1968-03-26

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has appointed certain hon. Senators to act on the special joint committee on the national capital commission.



PROCEDURE

[Stage Direction]
Eighth and ninth reports of special committee on procedure-Mr. MacEachen.
[Note: Text of foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a copy of an agreement entered into this morning between the government of Canada and the government of New Brunswick concerning the Minto coal basin.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table two copies, in English and in French, of the report of the committee to survey the work and organization of the Canadian Pension Commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister have leave to table those documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question. Can the right hon. gentleman say when he expects a report from the royal commission on security procedures in government? Since this commission has been meeting for many months, I wonder whether the Prime Minister has any inkling as to when the report will be made to him.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I was talking to members of the commission I think about a fortnight ago, and they hope to have the report completed early this summer.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the commission, to the right hon. gentleman's knowledge, going to hold any open hearings, or is it going to hear witnesses only, so to speak, under wraps?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the nature of the subject they have been dealing with they have held their hearings, I believe up to the present, in camera. I will find out whether they have any plans to hold open hearings.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct two questions to the Prime Minister. First of all, may I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he will find it possible today to table a copy of the letter I referred to yesterday, his letter to the premier of Alberta in reply to that gentleman's correspondence concerning medical services for Indians.
Second, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the government has apparently determinedly set its face not to bring down Bill No. C-190 before the

March 26, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry recess, whether he can give the house an assurance on behalf of his colleagues-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he cannot ask two questions. There is a convention in this house that we allow the official opposition one question and then allow other parties one question. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that it would be more in order to ask the first question or the second one, the choice being that of the hon. member.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I leave the first question and ask the second?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So far as the first question is concerned-


Michael Starr: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So far as the question of the hon. gentleman is concerned, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the correspondence between myself and the premier of Alberta, the correspondence in question which he referred to yesterday deals with medicare legislation and not particularly with medical services for Indians. I am very glad indeed to table that correspondence. In the same tabling I might include a communication with the premier of Manitoba, to which reference was made last week.
I think my hon. friend was referring to a telegram I received from the premier of Alberta dealing with health services for Indians, to which I gave an interim reply by telegram on the day it was received saying I should be communicating with him soon, and there would be a statement in the house on this matter shortly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister tell the house what his reply was to the telegram he received from the premier of Alberta with respect to medical care for Indians?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not have it before me, but I have no objection to asking the premier whether we can table the exchange. It was a telegram saying that I hoped to reply to him in substance shortly, but in the meantime a statement would be made here which I believed would help to remove misunderstandings that have been created, or words to that effect. I think I indicated, because I think my hon. friend has some suspicions

about this, that we were having some difficulty in reaching the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary
question. May I ask the Prime Minister if he informed the premier of Alberta that the item in the supplementary estimates dealing with national health and welfare could be called by the government at any time, since those estimates were before the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Did the Prime Minister reply to the telegram he received from the premier of Manitoba? If so, would it be possible to have that tabled?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was a letter, Mr. Speaker, dealing with medicare, and I shall be glad to table that along with the reply to the premier of Alberta. I could table it now, with your permission.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether, having regard to the misunderstanding referred to by the Prime Minister, he was able to clear up the misunderstanding in the minds of the Indian delegation which he met in Calgary in this connection.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes. I found them more reasonable than the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the election campaign of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, but I should like to ask him whether he intends to announce soon the new dairy policy for 1968-69.


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind the hon. member that this question was asked a few
March 26, 1968

days ago, and I think the hon. minister gave an answer.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase my question or make it a supplementary question.
Does the hon. minister intend to announce the new dairy policy before the house adj ourns?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the dairy policy will be announced before April 1. I am not yet certain of the exact date.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: My question is for the Prime Minister. I realize that he may not yet be in a position to indicate the membership of the Canadian delegation to the finance ministers' meeting to be held shortly in Stockholm. Could we expect an announcement of the agenda of that meeting and of the Canadian position on some of those problems to which our internal troubles are frequently attributed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: So far as the delegation is concerned-this question was asked yesterday-it has been agreed by the government that the delegates to this conference should include Mr. Ras-minsky, the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Alan Hockin, assistant deputy minister of finance and Canada's representative on the board of the monetary fund for several years, and Mr. W. C. Hood, an adviser in the Bank of Canada.
As far as the substantive part of the question is concerned, the Stockholm meeting, which consists of representatives of ten countries from the International Monetary Fund, will be continuing the discussions begun last September, I think it was, in Brazil having to do with the establishment of drawing rights on the fund to supplement gold as a basis for exchange.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Is the Prime Minister now in a position, as he indicated 27053-5071
Inquiries of the Ministry yesterday he might be, to make a statement on the expansion of the war in Viet Nam?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government has been aware-and the hon. member may have noticed this from the press-that for some time there have been a substantial number of North Vietnamese troops operating in Laos. This has been a matter of increasing concern to the Royal Laotian government and to the international commission, which has certain responsibilities in that country. Unfortunately the commission has not been able to operate in all parts of Laos because some areas are under communist control. Nevertheless it is doing its best to extend its supervisory activities and has recently paid a visit to the city of Saravane in southern Laos, which had been threatened by attack by communist forces. It is hoping to extend visits to other parts of the south which have been threatened.
As far as the situation in Cambodia is concerned, the hon. member knows we have been attempting to strengthen the authority of the commission and increase the facilities available to it so it can supervise the frontier, and for this purpose helicopters would be essential. It has not yet been possible to bring the discussions concerning such extension of authority and facilities to a satisfactory conclusion, but we are continuing negotiations to this end.
As far as Thailand is concerned, there have been some sporadic movements in one area which have been causing a good deal of anxiety.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister or to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. Last week the Minister of Trade and Commerce said he would be making an announcement today with regard to the final payment on the 1966-67 wheat crop. Can the Prime Minister tell the house whether this announcement is being made in Winnipeg today by the Canadian Wheat Board?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister expects to be in the house later today, this evening I would think, and hopes to obtain permission from the house at that time to revert to motions so he can make this statement today.

March 28, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister in a position to bring the house up to date regarding the negotiations going on with the British American Oil Company concerning the company's request for a loan to build a refinery in the strait of Canso?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, discussions in this regard have been going on for several months. The British American Oil Company had made requests to the federal government which concern several departments, the Department of Industry and the Department of Public Works, as well as the Atlantic Development Board, for instance. The company has also addressed requests to the Nova Scotia government. It has also made a request concerning Devco. Therefore, we could not put all that together before knowing what requests had been made to Nova Scotia.
As we expected, the requests addressed to Nova Scotia were, in part, transferred to the federal government, and they are now being studied.
I met the president of British American Oil yesterday.
I shall report to my colleagues of the cabinet on the results of that meeting, and I trust we should soon be in a position to announce the federal government participation in this project.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Since it is apparent that the government is determined not to proceed with the drug bill, No. C-190, before the recess, could the Prime Minister give the house an assurance that it is the government's intention to proceed with this legislation when parliament reassembles on April 23?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rather hesitate to indicate our attitude on this matter because my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre said the other day that any such assurance would not be worth, I think he said, the paper it was written on.


Michael Starr: He will take anything now.


Mr. Knowles:: I think I said "would not be worth the time it would take to give it".


Lester Bowles Pearson: But I have already indicated, Mr. Speaker, that we consider this as priority legislation, and it certainly is not that we are determined not to proceed with it. We are determined to proceed with it, but we have indicated that we feel this should be after the recess. We will not be proroguing; we will be adjourning. On our return-and I have discussed this matter with my colleagues in the cabinet, all of them, some more individually perhaps than others-there will be two items of legislation which really have top priority. One is this bill; the other is the Kennedy round negotiations which are matters of very great urgency in the trade field. I think we should proceed with those two items immediately on our return, and my colleagues in the cabinet agree with me on that score.


Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Did he also discuss this with Rev. Lloyd Henderson?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General, as minister responsible for the R.C.M.P.
Since members, ministers and even the premier in the Quebec legislature are seriously considering the possibility of their telephones being tapped, could the minister tell us whether he is aware of this problem and whether the R.C.M.P. is in any way responsible in this matter?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the R.C.M.P. have no knowledge of the allegations in the newspaper report. In any event it would be a matter for the appropriate authorities in the province of Quebec.
March 26, 1968	COMMONS



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the government has yet received a reply from the state department in Washington to the note of protest that Canada sent on the refusal by the United States of the extradition of Mr. Hal Banks.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a reply was received this morning; I saw it just before coming into the house. The note from the United States secretary of state is to the effect that he does not feel he can reconsider the decision he made in regard to the extradition of Banks to Canada, and he does not believe there is any basis for arbitration of the point of law involved.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister would agree to have the Canadian note and the reply from the state department printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I think they should be tabled, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure, but I think the reply has already been made public in Washington. If it has not we will ask for permission to table the correspondence.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Hal Banks I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to further pursue this matter and place strongly before the United States the serious implications to international relations of the unique and anomalous stand that has been taken by the Department of State. Second, if it does not intend to do this, will it join in the bringing about of an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States to ascertain whether this so-called exercise of discretion, which seems to bear a strange relationship to threatened difficulties on the great lakes, should be appealed to that court?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated I received the text of the note just before coming into the house. I should like to have an opportunity to discuss it with my colleagues to see whether we should initiate steps, and what they should be.


Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether the
DEBATES	8059
Inquiries of the Ministry officials of the United States government suggested that Canada's plea might fall on more favourable ears after the forthcoming election in the United States.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he regards the most recent reply from the United States state department as precluding Canada from seeking international arbitration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; I do not think it precludes us if we consider that the right course is to take the matter to the international court. I believe, however, the United States has a reservation in the form of an option clause which reserves matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States, and they might invoke that reservation.



SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS ON JUSTICE MINISTER AND PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which he might like to take as notice. Can the right hon. gentleman state whether in fact subpoenas have been issued or served on the Minister of Justice and the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the trial of Pierre Vallieres? If so, what is the government's reaction to the summoning of these people?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt if the question is in order. I am sure the hon. member would be of the same view as I am, that the question should not be asked at this time.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Are officials of his department currently verifying whether motor vehicles made in North America and sold in Canada comply with safety standards ordered by Washington for 1968 vehicles?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: I will have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. friend knows, we do not have any machinery for verification of

March 26, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry this kind, but we did have informal discussions with the automobile companies which indicated that they would follow the same standards. I would be glad to find out and confirm this for my hon. friend.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister undertake to submit to the highly vaunted prices review board, which the government intends to establish, the matter of price increases in respect of automobiles if these relate to the extra cost of safety devices?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is a question which would require study. If there were any indication that this should be looked at by this board then, of course, there would be no hesitation in doing so.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance but in his absence perhaps the Prime Minister could give us an answer. Because of the urgent need for cash to finance equipment and supplies for spring seeding, which will soon be in operation, are any amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act contemplated by the government to make the act operative at the earliest possible date?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be glad to look into that. Perhaps I could give a reply on April 23.


George Robson Muir: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the Prime Minister is looking into the matter would he, because of the urgency, ask the Minister of Finance to tell the house when these amendments might be expected?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will look into it right away.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to address to the Minister of Industry. Is the minister aware that there have been very large scale lay-offs from Davie Shipbuilding Limited and
[Mr. Hellyer.)
the George T. Davie Company of Lauzon, Quebec, as a result of the lack of orders? I should also like to ask the minister whether there are any plans to assist the large number of unemployed in this small town in Quebec.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: There have been substantial lay-offs at the Davie Shipbuilding Company. I am glad to say the situation has been improving somewhat in the past few weeks. The transfer or sale of the George T. Davie Company, the adjacent shipyard to Davie Shipbuilding Limited, has resulted in difficulties in respect of the transfer of the labour force by reason of seniority rules arising out of union agreements.
I understand an attempt is now being made to reconcile these seniority rules with continuity of employment. In the meantime the Davie Shipbuilding Company is actively seeking commercial contracts, and there is some possibility of government work in the not too distant future.


David Lewis: Do I understand from the minister's answer that the question of security is now being ignored, and has a large number-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question is argumentative.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the seniority question is one entirely for discussion by the union.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may bow to your ruling and rephrase my question. I should like to ask the minister whether there has been a transfer of employees from Lauzon to Montreal, and whether in that transfer the seniority of employees is being observed or otherwise.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the question of seniority rights, their applicability and enforcement falls under the jurisdiction of the union, not the company. I understand there are discussions going on between the union, its locals and the company in this regard.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Will the minister inform the house whether he consulted yesterday with the hon. member for Levis?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
March 26, 1968	COMMONS



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he will indicate what action is being taken under the direction of his department to deal with the increasing traffic in narcotics, particularly marijuana, and the enlisting of young people and students in the distribution of these drugs.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I should advise the hon. gentleman that I attempted to give a lengthy answer to a similar question posed by the hon. member for Red Deer, but finally bowed to the direction of Mr. Speaker that it exceeded the bounds of propriety. I would be glad to forward to the hon. gentleman a copy of the answer I gave on that occasion.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, has the government considered setting up a commission to inquire, on an urgent basis, into the effects and properties of marijuana, the social consequences of its use and its physical and psychological effects on young users, particularly in view of the need for more adequate information about this drug at this time?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that this is a very important matter. However, I respectfully suggest that the question would be more properly directed to my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I will follow the advice of the Solicitor General and ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest it is not necessary to repeat the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the question and I shall be glad to give it careful consideration.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I think it was about four and a half years ago when I said this matter was under consideration.']
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister what steps he is taking to rectify, and I quote the words, "the failure of resolve
DEBATES	8061
Inquiries of the Ministry and the absence of courage" used in St. John's, Newfoundland yesterday by the Minister of Justice when describing one of the difficulties in making confederation function properly?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, he must have been referring to the opposition.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, will the right hon. Prime Minister, on behalf of all Canadians, submit to the C.B.C. the hope that any Stanley Cup hockey game on Saturday, April 6, be videotaped and presented later that evening should it conflict with another sporting event on that date?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are doing our best to see that these two great national events do not conflict with each other.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister not aware that the C.B.C. has already announced its intention to carry the game regardless?


Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the statement made by the Sioux Indians of the Griswold reserve, Manitoba, that they may have to seek foreign aid if government policy does not change, could I ask the minister whether he is aware of the source they are going to tap.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Prime Minister in respect of the government of Biafra, as to whether senior officials of the Department of External Affairs had been instructed not to meet with representatives of that country. Does the Prime Minister have the answer to that question today, as he indicated yesterday he might?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am informed there is no instruction under which officials of the Department of External Affairs are not to meet

March 26, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry senior representatives of the so called secessionist region of Biafra. It is, however, customary in normal circumstances to hold official discussions with representatives of the government that is recognized. In the Nigerian situation the only government recognized by Canada is the government at Lagos. This does not apply to informal or unofficial talks between Nigerians from Biafra and members of the Department of External Affairs.
There have been two efforts to arrange these talks. If they were not successful this was not because of instructions issued to that effect, but because the officials concerned were not able to meet the representatives at the time requested.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I inquired whether our government had made representations at the United Nations to have the human rights commission travel to Nigeria to investigate the validity of either government, and the terrible situation in respect of the thousands of deaths which have occurred there in recent months. Has the Prime Minister ascertained whether we have been pressing for such action?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have made inquiries in this regard but I have not received that information as yet. If I should receive it after the house has recessed I will send it to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, and I promise him it will be my last question this week regardless of what may happen. Without presuming to suggest any further contributions he might make to international comity before a certain event in April, may I ask the Prime Minister whether active consideration is being given to the establishment of full diplomatic relations with the Vatican state?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think it was about four and a half years ago when I said this matter was under consideration.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct a question to

the Minister of Fisheries. In his absence perhaps another government member will take it as notice. Having in mind the reports and pictures appearing in the British press this morning which amount to a rebuke in respect of alleged barbarous sealing methods in Canada, will the minister or the government consider making an early comprehensive statement on the actual situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already noticed these reports, as I am sure other hon. members have, and I have made inquiries.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the great urgency and implication to all ports in Canada, will the Minister of Transport indicate when he will be making an announcement about the Roberts Bank development?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have already made an announcement. The work is proceeding in order, and we will be able to call tenders soon so this great new deepwater port will be available by the end of March, 1970 when the contract with the Japanese comes into effect.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether full and continuous consultation has been had with the government of the province of British Columbia.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We are consulting fully and frequently with that government, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Norris Ormiston: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Agriculture has an urgent appointment in Regina I should like to direct my question to his parliamentary secretary, who might take it as notice. Will the minister make a statement regarding his department's policy to protect Canadian turkey producers against outside influences detrimental to the local industry?
March 26, 1968	COMMONS



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government will give consideration to the constructive suggestion put forward by Principal Escott Reid that following the Commonwealth prime minister's conference Canada should invite the foreign ministers of the Commonwealth to meet to discuss foreign aid, Viet Nam and a number of other serious international issues?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already been in communication with Mr. Reid about this subject. Following his statement I said I thought this was a constructive suggestion, as my hon. friend has said. I hope someone will be able to follow it up.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I wished to direct to the Minister of Finance, but in his understandable absence I should like to ask it of the right hon. Prime Minister. The question arises from a statement by a spokesman for the life insurance companies that they were considering getting out of the mortgage field for single dwellings, for homes, and leaving that to the banks. I ask the right hon. gentleman whether the government have taken note of this statement, the implementation of which would result in a further lessening of funds available for housing, and what they contemplate doing about it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to make inquiries. I have not seen that statement.



INQUIRY AS TO INTEREST RATE FOR 1968 SECOND QUARTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board whether he is in a position to answer my question of yesterday regarding N.H.A. interest rates.
DEBATES	8063
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, the maximum interest rate that may be charged on N.H.A. loans in the second quarter of 1968 will be established on April 1 by the application of a formula which works automatically. This rate is the average long term government bond rate for the last four Wednesdays in March, plus 2J per cent. Section 4 of the National Housing Act provides the basis for this formula.



CONGRATULATIONS TO THREE MEMBERS WHO HAVE SERVED 28 YEARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether he has been reminded that the hon member for Algoma West (Mr. Nixon), the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) were first elected to this chamber 28 years ago today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish I had been reminded of it, Mr. Speaker, because then I might have been able to do justice to the importance of the occasion and the service rendered to this house over those years by these three distinguished members of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO PROPOSED PRICE INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and-or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It has to do with today's report that consumers are facing a drug price increase in April, in line with new price lists from manufacturers. Will the ministers look into the situation, which underlines the need for new drug price legislation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

March 26, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-REQUEST FOR ACREAGE ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture is in a position to answer my question of yesterday and a question asked on Thursday relating to assistance to Prince Edward Island potato growers.


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Ministe rot Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any representations having been made. I will ascertain whether this has been done and inform the hon. member.



SUGGESTED INCREASED COMPENSATION FOR SLAUGHTERED CATTLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.
Is he in a position to answer the question I asked him yesterday?


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that question.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Could the minister inform the house whether regulations have now been issued under the recent amendments to the Radio Act, or whether they will be issued promptly, to require an ultra high frequency capability in all new television receiving sets sold in Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not yet, Mr. Speaker, but I am making a proposal to the government within a few days. It will be my recommendation that this be the case, but it will have to be considered by the government and an announcement will be made in due course.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In a similar connection could I ask the minister how the cabinet study on space satellites is coming along, and when we may expect a report on that matter.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is coming along very well, and on behalf of the minister in charge, the Minister of Industry, I would say there will be a statement forthcoming in a day or two.


Thomas Miller Bell: Wouldn't the minister like to make a statement on one thing during his tenure as Minister of Transport?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My hon. friend has not been listening carefully.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Finance or, if there be no such person, to the right hon. Prime Minister. I should like to ask whether the minister's attention has been drawn to the statement by the president of the Montreal Stock Exchange that Canadian investment funds are draining out of the country at critical rates. I should like to ask whether the government accepts this as an accurate statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is out of order.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether I might have your permission to rephrase my question and ask the Prime Minister whether the government is considering any special course of action to deal with the problem of the critical outflow of Canadian investment funds.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to have it assumed, in answering that question, that I accept as a fact that there is any such critical outflow. I will be glad to look into the matter.
March 26, 1968	COMMONS

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Tar-dif in the chair.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. House again in committee of supply on supplementary estimates (C) for 1967-68. Department of National Health and Welfare, vote 20c.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
20c. Administration, Operation and Maintenance. $2,450,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, is this the point at which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is going to make a statement regarding health service for Eskimos and Indians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief statement to make in this connection. As the hon. member for Peace River mentioned, I had the occasion over the week end when out west to meet a number of groups of Indians, and my words had a very calming effect on the groups I met there. I hope they will have the same effect this afternoon on this committee of supply.
I wish to make a very brief statement. Hon. members and others have raised the question of services in the divisions of Indian and northern health, and I promised hon. members that I would review the situation and make a statement. I would like to do so at this moment.
The government has had an opportunity to review the matter of Indian and northern health services raised by hon. members and others. As has been mentioned before, the funds made available for these services in the estimates for the fiscal year 1968-69 are greater than those of the current fiscal year. I can also assure hon. members that services now being provided will be continued in the coming fiscal year and will not be permitted to deteriorate.
If in the coming year it becomes apparent that the level of medical services currently being provided cannot be at least maintained, taking into account population growth and rising costs, the government gives the assurance that funds will be provided for this purpose. My officials have been asked to review all directives to ensure that it is quite clear that in the next fiscal year individual Indians and Eskimos will receive the same 27053-508*
DEBATES	8065
Supply-Health and Welfare consideration and treatment by the department with regard to health services as they have received this year.
The Indian and northern health services directorate is checking with its regional directors to ensure that any directives which may have emanated from them and which do not pursue this policy will be amended so that any misunderstanding about this matter will be quickly cleared up.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the minister referred to any directives that did so emanate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, we were interested to hear the statement of the minister on this important subject. I think the first question asked about this matter was on March 7 last. At that time I suggested to the minister that if it was his intention to curtail health services to our native Canadians, as had been indicated from many sources, he was placing the wrong stress on priorities. We also urged that the minister should make a statement immediately so the confusion that had been referred to by the hon. member for Northwest Territories and the confusion that was reflected across the country might have been dissipated immediately. Unhappily the minister has chosen to wait until the eve of the implementation of the cut-backs before making a statement that will help to clarify the issue.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
My question arose because of a debate that had taken place in the council of the Northwest Territories during the latter part of February, when members of council as well as the director of northern health services, Dr. Butler, indicated that substantial cut-backs in health services were contemplated. This course was being pursued in the face of the drastic health problems confronting our Eskimo and Indian population and was bound to bring serious protests such as those we have witnessed during the past few weeks.
The minister's statement today was brief. I only hope it has removed some of the specific that were outlined in the directives that were sent from the Department of National Health and Welfare across the country. I want to read excerpts from some of these directives, and I want to get the minister's assurance that the policy has been changed; because I think if we are going to deal with the protests that have been aroused, not only in this house
8066	COMMONS
Supply-Health and Welfare but amongst the Indians and groups of citizens in every walk of life, we have to have assurance that the recommendations that went out from the offices of the health and welfare department have been rescinded.
I should like to refer to a directive that went from the Department of National Health and Welfare Edmonton office on March 4, which reads in part:
The basic policy of our department is that there is no statutory federal responsibilty for our department to provide funds for personal health care service for Indian people.
Is this still the attitude of the minister? As the right hon. member for Prince Albert pointed out yesterday, while there might not be a statutory provision there is certainly provision in the treaties, particularly treaty No. 6, the so-called medicine chest provision, which has operated until this directive was issued a few weeks ago.
Then the memorandum went further and stated:
This year our resources to assist Indian people toward payment of medical care costs, hospitalization, transportation to and from medical centres, pharmacist accounts is being reduced and our department will assist only in those instances where the Indian people can demonstrate that they do not have private resources, cannot obtain assistance from their band or from a provincial welfare or health agency.
I trust that the statement the minister made today has reversed that decision, which is quite contrary to the principles of justice and morality in so far as the treatment of our first citizens is concerned. In this memorandum there was even a note with regard to tuberculosis, one of the great killers of our native population. I read this from page 2:
With respect to control of tuberculosis, our instructions read as follows:
From April 1, 1968, it will be necessary to share increasingly with provinces the control of tuberculosis.
The memorandum even applied to mental
illness, and reads:
It will be necessary from April 1, 1968, to cease active case finding among Indians.
Then on page 3 of the memorandum I read this:
Budgetary controls will be imposed on physicians providing services to Indians. It is to be hoped Indian people resident on reserves would not continue to be excluded from the Alberta health plan, as I understand they are at the present time.
The implication there, of course, was that the burden is to be thrown to the provincial governments. In addition I received a directive that went out to each of the chiefs of the

DEBATES	March 26, 1968
band councils across the country. These directives contained the same specific instructions that health services were to be curtailed. The one that went out from the district national health and welfare office in Manitoba on March 6 reads as follows:
Due to the financial crises faced by the government of Canada, it has been necessary for parliament to curtail the funds allowed to the Department of National Health and Welfare.
I hope that impression has been corrected as well, because it was not parliament but the government of Canada that was curtailing the funds. As the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot reminds me, it was the Liberal government. These are the specific instructions that were received by the Indian chiefs and councillors across the country which resulted in the unhappy protests we have heard all across the nation during the last few days.
The latest meeting took place in Winnipeg last night. I had intended to be present at that meeting, where an overflow crowd of more than 200 citizens met to protest the government's action. As I say, I had intended to be there but unfortunately the N.D.P. filibuster in Ottawa kept me away from that meeting. We were not able to get first hand information of what took place, but radio reports indicated the people were protesting as strongly as the various Indian groups across the country over the inequity and injustice of this change in health program.
What happened, of course, resulted from the typical lack of communication between the various departments of this government, as well as the complete failure to consult with the provincial authorities upon whom the minister and the Department of National Health and Welfare were trying to unload the burden of health care for Indians. This is one of the great areas of neglect in dealing with our native Canadians at the present time, the lack of communication and the lack of consultation.
I asked the minister of Indian affairs if he had been aware of the directives, but he knew nothing about them. He is the minister responsible for protecting the interests of our Indian and Eskimo population. It is little wonder, Mr. Chairman, that the Indians persist in their view that a credibility gap exists and that the white man speaks with a forked tongue. I hope we might open consultations and negotiations with the provinces so that if there is a desire on the part of Ottawa to shed this traditional obligation, it will not be done in an arbitrary way but will be the
March 26, 1968	COMMONS
result of what the Prime Minister used to call co-operative federalism. Consultation has been repeatedly requested by the premiers of Alberta and Manitoba. I hope that to avoid further fiascos of this kind, meetings between Ottawa and the provincial governments on Indian affairs will proceed at the earliest possible opportunity.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I urge too that the committee on Indian affairs be reconstituted so that it can come to grips with some of the problems that have been brought into the limelight as a result of this piece of government foolishness during recent weeks. The parliamentary committee on Indian affairs has not met for over a year. It was supposed to be reconstituted, and the promise was made that it would be reconstituted at an early date in the session now under way. I have a Canadian Press dispatch before me dated March 18, 1967 which reads as follows:
The Commons Indian affairs committee agreed Friday to call officials of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority before it to answer Indian complaints that the seaway did not live up to agreements under which it acquired reserve land nearly 10 years ago.
Chairman Milton Klein (Lib.) Montreal-Cartier, said that if complaints the committee heard last month were true, and he thought they were, "this situation is scandalous.*'
The article went on:
Most of Friday's session was spent discussing the need for visits to Indian reserves across the country.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, this article was written over a year ago. Yet we wonder why the Indian population is disenchanted.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question in connection with the remarks he has just been making? Does he not recall that the committee actually had laid on a schedule of visits to reserves in British Columbia which for some unknown reason was suddenly cancelled?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is the point I am making. If the Indians resort to whining and complaining, as the minister of Indian affairs accuses, then they have every reason to do so because their fundamental problems are not being dealt with by the present government.
Although there were no specifics we were pleased to hear the minister's announcement.
I only hope the action that follows will not result in further accusations of "double talk"
DEBATES	8067
Supply-Health and Welfare on the part of the government, which has led to the spirit of disillusionment and which, as I have already intimated, causes our Indian friends to say: "White man speaks with forked tongue".


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to address a few questions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. First of all, in view of the fact that national medicare is coming into operation on July 1 I should like to know what is going to happen in regard to medical care for Indians in those provinces that are financially unable to go along with the federal medicare policy. For example, is the government of Ontario going to have to pick up the tab for all care for Indians after July 1? Under the present OMSIP regulations all Indians in the province in receipt of social security would qualify for medical care which is paid for by the provincial government. Those on low incomes

and the Indian is not a high income earner-would also have to receive subsidized medical care or the province would have to pay for the care in full. This is going to throw an additional burden on all provinces that do not adopt medicare if the minister does not pay to the province the medical care insurance premium in that province.
In addition, what is going to become of all the Indians in the province of Ontario, or in any other province for that matter, cared for by doctors who are under contract with the federal government? Incidentally, may I compliment the minister on the cheap rate he has obtained for most of these medical services. I recall one doctor telling me that he received the princely salary of $250 a month. This covers all services except those that are highly specialized. In this particular case the. reserve was 17 miles from the town where he' lived and he had to cross two miles of water-to get there. He answers calls seven days a-week, emergency calls, office calls and so on. There are almost 500 Indians on the reserve so it really constitutes a village. If in some [DOT] way or other the minister discontinues these [DOT] contracts, what will become of the Indians?
Second, does the minister not feel that in a great many cases these doctors should have * some relief? For example, they have no holidays, they cannot accrue time and they are [DOT] not on pension. In the province of Ontario OMSIP costs about $10 a month. If you divide 500 Indians into a salary of $250 a month in t the case I have cited, I think you will agree. .
March 26, 1968

Supply-Health and Welfare Mr. Chairman, that they are getting their services fairly reasonably. Figured out, it probably amounts to less than half the cost of medical insurance. I think the minister should consider this matter and discuss it with the provincial ministers of health in those provinces that are not implementing medicare.
On the whole, Mr. Chairman, hiring these doctors not on a fee for service basis but on a monthly salary has proven quite efficient. It has guaranteed the Indians services that they would probably have difficulty obtaining in view of the scarcity of medical doctors in Canada today. However, when the day comes for these doctors to retire or they are retired by the government, how is the minister going to guarantee medical services to Indians who are living a long way from any town? Even people living in cities today emphasize over and over again the difficulty of getting a doctor on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday. Most of them have to go to the hospital itself for treatment. This is certainly a backward step in the provision of service to the Indian people.
I should also like to ask whether the minister has had any communications with or met the presidents of medical associations, the universities, the medical schools and the provincial ministers of health about what can be done to keep medical shools in operation during the summer holidays. Canada is short about 2,000 medical practitioners, and this is a crisis indeed. There is simply no good reason why the Canadian people should put up with the medical services that exist today. As I say, over and over again we hear of people having to go to hospital emergency departments in order to get care at all.
I say this is not good enough. The Canadian people are financing our universities and medical schools, and I suggest they should receive the services to which they are entitled. If we took advantage of closed circuit television in our teaching schools we could produce one and a half times the number of doctors graduating today by operating our medical schools all summer. You just cannot blame the overworked doctor for the service people are getting today.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I am bringing this to the minister's attention because we have a medical crisis, and when one sees what has been done during the last three or four years one realizes that nothing much has been done to solve it. I also wish to ask, what is to happen to our Indians? Who is to pay their OMSIP premiums?
[Mr. Rynard.l


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, it is a tribute to the social conscience of the Canadian people that I am able to point out that not for a long time have we seen such a public outcry from all sections of the Canadian population resulting from the announcement that there are to the serious curtailments of medical services to Indians. I have received telegrams from the heads of the churches, from doctors, and from those who are interested in Indian and Eskimo problems. It is quite apparent that Canadians have been disturbed by the reprehensible action taken by the Department of National Health and Welfare in contracting or reducing the health services which are available to the native people of Canada.
I do not know of any question on which the government has waffled and dissembled more. Last Friday, in the legislature of Alberta, the premier of the province read a communication he had received from the Prime Minister in answer to a wire which Mr. Manning had sent to the Prime Minister complaining about the curtailment of medical services to the Indians. I have not been able to get the Prime Minister's reply, although I asked for it to be tabled. On orders of the day the Prime Minister intimated what was in the telegram. According to press reports the telegram intimated to Mr. Manning that everything would be cleared up to Mr. Manning's satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of everybody who was protesting the curtailment, once the Minister of National Health and Welfare had made his statement, and that the minister had not made his statement because he was being held up by members of the New Democratic party who were preventing the minister from making his statement.
Every member of the house, including the Prime Minister, knows perfectly well that when supplementary estimates are before this committee the government at its discretion can call any department it wants to. At any time last week the government could have called the Department of National Health and Welfare and the minister could have made his statement. The fact is that the minister has delayed making his statement, hoping that the storm would die down and that he could allow the department to pursue its original, intended policy of curtailing these services substantially.
The minister has never come clean with the house on this matter. Having been asked questions by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and Northwest Territories and by
March 26, 1968

myself on Thursday, March 14, the minister said, as recorded on page 7608 of Hansard in the upper left hand corner:
I should like to say that the funds available for health services in the north for the forthcoming year will be as great as in the preceding year if not slightly greater.
Of course, to some extent that statement is misleading because the minister failed to take account of three factors: first, that in that period of time the cost of providing health services had increased substantially; second, that the native population had also increased considerably and, third, that the department, as I am told, overspent its expenditures for this purpose by about $400,000. For the minister, therefore, to assure the house that nothing unusual was happening because, to use his words, "funds available for health services in the north for the forthcoming year will be as great as in the preceding year if not slightly greater", does not answer the question whether the government is planning to curtail health services to our native people. If the minister had made the kind of statement then that he has made now he would have saved the native people of this country a good deal of heartache, the members of the house a good deal of time, and many in Canada much concern.
The minister's statement needs clarifying. Let there be no doubt about what the Department of National Health and Welfare intended to do. The minister was asked to table the directives that were sent out and he said he would consider that. I do not think he has tabled them yet. If he has, I have not seen them. The directives are interesting. I have in my hand a directive dated March 6, 1968, from the Department of National Health and Welfare, medical services branch, Manitoba zone. It is signed by Dr. K. Bridge, Dr. J. P. Harvey, Dr. E. Otke and Dr. A. Y. Eng. It begins by saying:
The federal government, as you know, has been forced to reduce many of its programs and the resources available for health services for Indian people has also been greatly reduced.
It goes on to say:
-we must ask all those Indian people and bands who have a source of income to pay for their own health services, namely:-doctors, druggists, hospitals, and to pay for their own transportation. If an Indian person cannot pay for such services, he should first of all request his band for assistance; if such assistance is not available from the band or provincial welfare agencies, the Indian person must obtain a statement from the welfare agency to the effect that he actually requires assistance to pay for personal health services and present this

Supply-Health and Welfare statement to a doctor, druggist, hospital before receiving service, otherwise the Indian person will be billed for such services.
Farther down the directive goes on to say:
Indian bands that have funds must make their own arrangements for the purchase of treatment services either by paying local physicians directly or by arranging to take part in medical insurance programs.
Another paragraph says:
The bands should establish health committees whose duty it would be "to determine what Indians of the band are medically indigent". These committees should meet at regular intervals in order to keep their records of indigents up to date.
The last paragraph but one says:
Medical services branch staff will continue to assist Indian people in improving their health as much as we are able within the limits of the reduced resources allocated to us. We would be remiss if we did not point out the problems facing us today and in the future.
Another letter sent out by the Manitoba zone of the medical services branch, Department of National Health and Welfare, also under date of March 6, 1968, says:
Due to the financial crises faced by the government of Canada, it has been necessary for Parliament to curtail the funds allowed to the Department of National Health and Welfare.
This is an interesting observation to come from that department because, so far as I know, parliament has not curtailed the funds. On March 6 parliament had not even discussed the matter of funds for this purpose. So the responsibility for any curtailment of funds must be borne by the government.
I have in my hand a memorandum sent out last November 23, 1967, signed by the director of Indian health services in the Department of National Health and Welfare. It is addressed to the chief, and says:
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Dear Chief:
There has been some misunderstanding as to what Indians in our zone are entitled to medical services. I would like to make it quite clear that our Indian health services are for indigent Indians only.
Farther on the letter says:
Any indigent treaty Indian who has left the reserve for a year no longer comes under our jurisdiction. He becomes the responsibility of the provincial welfare department.
The curtailment of services has not been confined to cases where no indigency is involved. It has been applied to personnel and also to the facilities which provide health
March 26, 1968

Supply-Health and Welfare services for the population. Dr. Gordon Butler, who appeared before the council of the Northwest Territories as a witness, is quoted as saying the following on February 20:
Severe cuts are necessary to make up $250,000 of wages for medical personnel. Federal grants fall into two categories-operations and salaries. A shortage of funds for salaries means money will have to be trimmed from existing operations. Every frill will have to be cut out from the program. Under the present budget I have to treat 175 T.B. patients with the same money I would need for 115. Trimming will take place through closure of a ward in Inuvik; reduction of the medical staff at Inuvik and Frobisher; withdrawal of a dental officer at Inuvik; closure of the Fort Laird nursing station; elimination of 75 per cent of visiting specialists.
I think the minister owes the committee a much more definitive statement than the one he has made this afternoon. Are these cuts referred to by Dr. Gordon Butler to be reinstated? Does the government still intend to close a ward in Inuvik? Is there to be a reduction of the medical staff at Inuvik and Frobisher? Does the government intend to dispense with the dental officer at Inuvik? Is the Fort Liard nursing station to be closed? Has the government decided to reduce visiting specialists by 75 per cent?
I can understand why the council of the Northwest Territories was thrown into consternation when these statements were made by Dr. Butler. I think the council, the members of this committee and the public generally will want some assurance from the minister this afternoon that the curtailment of services will now be reversed and that there will be no contraction of medical and other health services to the native population.
I was glad to hear the minister say that the same standard of services will continue. I want to be clear about what the minister means by this. Is he saying that the same level of services will be maintained in the coming fiscal year as in the past? This is what we need to know. The hon. gentleman told us that as much money will be spent or even slightly more. That does not answer the question. Estimates for a health service cannot be considered on the same basis as estimates for running an office; they cannot be estimated accurately to the dollar. What the department has to do is to determine the level and extent of the health services it will provide and attempt to estimate the cost of providing such a service. But if an epidemic occurs, or there is a greater amount of illness in that year than in another, the estimate must be revised.


Those who provide health service for Indians and Eskimos in the northern part of Canada cannot say to applicants: We are sorry, we have used up all the money the government has allocated; you must help yourselves.
I notice that in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 11 Mr. Shaun Herron, in one of the articles he wrote on this matter, said:
The word is out to officers of the service that anyone responsible for exceeding budget figures will be in serious trouble. It should be understood what this means in human terms.
I agree with Mr. Herron. If it is true that the word has gone out from the department to the government's health services in the north that people will be in trouble if they exceed the amount of money allocated, then the government will find itself in serious difficulty having jeopardized the lives of many of the people who are committed to its care. The government may allocate certain funds to this service and it is true they may be as large as they were in the previous year. But if a child is sick, if a community needs increased medical services, if a greater amount of hospitalization is required, then the medical officers of the department cannot say to the Indian and Eskimo people: We are sorry but we have used up our allotment for the year; you will have to get along as best you can.
Allocations for health and medical services must be flexible. They must approximate what the department thinks is needed, but I wish to get an assurance that apart from any sums of money the minister may be asking parliament to approve today there will be no diminution in the level of service, no reduction in the standard of service, no discontinuation of any of the health services which have been in operation in the past.
The directive I read a few moments ago raises a much more fundamental question, one which we have no time to discuss fully today. It is: what is the responsibility of the federal government with respect to medical care for Indians? The right hon. member for Prince Albert raised the matter yesterday on the orders of the day when he spoke of treaty No. 6 under which the Indian people consider they were given a commitment. This commitment was that a medicine chest would be kept at the house of each Indian agent in case of sickness among the Indians. They have taken this as a commitment that all treaty Indians are entitled to the health services which they require.
March 26, 1968

[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I know there has been a great deal of dispute as to the legal obligation which rests upon the federal government with respect to medical care for Indians, but I submit, that there is also a great deal of legal dispute with reference to land claims, and these have not been settled. I reject the federal government's right to settle either of these legal questions unilaterally. Until the matter of land claims has been settled and the people of this country are satisfied that the Indians have been treated fairly and equitably with reference to their land claims, the government has no right to change the rules with respect to health services for the Indian people.
We all hope the day will come in Canada when the Indian people will have received sufficient education and will have been absorbed into the mainstream of Canadian life, will have jobs and incomes and will have health services like other people by being able to make their contributions to a provincial or national medicare plan. Until that is true, until the Indians are able to earn wages comparable with those received by their fellow Canadians, until they are able to finance their way, I maintain that the federal government has a very definite responsibility with respect to health services for the Indian people.
If the government is hard pressed for money it seems to me the last place that there ought to be any curtailment or any cheeseparing is in carrying out our obligation to provide health services for the Indian and Eskimo people. The government, of course is trying to curtail expenditures, and that is understandable. Last night the Minister of Transport said that those who voted against the tax bill automatically voted to cut expenditures. I do not want to get into a debate on that but I remind the government that the members of this party put proposals before it which could have raised more money than it is raising at the present time without increasing taxes on the income tax payer. We said that by implementing some of the recommendations of the Carter report the government could actually have cut income taxes by making some of the freeloaders pay the taxes from which they are now exempt.
If the government has to curtail expenditures there are other places it might look than at this rather meagre sum which we are spending on our native people. The other day the government indicated that we are going

Supply-Health and Welfare to overhaul and re-equip four destroyers at a cost of some $50 million apiece. This is an item that might be re-examined in the interests of economy. Further, one strongly suspects that some of the military planes we are purchasing from the United States will be obsolete when we get them. The government might re-examine these purchases. Some $215 million is going into that expenditure.
The point I want to make is that if the government must reduce expenditures, in the name of decency and in the name of justice the last place we ought to reduce them is in our expenditures for the most defenceless and helpless group in our society, the Indians and the Eskimos whom we have treated shabbily enough in days gone by. Let us not make them the first victims of any economy measure the government must carry out.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, when the minister is replying I ask that he give us the assurance his statement this afternoon means that there will be no reduction in the level of services or the standard of services and that there will be no closing or discontinuance of any of the health services and health centres that are now in operation. If we can get that kind of assurance then I think all the furore that has been kicked up over this problem will have been worth while. I think that the people in all parts of Canada who have protested against this proposed curtailment in health services for our native people will feel their protests have not been in vain.


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief.
Indian affairs have been discussed as well as improvements to be made in our economy to meet more and more the needs of the Indians. We are not against the Indians but we would like to help everybody.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that during this session and since the Liberals took office, not much thought has been given to the family which is the basis of our society. No protection has been given to the family but it has been taxed in all kinds of ways: sales tax on building materials and goods, direct and indirect taxes. The family is faced with one of the most serious problems in our history: the lack of money.
Mr. Chairman, the rate of family allowances, established at $6, $7 and $8 per month in 1944, has remained at approximately the same level, while the cost of living has
March 26, 1968

Supply-Health and Welfare multiplied by four, eight, twelve and even fourteen.
Mr. Chairman, it is illogical that in a country like Canada which produces in abundance, a reasonable purchasing power cannot be distributed to the families, which would enable them to live, to flourish, to get what they need as far as housing, food and clothes are concerned. Families are deprived because they do not have the necessary purchasing power, and instead of being provided with more, it is deprived even more.
The goods are there, but the families who go into the stores to buy cannot use up all that is produced. In fact, stores restock themselves faster than families can empty them.
Mr. Chairman, it is illogical, in a country such as ours, to do nothing for the families, the mothers and especially society's future generations.
If there were no families, Mr. Chairman, we would have no federal, provincial or municipal governments, nor any institutions. All those institutions are in existence because there are families. Do you think that society, the government and institutions would continue to exist without the family? We should lead the way and enable the family to live decently, with the help of all the technological progress accomplished in past years.
Mr. Chairman, twenty years ago, in 1948, the Canadian government could carry on its administration with a $2,195 million budget, while paying a $6 monthly family allowance for children six years old. Today, in 1968, even with a budget of approximately $10 billion, a child of six is still entitled to a $6 monthly allowance. Since our budget has increased fivefold, family allowances should be raised accordingly to $30 monthly. I am adamant on this point, it is only logical. It is also one of the prime requirements of social justice and the recognition of human rights, as recommended by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations on December 12, 1948, that is, twenty years ago.
Mr. Chairman, 23 years ago, that is in 1945, Canadian national production amounted to $12 billion. Today, in 1968, it is worth $68 billion, that is more than five times that of 1945. In 1945, we paid $6 a month in family allowances for a child six years of age in his normal home. Today, in 1968, we are still paying $6 a month for a six-year old child, in his normal home, $60 or $80 a month in a foster home; and over $120 a month in an orphanage or in a reformatory.

In 1944, the year the government adopted the Family Allowances Act, the members' indemnity was $4,000 a year, including expenses. Today, that indemnity has reached $12,000 a year, plus an additional $6,000 for expenses, while six-year old children still get the same rate in family allowances, that is $6 a month. We deemed it advisable to increase our indemnity and our allowances with the increase in national production, but we have neglected to do the same thing for family allowances.
Mr. Chairman, in 1944, our old people in need could receive $20 a month from our governments. Today, that amount can now reach $105 a month, that is five times more.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


The Chairman:: Order. I feel I have allowed the hon. gentleman to go as far afield as I can permit him to go. I think the remarks he is making now could not be considered appropriate under vote 20c. Vote 20c has to do with medical services. Perhaps the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac would confine his remarks to that particular topic.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I thought we were considering the estimates of the welfare branch. If we are dealing with medical care, that is something else again.
I shall therefore sit down, reserving the right to rise and speak on families in due time.


Mr. Orliliow:: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the minister is standing behind the curtain or has left on urgent business. I should like to tell him, however, that while we do not intend to prolong the debate unnecessarily the two-minute statement he made in which he assured hon. members that everything was of the best in all possible worlds is just not good enough. The directives which have been placed on the record by the leader of our party and by other members must have come from some place. Since top officials in charge of health services have said to Indian patients, to officials and to people involved in health services that the funds are to be cut and that past practices are not to be followed, before this item is passed the minister must explain in detail precisely why these statements have been made. If, as the minister says, there has been no cut-back in the amount available for
March 26, 1968	COMMONS
health services and indeed there is more money available than there was last year, why have the specialists who work for the department and the Indian patients unanimously come to the conclusion that in fact there is to be a sharp reduction in health services? I wish to advise the minister that despite the fact he is busy with other matters we will not let this item pass until we have specific answers.
I do not want to repeat everything that has been said but I do think we should take a look at the situation. At the present time government expenditures are going up very sharply and a former minister of justice, Mr. Chevrier, is on a special mission on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the French speaking nations in Africa where he is promising very sharp increases in the amount of aid which Canada will give to those countries. I am not objecting to these increases in aid. I believe that Canada, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, ought to do more than it has done and is doing. However, at the same time that this policy is being followed we hear from the most important officials of the minister's department that the policy of the government, I presume on instructions from the minister, is that these health services are to be cut.
Let us keep in mind that we are talking about people whose health standards are not similar to those of the Canadian people as a whole. The health standards of these people are as poor or worse than those of the people who live under the worst conditions in Asia or Africa. Let us keep in mind also, as Dr. Butler, the regional director of northern health services in Edmonton, said in November, 1967, that we are dealing with a group of people where the death rate among children under one year of age is 63.8 in 1,000 persons while the death rate among these children for all of Canada is just 23.6. In other words, the death rate is three times as high in respect of these people than in respect of the people of Canada as a whole. I should like to quote what Dr. Butler said in an interview as reported in the Edmonton Journal of November 17, 1967. Despite what the minister told us, he said:
Health services in the Northwest Territories will have to be curtailed despite rising rates of disease and death.
The report continued:
He said a lack of federal funds "makes nonsense of any constructive planning" and that it appears health services "will be faced with this continuing problem for years ahead."
DEBATES	8073
Supply-Health and Welfare
The doctor stated a rate of 108 Eskimo infant deaths per 1,000 births bothers him and, although it has reduced appreciably over the past four years, it is still three times higher than the Canadian average. The territorial and federal governments share the cost of northern health services upon ratification of the federal territorial finance committee.
He said that shortages of federal funds occurred each year of the 1962-67 plan and that his office tried to avoid a repetition of the problem. A paragraph in the existing plan insuring federal funds had been deleted by the financial committee.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I think the minister should explain how Dr. Butler is wrong if he is. After all, Dr. Butler is the senior health officer of the department in the Northwest Territories. Although this has already been referred to, I should like to quote one line from a directive issued by the Manitoba zone of the Department of National Health and Welfare, medical services branch, on March 6, 1968. When we look at these directives we are not surprised that the minister constantly refuses to put them on the record. They make a mockery of everything he has said today and are an indictment of this so-called left wing Liberal who wants to give progressive leadership to the country as a whole. They show that there is no difference between a left wing Liberal such as the minister and a right wing Liberal minister. They are all the same when the chips are down and they cut what they are told to cut.
This is what that directive says in part:
Due to the financial crises faced by the government of Canada it has been necessary for parliament to curtail the funds allowed to the Department of National Health and Welfare.
The minister says this is not true. Where did this directive originate and who authorized it? Let me read one sentence of a letter dated November 23, 1967, from Dr. S. Mallick, the zone director of Indian health services of the Department of National Health and Welfare, to the Sioux Lookout Indian Hospital. He said:
I would like to make it quite clear that our Indian health services are for indigent Indians only. It means those people who cannot provide for themselves, who have no jobs.
That has not been the policy of the department up to now. Up to now the department has provided medical services for many Indians who were not completely indigent. The minister says there is no change in policy. How did Dr. Mallick come to write this letter?
I have here a letter from the Manitoba zone of the medical services branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare dated
March 26, 1968

Supply-Health and Welfare March 6, 1968, addressed to all chiefs and councillors of Manitoba Indian bands. In part it says:
The federal government, as you know, has been forced to reduce many of Its programs and the resources available for health services for Indian people has also been greatly reduced.
In light of these statements how can the minister say that this has not happened? Let me put on record some information I received from a source which I am satisfied is reliable. I have not been able to get the original but I am assured that this statement is not exaggerated. I am informed that the director general of the medical services branch, Dr. Procter, wrote a long brief directed to hospitals and sanitaria which look after Indians who have tuberculosis, of whom there are a large number. In this brief Dr. Procter issued the following instruction and if it is true, and I have every reason to believe that it is, I cannot think of a more heartless or damaging statement. He said that if patients in the hospital are just spitting a little blood it is all right to send them home. Just give them some medicine to tide them over. That is a fine way in the year 1968 for the Canadian government to treat the original inhabitants of this country. These people have been sent to hospital for treatment for tuberculosis.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member whether he will accept responsibility for the accuracy of that statement as a member of this house.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, we have been asking the minister in the house-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Will he answer the
question?


David Orlikow: I will answer the question. We listened to the minister and the minister can listen to me for a moment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Answer the question. You haven't the guts.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Any man who has been running away from this question for the last three weeks should not talk about guts.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, the question we are discussing today was raised several weeks ago, I think first by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. It has been raised virtually every day since then and it is now more than two weeks since the matter became a topic of discussion inside and outside the house. We have asked almost every day that

the minister table these directives and every day we have been told that at an appropriate time the minister would make a statement explaining everything.
Today the minister made a two-minute statement. Did he table the directives from which the leader of this party quoted and from which I have quoted today? We have quoted from these directives which the minister knows he cannot table because they are too damaging to himself and to his government. The minister asks whether I will take the responsibility for the accuracy of the report to which I referred. Let me refer the minister to the fact that I obtained this information from the same people who gave us the directives from which we have quoted. I told the minister I could not quote directly from the report because the person who gave me the information said he did not have a copy of it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Will the hon. member answer the simple question whether he will accept responsibility for the accuracy of the statement he attributed to Dr. Procter?


David Orlikow: I will stand on my statement until the minister has the guts to table the report to which I referred. If he does not I can only assume, along with the people of Canada, that he will not table the report because he knows, or will know before we are finished, that what I have said is true. If the minister tables the report and the statement is not accurate I will be the first to rise and apologize for giving the house wrong information.
The minister has been in politics long enough to know that one gets information very often from people who cannot allow their names to be divulged because they work for the government or its agencies or on government contract. The minister knows very well I cannot tell him where I got that information. I have been an elected representative for well over 20 years and I can say I am as satisfied as I have ever been about anything since I have been in public office that the statement to which I referred is reliable. If I ask the minister to table the report he will say he cannot because it is an internal communication. I ask him to read it. He does not have to show it to me. I ask him to come here then and tell us on his honour that the statement is not in the report. If he does so I will apologize immediately. I know he will not be here to do so tomorrow because what I have
March 26, 1968

said is virtually correct and he cannot refute it.
Why does the minister of Indian affairs not allow the committee on Indian affairs to meet and call these people before it for questioning? If the minister was agreeable to that suggestion we could conclude this debate right now. Let us hear from Dr. Butler, the head of the health services in the Northwest Territories, and from Dr. Procter who wrote this report. Let us get them before the committee and find out how it is they came to the conclusion simultaneously without any instruction from the minister or the deputy minister that their job was to cut services. Let us hear what they have to say.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The minister does not like anything we on this side of the house say. Members on that side suggest that what we say is obviously political and partisan. The minister does not expect us to be fair to the government because we cannot find anything good to say about it. Perhaps he thinks that is natural because it is politics. I should like the minister, if he has not already done so, to look at reports which have appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press. If there is a newspaper in Canada more committed to the Liberal party than the Winnipeg Free Press I am not aware of it. I want the minister to look at an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 11, written by Mr. Shaun Herron who I think is a Liberal. I am not going into the details but Mr. Herron makes the statement that the staff of the minister's department have been told that the practice of last year, which resulted in an overexpenditure of $400,000, will not be permitted this year. Apparently the staff of the department have been told that individual members who authorize expenditures over and above what is in the budget will be held responsible.
What does this mean? It means that if a nurse or doctor who is treating an Indian child very sick with pneumonia or meningitis thinks it is important to get the child to hospital right away and to do so hires a taxi if there is a road or even adopts the more costly procedure frequently followed of chartering an aeroplane, they will be held responsible for that expenditure. If they are to be held responsible for making expenditures which are not authorized, if they are to be criticized, if they are, I suppose, to be denied promotion because they have followed procedures which the department has indicated are not proper, naturally they will not take these

Supply-Health and Welfare steps and incur such expenditures. Therefore the death rate amongst these native people will increase.
The minister ought not to be so touchy on this matter. He ought not to be saying to us: Prove your points. I think the proof is all here. I tell the minister that we are not going to finish this item for some considerable time, despite the fact that he may have commitments to speak at meetings all across the country, until we get from him a better explanation than we have had up till now about the directives which have come from the officials of his department indicating to Indian bands, to doctors who work for the department, to nurses and doctors on contract to the department and to specialists, that their services are being cut back and there will not be the money in the coming year with which to provide the services that have been provided up till now. I suggest to the minister that he owes it, not to the members of this house but to the Indian and Eskimo people who are upset about this matter, to give an assurance that this will not be the case.
The minister should know, and if he does not I am sure the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development does, that on March 15 a group of 150 treaty Indians marched on the Indian Affairs branch at Le Pas to protest this very matter. I am sure the minister knows that last evening a meeting was held in Winnipeg, under the auspices of some of the most respected organizations in that city, to protest and discuss this very question. I am sure the minister knows about that meeting because I am told he received an invitation to attend.
The minister owes the Indian and Eskimo people an explanation as to just what the situation is and how these misconceptions arose, if they are misconceptions, and one can only assume from the minister's short statement that they are. The minister should explain why the people in his department made the statements and wrote the letters which we have put on the record. They were not put on the record by the minister. I think he needs to give these native people much better assurances than he did in his very short statement that what they fear and suspect is, in fact, not true.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, it has always been my wish that some day, and the sooner the better, we would have native representation in this house. I say this because there are
March 26. 1968

Supply-Health and Welfare some 250,000 of our first citizens and it is very difficult, if not impossible, for any white man to speak for them with the same assurance and sense of responsibility as one of their own number.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Therefore, without any apology I shall try to do for them today what they are unable to do for themselves, for the very cogent reason I have mentioned. There are in Athabasca some 21 Indian reservations. As I said before, these Indians have no representation in this house except through me. I can speak with some authority for them because they have come to me and asked me to do so. Therefore I must do so. I beg the indulgence of the house and ask hon. members to exercise their patience when I try to outline the point of view of the Indians.
Since 1876 the Indians who signed Treaty No. 6, representing a large proportion of the Swampy Cress of northern Saskatchewan and northern Alberta, have lived up to their side of the treaty with great patience and restraint.
I hear when I go amongst them, and I am amongst them often, no talk of red power. They are not looking to any sort of violence whatsoever to bring their problems forward.
I hasten to say that I believe we have a Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is doing his best to make sure that the needs of the Indian people are looked after. He has a very capable staff. However, it seems to me that the reason the particular difficulty has arisen at this time is that nobody seems to know exactly what is our responsibility to the native peoples. Nobody seems to know whether it is the responsibility of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to look after their health or whether the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has full responsibility in this field.
I think there is a joint responsibility in this regard. I believe that one of the reasons both these departments are somewhat hamstrung in their activities is that we have not really considered the basic problem. That problem is, what exactly are we to do with these people? What does the treaty mean, if it means anything? We must ask ourselves: Should the treaty be brought up to date? If it can be brought up to date, we should be asking ourselves how we can bring it up to date. It seems to me we can bring it up to date only if we sit down at the negotiating table with people representing the Indian community


and deal with them on an equal basis. We must forget our paternal attitude from the first word of such consultation to the last.
These people must be treated as complete equals. It is very difficult to treat them as equals. We cannot do it in the House of Commons because they are not here to speak for themselves, but some of us in this house-I hope this applies to all of us-are prepared to take a few hours of our time and deal with this question seriously. I do not think we can do it today, and I have no intention of spending a great deal of time dealing with this matter now. I certainly do not wish to hold up these estimates. But I make this very firm commitment, and I speak for many members of the house, that I intend to see that something is done to solve this problem. We want the government to reassure the Indian people that there are still people in this country who have their welfare at heart. The Indian people know this in fact but they are worried about the timetable. They are looking forward to the establishment of an Indian affairs commission to look into their problems.
About ten years ago my party discussed this matter. Just before we were defeated we had on the drafting board a policy in respect of an Indian affairs commission. Unfortunately the fortunes of political warfare decided that we would not be able to implement that policy. The present administration made an abortive attempt some time ago to bring forward an Indian claims commission, and I am assured that such a commission is still on the drafting board. I am speaking for the Indian people when I say they are not satisfied with what is on drafting boards. They want action and they want it now. Should this commission sit, I am reasonably assured that the Indian people could not expect any particular action for six, seven, or eight years, depending upon the terms of reference and the power of the commission to look into and settle Indian problems. The Indian people, quite rightly, are not willing to wait eight years. They want action now. I honestly believe that if we set up this commission properly with the right people on it and they started to work now they could achieve results in a matter of months. We have to establish some priorities in connection with these debts. Do we owe these people enough money to enable them to pay for some of their own medical services? If we do, let us look at these treaties to ascertain whether we are responsible for giving the Indians medical services across the board, without limit. When we talked about
March 26, 1968	COMMONS
the medicine box back in 1876, what was involved?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Let us ask the Indians themselves to be fair. Let us ask them if back in 1876 they envisaged medical care in modern hospitals with all the white man's medicines. I should like to tell those people who do not know it, and remind those who do, that the medicine man of the Indian tribes in western Canada was not without considerable merit. If records had been kept they would show that when a squaw was about to make a contribution to the Indian family she did not die of gangrene and all these other diseases. She had a natural, normal birth and the death rate was not as high as some people like to think. The Indians gave up this treatment and accepted the white man's medicine.
I should like to know, once and for all, what did the reference to the medicine box mean? Did we promise these people that, regardless of the cost, they would receive medical care in perpetuity? I do not believe the Indian people are sure about this. Let us get them to the council table and ask them what they expected, what they meant when they signed these treaties. Let us see if we can roll back 100 years and ask these Indian people what price they are willing to accept for the wonderfully rich north half of this continent. If we cannot get a consensus of the Indian people, and I do not think we can because we cannot get a consensus of the provinces, then let us take them region by region and try to negotiate to undo some of the damage we have done to these people. I am only thinking now of what the white man has done. It may be that the Indian has contributed to his own downfall. It may be that some Indians took sandhills that were good for nothing in return for some of the wonderfully rich agricultural land we have and thought they were making a good deal because the white man gave them a barrel of flour or gave the chief a suit of clothes. I do not believe that is good enough today. I do not believe the taxpayers of Canada think the Indian has ever had the deal which he should have had.
We are told that the government has overspent a little and can no longer pay the bill for Indian health services. I do not believe that the first place we should cut back is on health care for Indian children or Indian people. There can be no argument about that.
I do not believe there is any disagreement amongst hon. members because I think we all
DEBATES	8077
Supply-Health and Welfare want to get to the root of this matter. We cannot do this by promising an Indian commission in the dim future. We have to establish one now and handle things in order of priority. If the minister takes this kind of action he will get no obstruction from this side of the house. We are only asking for those things which we are honour-bound, as good Canadian citizens, to give to our full-blooded brethen. Let there no longer be talk about these delightful Indian children. There is no such thing. They are people who want to take their rightful place in this country. My experience with the Indians leads me to believe that if they have an opportunity for education they are willing to take advantage of that opportunity because they want to bring themselves forward into the twentieth century.
It is quite true that some of them have no band funds to spend on medicine. Some of them do not even have a treaty with the people of Canada whereby they would have some chance of getting justice. I do not believe it is fair for us to say: Show us your legal document which entitles you to these rights. Every person bom in Canada is entitled to have a place in the sun, good food and shelter provided he is willing to do his share. I believe in the Indian people. I believe they are willing to do their share. They do not want a paternalistic government. They want an opportunity to educate themselves and to educate their children and to keep themselves healthy.
Sometimes we ask the Indians to develop their reserves. Some of these reserves are not fit for human habitation. Some of the Indians do not even have reserves on which to live. It is ten years since I started some of these projects. One of them is to move the Indians from Fort Chipewyan down to Wood Buffalo park. The answer I have received has been that the sanctity of the park must be preserved. I still put the welfare of these people ahead of the sanctity of Wood Buffalo park or the whooping crane. I am not saying this to be critical of any group of people. I am looking to the future.
When we do open negotiations with the provincial governments involved, with the Northwest Territories and with the Indian people we should take a positive attitude. As I have said, I do not believe we can get a consensus. I do not suppose we can even agree on the type of commission to establish. Let us do this to the best of our ability. Let us put five men on the commission. I would hope that one would be of Indian origin
8078	COMMONS
Supply-Health and Welfare because during the last ten years these people have not been encouraged to believe they are being treated fairly. They want a full part in making the final judgment, a full part in the advocacy of their cause, a full part in applying their own resources, sometimes in money and sometimes in enthusiasm. The magnificent loyalty which these people have given to us in the last 100 years, not only in peace but in war, has been such that we should lean over backwards in order to keep faith. If we do that, these people are going to meet us more than half way.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Health and Welfare was in Edmonton two or three days ago and at that time he issued a press statement to the effect that the reduction in federal health services would not hurt the Indians in any way. I should like to quote from that news release:
In some ways Indian health services have been cut, but in another way they haven't. For instance, we used to take a pregnant Indian woman to hospital a few weeks before she gave birth and keep her there for a few weeks afterwards. Now, we plan to have her in hospital immediately prior to the birth and for a short while afterwards. In a way, that is a reduction of service, but it's a sensible one.
The minister may contend that the course of action taken is sensible, but I think he will also want to agree that the information he gave at that press conference was inadequate. Since the conference was brief, it was bound to be. The statement we were promised, which was referred to by the Prime Minister yesterday, we were led to believe would be substantial. Instead, we were given a statement of perhaps a minute and a half. The minister did not elaborate in any respect on what is involved, namely, the alleged reduction in northern health services expenditures.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I should also like to tell the minister that the form of the estimates of his department leaves a great deal to be desired. It is very difficult to be able to detect from the estimates just what allocations are being made for particular kinds of services. Even if we could tell from the book of estimates how much was expended in 1966-67 or is estimated to be spent on northern health services and on health care for Indians during the next fiscal year, the estimates would still not tell the whole story.
It is interesting to note that the directives referred to so many times which were sent to the field officers of the department instructing

DEBATES	March 26. 1968
them to bring about reductions in expenditures were issued, I believe, in the first week of this month. There is a direct connection between that and the fact that the Minister of Finance gave an undertaking that our national expenditures would be reduced by $50 million to $75 million. It is obvious that this is one area of expenditure that has been chosen for the axe.
I think there is an onus on the minister to give the committee in clear terms the actual amount expended on northern health services and on health services for Indians and Eskimos not only during the past fiscal year but also in the present and the coming fiscal year. In addition he should reconcile those figures with the decision of the cabinet to reduce over-all expenditure by some $75 million. Only then will we have a clear and precise idea of the movement of expenditure in this regard.
In the past week or two some spokesmen have alleged that there has been an outright reduction in expenditure on northern health services. The minister countered this by saying that there has been no reduction in absolute terms but that there had been a reduction in the rate of increase of expenditure devoted to this area. It seems to me that this reduction should be put alongside the rate of increase in population of our native people. This will give us some understanding of what is involved in terms of per capita expenditure, which I think is in the end the most accurate form of measurement. In this way we can get some idea of the priority that the government is assigning to the health care of our native population.
I wonder whether the minister would want to insist that in the coming fiscal year we will spend as much per capita on health care and health services as last year. Is the minister prepared to make this assertion? I very much doubt that he is. Certainly I do not believe it to be the fact. If we want to be charitable and accept the minister's word for it, I suppose we could admit that there will be some increase in expenditure on northern health services but that the amount will not keep pace with the increase in population; therefore per capita expenditure will be going down. However, can we in parliament look at that prospect with equanimity? I do not see that we can in view of the fact that standards of health care, its availability, and the infant mortality rate among Indians and Eskimos are such as to leave great cause for concern.
March 26, 1968	COMMONS
On previous occasions I have asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare to reconcile the infant mortality rate among Indians and Eskimos in Canada with his move to reduce per capita expenditure on northern health services, or rather to reduce the rate of increase of such expenditure. I do not feel that any kind of reduction can be justified at this time in light of the availability of health care in the northern parts of the country to our Indians and Eskimos. Neither can it be justified in light of the prevailing mortality rate.
At this point I should like to indicate just what that mortality rate is. I sent to the library for statistical data showing mortality rates in different nations of the world, and I found that in very few countries is the infant mortality rate higher than that prevailing among our infant Eskimos and Indians. It is my understanding that the infant mortality rate among Canadian Eskimo infants is 108 per 1,000. An hon. member put a question on the order paper asking for this information. It was suggested by a spokesman or official of the Department of National Health and Welfare, inasmuch as the mortality rate had been brought down from 200 per 1,000 to 100, that this was an acceptable level. I repeat that it was felt this was an acceptable level.
It is difficult to understand what is meant by "acceptable" in such a context. The fact is that on the whole of the African continent, according to the information I have, there are only two countries with an infant mortality rate higher than that among our native people. These countries are Burundi and Guinea, formerly French Equatorial Africa. I am using United Nations figures for 1965. I should add that among the coloured population of South Africa, which is kept apart by apartheid, there is an infant mortality rate of 136 per 1,000. In all of Latin America only one country, Guatemala, has an infant mortality rate approaching ours, namely, 94 per 1,000. In South America only Chile and Ecuador have a rate higher than our composite rate for Indians and Eskimos. So there is one country in Central America and two in South America. In all of Europe only Albania has an infant mortality rate higher than that to be found among our infant Eskimos and Indians.
These figures must prove something. There has been great improvement in the provision of medical care for Indians and Eskimos and this improvement shows up in the infant mortality rate. Although the rate has come down
DEBATES	8079
Supply-Health and Welfare a good deal it is still, as my colleague from Winnipeg North has pointed out, three to four times the national average. This being the case there can be no acceptance of this rate. If I sound as though I am indignant, Mr. Chairman, I am. When it is said that a mortality rate four times the national average is acceptable, I find myself feeling a strong sense of outrage.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I am not alone in my opinion. Many interested Canadians, editorial writers, voluntary members of welfare agencies and others, have taken a deep interest in the government's actions with respect to health services for Eskimos and Indians. The minister can say that they have misinterpreted or misunderstood the government's intentions. All they had to go by were the directives issued by the department on the minister's order. The minister's action flowed from a cabinet decision that $75 million would be chopped off expenditures. He had to look for some place to do the chopping.
The minister may be interested to know that in the Manitoba legislature there has been an impassioned debate on this issue. To paraphrase, the Manitoba minister of welfare said that by reducing money for Indian and Eskimo health services or by reducing the rate of increase of expenditure for such services, we were reneging on treaties that our forefathers had entered into with our native peoples. The right hon. member for Prince Albert spoke of treaty No. 6. Other treaties contain clauses guaranteeing to Indians hunting rights in perpetuity. Even those rights have been limited to a certain extent in the last few decades. The treaties also extend the right of health care in perpetuity. Reference is made to a medicine chest being made available for Indian people as long as the rivers flow and the sun shines. Words like that are subject to the broadest interpretation, I know. Yet it is unfortunate that we should give our Indian and Eskimo peoples the slightest cause for thinking we are reneging on the solemn undertakings of our forefathers.
Delivering a speech last week end at the University of British Columbia, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said in part:
Many Indians today have a sense of grievance.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Hear, hear.
8080	COMMONS
Supply-Health and Welfare


Edward Richard Schreyer: Some of their difficulties stem from this. These problems will not be resolved until that sense of grievance is banished, either through redress or sublimation.
They have a sense of grievance, and with the government issuing directives such as those issued recently our Indians have reason to feel a sense of grievance. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is thinking wishfully if he thinks that sense of grievance will disappear through sublimation.
There is no point in speaking too long on this issue. The minister ought to indicate to us in concrete figures the expenditures that were allocated for this purpose during the previous two or three years, what was estimated originally for the coming fiscal year, how much that amount was cut back in the last mini-budget, and how much of the cut has been restored. I expect that efforts are being made to restore some of the subtracted moneys. Our questions from this side of the house would have been unnecessary if the minister had been more concrete and taken more time with the statement he made earlier this afternoon.
The minister denies that health service expenditures will be reduced. He gave us to understand that expenditures would increase, although he does not say whether the increase will be sufficient to keep pace with the population increase, and there is the rub. It is crucial for us to know the facts. I hope the minister will not just sit in his seat and hope that all this will pass off. I hope that in the next few minutes he will give us a substantial indication of intent.


Mr. Germa:: Mr. Chairman, it is surprising at our present stage of history, when the public has accepted the idea that the government ought to be responsible for health services, to find the government cutting back on health services to our native people. That is swimming upstream against public opinion. Having been sold the idea that the government has the responsibility to make universal health services available to Canadians, the public of Canada ought not to be asked to consider a curtailment of such services for part of the population.
We all look forward impatiently to July 1 when the medicare legislation passed by the house will become effective, not across the country it is true but in some provinces. That is a step in the right direction. It disturbs me to see that health services for certain people

DEBATES	March 26, 1968
are being curtailed. Statistics show that our native people have been neglected more than certain segments of the white population, and our white population has not been satisfied with the medical services it has received thus far.
Although medicare legislation is now on the statute books and although our national health services are to be improved, the infant mortality rate among our native peoples is almost the highest in the world compared with the rate in underdeveloped countries. The incidence of tuberculosis and other diseases among our native peoples is as high as it is in backward nations. That this is so is shameful. The minister ought to be responsible for improving the level of all public medical and health services in Canada.
The medicare legislation does not set up the mechanics by which the service is to be provided. I believe statistics will show that most of our people, when they seek medical services, will go to a general practitioner. I fear that in the foreseeable future the general practitioner will become as scarce as the dodo. That is because the government has not seen fit to spend money on medical schools to guarantee that this important person, the general practitioner, will not become extinct in our society.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Medical students Eire increasingly entering specialized services. It is estimated that 90 per cent of those studying the profession are preparing to enter into employment with industry or the government in specialized capacities. Few of them see fit to take up general practice. The old family doctor is becoming a figure of the past. This tendency has to be reduced if we are ever to accomplish what is envisaged in our legislation. It has been suggested that our medical schools should stay open during the summer, thereby increasing the supply of qualified doctors by 50 per cent. However, if 90 per cent of these students intend to become specialists I do not think this suggestion would do much to relieve the shortage of general practitioners. It has been said by an hon. member that there is a shortage of 2,000 doctors in this country at present. This situation will have to be corrected if we are ever to reach the level of medical care which we believe to be desirable.
To correct the situation I have described it seems to me that our medical services should
March 26, 1968	COMMONS
be administered by people outside the medical profession. I am not saying the administration of medicine should be removed from doctors. But the people of Canada should be given some voice in connection with the type of persons upon whom they wish their money to be spent, and a large percentage of public funds is spent on the education of members of the medical profession. If the people are convinced they need more general practitioners, then it is up to their representatives to make their views known in parliament and to say: This is where we want the money directed. We should not leave the direction or administration of the medical services to the high priests who happen to hold office in the profession and in the departments of government. They come from the specialist field themselves and they favour this type of work. There is great class distinction within the medical profession. People with specialized training seem to look down their noses at general practitioners who do not enjoy the same income levels and working conditions as themselves. There is no doubt in my mind that the control and administration of medical schools should fall increasingly under public direction so that the goals I have indicated as desirable could be reached.
I should like to bring to the minister's attention an article which relates closely to the area of northern Ontario from which I come, an area in which it is sometimes difficult to find medical services. According to an article in today's Globe and Mail Dr. George Vachon, aged 68, of Noelville, which happens to be 50 miles south of the city of Sudbury in my constituency, is reported as having said:
I've thought about retiring but I know very well that when I leave nobody else will come to take my place.
Dr. Vachon, a general practitioner, has been the only doctor to serve the people of Noelville for 30 years. Here is a man with a sense of duty and dedication such as I have often found among members of the medical profession. Even though he has earned a well deserved rest he is reluctant to retire because he knows no other G.P. will come to replace him. He can no longer go out visiting patients as he used to. He receives patients in his office. This limited service is all that the people within a 50-mile radius of Noelville have.
I should also like to bring to the attention of the committee the situation at St. Charles, a village of 1,026 people 37 miles from Sudbury. This village has been without a doctor for three decades. There is no medical service
DEBATES	8081
Supply-Health and Welfare other than that available at Sudbury. I should like the minister to give greater consideration to the needs of isolated communities in the mid-north or even near Sudbury, which is only 350 miles from Ottawa, where people in outlying areas have not enjoyed a proper medical service for many years. Let me quote some comments in the newspaper article to which I have referred with reference to the St. Charles situation.
"It's very inconvenient", said Mrs. Isabel Du-haime, clerk ol a three-township council.
"But we don't have any other choice," said Ronald Lapointe, a member of the council and president of the chamber of commerce.
"If you were a doctor wouldn't you rather go to Sudbury where you could make more money than here?'', Mr. Lapointe asked. He said the chamber of commerce sought unsuccessfully a few years ago to entice a doctor to the village.
In another town, Hagar, which is 50 miles from Sudbury, the situation is no better. The community is without the services of a doctor although it has been established for more than 40 years. According to one resident it sometimes takes a month to see a doctor unless an emergency has arisen, in which case it is necessary to travel to Sudbury.
In Hanmer-and here is an outstanding case-a community of 8,100 persons 15 miles north of Sudbury, the township council appointed a citizens' delegation which went to Queen's Park last month to seek aid in building an emergency clinic. This was one venture made in an effort to get doctors to go to these smaller communities. Doctors are, understandably, reluctant to set themselves up in a little office without adequate facilities for looking after their patients. They like to work in a more populous area where they can combine with others in the profession to form clinics and render a better service. Nevertheless I believe some help should be given these smaller communities so that they can establish and maintain community clinics thereby encouraging doctors to work there, performing invaluable services for the residents.
The Hanmer township council set aside $30,000 in its budget for the construction of a clinic only to learn it did not have authority to do so. It was told it did not have the authority to spend taxpayers' money on setting up a clinic. Yet we know that in the province of Saskatchewan, where a medical plan has been in operation for five or six years, one of the best ways to administer health services is through a clinic. The minister should look at this type of operation and try to encourage it.
8082	COMMONS
Supply-Health and Welfare [DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The town of Hanmer is served by a doctor who comes six miles from the town of Capreol two days a week. He sees an average of 50 to 69 patients a day and has seen as many as 85 in one day. This is a terrible case load for any doctor to carry. If you take an eight-hour day and break it down you find that he has not spent many minutes with each patient.
There are large gaps in the medical services of our country. I ask the minister to take a look at some of the avenues I have opened up for him. If there is a lack of services in the part of northern Ontario from which I come, I am sure there is a lack of services in the northern parts of all the provinces a little beyond the fringe of the densely populated areas.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall vote 20c carry?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise simply for the purpose of asking whether the minister is going to make a statement in reply to some of the questions that were asked. I believe the minister has an appointment tonight and I am trying to facilitate matters by asking if he will give us this information. Can he give us some idea of what the expenditures will be in the coming fiscal year, what they were in the regular and supplementary estimates for the present fiscal year, and can he give us some assurance with reference to the level of services?
I do not want to repeat it again but I am thinking of the statement made by Dr. Butler that services would have to be curtailed and the nursing home would have to be closed in Fort Laird. Is this being completely reversed?
I think the minister will admit that the statement he made at the beginning of discussion on these estimates was quite brief and did not give any detailed information as to what the expenditures will be or the level of services. What did he mean by saying the directives will be corrected?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I hope to make a statement when all hon. members have completed their comments. I thank the hon. member for his indulgence but my deadline is past and so there is no point in rushing to suit me. I have to deal in one way or another with the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North which I regard as being of the greatest gravity so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned.

DEBATES	March 26, 1968


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: If the minister wants to make his statement now I think it might curtail further discussion because most of the discussion has arisen as a result of the inadequacy of his initial statement and the lack of details.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the main question that has been asked, and it is a perfectly reasonable one, is whether the level of services will be maintained in the forthcoming year as it has been in the preceding year and my answer, of course, is yes. I can assure hon. members that services now being provided will be continued in the coming fiscal year and they will not be permitted to deteriorate.
The level of expenditures for Indian health services has increased over the preceding year. The estimates for 1967-68 were $23.9 million and for the fiscal year 1968-69 the estimates are $24.3 million, an increase of about $400,000. We have not reduced-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if that $23.9 million included any supplementaries or overexpenditures or was it only the regular estimates?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I cannot answer that definitely but I regard it as the total expenditure. I will be glad to check on it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the minister relate the figures he has just given to the items in the estimates so we can find them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Strictly speaking, Mr. Chairman, the debate we have had is quite out of order in terms of these estimates, although possibly it is not fully out of order because I suppose one could have this debate under general administration, but these amounts that are proposed are not covered in the supplementary estimates before the committee at the present time. I am talking about total expenditures for Indian health services in 1967-68 and 1968-69.
The situation is quite clear. Even though we were able to increase the estimated expenditures for 1968-69 for Indian health services we were not able to increase them, because of the financial situation, as rapidly as we had done in the preceding year, particularly to take account of the increases in population and rising costs. That was a decision taken by the government that was implemented by the Indian health services branch, and with a given budget, although increased, they were obligated to make the best possible use of it.
March 26, 1968	COMMONS
If hon. members who spoke today had spoken prior to my statement I think their complaint would have been justified. I undertook to review the situation, which I have done very carefully, and I have come to the conclusion, and I have been supported by the government, that there ought not to be any curtailment in the services now being provided. For that reason I have stated that these services will be continued in the coming fiscal year and will not be permitted to deteriorate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At this point may I ask the minister whether that means he will make up the difference? I take it that in the regular estimates he is budgeting for $24.3 million for 1968-69. Does that mean he will make up the difference by supplementary estimates?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be obligated to review my own departmental expenditures and to find out whether there are deductions I can make in order to finance this aspect of the program, or whether I will have to seek reductions in other expenditures in other departments. If that fails I will have to come back to the house for additional funds.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister have an estimate of how much money is involved in the difference?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would not like to make a firm statement on that point.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Does the net effect of the minister's remarks on his revised course of action mean the cancellation of those directives issued earlier under file No. 100-1 (Ml)?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The only directive or memorandum that has been communicated to the Indian bands and chiefs in council is the memorandum which has been quoted from by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and where necessary this memorandum, and any others within the department, will be reviewed and amended to carry forward the statement of policy I have made.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I also quoted from that memorandum and I think this is where the greatest damage was done because it was addressed to all the chiefs and to all the Indian councils without exception. It was the memorandum that created the feeling of uncertainty and insecurity which has aroused all the protests across the country. A lot of ground has been lost in good understanding between the government and the Indian population because of it. I think it would be
DEBATES	8083
Supply-Health and Welfare most important that a countermanding directive be issued and an apology sent to these chiefs.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the request for an apology is going a bit too far. It seems to me that the memorandum to the Indian chiefs is a statement of policy that has been followed. I would question, however, the accuracy of the first sentence which states that the resources for Indian health services-I think this is the wording-have been drastically or sharply reduced. That certainly is not the case. If you equate dollars to resources then, on the basis of the estimates, that is not the case. This is an inaccuracy in the memorandum which I regret, but the rest of it is, I believe, a statement of policy which is not fundamentally new. I think it is reasonably sound to propose that Indians who can provide for themselves should be expected to do so. It is not our purpose to encourage dependency on the part of any group in the population. Where Indians through their own efforts or through the band are able to provide for themselves then certainly we ought to welcome that trend.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In the memorandum to the Indian chiefs we have stated that when this is not possible and where health service is not available from the provincial governments we would assist. I do not wish to pursue the point, but I believe it ought to be borne in mind that the Indians are residents of the provinces. One of the objectives for progress of the Indian population is certainly to integrate them within the general population of a province. If they are to be regarded as separate citizens to be treated on a different basis in respect of education, health and welfare then the process of integration within the total community will be impeded and they will never become equal citizens as we all want them to be.
I had expected that the provinces would be prepared to take responsibility in this situation. The reaction, certainly from the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba, was less than enthusiastic. In the circumstances, pending a willingness on the part of the provinces the federal government is prepared to assume some responsibility in continuing the present level of services, but I am not for a moment withdrawing from the validity of that position which I think is a sound one not only for the population but for the country as a whole.
8084	COMMONS
Supply-Health and Welfare


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, this is precisely the reason the government and the minister have become involved in difficulty in respect of this problem. I am referring to the dogmatism and the arbitrary attitude of the minister whether he likes it or not. The point we have been trying to make is that this was done without consultation. Certainly the provinces are willing to accept their obligation and this is gradually being done, but for the past several months the provinces have been asking the federal government for a meeting between their responsible ministers and the responsible ministers of the government of Canada so that they could discuss ways and means to implement the program that the minister has just outlined.
The provinces complain because a directive was superimposed without prior consultation just as was the case in respect of medicare. The government is going ahead with medicare which will inflate the federal health budget and at the other end of the scale it is cutting off health services to a group that cannot afford to lose them. This is inconsistency and confusion. The hon. member for the Northwest Territories referred to it as confusing. As it is we have set back progress by years because of this foolish manoeuvring.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the minister by his recent action has accomplished one thing.
I am quite prepared to give him full credit for it even though I believe he accomplished it accidentally and without understanding what was happening. He has brought home to the general Canadian public in a way which otherwise might have taken a long time to do the whole mumbo-jumbo of the situation that has existed for a long period with regard to the provision of health services to Indians.
Despite what the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris has just said about the program being set back for many years-normally I would agree with him-I think the result of this situation may be that it will create not only in the minds of the Indian people but in the minds of the Canadian people generally a climate of opinion which will bring to an end the sort of stupid regime we have had for a long time in this field. It is all very well for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to talk about the desirability of the Indian people becoming self-supporting, self-respecting, integrated citizens and residents of the provinces of Canada, but as long as these stupid paternalistic directives go out to the Indian bands and chiefs without rhyme or (Mr. MacEachen.]
DEBATES	March 26, 1968
reason the very ends he said we should be seeking are being defeated.
If the minister has given the Canadian people an understanding of this situation then I suppose we in this house should sing loud hosannas and thank him for what he has done. However, the statement the minister made that he intends to review the estimates and look into nooks and crannies of his department in an effort to find where he can squeeze a little cream out of what is already skim milk in other corners of his department so that he can reverse these paternalistic directives, to my mind is not the answer to the situation in which we are involved. While I may agree that in his statement he has reversed his course, there certainly is nothing in what he has said so far which will provide a solution.
I believe we should understand just what the situation is in respect of this matter. Other members who have participated in this debate have made passing reference to what the constitutional situation is with regard to the provision of health care for Indians. Reference has been made to the medicine chest clause in certain treaties. That clause may provide some philosophical background, shall I say, for our responsibility, but in practical terms of today's society I think most Indian people would agree that it does not mean too much. It is one of these fetishes that has been there which really never had any practical application.
I have been interested in this situation because I have had inquiries from Indian residents of my constituency concerning whether they will receive the health care services to which they are entitled from time to time. I must say that the only statutory authority I have been able to find anywhere- and I have made inquiries beyond my own knowledge-is contained in section 72 of the Indian Act where it says that the governor in council may make regulations to provide medical treatment and health services for Indians. This places the legislative responsibility, as far as I can see, four-square on the superintendent general of Indian affairs.
However, I have made inquiries and, unless I have been incorrectly informed, at no time has the governor in council ever enacted any such regulation as is authorized by section 72 of the Indian Act. Therefore the plain fact of the matter is that there does not appear to be any legislative authority anywhere for the provision of health services to
March 26. 1968

the Indian people except so far as parliament by an annual vote decides that money shall be made available for medical services through the Department of National Health and Welfare.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I am not in any way criticizing the effort that has been made by responsible people in the administration of national health and welfare to provide these services with such funds as have been made available to them. What I am suggesting is that over the years they have had to compress their activities within the corners of this old hand-out policy. If a person is going to die in the absence of a little help we may give him a little help. While we may have built hospitals and paid doctors, the very directives the minister has referred to and the statement he has made today indicate that this is as far as the federal government seems prepared to go with the hand-out principle of health care for the Indian and Eskimo people.
This is the real issue that has been highlighted by the inept bungling which has taken place in the last two or three weeks. I hope that not only the ministers but members of parliament generally will recognize the full truth of the situation which now stands clearly revealed before us. There is an old saying that if you sow the wind you will reap a whirlwind. I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been indirectly caught up in a whirlwind created in part by the actions of the minister of Indian affairs.


Mr. Laing:: He has reaped the wind today.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: He may have thought at some time that it might have been a whirlwind. The point I was going to make is that in another item of the supplementary estimates under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development there is a vote providing additional funds for an activity of the Indian affairs branch which I think is more to be commended than any other. I refer to the vote for additional funds for the education of Indian people. As the minister of Indian affairs has said on more than one occasion in the house, we have been increasing the amount of these funds at a considerable rate over the last few years. That program has had general commendation in the house.


Arthur Laing: Would my hon. friend answer a question?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I will try, Mr. Chairman.
DEBATES	8085
Supply-Health and Welfare


Arthur Laing: Would he be in favour of the continuation of a guarantee for all time that the taxpayers of Canada should support the medical accounts of all Indians, several hundred of whom are employees of the government of Canada at this time?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: My answer to the question as the minister puts it is, certainly not. In a way I think the question answered itself, and this is exactly the point I was leading up to. Perhaps the minister will bear with me for another two or three minutes.
I was saying that in the supplementary estimates under his department there is an item for additional funds for the education of Indian people. We have been providing funds for this purpose, and this really brings me back to the point where I began. The fact that there are more educated people among the Indians today means that they are no longer going to be content with the kind of paternalistic directives issued by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. They are not going to accept that sort of thing any longer. They are going to stand up more and more- and we have seen indications of this-for their full rights in this field as citizens of Canada along with the rest of us. This means in my books that it is not sufficient for us to stop where the Minister of National Health and Welfare has left us by saying that we are going to restore the level of the services that were proposed to be reduced. We have to move more positively and directly into the field, which will make unnecessary any considerations of the kind raised in the question asked by the minister.
It is not my intention at this moment to pursue this question at length. If I did I would go into the whole question of things which in my view properly belong within the area of responsibility of the minister of indian affairs. However, I want to point out that this is the reason I decided to raise this question now. So far as the statutes of Canada are concerned the matter we have been discussing is primarily within the administrative responsibility of the minister of Indian affairs.
I am not suggesting that I expect the Minister of National Health and Welfare entirely on his own responsibility to go beyond the point where he left us when he was speaking a few minutes ago by saying, whether he admits it or not, we are sorry for what we did and will try to do a little better. If we are not going to go beyond the kind of situation which brought about this public concern, in
March 26, 1968

Supply-Health and Welfare which these services are dependent on the whims and fancies of the government of the day or on the amount of money parliament votes in any given year, if there is a general policy in the department to start chopping off these services we are certainly not going to hear the end of the kind of debate we have been having this afternoon.
I have deliberately attempted to tie this question to the responsibility of the minister of indian affairs, not because I think we can deal with all the matters which come within the jurisdiction of his department today or before the house recesses but rather because I feel in my mind that this is a more positive note on which to consider this whole question and that we should not simply leave it with the restoration of certain cuts or minor amendments of certain paternalistic directives issued under the authority of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welfare Services-
40c. Administration, Operation and Maintenance including grants as detailed in the Estimates, $1.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this item relates to the side of the minister's department which deals with the administration of welfare services and the various income maintenance programs. I have a few words I wish to say in this regard. The minister knows I am particularly interested in these programs, and if I were to say all that is on my mind I might be accused of taking part in a filibuster.


Gerald William Baldwin: We wouldn't dream of that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to have that confirmation from the hon. member for Peace River.


An hon. Member:: He had a big grin when he said it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is a particular point I wish to come to presently but in leading up to it may I remind the minister of what he knows, namely, that I feel the social security programs which we have in effect, while good, could be substantially improved. As the minister knows, I feel that the income test, as he calls it, which is attached to the guaranteed income security, should be done away with and that in its place we should be paying an old age security pension to all those who qualify by age and residence without any means, needs or income test of any


kind. Indeed, I think the time has come for the amount of that pension to be reviewed. There are a number of responsible bodies in the country which are now suggesting that the figure should be of the order of $125 a month, and this is my view.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that I read just about everything he writes on the question of a guaranteed annual income. I find his thoughts interesting, even though I do not always agree with him. In fact, I am not yet convinced that the guaranteed income supplement which he brought into this house is a true expression of the principle and philosophy of a guaranteed annual income.
In this connection, the latest article that I have read on the subject is a very interesting one by Reuben C. Baetz, executive director of the Canadian Welfare Council, in the March -April issue of that council's publication known as "Canadian Welfare". It may be said that many of the points which Dr. Baetz has put together are points that are in the literature on this subject but it is, nevertheless, an interesting and very worth-while article. There is one particular point in it to which I shall come in just a moment.
The point of my taking time on these estimates to address myself to the minister is that I want to impress upon him the fact that if he is going to see sustained the value of the income maintenance programs which he administers, he will have to concern himself with some of our income tax provisions. He will have to make stronger representations to the Minister of Finance than I think he has yet made. I took up with him a while ago the case of people on the guaranteed income supplement who find that they meet a test on one hand so they can have their income brought up to a certain minimum level, only to find that the Minister of Finance then dips into that amount and reduces them to a lower level.
The Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare both had a pat answer to that problem. Their answer was that income tax has to be administered generally and that one cannot play favourites as between those people whose income is earned directly and those who get it as a result of a welfare program. Neither of the ministers faced up to the real answer to the problem, which is the need to raise the level at which income tax applies. The significance of what I
March 26, 1S68
am now saying is that a minister of national health and welfare who brings in these income maintenance programs has to be concerned about this other aspect of the matter.
Let me give a precise example which has been drawn to my attention. It is the case of an actual person and it demonstrates very clearly my concern in this area. It is the case of a person whom we shall call Joe Doe. He does not like to be called John Doe, so we will call him Joe. He is a retired civil servant. His pension as a retired civil servant is $170 a month, or $2,040 a year. Joe Doe is also a veteran and has therefore been able to qualify for the war veterans allowance. Since there is a ceiling of $245 a month on the permissible income for a war veterans allowance recipient who is married, the total war veterans allowance he was able to get has been $75 a month. So his two pensions, the retired civil servant's pension and the war veterans allowance, gave him a total of $245 a month or $2,940 a year. Up until the end of last year,
1967,	that was his position-an income from these two sources of $2,940 a year. I point out to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that because the war veterans allowance is non-taxable, this Mr. Doe did not have to pay any income tax. His taxable income was only $2,040 a year, $60 less than the $2,100 level. We do not have to worry about the extra $500 that was available to him, because he was under the $2,100 level.
But Joe Doe turned 67 late last year, so starting in January this year he qualified for the old age security pension of $75 a month. We will not bother about the $1.50 additional for the moment. He qualified for $75 a month or $900 a year. Immediately Mr. Doe starts receiving this $75 a month old age security, he loses his war veterans allowance because his old age security of $75 and his retired civil service pension of $170 bring him to the ceiling of $245 a month. So in terms of gross income he is right where he was-$245 a month or $2,940 a year.
But here is the jolt. Old age security income is taxable, whereas war veterans allowance income is not taxable. So Joe Doe finds himself with $2,940 a year income in
1968,	the same as he had last year, but $840 of that is taxable to the tune of something over $100. The result is that this married man, this married veteran, this married retired civil servant, by having part of his income changed from war veterans allowance to old age security has a net income position more than $100 less than it was.
8087
Supply-Health and Welfare
I have tried to make the point several times, and I make it again so that no one comes back at me with respect to it, that I think it is proper that old age security income be taxable income. I think if we are going to have a means test-and 1 believe there should be no means test at all-it has to be taxable income. But on the face of them situations like this do seem grossly unfair. Let me repeat it. Here is a veteran who by making this transfer, which he has to make, has the same gross income but has $100 less real income.
Situations like this demonstrate the point I was making a moment ago, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare must be more concerned than I think he has yet been about our income taxation policy. But what happens, if I may put it in personal terms, is that he gives money with one of the government's hands, and the Minister of Finance takes it back with another. The minister may tell me the reason this problem has arisen is that we have raised the levels to which we guarantee people's income. That is fine. But surely, the answer to this is the necessity of raising the income tax exemption levels, certainly to not less than $3,000 for a married person.
I am not asking for anything special for Joe Doe that is not available to people whose income is entirely their own or who have no connection with the war veterans allowance; but this case highlights the problem and I think stresses the need for coupling with increasing old age pension programs, increasing social welfare programs, a look at our whole income tax problem.
I said I would make a passing reference to the article by Reuben Baetz in the current issue of "Canadian Welfare". I invite the minister to read it if he has not already done so. There are four points that he makes as to the way in which we can get at the problem of a guaranteed annual income. He indicates the various difficulties that there are and says it may take time to achieve the goal of a guaranteed annual income. Therefore, he urges that in the meantime we take steps in the taxation field along the lines recommended by the Carter commission on taxation and that we cease taxing incomes below a recognized poverty line.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Well, I suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that he must agree that at today's living costs, at today's wage standards, at today's standard of living, that is



March 26, 1968
Supply-Indian Affairs something higher than $3,000. The povertyline has perhaps come closer to $4,000. It is not good enough for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to sponsor programs to bring people up to this level and then have other taxation programs that take them down. I invite the minister to study carefully the case of Joe Doe which I put on the record, and I invite him to face the fact that no matter how much he may believe he has done wonders in the social security field there is still a great deal to be done to provide adequate security for our elderly people and to make sure that, having provided it to them, it is not taken away.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall vote 40c carry?


Mr. Peters:: Six o'clock.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Brandon-Souris-Indian affairs, request for reconstitution of parliamentary committee; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway-consumer and corporate affairs, investigation into increase in price of milk.
House in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, supplementary estimates C, vote 5c.



DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
Sc. Administration, Operation and Maintenance,
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to ask the minister a couple of questions in connection with one particular reservation in which I am interested as a result of redistribution. The reservation at Gogama is one that I have had the opportunity to visit. I was surprised to find there a number of young Indians who were not sufficiently trained to find permanent employment, and who therefore worked on a seasonal basis only. In discussing the potential of these young people I was impressed by the fact that some of them

had had a fairly good basic education, one having gone to grade 12. However, none of them had received any kind of vocational training. One went to a retraining school to upgrade his education, but he was not even sure whether he had passed the course.
On this occasion, Mr. Chairman, I was accompanied by two provincial M.L.A.'s from that area as well as by the hon. member for Nickel Belt, and we were given to understand that very little attention had been paid to these people by the Indian affairs officer. In fact, shortly afterward I visited the Chapleau headquarters of this district and found that some of the responsibility had been transferred to the Sudbury office, and also I think to Sault Ste. Marie.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, very little assistance or encouragement had been given to these young Indians to retrain themselves for permanent employment. I learned from talking to some of them that one of the reasons they wanted to leave the reservation, which obviously was not going to provide them with any future, was that they regarded the reservation as a lot of people during the latter days of the depression regarded the family farm, namely as a place to go home to when the outside world became too cruel. Although this did not solve their problems, the reservation was a place they could return to.
In discussing their potential for retraining they pointed out to me that there was no desire on their part to undertake retraining unless it would provide them with the opportunity of becoming permanently employed in a full-time occupation. They wanted a trade which would allow them to leave the reservation for good and establish themselves in an occupation where they would not always be the ones who were first to be laid off and the last to be hired. This was the history of the usual type of employment they engaged in- the extra gang on the railroad, the seeding gang for the department of lands and forests.
In this case, Mr. Chairman, it seemed to me that if the Indian agent had done his job he would have appealed to the manpower department or some government branch to assist in retraining these Indians. Incidentally, they said that they had not seen the nurse for three months or the Indian agent for from six to eight months. He travels across from Sultan, which is probably not more than two hours drive from the reservation, and surely he does not have so much work in the area that he is too busy to visit them.
March 26, 1968

Since this item deals with education of Indians I think the minister should indicate what sort of retraining is offered by the Indian affairs branch and whether they are aware that the Indians require the sort of training that would give them equal opportunity with the other people in the community, if they did leave the reservation.
It appears to me, Mr. Chairman, that some counselling in this regard is required. I was particularly shocked when one young fellow told me he had upgraded his education under a federal program to grade 10, but was sent home at the end of the course without being informed whether he had passed. There did seem to be a lack of initiative not only on his part but on the part of the agent, and also on the part of the school which had spent money in improving his education. He should at least have been told whether he had passed the course.
I was also disturbed to find in my discussions with 15 or 20 young Indians that they did not appear to have any goal to work toward. I think that in training these Indians for some vocation the Indian affairs branch should pursue some sort of goal. I think all hon. members will agree that the Indians have to overcome many difficulties not encountered by others. Their main problem is being uprooted from a protective reservation, or farm as they call it, and placed in a community where they have no friends and where because of their heritage other people continually look down their noses at them.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I asked a young girl of 12 or 13 years, whether, after she finished high school, she wanted to be a nurse or a teacher. She replied that she did not know. I said, "Have you ever thought about it?" She said no, that she had not. Then one of the boys piped up and said, "She doesn't need to worry; when she is 16 she will get married to a white man, so why worry?" That shows the state of apathy some of our people have fallen into. They feel they have no future, and that is where problems arise. I also note that though some Indians are entitled to veterans preference, they are not getting it. The only job some of the men can get is on a section gang, planting trees.
One of the other members of our party was in charge of either the public school or secondary school educational system in the Sudbury area. I may be wrong; he may have been the principal of one of the area's separate schools. In any event, our party was
27053-509*
Supply-Indian Affairs concerned about the lack of facilities to take students to school and bring them back home. Of course I have heard differences of opinion about whether it is best to educate Indian children in their own environment or amalgamate them into the school system of a nearby municipality.
Perhaps the minister could look into this aspect. The people on this reservation have been moved at least once in the last 15 or 20 years. A number of four room houses eight or ten miles from town could be used as schools. It seems to me that instead of spending $50,000 to $70,000 putting in new roads, it would be better if we moved these houses to the edge of the town, bought some land and established an Indian settlement there. The advantages to Indian education are obvious. The houses are sitting on cement abutments and therefore could be easily moved.
Before redistribution I had not had much experience with Indian reservations, though I shall gain some experience in the future. It seems to me, speaking particularly of the Indians on the Mattagami reserve, that the minister ought to have received better advice than he has from his executive officers or Indian agents. There are no vehicles on the reserve, except for a snow cruiser. To cash the cheque that the department sends them costs the Indians about $5 for the trip in each direction. Instead of keeping them on the reservation the government ought to be providing training opportunities for young Indians who want to be trained. The results might be surprising. Judging from my conversations on the reservations, young Indians want to be assured that they will be trained to do a job which will enable them to be employed permanently, so that they will not be the last to be hired and the first to be fired, as is the case today.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the item carry?


Arthur Laing: Perhaps I might take this opportunity to give the committee some idea of the extent to which we are pressing Indian education today. Of our total budget in the forthcoming year of $140 million, $56 million is for education alone. Our aim is the integration of Indian children with white students in the province, and we are rapidly succeeding in our objective. At present over 50 per cent of Indian children of school age are attending schools operated by the provinces. In my province of British Columbia that figure has reached 62 per cent, and that is fine.

March 26, 1968
Supply-Indian Affairs
The hon. member lor Timiskaming has hit us in one oi the more difficult areas, the northern areas of the provinces where the reservations are remote and where, because Indian people want to stay as a family, the individual is hesitant to leave. Yet it seems to me we are doing a great deal of good there.
Today we have some 240 Indian children resident in Ottawa taking classes. We pay for them a monthly housing allowance-I think it is $70-give them a little spending money, and so on. Our problem today is not serious in areas within 100 miles north of the United States boundary; it exists in the area the hon. member spoke of and even farther north in the territories where, according to indications, the reservations contain few resources. Often there is no work on them, except a little seasonal bush work in pulp, and so on. Any young man who wants a full time job must migrate out of there, and we are very conscious of this and working as rapidly as possible to try to solve problems. We are moving families out on an experimental basis. We have put a group, under a pilot plan, into Elliot Lake. Originally there were 20 families, but 11 went back before the course was over. Probably we may learn as much from those who went back as from those who stayed. We also have a housing program for those who have jobs and can convince us they can carry the cost of a house. We have set up a second mortgage arrangement over ten years, after which the mortgage is discharged. The amount is $6,000. In addition we are giving them $1,000 outright for furnishings. As I say, that indicates the direction of our efforts.
The educational system today is better than it was five years ago, and we are getting a very good response. I am aware that there is difficulty in the particular area mentioned by the hon. member but I think he will agree with me that if we brought down 40 or 50 young men to Toronto or a place like that, and put them into a school, we would quickly lose some of them. A great many of them would return, and that is the difficulty. I think Indians require a certain maturity before being brought down from the reservation. In other words, I think an Indian can leave the reservation too soon as well as too late. We should bear all these things in mind. However, I appreciate the hon. member's comments.


David Orlikow: I wish to direct a question to the minister. Before the reorganization of the manpower training programs, for which the
[Mr. Laing.l
federal government has assumed total responsibility, I am given to understand that under program No. 5, as it was called, approximately 2,000 Indians had qualified and were taking training courses for which the government paid. The government also gave a training allowance. It was not as generous as the allowances now being paid. Nevertheless, training allowances were paid.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I understand that the courses which the majority of Indians were taking were not really courses to fit them for paying jobs in urban centres; Indians, particularly those on remote reserves, do not have the education to qualify them for courses designed to turn out bricklayers or steel workers, for example. But they were taking courses fitting them to fit a better life on the reserves-instruction in methods of building houses, and so on. I understand that the training courses now under the jurisdiction of the department of manpower are oriented almost completely toward training to provide paying jobs on the urban labour market. I am told that last year well over 2,000 Indians were being trained in Manitoba, and that the number has now dropped to only a few hundred. Is it the intention of the department of Indian affairs to develop programs which will at least provide the Indians with the type of training they received before the reorganization, which took place under the department of manpower?


Arthur Laing: The type of assistance formerly given by the department of manpower has been referred to by the hon. member for Timiskaming. It went only so far. It was the department's view that it was not justified in making the type of investment it was making in this field, because the results were not good enough; they wanted faster results from their policy of helping people to change from one job to another. The Indian people, as pointed out by the hon. member for Timiskaming, have to begin at another level. All this has imposed an added burden on my department.
We are extending our range and introducing programs which involve the movement of considerable numbers of people, recognizing that Indian families like to stay together. In co-operation with the department of manpower we moved about 350 people into the Okanagan for seasonal employment-employment was available on a fairly steady basis from the middle of March until October. The
March 26, 1968

results were excellent; it would seem that the Indians are happier to take jobs which provide a change of scenery, a move from one place to another.
We have nothing but the highest praise from the fruit growers of that area and we are expecting to step up this program during the current year. To a lesser degree the same plan has been followed in southern Ontario, bringing in Indians from the northern reaches of the province. Here we can hope for a useful secondary result, because the younger people, as they become familiar with the industrial climate in the southern part of the province, may acquire a confidence and a capacity to make more extensive contacts there. This consideration does not of course relate to Indians living on reserves in the southern part of Ontario, but to those in the upper reaches of the province and in the far north. I believe we are making great progress under our educational system in the southern areas where Indian children are integrated in the schools with white children. The results are most gratifying.


David Orlikow: My understanding is that before the change in arrangements between the federal and provincial governments more than 2,000 Indians were taking courses of one kind or another. Can the minister tell us how many Indians in Manitoba are taking courses today?
Is the hon. gentleman's department filling the gap by doing the work which was formerly done by the joint federal-provincial program? That is the first question I should like to put to the minister; I do not expect him to have the figures before him, but perhaps he can let us have this information on another occasion.
My second question is: what is the department doing in co-operation with the Department of Labour to ensure that the large-scale development in mining, in lumber and, hopefully, in the pulp and paper industry in northern Manitoba, is leading to the increased recruitment of Indians as employees. Each of the industries I have mentioned requires large numbers of workers. For example the International Nickel Company at Thompson has announced-I am speaking from memory -that in the next ten years it will be doubling its labour force. At present the company is carrying on an intensive campaign to encourage immigrants to come to Canada. Problems are arising because some of the recruiters have been making the most
Supply-Indian Affairs extravagant claims to workers in Germany, for example.
How much is the government doing to encourage such companies as this to hire local labour rather than go to Europe and other places for their workers? It seems to me that a major effort should be made by the department in co-operation with the department of manpower to persuade these companies to hire Indians. How many Indians are on the labour force at Thompson, for example where four or five thousand people are working for International Nickel? It seems to me that an approach along these lines would be the best way of helping Indians to get profitable work, enabling them to look after themselves and their families.


Arthur Laing: I do not have the exact figures here, but I can get them for the hon. member. I am told there are some 70 pupils in Manitoba receiving vocational training-which is not many. We operated about 20 adult classes in the province last year.
The hon. member asked what the department is doing to improve employment opportunities for Indians. The best example I can give him is the contract we made with the Anvil Mining Company in the Yukon. This company has undertaken that initially 5 per cent of its work force will consist of native people, the proportion to rise to 25 per cent within five years.
This is a result of the influence we were able to use because we contributed in part to the construction of roads and the provision of power in connection with this enterprise.


David Orlikow: Yes, but at Thompson the provincial government played exactly the role which the minister says the federal government played in the case he mentioned. It seems to me the federal government should be working with the provincial government to encourage International Nickel, and other companies that go into the area, to employ as many of the local Indian people as possible. They are doing what they have traditionally done, setting up elaborate recruiting programs in Great Britain, Germany and every other country in western Europe.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Edward Richard Schreyer: On this item for $2 million I wish to point out that the department's policy is to encourage more integration of Indian children in non-federal provincial schools. In my area of Manitoba this policy has been operational for a brief period and so far seems

March 26, 1968
Supply-Indian Affairs to have met with success. But we still have a long way to go in respect to reserves in the more northern areas, far beyond the settled regions.
On at least two reserves in the area I represent, children do not show up for school for many weeks of the year, during springtime, trapline time as it is called. This is a long standing problem, and I am just curious to know if the department has come up with new ideas with respect to the education of Indian children on these more remote reserves. It is a basic, elementary problem, and that is all the more reason that there should be more soul searching on the part of the department.
The minister will recall that several months ago when the Department of Manpower and Immigration decided not to continue providing Indian people with the basic literacy skills upgrading program, considerable dissatisfaction was expressed by some band councillors and chiefs. On the late show I raised this question on one occasion and I recall the minister saying that if this remained the policy of the manpower department the responsibility would be all the heavier on his department to increase its activities and expenditures with respect to adult education. Is his department's effort in this direction significantly on the increase, or has it reached its practical limit?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, we increased the amount of education we provide in this area to take up the slack when the manpower department decided it was not economic for it to continue their program. This gives me an opportunity to explain why we are asking for this $2 million. Principally it is because the school boards have raised their costs to us. We pay 100 per cent of the cost of education in the provincial system. The estimate of $18 million was based on experience of the previous year, but in most instances the cost of education increased over the past year and so we have to pay a higher rate than previously. In addition we are undertaking this adult education work. I could give the hon. member the details of the extent to which we have occupied the position vacated by the manpower department, and I will be glad to write him in this respect.


Edward Richard Schreyer: If a reserve is large, so large that it might justify the construction of a federal school, is it still the department's policy to encourage the integration of Indian children in non-federal schools? I am thinking of a large reserve adjacent to a town that has a good conventional provincial school.


Arthur Laing: Yes, sir, we are doing that in many places. I would much prefer to carry the cost of bussing the children to an integrated school, so long as it is not too distant, than to incur the cost of building a federal school on a reserve.


Mr. Fawcett:: It is not my intention to make a speech or ask a question, but merely to make a representation to the minister. When the hon. member for Timiskaming was speaking, possibly his story rang a bell in the mind of the minister because this is a question I have taken up with him. It concerns a reserve in my riding which will be located in a new riding after redistribution, and one of my complaints is with respect to the location of the reserve. My hon. friend from Timiskaming, with whom I visited the reserve, mentioned that it was eight or ten miles from the local town. Actually the distance is 18 or 20 miles.
On occasion there are opportunities for Indian men to be employed as guides during the summer, but because of the location of this reserve the men on it miss out on these opportunities. There are two tourist operators in the area who sometimes require the services of guides, but because the Indian reserve is such a distance from town they do not have time to go out and collect the guides for this work. My only point in speaking now is to make a further representation to the minister to move this reserve closer to the town.
I strongly urge the minister to look into the situation on the Mattagami reserve and see if something can be done to move it closer to the main centre of population. In passing, and dealing with education, may I say that when we visited a reserve and we entered a home it was always evident whether the children had received some education.
Discrimination is practised in the employment of Indians. When the Bell Telephone Company constructed a new pole line in the area it did not hire Indians, even though they requested employment on the work gangs. True, not many workmen were involved, but the Indians felt badly when they were refused work, particularly since their income from trapping is now so low.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: May I ask one question, Mr. Chairman. In respect of this particular situation on the reservation, I am wondering whether the Indian agents are provided with any type of assistance that would allow them to provide counselling service in this field of
March 26, 1968

retraining or training people so that permanent employment might be provided for those who have the necessary education to take advantage of it. Because of the distance to the centres where the training would be available it would seem to me that this counselling service should be provided. It seems that in this case the agent did not have the opportunity or perhaps the facilities that would enable him to provide this type of counselling. I am wondering whether there are any counsellors available who could be sent around once in a while to help in this field of job retraining.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the information which would enable me to answer the hon. gentleman's question. I will endeavour to obtain it and give him an answer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(The following items were agreed to:)
Northern Program-
20c. Administration, Operation and Maintenance including grants as detailed in the Estimates, $1,860,778.
21c. Reimbursement of Northern Administration Revolving Fund for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $24,514.
30c. Northern Mineral Development Assistance Grants-To extend the purposes of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote 30 of the Main Estimates for 1967-68 to authorize the expenditure in the current and subsequent fiscal years of amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of $6,500,000 for Northern Mineral Development Assistance Grants and to reduce the total commitment authorization granted pursuant to the provisions of Northern Affairs and National Resources Vote 7A of Appropriation Act No. 9, 1966 and Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote 30b of Appropriation Act No. 7, 1967 to an amount not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of $18,000,000, $3,500,000.
34c. Payment to the Government of the Yukon Territory in accordance with an agreement to be entered into by the Minister of Finance, with the approval of the Governor in Council, on behalf of the Government of Canada, and the Commissioner of the Yukon Territory, on behalf of the Government of the Yukon Territory, such agreement to provide (on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon) that the Government of the Yukon Territory will not impose, levy or collect individual income taxes, corporation income taxes, corporation taxes or succession duties, as defined in the agreement; the payment to the Government of the Yukon Territory under the agreement to be calculated on the following bases:
(a)	A subsidy of eighty cents per head in respect of the population of the Yukon Territory as determined by the 1961 census;
(b)	A grant in aid of the Government and Council of the Yukon Territory of $30,000; and
Supply-Indian Affairs
(c)	An operating grant in the amount of $3,054,000 as a contribution towards the estimated operating deficit of the Government of the Yukon Territory in the current fiscal year;
together with payments in respect of amortization payments on outstanding loans for capital expenditures in the Yukon Territory, as provided in the agreement; (the amount payable in respect of the current fiscal year to be reduced by the aggregate of all interim payments made pursuant to Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote 32 of the Main Estimates for 1967-68), $1.
36c. Reimbursement of the national and historic parks revolving fund for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $59,267.
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, vote 36c is quite small but it has to do with national parks and allied matters. I should like to ask the minister whether his department has had any success in recent months in making a determination concerning the site of the proposed second national park in Manitoba. As the minister knows, this has been a subject of continuing study and investigation over the past 18 months and perhaps more. Has the province of Manitoba been more easy to deal with and has a decision been taken in this regard?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I think in a reply some time ago in the house I indicated a survey of two areas had been taken. One I believe was close to the Ontario border. There has been some discussion but there has been no indication of haste on the part of the provincial government at this time.
As my hon. friend knows, our act requires that the provincial government obtain these properties and turn them over to us free of encumbrances. In most instances this involves an expenditure of funds and there has been a tendency of recent origin for them to postpone such expenditures. I do not wish to charge them alone with having this tendency, because that might be our posture at the present time too. However, in those areas where capital expenditure is not required I think we should move forward.


William Arnold Peters: Have any overtures been made to the department concerning the development of a national park in northeastern Ontario?


Arthur Laing: My reply to that is that there are several areas which have been under rather intensive survey for the last year and a half. This is continuing at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
March 26, 1968
Supply-Justice
(The following items were agreed to:) Northern Program-
L45c. To extend the purposes of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote L45 to make loans to the Government of the Yukon Territory in the current and subsequent fiscal years for capital expenditures on terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council, $1.
L52c. To extend the purposes of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote L52A, Appropriation Act No. 7, 1967, to make loans to the Government of the Northwest Territories in the current and subsequent fiscal years in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council for capital costs incurred in establishing the Government of the Northwest Territories in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, $1,695,000.
L53c. Loans to the Government of the Northwest Territories in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council to allow the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories to assist in financing the construction of housing for its employees by the making of loans to building contractors on the security of second mortgages, $180,000.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The committee will now proceed to consideration of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Labour.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
(The following items were agreed to:)
5c. Administration including the promotion of Labour-Management Consultation, $30,000.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
L71c. To increase by $375,000,000 the aggregate amount that may be advanced by the Minister out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under subsection (1) of Section 22 of the National Housing Act, 1954, for the purposes set out in that subsection, $1.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Department of Labour.
The committee will now proceed to the consideration of the supplementary estimates for the Department of Justice.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
lc. Administration, including grants and contributions as detailed in the Estimates, $1.
Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Solicitor General, who is handling the estimates for the Minister of Justice, could tell us what this item is which refers to a contribution to Queen's University in defraying the costs of a Canadian conference on computers and the law to be held in June.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, the supplementary estimate lc of the Department of Justice is a $1 item. This is to authorize a grant to Queen's University to assist in defraying the cost of a Canadian conference on computers and the law. The item is included only to obtain the necessary authority to make the grant.
The conference is scheduled to take place at Kingston, Ontario, early in June, 1968 and is being hosted by the faculty of law at Queen's University. Emphasis will be placed on legal information retrieval techniques, legislation consultation and editing programs, central registry and data banks and on property rights, privacy and related legal questions.
It is hoped to bring together at this conference delegates from Canadian and American universities, from the federal and several provincial governments, from law publishing firms, from computer manufacturers and from law firms already employing such methods for commercial purposes. Mr. J. W. Ryan will be a representative from the Department of Justice and has been asked to act as a commentator on several papers which are to be given on legislation editing, revision and consultation.


John Gilbert: Would the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice consider sending a representative from the standing committee on justice and legal affairs to this conference?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, since this is only a $1 item, at the moment I am not in a position to grant the suggestion of the hon. member. However, if it is possible to obtain reports of this conference I will certainly see that they are made available to the hon. member and any other interested hon. members.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct several questions to the minister. I realize he is only the acting minister, and that he may not be in a position to answer today. However, these are questions to which I would hope the government is giving some consideration.
First of all, I wish to raise a matter which has been raised several times with the Minister of Justice. This has been highlighted today by reports which appeared in a Toronto newspaper concerning a high school student who had never been in trouble with the law before, who had an unblemished record up until now, who had planned to go to university and who appeared in court yesterday on a charge of being in posession of marijuana.
March 26, 1968

This person was given a sentence of six months.
Mr. Chairman, I do not profess to have the answer to the marijuana problem, but I do know that all the experts, if there are any- and I do not believe the police are experts -are agreed that marijuana is being used, if only once or twice, by a very large number of young people and is readily available in every university in Canada. I am sure the minister knows more about this subject than I, but I believe the experts do not agree among themselves concerning the danger of marijuana. There certainly is a good deal of argument against the suggestion which has been made by certain police authorities and others that from marijuana one frequently graduates to the traditional narcotics. The experts certainly are not in agreement that the way to deal with the marijuana problem is to sentence everyone to a prison term. Yet, according to the answers to some questions asked recently, that is the policy the department apparently is following.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I hold no brief for this young man who was convicted yesterday. It may be that he had a relatively large amount of marijuana in his possession, and it may be that he was not a user but was actually selling it. However, from the two newspaper accounts which I have read there does not seem to have been any investigation in depth carried out or any evidence that he was in fact selling or pushing the marijuana. It seems to me the department ought not to fall as easily as it seems to have fallen into the policy whereby crown prosecutors are virtually instructed to advise the courts to impose jail sentences on first offenders.
It seems to me that if the police are very active it will follow that we will have thousands of young people in jail. I do not think the minister would like that to happen. However, from what I have been able to discover there are thousands of young people who on occasion try marijuana, perhaps for the first time. It is conceivable that the police in Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa or Winnipeg may find 15 young people smoking marijuana, 12 of whom are trying it for the first time. Under present circumstances they would all get a jail sentence. I hope the department will have a very hard and careful look at this whole question in consultation with medical authorities.
In addition, I should like the minister to advise us what the department intends to do
Supply-Justice
about bail problems. Today's Toronto Globe and Mail reports that two youths spent six weeks in Don jail because they were unable to raise $500 bail. Apparently they were awaiting trial after pleading not guilty to charges of possession of marijuana. It seems to me there is something wrong with our system which permits individuals to get out on bail if they have money or friends who have access to money, while at the same time it keeps two young men, such as I have mentioned, sitting in a jail in Toronto for six weeks.
I commend to the minister's attention, or to the attention of the Minister of Justice, the words of Dean Maxwell Cohen of the law school at McGill who said at a human rights conference, as reported in the Montreal Star on March 25:
-this country's bail system is at best semi-satisfactory and corrupt. Many socialists .. . feel that most of those placed before the courts could and should be released on their own recognizance.
I am wondering whether the department is giving any thought to changing the law in respect of bail, which I think is completely unfair.
Will the minister make some comment about government intention to deal with wiretapping? Let me remind him, in the event that he has forgotten that before he became a minister he had a bill on the order paper dealing with this matter. I am disturbed by the reports on the news last night and in the papers today to the effect that Quebec provincial cabinet ministers feel they have strong evidence that their telephones are being tapped. It is a sad day in this country when ministers of the crown, let alone ordinary citizens, have to worry about what they say on the telephone when talking perhaps to deputy ministers because their telephones may be tapped. Is the government giving any consideration to legislation which would make wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping a crime punishable by something which would at least discourage this widespread practice? I am sure the minister will agree that this is taking place.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, having regard to the question raised by the hon. member in respect of wiretapping, perhaps I may be permitted to quote myself. In this way I could acknowledge the author and also indicate the consistency of my views regarding electronic

March 26, 1968
Supply-Justice
devices and wiretapping. I stated publicly in Calgary last August:
I feel that the interception of private communications either by wiretapping or by the use of electronic listening devices should be made a criminal offence, except for the purpose of collecting evidence in criminal prosecutions by law enforcement officers, where they are acting upon specific authority given in individual cases by a competent court.
I wish to say to the hon. member that I am prepared to urge that view upon my colleagues. Indeed it is my intention to do so. I am awaiting the report of the royal commission on security because this is an element which may be considered in that report.
Upon the question of bail, again if I may be so presumptuous, I should like to quote from a speech that is being delivered this evening, almost at this very moment on my behalf, by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister which contains the following:
I have now received an interim report of the Canadian committee on corrections dealing with matters of bail. The report recommends-I heartily concur in it-that the criminal code should be amended to provide for a more liberal use of summons-with warrants for arrest being restricted to use on charges of a serious nature. I also believe that courts should have better information upon which to base a decision relating to the amount of bail. Unless the presiding judge or magistrate is given full information about the accused-his background, family, employment and finances, the court may not be able to properly assess bail conditions. To condition bail primarily on the ability of the accused to raise bail funds, rather than his character and background, may tend to discriminate against the accused who is financially disabled.
For the most part the courts have concentrated primarily on the type of offence committed as the criterion for setting bail. I would respectfully suggest that when the alleged offender appears to be a good risk for bail his income and assets should be taken into account so that there will not be discrimination against the financially poor accused. After all, bail is primarily a deterrent to prevent default of appearance for trial.
I do not hesitate to say that I propose to put this as a recommendation before my cabinet colleagues.
In conclusion let me say that the question in respect of marijuana is very serious because of increasing use. I have made a number of statements to the public on this subject. I feel it is a subject about which we do not as yet have sufficient medical knowledge. I sympathize with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Simcoe East earlier today during the question period. It is not a policy of the Department of Justice to suggest the penalty to be imposed on first offenders. Quite to the contrary, as I understand the policy, the

department makes no representation as to sentence unless the court asks for the view of the prosecuting counsel. The case is then dealt with according to the facts.
If I am to judge by the number of prosecutions over the last 11 months, the use of marijuana is increasing. During the last 11 month period there were 1,915 prosecutions launched for offences involving the use of drugs, as compared to 946 prosecutions during the previous 12 months. I suggest that these figures demonstrate the scope and nature of the problem we are facing on the law enforcement side. However I look forward to having consultations with my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with a view to perhaps setting up a new approach and taking further measures to reform the law regarding the use of marijuana.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he will consider setting up a commission to deal with this problem, which involves both the Department of Justice and the Department of National Health and Welfare. This is one of the most serious problems that confronts the nation today.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
There are in connection with marijuana several problems that remain unsolved and questions still unanswered. Who is pushing it? Who is manufacturing it? From which sources are our young people getting it? I believe these sources have to be uncovered. Perhaps the minister knows the answers to these questions. This drug is getting into all our organizations, high schools and institutions.
The sad part about it is that I am not so sure we really understand the physiological and psychiatric reactions to the drug, nor do I believe we know whether its use leaves any damage to the human system. We do not know the effects of the partial or prolonged use of the drug on the human system.
This is a serious problem and it is growing. The only way to solve the problem is for the Solicitor General to get busy, bring these people together and set up a commission that will study the problem not only from the standpoint of justice but from the medical standpoint, reactions to the drug and what its use does to the human system.
I also believe we must be more vigorous in finding out the sources of supply of marijuana. Is it a Mafia operation? Who is pushing it? I ask these questions because the supply
March 26, 1968

of marijuana is becoming greater all the time. I believe that speed is of the essence in dealing with this problem. All that can be done at the present time is to stop the supplies of this drug which are going into our high schools and universities, because once it gets into these institutions you find pushers right there and students can very easily supply their fellow students.
This is a very important matter and I know the Solicitor General realizes its importance. So many times we become frustrated in this house. We talk about things, but in the long run we do not attack the problem with speed, as we should. I know the Solicitor General sympathizes with what I am saying. I should like to see him really do something about this problem, and do it right away.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, when the Solicitor General was speaking just now I gathered from his remarks that he felt we should go further in handling this problem, namely into the field of national health and welfare. I gathered from his remarks that perhaps talks are about to commence in this regard, because he referred to an increasing number of prosecutions, and so on.
I wonder if the Solicitor General would tell us whether he is paying more than lip service to the problem and that he has already approached the Minister of National Health and Welfare in order to arrive at some way of combating the pushing of drugs. Perhaps the minister is going so far as adopting the suggestion made by the last speaker, that a commission should be established so that there would be carried out an inquiry in depth as to the drug pushing and the use of drugs in Canada, including the effects of their use on the human system.
I am sure the people of Canada would be most happy to hear the Solicitor General's words on the subject, if he can give us some idea that more than lip service is being paid to the matter and the government is not just considering the problem but is actually doing something about it.
The doctor who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for Simcoe East, suggested in the House of Commons earlier today that a commission should be set up. This has been the theme of many, many speeches that he has made not only in the house but in committee. He has said that the establishment of such a commission is an absolute necessity for Canada if we are to combat the pushing and use of drugs. It is not good enough to give
Supply-Justice
responsibility to just one department such as Justice or the Department of the Solicitor General. Our national health and welfare is involved in this question and it is an absolute necessity that this department be extremely active in combating the problem. Therefore, if the Solicitor General has anything to say on this problem, I would ask him to do so now.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I wish to state explicitly that I share the concern that has been voiced by hon. members opposite with regard to the law enforcement aspect of the problem. I would again advise the committee that the deputy commissioner of the R.C.M.P. made a special visit to Washington less than a month ago to confer with the officials of the narcotics bureau in that city. Within the last seven or eight weeks the commissioner also convened a special meeting of the assistant deputy commissioners heading the several divisions across the country and they discussed, among other things, the drug problem.
The R.C.M.P. is in continual touch with all other law enforcement agencies concerned with trafficking in drugs on the North American continent. I say sincerely that I share the view expressed by the hon. member for Simcoe East, who said that we do not yet know enough about the dangers involved in the use of marijuana. I agree that we ought to carry out more research and bring together the experts who have the necessary medical knowledge. I say sincerely that I will take up this matter with my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I am not of course in a position to say what form the inquiry will take, if my efforts are successful.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting subject and one that has received a great deal of attention. I should like to hear the Solicitor General say that his department is not advising the imposition of the six months sentences that I hear the courts are imposing at the present time. Even the use of the word "drug" is rather a travesty of the technical term. I have read the articles which established marijuana as a drug and have discovered that there is a great deal of difficulty selling to the rest of the world the idea that marijuana should be included in the list of drugs.
It seems to me that if this kind of prison sentence is imposed we will not eliminate or cure the problem at all. I believe that the Solicitor General should be recommending that no prison sentence be imposed, under

March 26, 1968
Supply-Justice
any circumstances, on the users of marijuana. As the hon. member tor Simcoe East pointed out, the difference between a user and a pusher is where the difficulty has arisen. The use of marijuana now takes place not only in our universities and colleges but has become a very serious problem in that its use has extended into our high schools, and indeed down to the public school level and involves children of the age of 10 or 12. It is a very cheap product. It is very easily obtained. It seems to me that if we are to put in jail all those people who are experimenting with marijuana, it will really be a travesty of justice.
I can see no point at all in giving a person a prison sentence for using marijuana if it is not detrimental to his health or to society in general. The police have been awfully stupid in some areas in regard to this problem. A great effort should be made, as the hon. member for Simcoe East said, to study the problem and find out why and how marijuana is being pushed.
I believe we have made very serious mistakes in the past in regard to drugs and the manner in which they are dealt with under our law. Surely we are not going to take marijuana and put it in the category of whisky during prohibition. The situation we now face in respect of drugs is parallel to that which existed at the time of prohibition. Many people then drank whisky only because it was hard to get, and its sale was illegal. We now find kids saying to each other: I tried marijuana; I'll bet you are scared to try it. This is almost the same situation that everybody faced when smoking his first cigarette. To make the use of marijuana a criminal offence is not, I think, receiving from the Department of Justice the consideration that the problem warrants. I certainly feel that the community is not being helped by putting a 15 or 16 year old in jail for having used marijuana when everyone knows that marijuana has been available to almost everyone in the school.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I understand there is a more serious problem about which the police should start worrying, and that is the extent to which heroin is being added to marijuana and circulated in the schools. It is going through the mails from Toronto and Montreal to be distributed in various areas. This is the sort of thing about which the police should be worried. The criminal part of the operation, as the hon.

member for Simcoe East mentioned, is the pushing of marijuana. Why is it being pushed, and what money is involved? I think the Department of Justice should be interested in ascertaining how marijuana is available in such large quantities and at such low prices. How is it being distributed in such a formidable way in high schools and colleges without the police being able to make a haul of this marijuana?
I can remember one occasion, Mr. Chairman, when the R.C.M.P. went into an Indian reserve and cut 20 tons of marijuana. I do not know how many cigarettes 20 tons would make, but that would be like cutting 20 tons of hay. The amount of marijuana being circulated is in the tons, not pounds. If the police are going to do anything, let them concentrate on that end of the problem. This country is not going to solve a social problem by putting teenagers in jail because they have experimented with marijuana. They are not committed or continual users of hashish. This is a problem the police have not tackled. I believe the minister should be interested in how this stuff can be transported around the country without any indication of its importation. If we do not import it from other countries, then we must grow it. The material still has to be transported in very large trucks because it is a weed that has to be handled in a manner similar to the handling of sweet hay. I suggest that some consideration should be given as to how this circulation takes place. We should not send young offenders to jail just to satisfy the do-gooders.
Let me suggest to the minister that he is going to have to act on this problem very quickly. If he does not, then no one is going to give a dam about the law. They will not care what happens to L.S.D. because there is nobody who has really considered this matter who believes that marijuana is in the same category as other drugs. The reason the covenant was signed with marijuana in it is that after a great deal of study it was believed this problem had got out of hand, not in a narcotic sense but in an international trade sense. We have not faced this problem in the 40 years since that time. I think it is time we looked at it, or we will not be able to solve the more serious problem of L.S.D. If the younger people are convinced that the law is an ass in this case, and they are the citizens who are going to be making the laws tomorrow, then you are going to find that their respect for the law will be nil. I believe the minister is sufficiently aware of the social
March 26, 1968	COMMONS
changes that may take place to realize that something should be done very quickly or there will be a whole generation of children growing up who have no use for the law because it does not appear to be reasonable or fair.


John Gilbert: Before the minister speaks on this problem of marijuana, I should like to set forth the suggestion that has been made in legal periodicals. It is that when young persons are charged with the possession of marijuana the magistrate or judge should have the power to not proceed with that charge for a period of 12 or 18 months. If the person has not been charged with a similar offence during that period, then the charge should be dropped. The hon. member for Timiskaming pointed out the danger of convicting young people for the possession of marijuana, people who may be trying it for kicks, as they say. I believe the minister should give serious consideration to this approach. It is an approach that some European countries are taking, not only to marijuana but to other offences when young people are charged because the consequences of conviction bear heavily on employment, bonding and travel. Young people could be tagged with a criminal conviction at an early stage in life as a result of the consequences of some dare or experiment they may have taken up.
There are two other points to which I should like the minister to speak. The first is the problem of expunging criminal records. The standing committee on justice and legal affairs made a report on the expungement of such criminal records. I should like to ask the minister if the government intends to act on that report. Many people across Canada are concerned and we should really become active with regard to this problem.
The second problem relates to fingerprints. When a person is charged under the Criminal Code he is photographed and fingerprinted. Then the trial takes place, and if that person is acquitted I should like to know just what happens to those fingerprints. Surely Canadians have the right to have those fingerprints destroyed. We had a dramatic example in Toronto last week when a person was found dead. There was difficulty in identifying the person, but they did identify him through fingerprints that had been obtained when he was charged with a rather minor offence of assault. I feel Canadians are entitled to have fingerprints destroyed if they are acquitted of
DEBATES	8099
Supply-Trade and Commerce charges. I should like the minister to comment on that problem.


Lawrence T. Pennell: If I may be permitted a word or two, Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member for Broadview will be pleased to learn that yesterday I affixed my signature to a memorandum to my cabinet colleagues on the matter of vacating criminal records. I hope to join with that proposal one relating to bail bonds. If the memorandum receives approval of my colleagues I hope to translate it into a bill. If it comes to pass that I am in a position of ministerial responsibility, I would hope to introduce the bill and send it to the appropriate committee of the house for examination.


John Gilbert: I wonder if the minister would express his views with regard to the problem of fingerprints? Just what is the policy of the government? Does it destroy these fingerprints if a person is found not guilty of a criminal offence, and why should they not be destroyed if the person is not convicted?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I speak subject to correction on this point. It is my understanding that for the most part where a person has been acquitted the fingerprints are destroyed. I must concede that there have been instances, to my own knowledge, in which the fingerprints have been retained. However, in my memorandum to my colleagues relating to the vacating of records I also dealt with the question of fingerprints.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Department of Justice.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The committee will now consider the supplementary estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
(The following items were agreed to:) General Administration-
1c. Departmental Administration-To extend the purposes of Trade and Commerce Vote 1 of the Main Estimates for 1967-68 to include the grant detailed in these Estimates, $1.
10c. Canadian Government Exhibition Commission, $268,800.
1967 World Exhibition-
29c. Canadian Government Participation in the 1967 World Exhibition, Montreal, $260,540.
Supp ly-A griculture
[Stage Direction]
March 26. 1968
Special-
35c. Payments to the Canadian Wheat Board in the 1967-68 and 1968-69 fiscal years in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Governor in Council in an aggregate amount equal to the difference between
(a)	the total moneys derived from all sales of wheat made by the Canadian Wheat Board during the period from August 1, 1967 to June 30, 1968, inclusive, at prices below the prices determined by the Governor in Council to be minimum prices for wheat consistent with the minimum price set forth in the International Grains Arrangement for No. 1 Manitoba Northern Wheat, and
(b)	the total moneys that would have been received had such sales been at the said minimum prices, $15,000,000.
L95c. To increase to $1,650,000 the amount that may be charged at any one time to the special account mentioned in Vote L78d of the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1966, that was established for the purpose of providing Working Capital Advances to posts and advances to employees on posting abroad; additional amount required, $500,000.
The Assistanl Deputy Chairman: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. The committee will now consider the supplementary estimates of legislation.

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-[DOT]
5c. General Administration, $153,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one question on this item, and I am looking at the Solicitor General. Perhaps he will either answer my question or tell me who will answer it. Is anyone in a position to make a statement?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask that this department be stood temporarily. The Minister of Industry is dealing with this item and he has been called out of the house. If I can have the approval of the committee I should like to move to another department.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Is it the
desire of the committee that the legislation estimate be stood until the minister appears?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item stands.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The committee will now consider the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Research-
5c. Administration, Operation and Maintenance- to extend the purposes of Vote 5 of the Main Estimates for 1967-68 to include a contribution of $10,000 to the Town of Kapuskasing towards the construction of a road, $1.
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.]


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Chairman, before these estimates pass I should like to make reference to a letter I received yesterday from the Ontario Cream Producers Association. That association is not very happy with the new dairy policy of the government, and I thought this would be a good opportunity to place their views before the minister, before he makes a final announcement of next year's dairy policy.
I should like to refer to some of the recommendations that they have to make. They have three main recommendations as cream producers about which they are deeply concerned. The first recommendation is for a quota cut-off level at which they would be eligible for subsidy payment. Second, they recommend a special subsidy of 5 cents per pound butterfat for farm-separated cream production. Canada imported butter last year, and hon. members know that our cream producers' cream goes entirely into the production of butter. Some butter is made from surplus powdered milk, but not all. Their third recommendation is for compensation for small producers who are not eligible for subsidy payments if cut-off quotas are applied by the Canadian Dairy Commission.
I should also like to refer to a press release dated Ottawa, March 6, 1968 which sets out the stand taken by the executive directors of the Dairy Farmers of Canada and the Federation of Agriculture, and reads as follows:
Mr. Glen Cole, president of Dairy Farmers of Canada, said today he particularly wished to emphasize that under no circumstances can Dairy Farmers of Canada support or countenance the imposition of subsidy cut-offs to small volume milk producers unless adequate compensation policies are at the same time implemented for them.
Highlights of the dairy policy demands discussed today by the executive of the Dairy Farmers of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture representatives with the Minister of Agriculture and the Canadian Dairy Commission were:
An increase in the level of federal support of the price of industrial milk to $5 per cwt., f.o.b. factory, (now $4.65) as a minimum requirement for meeting costs of production and income needs of dairy producers.
A special payment to shippers of farm separated cream of 5 cents per pound of butterfat, in addition to regular subsidy payments, as a minimum measure to correct the inequity under the program to cream shippers which the present policy established.
Return to inclusion in the subsidy program of fluid milk shippers who are dependent on industrial milk sales for a significant portion of their income, to eliminate the unfair discrimination existing here under the present program.
Cash compensation for small producers in cases where the Canadian Dairy Commission decides to cut them off from future federal support on the basis of their low production levels.
March 26, 1968

As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, these recommendations came to me from the Ontario Cream Producers Association through the Huron County Cream Producers, and I wished to draw them to the minister's attention before he announced the dairy policy for the year commencing on April 1.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, a few brief words on this item. When the Liberal party in its 1965 election propaganda stated that it intended to put all small farmers out of business and leave only economic farm units in operation as a solution to agricultural problems, I felt at the time that this was doubtful of accomplishment and certainly of very questionable intent. However, it appears that the dairy policy that the government has been pursuing has accomplished just about that: it has put out of business a very large percentage of farmers. If it had not been for the intervention of a number of influential people last year 50 per cent of the farmers would have suffered a dislocation of their operations.


Mr. Clancy:: Oh, come on; get on with it.


William Arnold Peters: The member who made that interjection might be interested to read a report on the Canadian dairy industry, which was an ARDA project. This report went into the value of maintaining the family farm and also into some of the advantages of disposing of family farms.
This project was sponsored, Mr. Chairman, by the rural development branch of the Department of Forestry and Rural Development, and I should like to read part of a paragraph that is to be found at page 20 of the report:
The farms producing less than 50,000 lbs. of milk per farm should be actively discouraged from shipping milk or cream by a two pronged policy. One aspect would be aimed at non-commercial farms and would be part of a general development plan in areas of concentration of subsistence farms.
I presume that would be the ARDA plan.
The other would act through the price mechanism. By paying no subsidy whatever to farms shipping cream or milk in volumes less than 50,000, and by a program to consolidate small processing plants making it difficult to ship small amounts of cream particularly, it could be expected that the majority of farms with one or two cows and operating a substantial farm business in other directions, would no longer find it profitable to ship milk or cream.
This may be all well and good but for one fact, Mr. Chairman, and that is that we have not been able to compensate farmers whose operations have been dislocated. We may be well advised to discontinue the two to five
Supply-Agriculture
cow farm operation, but we must offer an alternative to this. No one with any experience in mixed farming will say that the small farm with five or six cows cannot be economically operated. On that kind of farm there is no labour cost. The wife or kids milk the cows, and the cows are fed on a pasture that will grow very little, anyway. The milk from the cow is separated and the cream delivered to the local creamery, or butter is churned on the farm and the buttermilk used to feed the pigs or chickens. On that sort of farm the farmer probably gets a value of $1.09 in the utilization of his skim milk, and no other operation probably is as efficient in obtaining that sort of value from skim milk.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Cream producers and dairy producers want to know how the new program to begin on April 1 will compare with the program of other years. The minister intimated that before a farmer could receive a subsidy he must produce a minimum of 50,000 pounds of milk or its equivalent of 12,000 pounds of butterfat. Because of representations from many sources, that plan last year was not implemented. Instead, a farmer's minimum production in order to qualify for a subsidy continued on at 12,000 pounds of milk and 400 pounds of butterfat.


An hon. Member:: Oh, get off the pot.


William Arnold Peters: And if any milk is left over perhaps we could give it to our colleague.
I wonder whether the new program will allow farmers who have four or five cows either to get out of a dairy operation, if one can call it that where a man has four or five cows, or allow him to expand so that he can produce the minimum of 50,000 pounds of milk.
I now want to talk about some way to induce young people to take up farming. We shall reap many advantages if we devise some new way of valuing farm land. It should be valued on a different basis from that applied, say, to industrial or residential lands. Some way ought to be found of assisting people, possibly under some sort of lease, to take up farming and to make it pay. Every assistance ought to be given to young persons who want to enter farming, for the simple reason that many of them will never have enough money to buy a farm outright.
In northern Ontario new industries have been established. Timiskaming ranks among
81C2

March 26, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
the top ten cheese producers in Ontario, simply because we now have a second cheese factory. Yet we have not arrived at a system of equalization of transportation grants and we are having difficulty in getting the money for an amalgamated milk plant that will handle fluid milk, secondary milk and cheese efficiently. It must be remembered that in Canada we face increasing competition from dairy producers from other countries.
Butter from New Zealand was selling in Vancouver at under 37 cents a pound. I am sure that no member of the house will deny that if farmers in this country could get only 37 cents a pound for their butter, they would stop making it. Clearly, butter and dairy products are traded on the international market, and since we intend to produce a great deal of butter we shall have to sell it elsewhere. Certainly our butter production can outstrip our consumption. I hope that when the minister announces his new program he will take into consideration the need to help those farmers who will be displaced because of the program.
That program can be of advantage. I hope the minister will announce what will happen to the 30 per cent of our farming population which engages in mixed farming. These people sell for cash one or two cans of cream a week. Their cows produce only enough milk in the winter for immediate family consumption. If these people are eliminated from the farming picture, who will replace them? They will be taken off the farms in a relatively short period because of relatively harsh measures.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I wish to deal for a few moments with the estimates before us. On March 5, when the minister spoke, he made a few statements I want to deal with. It has been a habit of the minister's, in our experience, to find some late hour in the evening to put a few remarks on the record that bear little relation to facts, and then to persuade the house leader not to bring that particular item back for several weeks, hoping that the members of this party will have forgotten some of the comments which have been made. I assure the minister, and I regret that he is not here, that I should now deal with some of his remarks of March 5.
Among other things he said that he had made as many speeches supporting agriculture as anyone in the house. I will not deny that. The fact remains that he has done as little for agriculture as any minister who has ever held that portfolio. The imagination he

has used in developing agricultural policy is about as barren as the imagination that goes into an Air Canada breakfast.


An hon. Member:: Nothing could be that bad.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: For a couple of years now we have been waiting for him to introduce policies that would benefit the industry. I am sure most members of this house who represent rural areas cannot but be impressed by the apprehension one finds among farmers. They do not know what the prospects for the coming year are. There is uncertainty about prices; there is even more uncertainty about markets. Added to this there has been a tremendous increase in agricultural costs since the present government took office. According to the figures put out by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics the increase in the index of farmers' costs has continued to take place at an alarming rate. I should like to put on record some figures relating to this increase.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
In the year 1960, four years before the change of government, the index stood at 272.7. By 1963 it had risen slightly to 298.6. But from that point on, when the present government took office, a dramatic increase began. From 298.6 it has risen to 367.5, an increase of 69 points in four years-and about 40 of these points have accumulated in the last two years.
There is apprehension because this government has shown no initiative in the marketing of Canadian grain and because it had permitted prices to drop to levels which pose a serious problem to farmers in western Canada. The minister is found of quoting income figures. I note that he quoted either gross income figures or net income figures. These do not give a true picture of real farm income, which is related more closely to net realized income. The net income figures which the minister quoted and which seemed to show a remarkable increase in farm incomes take into consideration an accumulation of inventory. A farmer may not have been able to sell a bushel of wheat, as is the case this year, yet net income figures will show a substantial net income. In 1961, for example when the peak of the drought had been experienced, the carry-over on western farms amounted to something like 607 million bushels. It had dropped to about 391 million bushels by 1962. The net income shown for that year was $362 million, yet the real net income because of the change of inventory
March 26, 1968

was $670 million, a considerable increase over the net income figures the minister likes to quote. If the minister puts figures on record purporting to show the real income position of farmers he should use realized net income rather than net income figures alone.
The minister went on to accuse us on this side of opposing an increase in the minimum and maximum levels of wheat prices because we had criticized the government for its part in the lapse of the international wheat agreement. What nonsense. We have suggested on this side that those prices could have been increased under the old agreement. I am not saying the new agreement is not just as good as the old international wheat agreement, but there was no need to allow the agreement to lapse so that there was no protection for farmers during that period. Immediately after the announcement was made that the old agreement was to expire, prices began to fall. If there was ever any doubt in the minds of anyone in this country as to the value of an international commodity agreement, it must surely have been dissipated as a result of the experiences of the past year.
To suggest that we were somehow or other opposed to an increase in the price of wheat is an indication of the type of tactics the minister follows in this house when dealing with legitimate questions raised by members of the opposition. The minister went on to say as reported on page 7316 of Hansard for March 5:
I think this is very unfair criticism of the Canadian officials who carried on the negotiations-
He was speaking of the Kennedy round negotiations.
The ministers attended at the conclusion of the Kennedy round and claimed very little credit for the great success the Canadian negotiators achieved.
The minister's tactic was to slough oft his responsibilities on the negotiators, on the officials of the department who represented Canada during the Kennedy round, trying to convince the house that in some magic way he and his colleagues were absolved of their responsibilities and that the officials were the ones to blame, if indeed there was to be any blame. This was the attitude of the government when it took over, as far as the Canadian Wheat Board was concerned.
The present Minister of Finance fell over himself in his attempts to deprecate a former minister of agriculture, my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle, for having taken some responsibility for the selling of wheat during the period he was minister. The hon. gentleman said 27053-510
Supply-Agriculture
the present government intended to let the wheat board take the credit for such things. Well, they let the wheat board take the credit, but they have also let it shoulder all the blame-blame which rightly belongs to them for failing to maintain price levels. No amount of sneaking and snivelling on the part of the minister can change this fact.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
With regard to dairy policy I am as convinced as the hon. member for Timiskaming that it is a deliberate and calculated policy on the part of the government to eliminate as many farmers as possible. Somehow or other members of the government have listened to economists who preach the doctrine of bigness, and they believe that by reducing the number of farmers the same amount of income will be divided among fewer people and therefore the whole problem will be resolved. But it does not work out this way. In spite of the fact that there are fewer farmers, their net income is being reduced.
How far does one go? At what point do you reach a farm of sufficient size to be economic enough to produce an income capable of maintaining a farmer on the land? What has been the experience on some of the bigger farms in both Canada and the United States? In fact some of the millionaires who own farms in the United States and Canada have shown losses. If they cannot show a profit I do not know who can, because they have the wherewithall to equip themselves with the type of machinery and to pay for the inputs that are necessary for proper, maximum production.
The doctrine that bigness is the answer to the farm problem must be destroyed before it destroys every farmer in the country. Recently the firm of Hedland and Menzies, which has been conducting a number of agricultural surveys throughout the country, undertook one for the county of Vulcan in Alberta. The purpose of the study was to determine whether or not increased acreage would result in increased income and productivity. The result showed that this was not the fact, that once you reached a certain point the net income levelled off and no matter how much bigger the farm grew beyond that point there was no appreciable increase in the net income. The conclusion was that an increase in productivity rather than an increase in farm size would be the better way of increasing a farmer's net return.

March 26, 1968
Supp ly-A griculture
In my view there is no point in considering transfer of capital into agriculture in order to increase gross income unless measures are taken to ensure that farm costs are not going to rise to the point where there is no net income left for the farmer. Since the present government took office farm costs have been rising at a much faster rate than farm income. The government has set up commissions to study the question of farm machinery prices and farm costs. Undoubtedly those studies are necessary because obviously members of the government do not have any ideas of their own. They have also set up a task for us to determine agricultural policy. I suppose that is necessary for the same reason, but time is running out on them.
On the prairies we are again in the midst of a drought cycle. Last year there was a serious drought, and a very serious depletion of subsoil moisture. If there is a recurrence of the very minimal rainfall that fell last year there will be almost total failure in various areas of the prairies. At present farmers are very reluctant to buy fertilizer because of the great risk involved this year due to the lack of moisture.
Farmers are very reluctant to undertake the inputs that they normally undertake in order to achieve maximum production, because of the risks that are involved. They are also reluctant to take a chance that the government will be able to sell their product once they have produced it. As I said when I began my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I have never known more apprehension on the part of farmers than I have found this year. Unless something is done, and done very soon, it is going to be reflected in a very substantial decrease in the number of farmers in this country, and in a greater problem in finding something whereby farmers can earn a living. The government has shown no initiative and no responsibility in dealing with this problem.


James Norris Ormiston: Mr. Chairman-


William Arnold Peters: Ten o'clock.


James Norris Ormiston: I do not wish to call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman. I have only a few minutes in which to make my remarks and I hope you will bear with me because I certainly agree with my hon. friend from Proven-cher when he says there is a great deal of apprehension in the agricultural industry today. There is no greater apprehension than among the turkey producers of this country.

Earlier today we asked a question of the minister on this subject, but he did not happen to be in the house. However this is a question which we have asked for months, urging that the government make some policy statement regarding the industry, which will give some satisfaction to those people who are engaged in that industry which means so much to the Canadian public. On several occasions the minister made statements, but they all seem to have fallen short of the need to give assurance to the Canadian turkey producers.
At this time, in the spring of the year, when we expect the industry to be flourishing, its production is falling far short of what is necessary. Orders for turkey poults this year are 26 per cent less than last year, showing the trend of dissatisfaction on the part of those engaged in the industry, and their reluctance to invest further in the business of producing turkeys. Certainly those people who have invested a great deal of money in the industry deserve some statement from the minister to assure them that they will be kept in business at a profitable level so that they can continue to render the service that they have given over the years to this country.


Mr. Grills:: Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late and I know that everyone wants to get along with the work and get out of here. However, there is a problem which I am alarmed about, and I am sorry the minister is not in the chamber tonight-although, having listened to many of his speeches I have found that listening to an Arnprior lawyer does not give much direction to the farmers of the country. I do not mean to be critical, but I must be.
1 wish to quote from a letter which I received today from a constituent, which reads:
X am writing you today concerning the subsidy on milk.
Last year about this time I purchased this farm and on August 6th sent my first milk to-
And he mentions a cheese factory in Hastings county.
At that time X applied for the subsidy on my milk, only to learn that I had to send milk on or before July 1st to qualify for the subsidy in that dairy year.
I was wondering if there was any exemptions made to a person just starting to farm and sending milk for the first time. I have been buying cows at auction sales all winter and now have 26 and hope to have 30 by grass time. As I have been buying cows at auction sales I have no quota, that I might ordinarily have if I had bought a herd at one place.
March 26, 1963

When 1 applied for the subsidy they sent me back a card for my wallet with certificate of registration No	if this is of any help.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
He goes on to explain his grievance. I happen to know this young farmer, whose father was a farmer before him. He is a good farmer and an aggressive young man, who married and began farming last year. Because he began shipping milk on August 6 instead of on July 1 he received $1.21 per hundredweight, or whatever the amount of the subsidy is, less than his neighbour. I am wondering how the minister thinks he can explain a situation of this kind. The Canadian Dairy Commission has been set up and apparently the minister thinks he can hide behind that and use it as a smokescreen. He is pretty good at throwing up smokescreens. This type of situation must be ended or there will be more trouble. This is only one case. I have information concerning many others.
I do not understand how one can discriminate and say that because one man started milking his cows five weeks later than another he will receive no subsidy, even though he is producing the same quality of milk for the same purpose, and so on. It seems to me that the Canadian Dairy Commission would like to do a good job. The members of this commission are trying to do a good job, but they are given responsibility with very little authority. In addition they are given very little money with which to pay the subsidy. I believe it is high time this situation was explained. I have attempted to get an answer from the dairy commission. They just say that the situation is most unfortunate.
The minister has said that the Canadian farmer never had it so good. He has borrowed a great deal of money, is head over heels in debt, and yet the minister says he is prosperous. The minister expects the farmer to accept this type of legislation. This young man to whom I referred, up until the first of March had produced and shipped 70,000 pounds of milk. At $1 a hundred pounds he would have lost $700 that others received. I hope the minister will give some consideration to this because it is a continuing problem. Before the dairy policy for 1968-69 is announced I hope he will clean up some of last year's business.
The minister has eliminated the subsidy on premium cheese. This is discouraging. It takes away the incentive to produce good cheese in this country. Cheese is the balancing product of the dairy industry. It is difficult to have
Supply-Agriculture
supply and demand in perfect balance; but cheese is the one product, because it can be kept for some time, which enables the dairy industry to have a certain amount of balance. The minister in his wisdom concerning agriculture, which I question, has eliminated the subsidy on premium cheese. In so doing he has destroyed the incentive. Within a year there will be a good deal of second grade cheese in the country which we will not know what to do with. I say that this is false economy.
There is a similar situation in respect of hogs. Everyone likes lean bacon. The housewife and others complain that the bacon is too fat. Yet the minister is reducing the subsidy on the type of hog that produces lean bacon. What type of common sense is this?
It appears that this is about as much as we can expect from a lawyer Minister of Agriculture. Let me say to his friend over there, who is sitting and listening, that I hope the department will give some consideration to reinstating these two policies, because the reductions involved do not amount to peanuts in the overall budget. He knows this, and I suggest that this government and this minister will not be very popular with a lot of people in our farm communities if something is not done to correct this situation.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I hope there is some disposition on the part of the committee to accept the suggestion I wish to make. If it meets with the approval of the committee perhaps we can sit until twelve o'clock, on the understanding that we will pass all the supplementary estimates this evening. In view of the fact that we have now discussed the supplementary estimates for a number of days, and in view of the fact that these items are similar to items on interim supply, perhaps we could agree to also pass interim supply before twelve o'clock.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Does the committee agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member, that we sit until twelve o'clock?


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Chairman, there is no agreement in that regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the hon. member for Ontario was taking a bargaining position. We also are prepared to bargain. We suggest that we sit until eleven o'clock, or until the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture have been passed. It is my belief that the supplementary estimates of the Post

March 26, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
Office Department will not likely be debated, so they might be thrown in as well. We suggest that eleven o'clock is late enough for this debate.


Mr, Siarr:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think anything can be accomplished by that. Nothing was accomplished last night by sitting until eleven o'clock. We only completed one department. My suggestion is that we sit until twelve in order to complete the supplementary estimates and interim supply; otherwise there is no agreement.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Does the committee agree to the suggestion made by the house leader?


David Lewis: Which house leader are you referring to, Mr. Chairman?


An hon. Member:: There is only one good one.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. I was referring to the hon. member for Ontario.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to consider the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Obviously we will have to be here tomorrow, as we cannot finish everything tonight. I understand the other place has adjourned until tomorrow. I see no purpose whatever being served by trying to sit until twelve o'clock. There is no reason we cannot get all the business done tomorrow, and since we have to be back in any event I see no purpose in sitting till midnight. There is sense in sitting long enough to complete the department we are now discussing, and any other department, such as the Post Office Department and the Privy Council. We will not agree to sit until midnight.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, my suggestion makes a great deal of sense. The suggestion made by the house leader of the N.D.P. will not achieve the purpose he tries to make us believe it will achieve. There are quite a number of departments left to be considered. We will not be meeting tomorrow until 2.30 p.m., and by the time orders of the day and other matters are disposed of we will only have a short period of time to consider the remaining departments. We may or may not finish them by six o'clock, so there will be no opportunity for the other place to consider these estimates. If we completed these estimates and interim supply tonight the other

place would have the whole afternoon to deal with them, and we could have royal assent at six o'clock. Surely that makes good sense.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I think it would make much better sense-and I am going to make the suggestion on my own-that we agree to finish the departments mentioned by us, and agree that tomorrow we will finish the remaining departments by a certain hour. I do not think it makes any sense to sit until midnight when the business is not going to be completed.


Michael Starr: That is the basis upon which I suggested that we sit until midnight.


David Lewis: If the hon. member for Ontario suggested that tomorrow we try to finish the estimates, say by five o'clock, so that the Senate will have an hour to complete them, that would make sense. But it does not make sense to sit till midnight tonight.


Michael Starr: An hour for the Senate to complete their consideration of these estimates? It took us about 12 days. You don't make sense at all.


David Lewis: I certainly do.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, it has been a long day and I hope we have passed through the centre of the little storm here. May I make a special appeal to the house leader for the official opposition to accede to the suggestion that we pass the estimates that have been suggested.


Michael Starr: They said just agriculture.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Post Office and Privy
Council.


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Chairman. Unless my suggestion is considered, we will not agree.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, would the patient and co-operative opposition house leader bear with me for just a moment? I ask that we follow through with the suggestion of the hon. member for York South and deal tonight with the three items suggested by him. Then perhaps we could agree to deal with the rest of the supplementary estimates by four o'clock tomorrow and deal with interim supply between, say, four o'clock and five o'clock.


Michael Starr: That makes no sense at all.
March 26, 1968


David Lewis: That kind of suggestion makes sense to me, Mr. Chairman, because I do not like the idea of sitting on for just anything.


An hon. Member:: You agreed to sit on last night.


David Lewis: We sat until after eleven o'clock last night to complete something. We are ready to sit on tonight in order to finish the estimates of the departments we have suggested. We have always supported the idea of allocating time, and we support it now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: Stop oh, oh-ing. We always have supported the idea of allocating time, and you know it, despite these silly catcalls. It makes sense to me to allot time. We will agree to that, but not to sit to midnight tonight.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ontario has gone a long way with us on this side of the house, and I ask him to take one more step and agree to follow through with the suggestion of the hon. member for York South.


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that suggestion makes any sense at all. I am suggesting that we sit an hour and 45 minutes tonight. We sat until after eleven o'clock yesterday to complete the estimates of one department. I am suggesting that we sit an hour and 45 minutes tonight and complete interim supply for all departments.
We talk about reforming the Senate, and in the same breath say that one hour is enough time for them to consider supplementary estimates and interim supply for two months, when we have spent 10 or 11 days here considering the supplementary estimates. I do not think that is fair to the Senate. No wonder people look at the Senate and say it should be reformed. Let us give them an opportunity to discuss these matters all afternoon. We should give them an opportunity for fair discussion. Then we could have royal assent at six o'clock, or whatever the time is.


William Arnold Peters: Ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. The Chair appreciates all the advice given from both sides of the house, and remains as confused as it was originally.


William Arnold Peters: Ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Is it the
desire of the committee that the Chair not see the clock for the time being?
Supply-A griculture


Lawrence T. Pennell: May we at least finish agriculture?


Michael Starr: We will carry agriculture.


William Arnold Peters: Ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, now that the storm has subsided a bit, could we make one more try to finish agriculture tonight?


Michael Starr: We will carry it now.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall vote 5c carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief, because I do not wish to delay the passage of the estimates of that department.
I should like to join with all other members who stated that agriculture was in a state of stagnation. It is undeniably so, like many other sectors of our economy. Small industries, especially, are in a bad way, as well as small farms and almost every sector of our economy. Therefore, that means that our economy is unbalanced. Small farms are on their way out. As a matter of fact, 70 per cent of the farmers of my riding have left their farm, and every day, others are doing the same.
I feel that premiums on cheese and milk at least should be maintained and that grants to agriculture should be increased, if possible.
Mr. Chairman, agriculture is the foundation of society; it permits the citizens to live because it provides food which is used to feed them. Without agriculture, Mr. Chairman, we would not be here tonight. Agriculture is an essential factor, indeed the number one factor of society. Agriculture is absolutely necessary to the life of human beings. Therefore, we must at least have the courage to protect it and to give it everything it needs. We might be justified in sacrificing certain sectors of the economy to give a greater share to agriculture, so that the farms still in existence could further develop and spare us the sight of an agriculture heading for disaster. In fact, our whole economy is heading for disaster.
It is our responsibility to do everything in our power to assist our agriculture because it

March 26, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
is the most essential field for the human being. Without it, the human being, the family could not live. Let us continue at least to do something to assist our agriculture instead of letting it die.
I could go on talking about agriculture but I do not want to delay the passing of these estimates. Mr. Chairman, I shall limit myself to those few remarks.
I should like to ask once again all the hon. members, and especially the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) to take under advisement the problems of agriculture, with a view to solving at least a few of them.
It is not by lending money at an increasingly high rate of interest, as was pointed out this afternoon, that farmers will be helped, because they are no longer able to pay such rates. They are sick and tired of being asked to pay rates of interest they can no longer afford. They are asked to make debts at a rate of 15 per cent, but they can no longer take it. They are already too deep in debt, as several members have pointed out. The farmers' debts are incommensurate compared to their means to pay them.
With regard to farm loans, several farmers prefer to borrow from the federal government because they can obtain higher loans. Indeed, more can be had in Ottawa, but the rate of interest is higher than on provincial loans. A reasonable rate of interest should be maintained, since agriculture is the very basis which enables society to live. And so, every attempt should be made to relieve the farmers, by offering them a decent interest rate.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(The following items were agreed to:)
Production Marketing-
Administration-
17c. Grants, Contributions and Subsidies as detailed in the Estimates, $32,174,000.
Plant and Plant Products-
35c. Grants, Contributions and Subsidies as detailed in the Estimates, $326,565.
Health of Animals-
40c. Administration, Operation and Maintenance, $249,000.
45c. Grants, Contributions and Subsidies as detailed in the Estimates, $585,600.
Canadian Dairy Commission-
65c. Administration, Operation and Maintenance, $48,000.
[Mr. Latulippe.l
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture. The committee will now consider the supplementary estimates of the Post Office Department.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
lc. Postal Services, including Canada's share of the upkeep of the International Bureaux at Berne and Montevideo, $2,262,000.
Item agreed to.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Post Office Department. The committee will now consider the supplementary estimates of the Privy Council.
PRIVY COUNCIL A-Privy Council-
15c. Expenses of the Royal Commissions listed in the Details of Estimates, $1.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
lc. Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, $52,000.
Item agree to.

[Stage Direction]
lc. Administration Expenses, $85,000.
Item agreed to.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Privy Council.


William Arnold Peters: Ten o'clock.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The committee will now consider the supplementary estimates of Legislation.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, can I draw to your attention the fact that it is ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: An hon. member has called it ten o'clock.


Lawrence T. Pennell: There are only two more departments.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Is it
understood that the committee will proceed to Legislation?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
5c. General Administration, $153,000.
March 26, 1968
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, an hour or so ago I started to ask a question but was cut off in the middle of it. Is the minister who is responsible for this item in a position to say anything with regard to collective bargaining on parliament hill? As the minister knows, the joint committee on the public service of Canada recommended in its report about a year ago that something be done on parliament hill comparable to the arrangements made for the public service generally. Has any progress been made in this connection?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I do not know the precise answer to this question but I will be glad to communicate this question to Mr. Speaker and to transmit to the hon. gentleman his reply.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
House of Commons-
20c. General Administration, $806,000.
Item agreed to.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: This completes the supplementary estimates of Legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Michael Starr: No, let us carry on.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Does the committee wish to proceed to another department?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Does the committee wish to proceed with the supplementary estimates of Treasury Board?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I believe the acting house leader agreed that this department and one other at least be held over until tomorrow.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Does the committee wish to consider the supplementary estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was the other department to be left over until tomorrow.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member says that these departments are to be left over till tomorrow by agreement, but I was not asked to give my agreement to that. I have made the proposition that we carry on and complete all of the supplementary estimates. I agree to that, not to standing over particular estimates.
Supply-Legislation


Lawrence T. Pennell: May I ask the chairman whether public service carried or not?
The Assistanl Deputy Chairman: Yes.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Then I am happy.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ontario has suggested that since we have only two departments left we deal with them tonight. I wonder whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would feel up to the mark if we dealt with Treasury Board this evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we have completed several more departments than we proposed. We have done pretty well and only three are left for tomorrow, two departments plus fisheries, which I think we will deal with when Mr. Speaker is in the chair, by way of a message from the deputy to this Excellency.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I hope that we will find it possible to follow the suggestion of the hon. member for York South. That suggestion, if I understood him correctly, is that we complete supplementary estimates by four o'clock and then devote the time between four and five to the motion for interim supply.


David Lewis: That is agreeable.
The Assisiant Deputy Chairman: Shall I rise, report certain resolutions and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE (C), 1967-68 (REVISED)

[Stage Direction]
A message from the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General transmitting a supplementary estimate for the financial year ending March 31, 1968, was presented by Hon. L. T. Pennell (for the Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Deputy Speaker to the House, and referred to the committee of supply.

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
8110	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion INDIAN AFFAIRS-REQUEST FOR RECONSTITUTION OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Hon. V/. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris): Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting to discuss this matter since last Thursday, otherwise I should not trespass on the time of the house at this late hour. In view of what has just happened it appears that we are very close to adjournment, and I wish to bring this matter to the attention of the government to obtain some assurance that the committee on Indian affairs will be reconstituted shortly after the resumption of the current session.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
When I asked the leader of the house last Thursday whether this would be possible, he referred me to the minister of Indian affairs as the minister responsible. It was on July 13, 1966, that the house agreed to the following motion:
That the standing committee on Indian affairs, human rights and citizenship and immigration be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada for the purpose of obtaining further information relating to matters affecting Indians and Indian communities; and that for this purpose, the said committee be authorized to sit while the house is sitting or during adjournments of the house; and
That the clerk of the said committee and necessary supporting staff do accompany the said committee.
That was almost two years ago, and since then there has been no further action. Earlier today I pointed out that the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein) had made a statement to the press urging that the committee proceed to adjourn from place to place, and so on, as recommended in the motion. So I know we have his enthusiastic support.
Last week two important speeches were made on Indian affairs, one by the minister at the University of British Columbia on March 23 and the other by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in Calgary on March 21. The minister underlined the importance of consultation and practical knowledge of the subject in three quotations that I want to extract from his speech. He said:
The Indian has a sense of grievance.
Later, he said:
Without doubt, Canada's most serious social problem is the Indian problem.
Finally, the minister declared that the building of self-esteem among the Indian community was of the utmost importance.

DEBATES	March 26, 1968
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) speaking in Calgary struck the same note. In the light of this high level support I do not think I need stress the case for this being the desire of all of us here. There are outstanding problems which I feel can only be dealt with if members of parliament have the opportunity to come personally into contact with the subject. We have been playing around with the establishment of an Indian complaints commission. I for one would like to consult directly with the Canadian Indian population on this matter. We have been told for a number of years that the Indian Act requires amendment. Last week the minister issued a statement that officials of the department would be consulting with Indian bands and leaders across the country with respect to proposed amendments to the act. I trust he will agree that members of parliament should have the same opportunity for consultation with the Indians as to what should be included in the proposed amendments.
This afternoon we had a fairly long discussion on the health problem among the first Canadians, and in view of the confusion which has been created by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) I think it is high time that members of the committee had a chance to discuss this matter with representatives of the Indian communities across the country.
In the past few years the community development program has unfortunately been bogging down in bureaucracy. Here is another subject with which hon. members should be vitally concerned. Problems arising in connection with the maintenance of law and order were outlined in an excellent study carried on under the auspices of the Canadian Welfare Council. This too should be considered. In his speech in Calgary, the Leader of the Opposition pointed out the extreme difficulties which had arisen in this area, exemplified by the fact that visitors to our penal institutions, particularly provincial jails, find that most of the inmates, both men and women, are Indians.
In some instances 100 per cent of the prison population is made up of our first Canadians. I continue to receive protests and petitions from the bands in my constituency, in the southwestern part of the constituency. One resolution from a meeting held at the Friendship Centre in Brandon last Friday, when some 60 representatives of about a dozen Indian communities were present, protested the
March 26, 1968	COMMONS
failure of the government and of the department to provide recreational facilities. This applied particularly to the reserve at Griswold, which has been endeavouring to build a rink for the past six years.
This problem is not an overwhelmingly difficult one. Our total Indian population is 250,000. At least 47 per cent of that population is 15 years of age and under. Surely we as a parliament, and the government, can come to grips with the problem. I think if we are going to do so the standing committee on Indian affairs must be given the necessary authority to act in the manner I have recommended.
Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that it is not my responsibility to convene the committee or set it up. I am quite certain that is not my responsibility. The idea of visiting Indian reserves originated, it seems to me, in the mind of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), and I think he accompanied the committee on the visit to three or four reserves that did take place. There was the thought in mind that the committee would visit some western reserves as well. However, the season became late and the weather got bad, and I do not think many members of the committee wanted to undertake a second tour of Indian reserves.
The hon. member in drawing this matter to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) used these words:
In view of growing problems affecting our native Canadians and the long delay in dealing with them-
I am going to deal with the hon. member himself. I want to tell him that the budget on Indian affairs today, in education alone, is $8 million more than the total Indian affairs budget when he was a minister of the government, and the general physical qualities of the reserves today, as well as the entire attitude of management of Indian affairs, are totally unrecognizable from what they were five years ago.
This last year we have built 770 houses on Indian reserves, and we are going to build 2,000 this coming year. We put electricity into 2,200 houses that never had it before. We have put in sewage and water on 48 reserves and have built 450 miles of roads. These changes have been made as the result of parliament giving my department the money to
DEBATES	8111
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion undertake them, and I appreciate the attitude of members of parliament, but I deplore this constant going round and saying, "Lo, the poor Indian".
I want to tell the hon. member that among Indians today there is a tremendous ferment going on, and many young Indians are rapidly coming to take leadership in Indian communities.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There is no other better leadership.


Arthur Laing: And so it should be. I think it is time this was encouraged instead of saying, as the hon. member said, that we should put in a skating rink-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is the Indians who want to put it in.


Arthur Laing: No, the Indians don't want to put it in-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They have got $25,000.


Arthur Laing: They want us to put it in. We have put $20,000, $40,000 and $80,000 into such projects in the past. We have now come to the point where we have got to say that those Indians in this country who are capable of carrying themselves, and who are able to manage, should have the right to do this instead of getting it from us. But instead we are going around and saying to the individual Indian, "You should be independent," and at the same time we are going around and saying, "You should have more money from us". We cannot have it both ways.
Among Canadian Indians today there is a tremendous improvement taking place. There are many young Indian leaders coming along, and the situation is not at all as represented by the hon. member. If the standing committee wants to see other reserves I would be very happy to see it set up and visit them. We are making worth-while developments and progress in our program, and if the committee wishes to inspect and participate in that program so much the better.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)



CONSUMER AFFAIRS-MILK-PROPOSED PRICE INCREASE IN ONTARIO

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, almost a week ago I raised a question which I wish to discuss for a few moments tonight. I drew to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs the fact that two dairies in
March 26, 1968
8112	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Toronto stated they were raising the price of milk by two cents a quart. Two cents a quart may not seem like a great deal of money, but it is only one more item in the steadily rising cost of living which is bearing very heavily on the people of low income in this country, and which again is making it more difficult for the people of low and moderate means to provide the kind of diet they should provide for their families.
Milk is a vital component in a good diet. Price increases of this nature are contagious. The fact that two dairies in Toronto have already raised their price now by two cents a quart has established a pattern for other dairies across the country. This means that there is a fresh layer of price increases in a very vital area which affects the diet of the Canadian people. This is also a very serious situation from the point of view of the farmers. I learned from the Department of Agriculture that a comparison of two recent periods, 1955-57 and 1962-64, shows that the decline per person in Canada in the consumption of fluid milk is in the order of 65 pounds. That represents roughly 38 quarts of milk. In other words, during the period 1962-64, the average Canadian drank roughly 38 quarts of milk less than in the period 1955-57.
This of course reflects from the fact that the price of milk had increased and people were using instead substitutes like powdered milk at that time. Now there are other milk substitutes on the market. The farmers' markets are falling off. As milk substitutes come in this tendency accelerates. I am sorry the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not here this evening, because I would like him to hear this. I believe it is up to his department to provide some form of protection for the consumers against this type of price increase.
When speaking the other evening I noted that the minister said the Liberal party must set up a hotline in order to keep in touch with the public. I feel that in his department the minister has found, not a hotline but a hot potato, and understandably he is anxious to drop it in favour of the prime ministership. Should he succeed I would not be surprised if he should find that he has jumped from the frying pan into the fire.
If the minister really wishes to be prime minister surely the best recommendation he could have would be success in his position as minister of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If he cannot prove himself in dealing with the matter of the rise in the


price of milk-if he cannot prove that he can do something to protect the consumer-then I believe he has a very dubious claim to becoming prime minister. I believe he has two opportunities to prove his capacity before the leadership convention. One would be to bring forward Bill No. C-190 before we adjourn, and thus take action in some measure to bring down the price of drugs. The other is that he could take some measures to protect the consumers from these price increases in the cost of milk. He could begin by establishing a prices review board to investigate the price of milk.
I am well aware that the jurisdiction over prices is divided between the provincial and federal authorities. I am also aware that up until this time the government has adopted the attitute that it can do nothing about prices until or unless a dire emergency such as war arises. I suggest that peace has its dire emergencies and that one of these is the level to which prices have now risen, because people in the very low income groups are becoming more and more desperate and this desperation is beginning to become apparent higher up the income scale.
This matter of the price of milk is in itself a relatively small thing to most Canadians. It may have only a nuisance value. However, to hundreds of Canadians on low income this is a very serious thing. It is also very serious to the farmers of this country because the net result of this price rise does not do them any good. They do not receive the bulk of the increase.
I asked a supplementary question of the minister as to whether he would investigate to find out how much the farmer would get out of this price increase. Again there was no response to that question. In the long run, the farmer's market is decreasing across Canada simply because the people cannot afford to pay this price for milk. They cannot afford this price because of the cost of this wasteful and extravagant distribution system which accounts for the bulk of the increased cost. The minister of the department of consumer affairs should take this first step by establishing a board to look into these increases in cost, in order that the people will know who received the benefit of such increases.


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I shall reply briefly to the remarks of the hon. member. I know that on March 21 last, the hon. member put a
March 26. 1968	COMMONS
question to the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Turner) to which a reply was given, as shown on page 7883 of Hansard, but, obviously, the reply did not satisfy the hon. member.
I should like to point out to the hon. member that one would certainly err in believing that it is the duty of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to make a full inquiry each time the price of consumer goods goes up. If that is what she thinks, then she is mistaken as to the prime objectives of that department.
When she speaks of a dairy problem-milk is obviously essential to health, as everyone knows-she must recognize that the present government, in the last two years, has spent over $120 million in public funds, on the one hand, to encourage the dairy industry and help the farmers and, on the other hand, to lighten the burden of consumers generally by favouring a greater consumption of that essential health product.
On the other hand, when the hon. member claims that the minister does not seem to worry about fluctuations in prices, I must remind her of the speech she made on second reading of Bill No. C-190 when she stated that it was one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in the house. As announced this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), that bill will be studied again when the house reconvenes next April 23.
As far as price controls are concerned, I feel-and that was clearly established-that even if the federal government wanted to set up a price control board, that legislation would be challenged in court and would surely be found null and void.
I commend the hon. member for her interest in the matter of prices, but I wish to emphasize to her that she should take into account the causes which led to an increase in
DEBATES	8113
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion consumer prices: salary increases, federal and provincial tax increases, overall increases of services. Obviously, that situation does not rest with the federal government. I do not think the minister should intervene and set up an inquiry under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, for such a low increase as 2 cents per quart of milk in the metropolitan Toronto area.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.52 p.m.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
20c, 40c.

[Stage Direction]
5c, 20c, 21c, 30c, 34c, 36c, L45c, L52c, L53c.

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday. March 27, 1968