide additional facilities to assist competent young men to get into this field. In particular, it seems desirable to adjust the provisions of the legislation so that a father who wishes to expand his farm business to bring in his son as a partner will be able to obtain the capital required to develop his farm to a size that will make it attractive for the son to join in the farm business. Amendments to this effect will be proposed.
When the Farm Credit Act was passed in 1959, the interest rate which the corporation might charge was fixed at 5 per cent. As we are all aware, interest rates in the general economy fluctuate from time to time. Any great differential between the rate at which the corporation lends money and the general level of interest rates will tend to distort the demand for credit from the corporation. In economists' terms, unrealistic interest rates tend to cause misallocation of resources, and in particular terms any savings as a result of a subsidized interest rate on capital borrowed for the purchase of land could make the cost

of the land excessively inflationary. For these reasons, it seems desirable, quite apart from the question of the subsidization of interest, to amend the Farm Credit Act so that rates can be established by the governor in council from time to time in relation to interest rates in the economy in general.
Turning to another aspect of this subject now, Mr. Chairman, I may say that at the moment the authorized capital of the Farm Credit Corporation is $40 million. On the basis of this capital, the corporation is authorized to borrow up to $1 billion, so that the total funds available to the corporation for lending amount to $1,040 million. On September 17, the total amount outstanding to the corporation on its commitments exceeded $1 billion. At the present rate of approval of loans to farmers, the total funds available to the corporation will be used up by the end of October or early November of this year. For this reason, it is essential that the authorized capital of the Farm Credit Corporation be increased in order to permit this lending program to continue. Of course, Mr. Chairman, I hardly need to add that amendments to provide for this will be proposed.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I am now turning to the other resolutions, in compliance with the agreement we made earlier today. I should like to make a very brief explanation of some of the amendments that we intend to propose in respect of the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act. This act was enacted in 1964 and lending commenced in January of 1965. Very briefly, the objective of this program is to provide a simple means whereby three or more farmers may co-operate in the purchase and use of farm machinery, thus saving overhead machinery costs. May I give a few statistics in relation to this act? From the inception of lending to the end of July of this year, 444 loans have been made to 346 syndicates for a total of about $3.7 million and for the purchase of about 1,388 machines of various types. Although the number of syndicates formed may not seem large, it is significant to know that some of the syndicates have found this operation so successful they have returned for second, third and even fourth loans to expand their co-operative use of farm machinery.
In the light of the experience to date, Mr. Chairman, there are several amendments to the program that now seem desirable. The present act requires the members of the syndicate to be farmers who are farming independently of each other. Experience shows that those farmers who co-operate in
September 30, 1968

the purchase and use of machinery tend to extend their co-operation to other aspects of their farming operations. For example, some of them may pool their land use to overcome problems relating to the timeliness of seeding and harvesting operations. As a result, they are no longer farming independently. For this reason, it seemed desirable to amend the legislation to that three or more farmers may borrow even though their operations may not be independent of one another in all the ways that the act now requires that word "independent" to be defined.
Some farmers have organized their co-operative efforts through the promotion of cooperative associations or corporations. At the moment, such farmers would be required to enter into separate syndicate agreements in respect of the use of machinery purchased through loans under the provisions of this act. We feel the terms of their association or incorporation already provide the basis upon which they might co-operate in the purchase and use of machinery. It seems unnecessary that they be required to enter into separate, new agreements in order to operate under the provisions of the act.
Much of the machinery and equipment which is most suitable for co-operative use by a group of farmers is of the type that requires installation in buildings designed for it. Examples of this would be equipment required for the washing, grading and packaging of fruits and vegetables, grain drying equipment and of course some types of production equipment. At the moment, the act provides only for the purchase of machinery. I believe it should provide also for the financing of the building site and the specially designed building required for the installation and proper use of this machinery or equipment. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, amendments will be proposed to incorporate these ideas.
To carry this a little further, there are buildings which may be profitably used cooperatively by a group of farmers in the various aspects of their farming operation. An example of this would be the efficient storage of fruits and vegetables which may require large, well equipped buildings beyond the needs or indeed the means of any one individual farmer. A group of farmers could profitably co-operate on the construction of storage facilities for products such as apples and potatoes. It would be possible to build a storage large enough to be economic and adequate for the needs of all.
Farm Credit Act
Another example is the hostel type of housing accommodation for seasonal labourers in areas where the type of crops being produced require an extensive amount of this kind of labour. We are all aware of the difficulties in obtaining seasonable labour for some types of produce. We recognize that one of the principal difficulties is the lack of housing accommodation for these workers. A group of farmers could co-operatively build the kind of housing accommodation required. For this reason, it is desirable to amend the provisions of this legislation to provide credit for the construction of buildings which groups of farmers might use co-operatively for this purpose in particular, but for other purposes as well.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take a great deal of time going through introductory remarks in connection with the other resolutions. There will be other opportunities. However, I should like to spend a few minutes now introducing resolution No. 5, which is the one that deals with the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The resolution indicates a number of amendments, Mr. Chairman, to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, which will reinstate this important farm credit facility in a way to permit it to serve the farming sector even more effectively than it did in the past.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Hon. members will require little by way of general introduction to this program, which is so well known. I must put on the record, however, a few statistics related to its history. It first came into effect in 1944 as a measure to encourage our chartered banks to make term credit readily available to farmers across the country, for a wide range of important projects, at reasonable cost. To this end the government guaranteed all loans made by the banks for purposes set out in the act. This guarantee has been renewed by parliament from time to time in respect of loans made during three year periods. The most recent period was added in September, 1964, to run from July 1, 1965 to June 30, 1968. Hon. members may recall that it did not prove possible to deal with this measure before the three year guarantee period expired on June 30, 1968. In view of the subsequent dissolution of the house, this is the first opportunity to bring this measure before the house for consideration.
Meanwhile, however, the Minister of Finance indicated publicly that it was his intention to seek amendments to the act as soon as

September 30, 1968
Farm Credit Act
possible to include another lending period and to make improvements in the legislation. As his predecessors had done previously under similar circumstances, the Minister of Finance advised the banks that when the legislation was introduced in the house the new lending period would be made retroactive to July 1 and that any loans they made after June 30 according to the terms and conditions now set out in the legislation would be covered by the government guarantee.
This act first came into effect nearly a quarter of a century ago to help make term credit more readily available to farmers on reasonable terms and conditions. As the Minister of Finance explained to the house when the measure was first introduced, the Farm Improvement Loans Act was designed as an incentive to banks to enter the term lending field to farmers on a major scale.
A maximum rate of interest of 5 per cent was included in the act, which rate at that time was sufficient to cover the banks' cost of operation and give them an incentive to go after the business. I think hon. members will agree that this legislation has been eminently successful in achieving its objective. The use that has been made of this facility over the years has shown considerable growth. Annual lending of about $10 million in 1946 rose to $100 million by 1960, and to the $200 million level by 1965. Since then, the growth has been slower.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Minister of Agriculture but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


An hon. Member:: What about the 1967 figures?


James Hugh Faulkner: Has the minister the consent of the committee to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I thank hon. members for their courtesy, and I shall not transgress too much on the time of the committee. I was saying that the figure had increased to $212 million in 1966. I believe someone opposite me asked what the 1967 figures were. There was a slight decline in 1967 to about $204 million.


George Harris Hees: Is that slight?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This indication of slower growth and decline in 1967 may have been explained in terms of developments affecting Canadian

agriculture generally; but subsequent developments suggest that it is a reflection of the increasing reluctance of banks to commit funds at 5 per cent, despite the presence of the government guarantee. During the latter part of last year and the early months of this year, when interest rates rose sharply, bank lending under the Farm Improvement Loans Act fell off sharply and virtually ceased some time before the lending period formally expired on June 30, 1968.
I mentioned a moment ago that this act was designed as an incentive for banks to make these loans, and I think it is important to keep in mind that the objective of this legislation is to facilitate the making of guaranteed loans to farmers; but the ultimate decision on whether such loans are made rests with the lender. Farm improvement loans are guaranteed by the government as to their repayment in the event of default, but the lenders are the source of financing. The lenders of these funds must, of course, take into account the prevailing general level of interest rates and the cost of them of their sources of funds.
An amendment to the act which makes the rate prescribable by regulations would enable the government to establish maximum rates that would be below rates that farmers would have to pay in the absence of the guarantee, but that would be high enough to enable the banks to continue to lend their wholehearted support to this program. It would also provide the flexibility necessary to see that the program continues on a fair and equitable basis to both borrower and lender by ensuring that the rates reflect changes over time in the general level of interest rates. Under these circumstances it should be possible for a new group of lenders to become active under this program.
The amendments I have just referred to would have the effect of reactivating operations under the act. I shall now turn to other amendments that would significantly broaden the operations under the act.
As hon. members are aware, the credit requirements of the farming sector for land purchases are now met almost in their entirety by the Farm Credit Corporation. With the rapidly growing credit requirements in recent years for both major and minor land purchases this has meant a growing demand on the government's cash resources. Of course, F.C.C. provides a good deal more than the funds to meet these credit requirements. There are many progressive and profitable farming enterprises in the country today
September 30, 1968

which became that way not only because they borrowed from the F.C.C., but also, and perhaps more so, because they received expert guidance and counsel from F.C.C.'s highly trained staff or agricultural experts. The F.C.C. has, however, financed in the past numerous smaller purchases of land not requiring the specialized service of the F.C.C. but capable of being suitably handled by regular commercial lenders. A case in point would be a relatively small piece of land that may come on the market and help a farmer round out his existing farm holdings. We are proposing to make such relatively minor land purchases eligible under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. For larger land purchases a farmer would of course continue to look to the F.C.C. for financing.
The addition of the purchase of land as an eligible loan purpose and the flexibility that is proposed on interest rates makes it appropriate to broaden the range of lenders among whom a farmer may wish to choose when making his financial arrangements. The proposed amendments would add as eligible lenders loan, trust and insurance companies, which are particularly familiar with mortgage lending, and credit unions and caisses populates, which could service their member-clients over the entire range of loan purposes under the act.
The inclusion of credit unions, which have a long and strong tradition in rural areas and particularly in western Canada will, I am sure, be welcome by those interested in rural co-operative movements.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
To accommodate this new loan purpose without unduly restricting a farmer's ability to borrow under the act for other purposes, such as the purchase of equipment, the amendments would raise the maximum loan amount that may be outstanding to a farmer at any one time to $25,000. An amount of up to $15,000 may be outstanding in respect of land purchases. The present loan limit of $15,000 for loan purposes, other than the purchase of land, would continue to apply, but both these loan limits would be made subject to a new over-all ceiling of $25,000. If a farmer wished, he could continue to borrow up to $15,000 for purposes covered in the present act, and have in addition up to $10,000 for the purchase of land. If he preferred to use up to $15,000 for the purchase of land, he would be able to obtain a government guaranteed loan up to $10,000 for other prescribed purposes.
Farm Credit Act
Mr. Chairman, I think we all recognize the importance of continuing what has so far been a very successful program. The proposed flexibility of interest rates, combined with the participation of new lenders, the addition of a new loan purpose and higher loan amounts, will no doubt provide the basis for a further successful period of credit support for farmers.
This is a brief outline of the amendments we intend to bring forward when the bills to follow these three resolutions are brought into the chamber. We have done the best we can, when framing these amendments, to make these three acts as useful and effective as possible. While they may not be perfect, I think they go a long way toward recognizing and making provision for needed development in agricultural credit requirements.
In conclusion I wish to thank all hon. members for the co-operation they have extended to me during the past few weeks. I know there are many problems in the field of agriculture and that these changes in farm credit legislation will not solve all of them. However, they will go some distance and we hope members in all parts of this house will co-operate with us in allowing us not only to deal with all the resolutions as a package, but to bring the subsequent bills forward one after the other; because I think the whole debate on these three bills deals essentially with one subject, that of farm credit, and it would be difficult to separate the three resolutions, or the three bills, and deal with them in the course of three separate debates.
The reinstatement, with improvements, of the Farm Improvement Loans Act is needed at once. Not a day goes by without a large number of letters passing over my desk from farmers who ask how quickly we can re-enact this piece of legislation. So it is needed right away. The need for the changes in the Farm Machinery Syndicates Act and the Farm Credit Act may not be so urgent, but we have committed all the money we are authorized to commit to the Farm Credit Corporation. So without making any attempt to restrict debate I would ask hon. members in all parts of the house to expedite the passage of these bills in order that we can make these services available to farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Danforth:: Speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition I wish to express appreciation to the minister for his introduction of these three measures, so important to

September 30, 1968
Farm Credit Act
agriculture at the present time. I wish also to thank the hon. gentleman for giving us details of the amendments he proposes. They are many in number. We cannot hope to deal with all of them this evening, so the opposition reserves the right to consider them one at a time in later stages of the debate.
The hon. gentleman has pleaded with us tonight to pass these bills very quickly, telling us that the money is badly needed by the farm community. He certainly speaks the truth. But, Mr. Chairman, these funds have been needed, now, for many months by those engaged in agriculture. It would be interesting to see an evaluation of the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by the farmers of this nation in higher interest rates because this government in its wisdom early last year declined to put this necessary legislation before the house.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: You would not even call the house early enough.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It was offered to you, but you would not deal with it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: You were not over there, then.


Harold Warren Danforth: The minister speaks of the 5 per cent interest rate. Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act the money is not available to farmers at the present time. The minister knows that for months this source of money has dried up, forcing farmers to pay interest rates of 13 per cent, 14 per cent and even more to the loan companies and the machinery companies in order to obtain new machinery or take advantage of the opportunity to improve their efficiency.
What we have before us tonight at long last is an admission by the government that agriculture needs more money, and a statement that interest rates will be permitted to rise in order to make this money available. We who sit on these benches intend to scrutinize the amendments very carefully. As far as farm improvement loans are concerned, and loans to machinery syndicates, we wish to make these available as quickly as possible, knowing how desperately they are needed.
May I suggest, since those two bills deal with short term loans, more or less, and since farm credit loans are a long term proposition, that the government seriously consider sending the latter piece of legislation to a reconstituted standing committee on agriculture, where an opportunity might be afforded of examining the procedure by which such loans are made, and the terms which might be

placed upon farmers. Every member of this house has encountered instances where farmers' applications for loans have been refused, on the ground that they are already operating economic units, and therefore do not need loans.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
At the same time other farm loans have been refused because farmers as yet do not have economic units and therefore cannot obtain them. As a result many farmers of this nation have found it almost impossible to comply with the regulations and obtain the necessary funds for expansion. So, Mr. Chairman, it is our earnest desire that the government give serious consideration to referring this one, of the three measures, to a standing committee, for an examination of the terms of the bill and the amendments proposed.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the government does not solve any of the major farm problems by offering farmers an opportunity to get deeper in debt. In other words, Mr. Chairman, every farmer of this nation knows you cannot borrow yourself out of an economic obligation.


An hon. Member:: Not even the government can do that.


Harold Warren Danforth: We found through the years that when extensive credit was available it has increased the cost of land, it has increased the cost of machinery and, according to the government's own statement, in the last six years it has put the farmers, through the farm credit bill alone, $1,100,000,000 further into debt.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the government that the farming community is going to look at these three bills with a great deal of suspicion, not because farmers do not want this money, not because they do not appreciate the increase in credit, but because they are going to be very suspicious of the open end where the government, at its discretion, may state what the rate of interest shall be, and at its discretion change the rate of interest.
In these bills I think we should have a definite formula, perhaps related to the present interest rate, in order that when they approach government for money farmers themselves will know definitely what they will be expected to pay this year, next year and any other year. So we must look at this part of the government's proposals with a great deal of suspicion and caution.
September 30, 1968

Further, Mr. Chairman, farmers today are going to be most hesitant in increasing their financial obligation, because during the last six years they have not been able to obtain any indication from the government as to where it thinks agriculture should go. There has been no policy, so much so that today a so-called efficient farm, as the government points out may, by the government's definition, be an inefficient farm tomorrow. This occurs, not through any fault of the operator, not through actual inefficiency of the operator, but because of changing trade patterns that are encouraged by the government, because of changing labour requirements that are encouraged by the government, because of a tremendous increase in imports being allowed by the government, and because of changes in tariff regulations which in themselves, taken singly or collectively, can reduce the gross returns of the most efficient farm, put it in a position of operational inefficiency and therefore, according to the government, place it in a position where it should pass out of existence.
Because of the substitute products coming on the market and because of overproduction in some segments of it, the dairy industry is in trouble. Every member of this house realizes that. Most dairy operators are of the considered opinion that in order to compete on an international basis they must be most proficient and efficient in their operation. With dairying, as it is today, some dairy farms will require $100,000 additional capital in order to modernize and take advantage of the most recent innovations. But dairy operators are sound businessmen and they are not going to borrow $100,000 unless they know the government's plans for the future of the industry.
We cannot have, as we had in the past under the previous government, three different national dairy proposals or plans in three years, with the result that dairymen had no idea what the government proposed for them. Businessmen are going to look at this very carefully before they tie up their funds for years in advance. The government tonight speaks of additional credit for farmers. We on this side say that farmers before they take advantage of this credit have a right to know what the government's policy is.
What has happened in the last three years to the farmers of this nation? The Ontario sugar beet industry passed out of existence. What about the farmers who took advantage of farm improvement loans to buy beet combines? They paid $3,000 or $4,000 for beet
Farm Credit Act
combines, but because of lack of a government sugar policy the beet industry went out of existence. How are those farmers expected to finance and pay for those machines?
What is happening to the corn industry today? Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of farm equipment is tied up in it. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Farm Credit Corporation money is tied up in enlarging com farms. What is going to happen if this commodity passes out of existence, due to the economic climate? How are those farmers going to repay their loans?
What is going to happen to the canning industry if we allow, as we have done, imports to come into this country to such a degree that that industry and those engaged in it are on a marginal economic existence? What happens if we cannot sell our wheat? Who is going to repay these loans totalling $1,100,000,000 that farmers have borrowed since 1961? If the the farm industry collapses who is going to repay this money?
What is going to happen to our beef industry if we increase imports of beef from Agen-tina and other countries? What is going to happen to the tomato industry if we continue to import tomatoes from Mexico, Bulgaria and Portugal? These, Mr. Chairman, are the questions farmers are asking. Where do we go from here?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: To the just society.


Harold Warren Danforth: Farmers realize, but the government does not, that under present policies the farming industry can no longer exist as a great industry in Canada. They do not need a task force to tell them what the problem is: They know what the problem is. The problem is that they are no longer governed by the law of supply and demand, or the law of a free enterprise system. They know that as little, local, provincial co-operatives they cannot hope to deal efficiently and effectively with state controlled sales and state controlled subsidies. They know that as individual farmers, as co-operative farmers or as provincial organizations they cannot compete with managed markets. They cannot compete with international food chains that can buy all over the world, and through their own distribution systems take advantage of vast markets.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The fanners turn to the federal government for this. They want to know what the federal government intends doing about it, and

September 30, 1968
Farm Credit Act
whether that government will provide them with the domestic market. They wish to know whether we are to have our own Canadian market, or whether the government intends as in the past to encourage imports in a desperate last ditch attempt to force down the cost of living. Is the farming community to be sacrificed for this? Are the farmers to be asked to bear the brunt of the new taxation measures the government proposes? What will happen to the farming community under the new GATT trading arrangements and the Kennedy round? This has never been discussed in the house. The government has not stated its policy in this regard. Certainly it has indicated that some industries will be hurt and that an attempt will be made to compensate those industries, but where does the farming community fit into all this? Many times when a farming industry is not hurt directly, if some of the allied industries are hurt it is the farmers who pay.
The minister tonight has stated that there is an attempt to increase the credit to the farmers of this nation. I compliment the government on this and on some of the amendments which I believe will help the situation. I should like to point out, however, one example. Under the syndicates act accommodation is to be provided for seasonal labour. In other words, if a group of farmers wishes to employ seasonal labour to harvest the crop in season, be it strawberries, tomatoes, apples, tobacco or some other crop, under the terms of the act, as I understand it, the government will be prepared to lend the money necessary to construct the accommodation. What will happen if this labour is imported from Jamaica, and the immigration policy changes? What will happen if the local canning company to which this produce is delivered is put out of business because of imports? W11 this group of farmers, which can no longer engage profitably in this endeavour, be forced either into bankruptcy or into paying off these loans?
I suggest that through the extension of credit alone we can neither answer nor hope to answer the many serious problems facing agriculture today. The farmers of this nation who have been waiting impatiently for years are now told that when the task force makes its report the government will consider the recommendations. It is no wonder the farmers of this nation are impatient. They know what the problems are, and they expect government action to solve some of these problems.
[Mr. Danforth.l
They expect the government to act on their behalf. Farm credit alone will not suffice.
Recently we have seen what can happen with regard to a commodity, and I am speaking once more of corn. In a single year we have reached the point where, at the present time, the receipts for this crop are considered to be lower than the cost of production. We have seen what has happened in the case of sugar beets. Farmers who for years considered this to be their main crop suddenly found that they could not grow it any longer. We have seen what has happened to the small canning companies across this nation when they have been faced in the marketplace with sudden imports.
We have seen what can happen with regard to credit. Farmers who have depended on the Farm Credit Corporation or the Farm Improvement Loans Act to help them in time of need have found, through government action, that this source of credit has been taken away from them. When they have needed a loan, they have attempted for months to survive without it. We are about to see what may happen under the changing trade patterns brought about by the Kennedy round.
I do not wish to appear to be pessimistic, but under the changing regulations in respect of the dumping duties, and the trading which has been taking place on a commodity basis, I fear there are some segments of the Canadian agricultural industry which will be in dire circumstances. Therefore I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the government, that we intend to do all we can in an attempt to get this legislation through the house as quickly as possible. But we will do our very best to see that the interests of the farmers of this nation are taken care of, because it is long past the time when members in this house should be awakened and made aware of the circumstances faced by the agricultural community today. They should begin, in a constructive manner, to do something about it. We cannot introduce this legislation, but when the legislation comes before the members of this house we intend to do our very best to serve the farmers of this nation.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, when speaking for our group with regard to this credit program that is being offered to the agricultural industry as a whole, I must say that I believe some real opportunity to do something new and imaginative may well have been missed. While I say this, I am aware that the minister
September 30, 1968

knows I have a considerable respect for his ability, since we have known one another for a number of years. When one looks at this program he must consider that although the intention is that more money will be made available to farmers in the form of credit, it is proposed that this money be made available to them-I think we must assume-at a much increased rate of interest. The term used was that the present rates are unrealistic. I suppose therefore that we will have some realistic rate, and this will depend on what particular economist we are listening to at what particular time.
Are these interest rates to be realistic in terms of the farmers' costs of production? This remains to be seen. Before I talk about interest rates, however, I should like to say that what is lacking here more than anything else is a co-ordinated approach to farm credit in an attempt to tie together the long term, intermediate and short term credit. Certainly a very high percentage of farmers are now using these three types of credit.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
What we are being offered here is just a continuation of what we have had. The proposals in respect of the Farm Improvement Loans Act are just the same, with some added money made available. The Farm Credit Corporation will continue to operate as it has. There is no method of tying these together so as to have a package approach. In that way the whole scope of the farming community could be served.
Back in November of 1962 a working paper was prepared for the royal commission on banking and finance by D. W. Carr and Associates. This working paper was in respect of farm credit in Canada. As far back as that date Mr. Carr and his associates made some recommendations on this very subject. The report said:
The most important lenders in short and intermediate term farm credit were the chartered banks. A significant part of this lending was under the Farm Improvement Loans Act through which a degree of public responsibility for such farm credit had been initiated. To carry out these responsibilities effectively and most profitably the banks operations under F.I.L.A. clearly needed the specialized technical guidance and advice of agricultural credit experts. The interest of both the banks and the farmers would be best served by F.I.L.A. having closer association with the federal Department of Agriculture. This could enable F.I.L.A. lending to be expanded with the confidence that the risks were minimized by sounder lending techniques for both F.I.L.A. and ordinary farm loans and should thus reduce the risk on the banks' ordinary farm loans also.
29180-39}
Farm Credit Act
Instead of following this line and looking for more advice we are going to open up this field to the insurance and trust companies, and the government is going to guarantee them against loss. This means that if, as a previous speaker has suggested, a farmer gets in over his head, the farmer himself is taking the risk. There is always a risk when you lend money but it can be minimized, and this is one way it could have been done. The report then continues indicating that a coordinating body should be set up to co-ordinate the various lending agencies and states:
A most important function of this development co-ordination body would be to establish in the beginning more adequate sources of information for appraising trends and developments in farm financing, to initiate research and analytical appraisals of changes and problems in farm credit demand and in its sources of supply, to develop and promote the use of improved techniques by both private and public lenders and to review and develop measures to meet the changing needs in credit services to farmers.
This information has been available to the government since 1962 and the government paid good hard cash to get it, yet it has not been used. What the report is saying in effect is that more should be done in the way of what is being done by the Farm Credit Corporation. The Farm Credit Corporation has an electronic farm accounting program which is now serving 2,700 Canadian farmers, providing them with information which is important to their day by day decisions and long term planning. The Farm Credit Corporation states that farmers use this service for a wide range of purposes in the size and operation of farms and so on. The report states that this information is important to the development of lending methods to meet the changing needs of farm financing in Canada. The corporation's success with this electronic farm accounting program has been a contributing factor in the general interest in developing a national farm recordkeeping program. The corporation's experience has been made available to those involved in developing such a national program.
I hope this information will be used. This is the type of thing that should be tied in with other lending programs. If we allow the banks and trust companies to enter the short and intermediate term lending field, without any safeguards and without having any cross reference information, in a certain number of years we will look around and see that some of these loans have become bad loans. But no one will have the precise information which would indicate the reason for such a situation.

September 30, 1968
Farm Credit Act
It is in this direction that I suggest our farm credit policy should be headed. I see no indication in the resolutions now before us or in the remarks by the Minister of Agriculture that there is any concept on the government side which recognizes this need. We have a real opportunity in this lending field to obtain information and working knowledge of what is happening, but we have never taken advantage of that opportunity.
The Farm Credit Corporation has made some advances over the years and is doing a better job than the old farm loans board, its predecessor. It is gathering information and giving more guidance and counselling to the farmer, although to my knowledge it has not yet built up the specialized staff of supervisors that should be available. Perhaps this is government policy.
The Carr report finally states:
The most effective way of initiating this development agency would be to establish a public body probably attached to the Department of Agriculture to co-ordinate these various development activities. The established governmental agencies for direct farm credit could be fitted into it to fill their role as a part of the over-all credit system developed under this body and continuing to supply the important services they had established. Thus the Farm Credit Corporation could maintain its mortgage services supplemented by the new facilities as they were developed by the co-ordinating body.
This working paper concludes by stating:
-progressive improvements in farm credit services in Canada could be expected, the path of agricultural adjustment would be made smoother and less difficult for farmers and the competitive position of Canadian agriculture would be strengthened.
Whether this would happen or not I do not know, but this is a what the fifth annual report of the Economic Council suggested we should be aiming for; and credit should be part of the policy followed to reach these objectives. We are not going to meet these objectives as a result of what has been submitted to us. I suggest with all sincerity that the Minister of Agriculture should be concerned about this situation and should consider these suggestions.
I have no particular objection to the trust companies and insurance companies getting into the lending field. I suppose that in a free enterprise economy, which hon. members on the other side of the house support, it is up to those companies to decide. However, on looking back at what they have done for farmers, I am wondering just how much good such a policy will do for agricultural communities. When one looks at the long term record, he
IMr. Gleave.l
sees that these companies have done very little. Perhaps for their own reasons at this time they want a piece of this action.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The risks of agriculture are there, and they are big risks. Those of us in the business know how big they are. The government will be doing the farmers of Canada no favour if they increase the credit risks in farming. The previous speaker outlined at some length the situation in agriculture and farming. I realize the situation as well as he does, but I do not want to take up a great deal of time telling the government what I assume they surely know, that agriculture and farming is not one of the industries that will carry an 8 per cent and 9 per cent interest rate.
Surely they know that. But they come to this house with resolutions which say, in effect, "We are not going to leave it to parliament any more to set the interest rates for the Farm Credit Corporation. We are not going to leave it to parliament to set the interest rates under the Farm Improvement Loans Act." Apparently they do not think parliament has the good, common sense to do this, although parliament has done it since the inception of these measures.
The government says, "We will not leave that with you. We want you to write us a blank cheque, and in our good, reasonable and wise time we will set some realistic interest rates." Have they so little confidence in the economy that they feel they cannot bring before parliament a level of interest rates that will survive for three years; or are they afraid that if they alter the interest rates which now exist in an economy in which we are trying to live, parliament will not accept the interest rates they will have to propose? Are they unwilling to say to the people of Canada that farming in this country is in such a situation, and the earning margins are so low, that if we want farmers to stay in business we have to subsidize the interest rates as they exist in Canada? These are the circumstances which exist; the previous speaker did not exaggerate.
From the papers I have before me I could quote the president of the Dairy Council of Canada, who said we used to get one-fifth of a cent margin on a quart of milk, but many farmers are not now receiving this margin. You can open the books in Saskatchewan on the farm management study that has been carried out by farm clubs and the provincial department of agriculture, and the story is
September 30, 1968

there for you to read. You can go to Manitoba and get the same kind of information. The story is there to be read. We do not have to guess any more in connection with many of these things.
Therefore I say that this parliament should not accept the suggestion in these resolutions that the interest rate be left to the tender mercies of the government. I say this is a proper decision for this house to make. Whatever interest rates are proposed, they should be put into the act and brought before this house.
To realize the problems which exist in agriculture one has only to read some of the briefs from farm organizations. I have here a brief from the National Farmers Union. This is one matter on which the National Farmers Union and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture do not diverge to any great extent. The submission of the National Farmers Union says, in regards to credit:
What is important is security of tenure, and this, in our view, can best be provided by realistic public policies and participation combined with a social concept on the type of rural community our nation should be aiming for in the future. The Farm Credit Corporation is now a useful instrument, but is too restrictive in its lending policies, requiring, as it does, unreasonable security on its loans. For example, in a recent case, a farm wife in Saskatchewan was required to sign away her rights under the provincial homestead act on the home quarter section of land which, in addition to two other quarter sections of land, was required by F.C.C. as collateral for a loan of $12,000 for the construction of a farm home.
I wonder whether the trust companies and insurance companies will be more generous when they become a part of the credit program. I have my doubts. Let me quote from the Union Farmer:
-J. B. Hansen, Royal Bank supervisor, who will be in charge of the bank's revamped agricultural headquarters. At the same time it was announced that the bank, realizing that farming today is big business, has appointed representatives in the prairie provinces who are "experts" and will advise on agricultural questions.
I have no objection to the bank appointing experts to advise on agricultural questions. If they think they are to lend a great deal of money, they will probably need experts. But this proves the point I put forward at the beginning of my remarks, that if the job was being properly done within the Department of Agriculture, the bank could turn to the trained men in the lending department of the Department of Agriculture and say, "We are willing to be part of the program. We are willing to lend the money. What are the
Farm Credit Act
facts?" Do we want each bank employing a bunch of experts, for whom we are all going to pay? With regard to the Farm Credit Corporation, the trust companies and insurance companies, is each one going to build up his own little gathering of experts, so-called?
One thing about the farmer is that he never runs out of experts. I am always amazed at the number of people who are sure they know how to run his business better than he does. I have set out some of the things that I think are relevant to these three resolutions, and with that I leave it to the minister responsible.


Mr. Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman, may we ask the minister a question or questions?


Albert Béchard: Not without the consent of the committee.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I agree to let the hon. member ask his .question or questions now, if he wishes to do so, and I shall then continue with my remarks, if that is in order.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Thank you. Mr. Chairman-


Albert Béchard: Order. Is the committee agreeable to giving unanimous consent to the hon. member to ask a question of the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister of Agriculture for clarification on a question of fact. Is it his, or the government's intention to open the loans field under the resolution which is No. 5 on the order paper to all trust or loan companies, or are some specified? Under item No. 6 the minister speaks about broadening the class of persons who can acquire loans. Is he still retaining the requirement that they must be farmers?
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not mind answering that kind of question at this time, but I should like to say that a reply to those kinds of questions would require a speech. I think it would be better if spokesmen for the parties, and any hon. member who wishes to comment on my introductory remarks, would confine themselves to the opening statement, before going into the very broad questions which the hon. member has just posed.
Farm Credit Act

September 30, 1968


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I am happy, in the name of the members of the Ralliement Creditiste, to answer and to comment upon the very interesting speech made a few moments ago by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) concerning the three resolutions intended to extend farm credit.
Mr. Chairman, in an article published in the Financial Post on January 29, 1966, Mr. John Schryner said this:
The transfer of agricultural property to the new generation has created a great demand for farm credit. This transfer began early in the 1960s and, according to some economists, will continue during the 1970s before declining gradually.
I am very pleased with this statement by Mr. Schryner and also with some of those made by the hon. Minister of Agriculture in his speech a few moments ago. The minister announced that he would introduce measures intended to encourage young people to take possession of their land and to continue their parents' work. ..
Mr. Chairman, we know that the problem of young farmers is enormous. We must, therefore, encourage them to show a greater interest in agricultural matters and, to do that, we must take steps to help them become integrated in that sector.
I would like, therefore, to tell the Minister of Agriculture, who is here tonight and has delivered an eloquent speech, that I thank him for the particulars he gave us and I hope he will take further steps to help young people to become integrated in the agricultural sector.
Mr. Chairman, today is a time of reflection for eastern and western farmers alike. It is a time of reflection or meditation, if you like, because if there is one group which is serious, it is the farming community.
The farming community has always been the quietest. As mentioned recently by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), it has always been the one that worked when it was asked to, that produced when it was asked to, and which remained silent when it was told: Produce and keep quiet.
Mr. Chairman, the farm people as a group have given a lot in the past, they have never refused to produce. But today the farmer is asking himself: Why bother to keep up production when my products are selling at a loss? That is a serious problem, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will take note thereof.

It has often been said that the production problem has been settled once for all. As a former Social Crediter-I doubt that he still is-the minister is well aware of it. Production in itself can easily meet Canadian needs. As far as the consumer is concerned, his purchasing power is inadequate to buy and sell that production. The problem is there, Mr. Chairman. When one says that Canada is a rich country, one means that it is rich in possibilities, rich in resources, rich in its future, rich in goodwill, rich in hopes and, for the Canadian farmer, it is rich in disappointments.
We now have in Canada a floundering farming industry. How come? Because each time a farmer could hope to get some kind of assistance, a loan from the Farm Credit Corporation for instance, the same silent thief is always there to prevent the farmer from improving his lot and I refer to the rate of interest. The rate of interest, the so-called silent thief, is protected by all governments, either Liberal or Conservative.
Mr. Chairman-and I will be brief-in 1955, the consumer price index rose to 112.1, as against 100 in 1949. In 1964, the same index reached 132.4 and I did not obtain yet the figures for 1968, since the minister took us by surprise. But nevertheless, the consumer price index has shot up once more.
And, during the same time, has the farmer's profit increased? I ask the minister: During the time when the consumer price index was continually rising, did the net profit of Canadian farmers, the western or eastern farmers, increase proportionately to the cost of living?
I know the minister is sincere enough to answer: No.
Mr. Chairman, that is the core of the problem. First of all, we must adapt our modern needs to a modern economy. That is why we must adjust our agricultural policies to the conditions of a modern economy and, as such, several suggestions contained in the resolutions introduced by the Minister of Agriculture can meet the need I mentioned, namely, to adjust our agriculture to a modern economy.
In this connection, in a while I shall enumerate a few bills which surprise and please us; they represent as many bills that had long been hoped for. Obviously, as the minister said, we cannot solve all the problems at the same time, but the fact remains that the minister did not mention one problem this evening, which is every bit as urgent, if not
September 30, 19G8

more so, than those of production, the expansion of farms, the financing of farms or the purchase of agricultural equipment: I mean the problem of marketing our agricultural products. Even if the farmer does produce tons and tons and tons of potatoes, tons and tons and tons of carrots, he cannot be expected to go bury himself under his carrots and potatoes.
Mr. Chairman, someone must buy his potatoes, his carrots, his oats, his wheat, his corn, and God knows what else. In this regard, let me give you an example, which concerns my riding of Lotbiniere-incidentally, I invite the members to come and visit it because it is one of the most beautiful in Quebec-and I take as a pattern a short article published in the magazine Semaine Illus-tree dated September 11, 1967. I quote:
They bury their potatoes in the ground in order to benefit from Ottawa's assistance.
At this stage, I invite the Minister of Agriculture to listen to me, carefully, because what I am going to say is worthwhile. It is as intelligent as changing a dollar for four quarters.
The potato producers of the Victoriaville area have had such an abundant crop this year that they had to sell them at a ridiculous price or bury them in the ground in order to receive a special subsidy of one cent a pound from the federal government. It is estimated that about three million pounds have thus been disposed of in that area while people are starving to death everywhere in the world, and even in Quebec.
Let us look at the scandal prevailing in the field of agriculture.
In the past, the Bois-Francs farmers received about two and a half cents a pound, but this year the crop was amazing. Due to this surplus production, potatoes only yielded one and a half cents a pound with the result that several farmers are on the brink of bankruptcy.
And the majority of the farmers had to bury their potatoes in the ground in order to get one cent subsidy from the federal government.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
When government measures force the farmers to use more or less honest means in order to manage, these measures are, in my opinion, restrictive.
That is one of the first things I wanted to say on that subject. I am very disappointed that, at the beginning of this session, amidst all this opportune and inopportune talk of a just society, an unjust society and a society "just for fun", a measure should not have
Farm Credit Act
been introduced to help the farmers to market and sell their products at a reasonable price.
Mr. Chairman, agriculture must be considered in the following way: Since we all have to eat, we owe a great deal to our farmers, who provide us with the food we need. Agriculture is the very basis of our society. There is nothing to be gained, as consumers, by acting to the prejudice of the farmer. Farmers say they could get more for their products. They also say that we could pay less, that supermarkets could still receive a fair profit for their investment.
However, as soon as we look at a situation not through blue or red glasses, but objectively, we see it in a new light. Who should we believe?
Mr. Chairman, in 1961, the number of farmers in Canada was 480,000. Since then, more than 20,000 farmers have given up agriculture. Why? We will be told that farms are not economic. Therefore, farmers go to the cities where they become victims of unemployment. Then, another minister takes over. They are educated and they become the educated unemployed.


David Réal Caouette: In the riding of Mercier.


André-Gilles Fortin: That is right, in the riding of Mercier.
We will really have become hewers of wood and drawers of water, at the agricultural level, if we fail in our rich country to make agriculture more attractive as a profession.
Mr. Chairman, a "head of lettuce" to take an expression from the farmers' vocabulary, and there are three in the Ralliement Creditiste-for which the farmer gets a nickel is sold 35 cents or 40 cents at the supermarket. On the other hand, if the farmer tries to get 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 cents for it, it will not sell. Mr. Chairman, there is no need to draw a picture, those figures tell the story. I know that the Minister of Agriculture is aware of that, and that is why I am telling him those things, to refresh his memory, so that he will remember them a long time. I welcome those three resolutions for the following reasons.
First, it is the proposal to extend loans through Farm Credit corporation and other organizations to a larger number of farmers. I think it is a positive measure and I commend the Minister of Agriculture for it.
As far as these loans are concerned, we of the Ralliement Creditiste are objective, as

September 30, 1988
Farm Credit Act
everyone can see. It has been said, Mr. Chairman, that these loans will be used for the construction of buildings and will enable farmers to purchase farm machinery. In my opinion, this is an excellent measure.
Second, it raises the maximum amount of a loan to $25,000. I think this is a constructive measure. One must not always criticize but see what is good and what is not.
There is another observation I should like to make at this stage as regards something I find very encouraging and which shows goodwill on the part of the minister, namely his intention to encourage loans so as to accelerate the setting in motion of co-operatives. Farmers group themselves into co-operatives, and the minister intends, through such measures, to encourage for good and all the cooperative system. Here again, I agree heartily with him and congratulate him. This will not be all, for there are two sides to the question.
There is also the purchasing of land by the farmer, in order to increase his turnover. Here again is a measure that can be constructive I think, that could also be double-edged. What will become of the farmer who will sell his land to his neighbour? Will he become unemployed? No trouble. Let them come to Lotbiniere and they will see that there are problems, that cases like that do exist.
Mr. Chairman, I am strongly against a measure that was introduced at least 14 times and here is why: the minister expects such a measure to increase the number of lenders. He takes for granted that insurance companies, loan companies, credit unions, Caisses populaires and chartered banks will be of some help. As long as he refers to the Caisses populaires, I agree but when he refers to chartered banks, credit unions, loan and insurance companies, I say that the Minister of Agriculture contradicts himself, repudiates his past convictions and comes to terms with trusts that exploit people.
Mr. Chairman, in order to give an example, let us suppose a $2,000 loan. Someone applies to the Banque Canadienne Nationale, he will end by repaying $2197. Listen carefully to this: the annual rate of interest is 9.48 per cent at the Bank of Montreal-I am still referring to the $2000 loan, spread out on a two-year period-so, you get $2000 and you repay after two years $2205, at a rate of interest of 9.87 per cent. At the Provincial Bank-for that same loan-you will repay $2208 at an annual rate of interest of 9.98 per cent. Therefore, when the minister tells us, in his resolutions, that he wishes to abolish the

rate of interest on loans, as regards farm credit machinery, farm implements, buildings and so on, he wants to abolish the rate of interest of 5 per cent in order to give all that to insurance companies, loan companies, trusts, credit unions or some other companies. I say that the minister is a friend of the trusts, that he is not at all siding with the farmers but rather siding with the financial sharks.
The Beneficial Finance Corporation for the same $2,000 loan levies a 5 per cent interest. No reference is made to a $25,000 loan. What would be the rate of interest on such a loan? Is that conceivable? A $25,000 loan from the Beneficial Finance would yield 23.74 per cent interest. This is far from 5 per cent. It will destroy everything that remains of Canadian farming.
I am convinced that the members of the Ralliement Creditiste as well as all other members would be very grateful if the Minister of Agriculture would state the rate of interest which he has in mind rather than leave the matter to the governor in council. We would then be aware of the lending terms and the difficulties which our Canadian farmers will soon be experiencing if this legislation is passed. I simply say that it will be the downfall of agriculture if transactions are carried on with finance companies in order to increase loans up to 23.74 per cent, as we have seen.
Mr. Chairman, I believe there is an enormous scandal in our present day world and I wish to remind you that agriculture is the basis of our society. Before concluding, I would like to say briefly-as I do not want to labour the point

that in 1934, according to the official statistics of the League of Nations,
2,400,000	people died from starvation-this has nothing to do with the capacity of production-and 1,200,000 people committed suicide; on the other hand, 1 million carloads of wheat were burned-wheat, not Liberal members-and 267,000 carloads of coffee were burned. This can happen not because our farmers are not able to produce more, but because there are no agencies to sell the products to the consumer. The farmer always produces the same products.
In 1934, 516 million pounds of sugar, 50 million pounds of rice and 50 million pounds of meat were destroyed.
I am not making up those figures. The League of Nations disclosed them in 1934, just as we were getting over the depression.
Mr. Chairman, the Canadian farmer is grappling with such a problem that he never
September 30, 1968

knows whether he will be able to balance his budget or make ends meet tomorrow. In any event, he is not sure of being able to put in the crop. When he has managed to do that, he is not sure of getting a crop, because if he has a crop, he cannot be sure of having good weather. Nor is he sure-even supposing he should be very lucky-of being able to sell his products.
How then can we expect the farmer's son to be interested in taking over the family farm? A near impossibility is expected of him. For the guidance of the members, I should now like to read the following text:
The prospect of being saddled throughout his life with a debt running from $60,000 to $100,000 is not likely to encourage young people to go into agriculture.
That was an excerpt from an article published in the magazine Farm Credit Expansion in Canada written by Mr. Ross and published in the Canadian Farm Economics, Volume I, No. 1, dated April 1966. I give this reference in order to interest the rural members in agricultural problems.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to dwell any longer on this matter. In any event, I attempted to highlight the good points of the three resolutions which I sincerely believe will help our farmers. It is useless to study them in detail, since the members who spoke before me dealt with them.
However, I should like to underline the points we feel are important, the points we are happy to see on the order of the day. But let us not forget this: as long as we do not have some organization for the marketing of farm products, we will not solve the agricultural problem.
Before bringing my remarks to a close, I should like to make one specific request-the matter is urgent-and ask that the eastern farmer be taken care of. I should like to invite the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Cote) who is supposed to represent the eastern farmers, to act with a bit more speed. That would help, I think, because the eastern farmers have grown impatient.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to begin my remarks by complimenting the minister upon his clear explanation of the bill before us. Also, I congratulate him upon his recent elevation. May I also say that I am in complete agreement with the principle 29180-40
Farm Credit Act
involved in this resolution. No one can disagree with the renewing of a plan which, while it was operative, had such a beneficial effect on the farming economy. That the plan has been allowed to sink into limbo for the past few years is something else again.
I wonder if the government, and the Prime Minister in particular, has any idea of the hardship that has been caused by allowing the Farm Improvement Loans Act to wither and die because of an election. In my province alone the sale of farm equipment has declined to such an extent that many dealers have been forced into bankruptcy. One wholesale firm in a three month period reports 18 failures in its list of dealers. This is one result of the inconvenience caused to farmers who were unable to finance replacement equipment, needed especially because of adverse weather experienced during planting, cultivating and harvesting seasons.
I welcome the renewal of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, but I question some of its clauses. It seems to me that the cabinet of this country is taking on a job for itself that is completely unnecessary. I see no point whatever in having interest rates left to the cabinet to decide, in their wisdom. This prerogative is completely unnecessary. In my view it is further evidence that this government wishes to extend its tentacles into every phase of life of the Canadian people. There may be an exception as far as the bedrooms of the nation are concerned, but this unilateral setting of the interest rate is really none of the cabinet's business. Surely the government can negotiate with the financial institutions of this country and come up with a permanent rate. Let it be a fluctuating rate, if you like, but let it be established through a publicized formula.
Experience over the years has shown that the farm improvement loan has not been abused. The loss ratio in relation to the amount lent has been minimal and I suggest that a formula along the lines I have suggested could be worked out. For example, most financial firms and banks know what their overhead is. They know their costs of administration and we know the loss ratio. Why, therefore, can a formula not be worked out based on the prime lending rate of banks and other financial institutions, plus an agreed surcharge. I do not know what the surcharge might amount to; I am sure the banks would tell us. If one bank wanted 1 per cent and another needed only three quarters of one per cent we might even see a little competition entering the business.

September 30, 1968
Farm Credit Act
I cast no reflection on this cabinet in what I am about to say, sir. There might come a time when what I am about to refer to may have an effect. While we have 264 members of parliament, our cabinet has 28 members. I submit that it would be much easier for a powerful financial lobby to influence a weak 28-man cabinet than to influence the entire house.


An hon. Member:: But it is not weak.


George Harris Hees: Look again.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: We have had weak cabinets in Canada before, and very possibly we shall have them again.


George Harris Hees: I'll bet on this one.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Why should a matter as important and delicate as this be left to a group that could be vulnerable to extreme lobby pressure? By this one, unnecessary unilateral act the cabinet are leaving themselves open to charges that they have set the rate too high. When this happens, and happen it will, there will be those in this country who will suggest even that someone is getting a kickback. If, on the other hand, the rate is too low, what will happen? We shall see taking place what took place this year and last year. There just will not be any farm improvement loan money available.
I deplore the wording in the resolution because it is all so unnecessary. I suspect that in this resolution we are seeing more of the ideas of those who want the cabinet to be supreme, and the house filled with little rubberstamps.
I am also in agreement with item No. 6 on the order paper, the resolution preceding the bill to amend the Farm Credit Act. I agree particularly with the concept of broadening the classes of persons eligible. Yet, here again, we are running smack into another intrusion by the governor in council, the cabinet, which also in this instance wishes to set interest rates. Probably there is more justification here for the cabinet to set interest rates than there is in the case of farm improvement loans. Under the Farm Credit Act government money goes out; under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, bank money is lent under a minimal government guarantee. I say there is no need to change the interest rate under which moneys will be lent under the Farm Credit Act. The present high interest rates will not always stay in effect.

Some in this youthful cabinet are old enough to remember that we did not always have these high interest rates. Less than 30 years ago people with money to invest were happy to buy government bonds yielding 3 per cent. Who is to say that with farm credit loans running for upwards of 30 years interest rates will not come down drastically long before those loans are paid off. Over the past 100 years the money market has shown a remarkable history of ups and downs. Some economists go so far as to predict when these cycles will take place. For my purpose this evening it is sufficient to mention what has happened in the past 50 years.
From 1919 to 1929 long term Canadian dollar bonds gave an annual average yield of 5.07 per cent. From 1929 to 1939 the average yield was 3.88 per cent. From 1939 to 1949 the average yield was 2.93 per cent, and from 1949 to 1959 that average yield was 3.67 per cent. What the average for this decade will be is anyone's guess. Most decidely the average yield will be up. Certainly the rate will be as high as or higher than any we have seen in this century. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, these trends were evident a century ago, and before that. There is nothing new about them.
I therefore urge the government to keep at 5 per cent the lending rate on moneys lent under the Farm Credit Act. If necessary, the government ought to put government money into the corporation administering the act. If it does that it will have a credit mark opposite its record, a mark which will show that the government, in one instance, tried to keep our agricultural industry alive.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I say again that these high interest rates will not last forever, and the burden on the treasury would be small in relation to the long term good which could be accomplished. Probably before many years have passed, before many of these liabilities are paid off, interest rates will once again be down. The inflationary effect of subsidized interest rates which the minister mentioned will not, in practice, have much of an impact. In my view the cabinet would do well to spend more of its time maintaining a climate in which our farmers could sell their products at a reasonable price. I suggest it would be far more profitable for them to spend their time on this, rather than sit around setting interest rates.


William Arnold Peters: There are really three types of credit in which the farmers are interested.
September 30, 19G8



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, for the business tomorrow we will start with the biE to amend the Publication of Statutes Act. After that is finished we will go on to the resolution preceding the Windfall amendment for the Canadian National Railways, and thereafter we will return to the resolution stages of the three bills we were considering this evening.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, a week ago today I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the following question, as recorded at page 326 of Hansard:
In view of the situation of continuing conflict concerning British Columbia Hydro's rail route to Roberts Bank, and in view of the fact that the provincial government controls a sole and vital link between two federal facilities, the port and the national railway system, what action does the federal government intend to take in regard to the problem of constitutional jurisdiction that is involved?
It would be almost possible, Mr. Speaker, to overestimate the amount of concern that this matter is causing among citizens of the lower mainland of B.C. As a matter of fact, my colleagues in this party have been trying unsuccessfully to get an answer to this question ever since we came down here. My colleague from Vancouver East was the latest to try this afternoon to get some ministerial statement on the matter.
The British Columbia cabinet has authorized the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority to build, or in part to rebuild 17 miles of track which would form part of an access rail line to Roberts Bank in the Matsqui area in order that initially shipments of coal from the Crowsnest area can be made to the new super port.
The reason that public opinion in the lower mainland area is so upset is that the provincial government has completely ignored the recommendations of the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board which, along with


its 28 member municipalities, was given by this same provincial government the responsibility of land use planning and zoning for the whole lower mainland area.
The planning board strongly recommended an alternative rail route to provide service to Roberts Bank via the existing Fraser river industrial and railway corridor. The board warns that the B.C. Hydro route jeopardizes the future of the people of the lower mainland, of half the population of British Columbia. It advises that this new rail traffic would create additional major hazards of accident, air and soil pollution, would cause further noise intrusion, and would damage the appearance of the countryside completely unnecessarily. Land values in the immediate vicinity of the railway would go down and municipal tax revenues decrease as a result.
Most serious of all, the B.C. Hydro route would spell the destruction of the Boundary Bay area with its unparalleled recreation potential and its natural beauty on a magnificent scale. With this would go the destruction of one of the few remaining wildlife sanctuaries that exist in southern B.C.
No wonder that the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), who represents a part of this whole area, declares that the proposed location of the railway defies every tenet of enlightened land use planning and reduces the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board to complete irrelevance. I believe that all members in this house from British Columbia share this view.
From the standpoint of the federal interest much is involved. A super port is to be built at Roberts Bank and the control of the port is clearly within federal jurisdiction. Equally clear is the need for the federal authority to have undisputed access to the port.
The provincially controlled B.C. Hydro railway line to Roberts Bank would be connected with the interprovincial rail lines of Canada, which again are clearly under federal jurisdiction. Surely this situation presents a constitutional problem for the federal government, one that calls for immediate consultation with the provincial authorities, and one that certainly cannot be dodged, at least any longer.
The fact that two federal cabinet ministers seem to have differing opinions about the degree of federal jurisdiction in this matter- they have made no secret of their differences, at least judging from speeches they have made in B.C.-merely points up the need for a speedy and decisive solution. They both
September 30, 1968	COMMONS
cannot be right. This matter is either under B.C. provincial jurisdiction, or federal jurisdiction.
Quite apart from the problem of federal access to the Roberts Bank port, but very relevant to the problem, is the federal government's interest in regional planning and the conservation and development of Canada's natural resources, both from the standpoint of productivity and of human environment.
In a matter of such great significance to our province and indeed to the whole of this country I submit that the federal government owes the members of this house, the people of British Columbia and all the people of Canada an explanation on this point. I believe we should have a statement concerning the government's intentions. I honestly believe that the federal government is no longer in a position to evade this matter, and leave it to the provincial government to hold the whip hand in respect of this Roberts Bank situation.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) for having deferred this question until last Thursday, at the request of the government, to be answered by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer). Then, due to the untimely death of the premier of the province of Quebec and the adjournment of the house on Thursday, there was no opportunity for the hon. member to raise her point and for the Minister of Transport to reply. Regrettably both the Minister of Transport and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Richardson) had engagements which required their presence outside the house this evening.
The Minister of Transport has received many briefs from parties concerned with the rail route to Roberts Bank, in particular a detailed report from the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. He is presently studying all these briefs. The constitutional aspects of this question are still under review. It would appear from the evidence, on the basis of the representations received, that the constitutional aspect concerns the effect on regional planning and urban development by the rail route selected by the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. For these reasons it would appear that the matter is one involving the jurisdiction of the provincial government in the area of regional planning, and neither the
DEBATES	617
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion effectiveness nor the ineffectiveness of transportation to Roberts Bank.



TRANSPORT-POTASH-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO FREIGHT RATE

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) previously raised this question in the house the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) relayed his concern to the management of the Canadian National Railways. Since this is a business venture on the part of the mining company and the transportation companies, it is natural that there should be negotiation between the parties so a compromise can be reached as to the cost of transportation services. These
618	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion negotiations are presently under way to establish a competitive transport rate for the potash. Considering however that it is bulk potash that is to be transported, it is difficult to perceive any transportation method other than rail being used. It is the hope of the Department of Transport that an agreement will be reached by the railways and the mining companies in the very near future.



UNITED NATIONS-BIAFRA-FAILURE TO BRING MATTER BEFORE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked this afternoon and did not quite succeed in fielding dealt with a matter of great importance. The people of Canada are asking what is being done about the Biafra situation, and they are asking particularly why the United Nations is not dealing with the matter in some way.
I note that the minister referred to the danger of divisive action if this matter were dealt with in general terms, and I noticed that the Secretary General used similar phraseology. I want again in passing to note that the United Nations does deal with a good many divisive items and it would be somewhat unrealistic to confine the attention of the United Nations only to those questions on which there was harmony.
Surely in a matter of burning concern and deep anxiety to our people, and to thoughtful, sensitive people throughout the world, we should not be fearful of lack of unanimous support for the suggestions we might make. It is my contention that the question should have been on the provisional agenda of the General Assembly long ago. If the government had thought it wise, it could have been directed to one of the non-political committees, and the second and third committees come into my mind immediately. At this juncture I would agree that the Security Council is not the avenue for discussion at this time.
The UN does not deal only with political questions. There is a wide range of interests and debate, as anybody who has been there knows. The field is literally the world, and the agenda is immense. This session the General Assembly has 90 items on the provisional agenda. Surely it is not a cardinal point in Canada's foreign policies that we must be universally loved and have unanimous support for our eternal endeavours. If any effort to have the UN general assembly deal with

DEBATES	Sepiember 30, 1968
the humanitarian aspects of the Biafra situation, with the starvation and suffering of thousands of people, should put us in a minority position in the assembly-and this seems to be part of the government's thinking-then I say that on such an issue this would be an honoured position and a noble posture for this country to be in.
While the minister knows, I am not sure that the public know the procedure in respect of the General Assembly agenda. It is not as difficult as we have been led to believe. Rule 13 of the rules and procedures of the General Assembly lists the ways in which the provisional agenda is formed and what it shall include. Rule 13(e) says that the provisional agenda of the regular session shall include all items proposed by any member of the United Nations. Had this item been proposed any time during the summer, when the government had this matter very much in mind, as we were told, the UN could have been seized of it at any time, and thus this technical hurdle would have been overcome. Hopefully, had the whole situation been resolved by the O.A.U.,-and that would have been a lot to expect,-there would be no great difficulty in the United Nations dropping that item from the agenda.
Nor is it terribly difficult to recall situations where items are not in fact reached. In other words, the fact that the question may have been dealt with in another milieu was no excuse for the delegation of Canada not having this item placed upon the General Assembly agenda. Thus could the General Assembly mobilize world opinion to ameliorate the suffering of the Biafrans.
I note that the secretary general in his letter mentions insufficient financial support as a reason for the failure of voluntary organizations to bring about the amount of relief required to the population suffering in Biafra. Of course he is right. But the General Assembly, surely, would be the forum in which world interest could be stimulated and a measure of world relief and sacrifice, in financial terms, could be encouraged.
It is regrettable that among all the items in the 90-item agenda, this is not included. There are so many ways in which an item could have been constructed. I see here item No. 45: Multilateral food aid. Item No. 46 is: Increase in the production and use of edible protein. There are many, many items which are not political items and would not raise the spectre of these divisive repercussions which have been mentioned. But alas, that
September 30, 1968

has not been done. It should have been done. I do not think the government should raise the great curtain of impenetrable difficulty in having the UN seized of the matter.
It is regrettable that the opportunity was missed and I hope the minister and the government will make every effort to compensate for their failure to take action when action was easier than it may be now. We wish them well in whatever action they may feel it incumbent to take.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it might be of some assistance to the house if I read the relevant section of the letter from the Secretary General of the United Nations in reply to mine in which I asked how best we could bring this matter before the United Nations. He said:
I am most grateful to you for your letter which reflects the consistent interest shown by Canada in regard to the United Nations and to questions of a humanitarian nature. I wish to tell you also of my deep appreciation for your references to my statements regarding the distressing fratricidal strife in Nigeria, and X am greatly encouraged by your support of the position which I have taken concerning this situation. I agree with you that raising the situation in Nigeria in general terms before the United Nations General Assembly could be divisive, particularly in light of the resolutions adopted by the last two meetings of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity in Kinshasa and Algiers, respectively.
If the government felt that it would be possible to add one little bit to the amount of aid that would get through to the starving people in Nigeria-Biafra by raising this question in the United Nations, we would be glad to do so. We would do this if we felt that by raising the questions in the United Nations
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion we could in any way contribute to the relief of the suffering that is going on in Nigeria-Biafra.
We found, however, on exploring the situation that the countries which shared our concern believed that all that would happen- and I had to agree with them-was that there would be a political debate about the future of Nigeria, and that this would lead not to an increase in the amount of aid but to a kind of divisive, political debate that would actually detract from the aid that might otherwise be going to these suffering people.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
This was our view and, as you will see from the letter that I have read from the Secretary General, it was his view. I have no reason to question that judgment. However, I would add that it is my view and the view of the government that we should be working for the establishment of some kinds of procedures in the future when situations like this arise again, when there is an acknowledged method of dealing with these humanitarian concerns, by establishing rules that receive international agreement, and establishing agencies that are unquestioned when they want to supply aid to the innocent victims of a civil war such as this one. It seems to me that this is how we should be concentrating our efforts now. It is quite clear from what the Secretary General has said, and from our explorations, that to raise this question now would only raise the political issues which would detract from it, and would not aid the suffering people.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

September 30, 1968