1968-10-02

INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister stated in the house that I had planned to make a statement to the house last week concerning the reorganization of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. However, since there were many statements made on motions on Friday and because of the death of Prime Minister Johnson on Thursday, I was unable to do so. I should now like to make the statement I had planned last week.
When Indian affairs merged with northern affairs to form the new Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in 1966 it was intended that some reorganization be undertaken to consolidate activities that were being carried out by the various branches of the new department. Two branches were providing education services, one to Indians and the other to Eskimos. The same situation prevailed in respect of welfare services, engineering services and other services which obviously could be carried out more efficiently and more effectively if they were amalgamated. Indeed, the consolidation of activities was one of the main purposes of the government reorganization.
Proposals to effect this consolidation had been under discussion with the Treasury Board for the past year, and recently received the board's approval. The new framework recasts the organizational pattern of the department from the old one of Indian affairs branch, northern administration branch, national and historic parks branch and Canadian wildlife service to a new pattern involving three distinct program areas; first, social affairs program; second, economic development program; third, conservation program.
The social affairs program will cover education, community development, welfare, social affairs, cultural affairs and Indian trust
administration. The economic program will cover major resource development in the Canadian north, industrial development for both Indians and Eskimos, land management as it applies to Indian reserves and wet-land acquisition. It will provide economic research and advice in these areas and will include the management of territorial resources and related government functions in the territories. The conservation program will include national parks, historic parks and sites and wildlife.
While this internal reorganization at headquarters involves a major regrouping of the previous programs and the branches and directorates responsible for them, the basic regional structure will not be altered although it will be strengthened to provide increased support for the department's economic and social programs. The need for an accelerated economic development program has been evident for a long time. The need for such an accelerated program to promote resource and industrial development on reserves has been emphasized by representatives of the Indian people, private individuals and groups on different occasions. The new structure of organization recognizes this need and will allow us to use our resources more flexibly and more effectively to meet this need and as well allow us to administer existing programs and programs which I will announce in the house at a future time. Also, as stated by the Prime Minister yesterday, it makes available to the Indian people the resources of the whole department rather than those provided in the past by the Indian affairs branch alone.
Mr. Speaker, I and the government are committed to consultations with the Indian people in respect of amendments to the Indian Act and in respect of major policy objectives. Since my department is held responsible for the development of programs to assist the Indian and Eskimo peoples I consider it of the utmost importance that the department be as effective as possible. I believe this reorganization will accomplish this. I have arranged to have a booklet explaining the reorganization sent to all members of the house, Indian representatives and the territorial governments. This should be received shortly.
Oclober 2, 1968
690	COMMONS DEBATES
Statement on Indian Affairs Reorganization Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I accept the sincerity of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), also the sincerity of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras). But surely it is not enough to say that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has decided on its own that these structural changes were of insufficient interest to require consultation. Such an appearance of bureaucratic indifference is bad enough at any time, but it is particularly unforgiveable when it is widely known that the attitude of officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, rightly or wrongly, already constitutes a cause of tension between the department and the people it is supposed to serve.
Nothing will be solved by administrative changes which deepen the division between the department and the Indian communities. This careless refusal by the government to consult with the Indian community, or to take steps to inform Indian spokesmen of the changes, has added another unnecessary complication. It was caused by the kind of casual approach to the responsibilities of government that is becoming all too familiar. Canada cannot afford more tension or more delays in assisting the Indian people to achieve equality and opportunity.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The official opposition fully approves of the special assignment of a minister without portfolio to help develop an effective Indian policy, and we very much regret any indication that the government is insincere in that assignment. One of the very unhappy consequences of this more recent insistence on secrecy by the government is that it has damaged the reputation and the effectiveness of the Minister without Portfolio. The fact that the government would fail to consult even him is bound to raise suspicions that his assignment is window dressing, his influence is nil, and that he is deliberately circumvented by the minister and officials of the department of Indian affairs.
This action has also served to undermine the appearance of co-operation and good faith the government sought to achieve when with great fanfare it created national and regional advisory committees of the Indian people, for exactly the purpose of consultation. The failure to consult these committees on this matter will confirm the fear that the committees were established as another empty gesture.

There are at least three issues here. One is the failure to consult. The second is the failure to inform the Indian people by making a deliberate point not to distribute this memorandum. Certainly there is no shortage of people to write press releases in the department of Indian affairs, and it was not budgetary restraint which kept this information from the Indian people. The third point is the content of the memorandum on reorganization itself. The minister has said the document does not concern policy in any substantive way. Let me quote from the foreword by the deputy minister of Indian affairs and northern development:
-the purpose being...to eliminate any difference in policies affecting the treatment of the Indian and Eskimo peoples."
That dedication is bound to cause concern. By statute and by treaty, commitments made to the Indian people do differ from those made to the Eskimo people. There are statutory and treaty differences which, on the face of this document and in the words of the deputy minister, the government proposes to eliminate. The word "eliminate" is a strong word, especially when it comes from a department of which the Indian people are already suspicious. The content of this document, the manner of its preparation and the refusal to put it into circulation are bound to increase suspicions and widen the gulf between the Indian peoples and the department created to serve them.
Yesterday it surprised us that the Prime Minister had no record of a request for a meeting with the Indian Brotherhood of Canada, which according to the telegram sent to me was requested at noon of the day before the question was raised in the house. The house has a right to expect advice as to whether the Prime Minister intends to act on that request and meet with representatives of the Indian brotherhood.
Second, the Prime Minister left questions unanswered concerning whether consultations occurred between the minister and the national and regional Indian advisory committees. There was an indication that the ministers would provide that information when they both returned to the house. I can only assume there has been no such consultation.
There is a very serious question as to why it is necessary to restructure the department now when we are told that the Indian Act is under substantial review. Furthermore, the Minister without Portfolio on television on
October 2, 1968	COMMONS
Sunday night made a serious suggestion that the reorganization ought to be postponed. I can only assume that he had his reasons. In light of his reservations and the great concern of the Indian communities, as well as the uncertainty generally about governmental policy concerning our Indian peoples, this reorganization should be reviewed immediately. There should be consultation with representatives of the Indian people. There has been consultation with the Treasury Board, but apparently with no one else. I should think there ought to be consultation also with the Minister without Portfolio.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, either this departmental reorganization is a matter of substance or it is not. If it is not a matter of substance, one must wonder why the minister and his colleagues induced the news media to give it such prominence. If it is a matter of substance, obviously the representatives af the Indian people should have been consulted, particularly in view of the pledge and commitment which this government gave to consult the Indian people. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that they should have been consulted.
It makes nonsense of the efforts of the Minister without Portfolio, who has been charged with the responsibility of travelling this country from coast to coast to meet with the Indian people in their localities to get their views and solicit their ideas, if as we understand there is to be a fundamental reorganization in the department without the slightest bit of consultation with representatives of the Indian people. There is no excuse for this.
I notice in the written statement of the minister that the discussion with regard to consolidation and reorganization within the department have now been going on in the department for a whole year. Surely there was ample time to consult the representatives of the different Indian bands across the country. I notice, too, that the minister made reference to what he wants us to accept as fact, namely that because this government recognizes that there is a need for an accelerated economic development program for Indian reserves and for Indian people, it was felt there was some urgency in proceeding with the reorganization of the department.
I am glad to see the government admits there is need for an accelerated economic development program for Indian reserves, but precisely because economic development
DEBATES	691
Statement on Indian Affairs Reorganization on reserves is a matter that is so vital and so directly concerns the Indian people one would think that at least their views would have been solicited as to the form the department's organization would take with respect to programs of economic development.
I cannot take my place, Mr. Speaker, without making reference to a plea the minister makes in the concluding paragraph of his statement. He says he must have the freedom necessary to organize the department in the manner necessary to carry out its responsibilities in the most effective way possible. That sounds to me a pretty lame sort of excuse for not consulting the Indian people with regard to this matter. The minister says he must have freedom to manoeuvre and to organize his department. We all recognize that there is need for administrative discretionary power to be exercised by the minister and his officials. We also know, however, that the plea for more freedom for those who exercise power is one that has been raised by arbitrary rulers over the centuries. I am not overstating or exaggerating the situation when I say that the plea of the minister that he must have more freedom to reorganize and set up the operations of the department is in itself not good enough.
I conclude by saying that since the government have made the commitment and the pledge, and given it so much publicity, to the effect that they intend to consult the Indian population of this country, they should honour that commitment and pledge right after having made it. So I suggest that the government start doing that, and they can begin by having the two ministers of the crown, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister without Portfolio consult each other. I think that would be a good start.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. Real Caouetie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we listened carefully to the announcement made by the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). I thank him for having sent me a copy of his statement in proper form and in English, with the words "traduction"- "translation" stamped on it. It seems to me that it would have been simpler to send me the original rather than have it translated and sent to my office. The hon. minister is making a sign to show that he does not even know what is going on in his office.
October 2, 1968
692	COMMONS
Statement on Indian Affairs Reorganization


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I should have liked to have had the French version myself; however, the translation was not ready and I had to read my statement in English. I would have preferred to read it in French.


David Réal Caouette: I am committed and the government is committed to consultations with the Indian people in respect to amendments to the Indian Act and in respect to major policy objectives.

Mr. Speaker, judging by some letters addressed to me by Indians, I wonder what the consultations held until now have been like. Is an Indian from Montreal or Quebec the only one who has the right to be consulted by the government to establish the policy of the Canadian government with regard to the Indians and the Eskimos? We get complaints to the effect that only a few are consulted and that the Indian or Eskimo people as a whole are completely unaware of those meetings and discussions, and to such an extent that I ask myself quite honestly if the funds allocated to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are not used mainly to pay salaries to white people, officials of the federal government, to try to lull some Indian or Eskimo chiefs to the disadvantage of the Eskimo and Indian people of Canada.
It seems to me that it is time to act, and not in back rooms, not as a result of decisions taken without the knowledge of parliament, and especially the Indians who are demanding results.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the statement will be useful and will not have disastrous results


but good consequences, so that finally consultations will really be held between the population, between the various Indian and Eskimo organizations and the government authorities in order to find a solution to that problem and give justice to those people, as they have a right to expect.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am now in a position to make the statement concerning Indian health services that I promised the house a week ago on Monday.
Early this year as part of the government's drive to halt inflation a general paring was made through all departments. Indian health services were involved in this as well. In an effort to maintain current standards and services within the over-all framework of government fiscal policy, directives were sent out which put forward fields of activity which could be cut back without endangering the over-all health of the Indian and Eskimo communities.
There was a good deal of protest over this from those who felt that we should not attempt in any way to economize where our native Canadians were concerned. Accordingly my predecessor made a clarifying statement to the house on March 26-


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: To
whom was it clear?


John Carr Munro: -pledging that services would be maintained at their present level, and that we would make sure no individual suffers in the process of bringing spending into line. In accordance with this declaration a new set of directives were sent out to all field officers concerning these principles.
In reply to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) I might mention that the directive dated March 6, to which he specifically referred last Monday, was sent by the director of the Manitoba zone to the Indian bands in that province only. After my predecessor's remarks to the house a further correcting directive for Manitoba was sent during the latter part of April confirming the current level of services to individuals, as it was for the rest of Canada.
Replying to the question of a lack of federal-provincial consultation as implied by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson),
October 2, 1968

which was prompted by the remarks of the Ontario health minister, Dr. Dymond, I should like to state that the held officers of my department, Drs. Thompson in British Columbia, Rath in the prairies, Butler in Ontario, Savoie in Quebec, and Hirtle in the Atlantic provinces, are in regular informal consultation with provincial deputy ministers.
In addition our Ottawa based officials have been in contact with their provincial counterparts at the last dominion council of health, at meetings of the advisory council on hospital insurance and during the general negotiations on medicare. Furthermore, the director of Indian health has been in special consultation at various times in the recent past with the provincial health departments in Saskatchewan, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I myself, since assuming this portfolio, have discussed the field of Indian health with elected representatives of the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
To be more specific about the matter raised by the hon. member, Dr. Dymond objected to a directive dated July 19 sent by our Ontario regional director, which in effect claimed provincial discrimination against reserve Indians on the question of OMSIP. The fact is that an Indian on a reserve who earns little or no taxable income is not eligible for a free or partly subsidized OMSIP certificate whereas another citizen in this indigent status, including an Indian not on a reservation, is entitled to a free or partially subsidized OMSIP card.
It is our hope for the future that the provinces extend health and medical services to reservation Indians on the same basis as they are extended to other citizens, including the same basis for payment. We feel that Indians should be full and equal citizens of the province in which they reside, and to further this intent we expect to be discussing the whole area of Indian health with the provincial health ministers before and during a federal-provincial health conference tentatively scheduled for the end of October. Pending new arrangements, it is our firm resolve to keep up our present level of services and improve them where necessary to make sure that no Indian is inadequately treated for personal health problems.
There remain two further matters mentioned in Friday's question period to clear up. First, on doctors' fees for treating indigent Indians under federal jurisdiction, I would like to say that doctors receive about 75 per cent of the provincial fee schedule in such
Statement on Indian Health Services cases, or approximately the same rate paid by either the respective municipality or province for treating non-Indians at public expense. Where the rate differs from this principle, other arrangements are made to pick up overhead costs, such as provision of clinical space.
On the second point raised by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, that of drugs alleged to be dispensed to Indians by lay persons, I should like to say that this program in the provinces is an extension of a program long under way in our northern regions known as the lay dispenser program, which has been in effect there for over 40 years. The persons involved, after a training program at Sioux Lookout, are sent throughout the area mentioned in a recent press release to places either too small or too mobile for a permanent nursing station. The dispensers are trained to give first aid and may dispense simple drugs only on the directions of the nurses in the area with whom they get in contact by telephone to have prescriptions given. If the case is serious the nurse has the patient sent in to the nearest nursing station.
The ranks of lay dispensers are the best we can find and include licensed practical nurses, teachers, religious sisters, Indian women and ministers' wives whom we consider qualified. My department knows of no case of injury to health caused by treatment given by these people. In fact the program has been of tangible benefit to the people involved and in many cases has hastened recovery. If the hon. member knows of any specific instances where this program has resulted in any damage to any Indian's health, we will be pleased to review them. It is our information that the person who made these charges has since stated that he was not saying any deaths had resulted, but only that they theoretically might occur. As it stands, the dispensers provide better emergency medical services than are available to many other small communities in Canada.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I and the officials of my department are aware that, like any other service, there is a need for periodic review and improvement, and that Indian and northern health services is no exception. We are now conducting that review with a view to making improvements in both services, and to this end are now and have been conducting consultations with provincial authorities and, more importantly, with the heads of the Indian organizations themselves.
October 2, 1968

Statement on Indian Health Services


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the words of the minister in the statement he has just made will do little if anything to quell the great fears and tremendous concern that our Indian people have in relation to what this government are planning to do to the health services they have hitherto been providing to our Indian people. This great concern and the fears of the Indian people were, of course, generated by a directive that was put out last March 6 and to which the minister has just now referred. This directive was sent out to the health zone people in the province of Manitoba, and also to the chiefs and councillors of all Indian bands.
At the time questions were asked in the house it was our understanding that the then minister would put out a clarifying directive. To the best of my knowledge from contacting the chiefs on some 26 Indian reservations in the constituency of Churchill, Mr. Speaker, to this day no clarifying directive was ever sent to them. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has said that a directive did go out. It went out, as I understand it, merely to department officials. We have told the Indian people, as we had been advised by the minister, that this new directive would be sent to them and would be part of the consultation with the government. We on this side of the house have always maintained that no planning of this nature should be done without adequate consultation with the Indian people.
The minister has stated that on several occasions there has been some consultation. He referred to the question raised in the statement by the minister of health of the province of Ontario. He forgets though, Mr. Speaker, that the minister of health of the province of Ontario made a categorical statement that the federal government is trying to unload its traditional responsibilities for health care of the Indians and Eskimos on to the provinces without discussion or consultation.
We say, Mr. Speaker, that consultation must be had, and that it must be prior consultation. We also say there should be continuing consultation among the ministers who are concerned. It was quite clear to us on this side of the house when we raised this question last March that the then minister of Indian affairs and northern development knew nothing of the plans of the Department of National Health and Welfare to curtail certain Indian health services. So when the government across the way talks about consultation,


Mr. Speaker, I suggest that they consult among themselves where this is necessary.
The minister also pointed out in regard to doctors' fees that the doctors were receiving about 75 per cent of their scheduled fees for the services they provide to the Indian people. From what we have been able to learn, Mr. Speaker, we understand that the doctors are receiving only approximately 50 per cent. I am wondering whether this is not just another indication of the feeling of this government that our Indian people are second class citizens.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, there must be consultation. The government has said in announcing these plans that they had been in the making for a long time. I wonder just how much time the government intends to spend consulting the Indian people. When you plan these things in a bureaucratic fashion for over a period of a year or two or even more you cannot expect just to meet briefly with the Indian people, ask them to assess the matter and then come up with a decision in quick order.
The minister also mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that consultation has gone on with the provinces, and I covered that point when I referred to the statement of Dr. Dymond. There may have been some talks, but from what we can find out from the provinces no one knows just who is going to pay for these services if they are shunted off as a responsibility of the provinces.
These are matters, Mr. Speaker, about which this house should know. If the provinces are going to be asked to handle these matters, and after consultation they agree to do so, then this house should know who is going to pay the cost. We should know whether the federal government is going to continue its financial responsibility. However, as I say, when dealing with matters that deviate from or abrogate treaties with our Indian people, there must be consultation. In regard to treaties Nos. 1 and 6 which deal with medical services, our Indians are certainly entitled to consultation because such services have always been accepted by them as a treaty right.
I should like to give a strictly personal opinion, Mr. Speaker, without in any way casting any reflection on language questions that are being raised in Canada at this particular time. I think we have here a pretty sad state of affairs, particularly when we are trying to get national unity. At a time when
October 2, 1968

one language group is making strong submissions to have its language not only preserved but expanded, with its protection written right into our constitution, this government is abrogating the rights of the Indian people without even consulting them. I think this is a question at which Canadians should take a good look.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will carry on a series of consultations not only with the provincial authorities but with the Indian people themselves. They should be given time to look these questions over. The government has already deprived the Indian people of many of the hunting rights they were given under treaty. I hope the government is not now arbitrarily planning to tell the Indian people that somebody else other than the federal government is going to have to look after their medical services.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) referred to the fears and concern of our Indian people which, he said, will not be allayed by the statement the Minister of National Health and Welfare has just made. I should like to add that not only are the Indian people themselves concerned about their medical services and medical treatment, but that Canadians generally are concerned about this question and are most anxious that we do the best we can in the matter of health services for our native people.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has again tried to assure us today, as he has on previous occasions and as his predecessor tried to do, that the current level of health services is being maintained. I have followed these discussions pretty closely and have never detected any attempt on the part of the present or former minister to tell us what is meant by that statement. When we are told that the current level of services is to be maintained does that mean the current level in dollar terms, the current level in the total number of doctors and others at work in the face of increasing needs, the current level of services actually being made available to our individual Indians and others in our northern areas? That definitely ought to be made clear. Not only do we feel there should be an absolute guarantee as to these services; not only do we feel that the full level of

Statement on Indian Health Services services to our people ought to be maintained; we feel that that level ought to be improved.
When we discussed this matter last March many statistics were put on the record showing the wide gap existing between health services being made available to the Canadian population generally and the health services made available to our Indian and northern peoples. We spoke about the gap in service standards, about differences in mortality rates and so on.
We feel it is not good enough for the government to maintain the level of services which our Indian people were getting. We are ashamed of the inadequacy of that level. The whole point of the protest we made last March and the whole point of the debate at that time was that our Indians cannot get by with the sort of health service that is at present being provided. In other words, we ought to be improving the health services we make available to our northern and Indian peoples.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Also, I support the plea which has been made by my hon. friend from Churchill who said that in this area, as in all aspects of our relations with our Indian people, there ought to be consultation with them. I trust that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister without Portfolio have heard the message and understand that there should be consultation generally with respect to these matter. I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that these remarks apply in his case also.
One statement by the minister gave me particular cause for concern, a concern I have felt many times when hearing members on the government front benches speak. He expressed the hope that the provinces would make their adjustments so that Indians within the provinces would obtain the same services other Canadians in the provinces obtain. It seems to me that here again we are calling on the individuals concerned to wait until something is developed. It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, to say to our Indian peoples "Well, if we do not do something, the provinces will." The provinces on the other hand may say "No, no. It is up to the federal government to do something." In the meantime our native peoples are not enjoying the health care and services they need. Certainly the level of those services ought not to be at
October 2, 1968

Statement on Indian Health Services the level set last spring, but at a much higher and better level.
I am sure that we in this house who speak about this issue are supported by Canadians generally from coast to coast when we say we want a square deal in terms of health services for all our Indian and nothern peoples.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think hon. members might be reminded of the provisions of our standing orders at the present time.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, like all the others who already spoke on that question, we agree on the necessity of self determination for Indians and Eskimos, but I would like to emphasize one point.
The government intends to gradually shift its responsibilities for Indians onto the provinces, as is the case for Quebec, for instance, which has been insisting for some years on assuming the whole responsibility for Indians and Eskimos on its territory. It is obvious that, before a decision is taken, agreements should be prepared in conjunction with provincial governments, agreements which could be negotiated afterwards with the people concerned, the Indians and the Eskimos.
As far as the Eskimos in northern Quebec are concerned, I can speak with full knowledge of the facts, as I have an Eskimo sister-in-law. I have heard a lot about the problems of the Eskimos and, frankly, I believe that the policy established for years has encouraged a certain decay. From now on any policy in that regard should have as its essential object to safeguard the original culture and mentality of the people who will thus greatly enrich the whole country.



WATER RESOURCES


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I wish at this time to table the second interim report of the Canadian-United States International Joint Commission on the pollution of lake Erie, lake Ontario and the international section of the St. Lawrence river.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if hon. members wish me to comment briefly on the matter of ministerial statements. I do not wish to lecture hon. members in any way, but I refer hon. members to the provisions of standing order 52 which says, in part, that ministerial statements should be limited to facts which it is deemed necessary to make known to the house, and should not be designed to provoke debate at this stage; also that replies by spokesmen on behalf of parties in opposition should be brief.
I realize it is easy to provoke debate; at the same time brevity of speech is a relative concept in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I feel that some of the statements or comments which have just been made did not conform entirely with the spirit of standing order 52. I submit that hon. members might keep these comments in mind on other occasions.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MacRae: 1.	What has been the total cost to July 31, 1968 of the National Centre for the Performing Arts?
2.	What is the estimated final cost of this project?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. $35,691,287.
2.	Theatre buildings, $38,922,000; parking garage, $3,606,000; equipment and furnishing, $3,898,000; total, $46,426,000.


MARRIED QUARTERS FOR ARMED FORCES
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence issued directives to all, or any of the residents in Service Married Quarters, regarding the length of time they are permitted to hold such accommodations and, if so (a) when was this order issued, by whom and under what policy would such action be taken (b) is the Department or any other branch of government now giving consideration to the location of adequate alternative housing, particularly for those families with large numbers of children (c) to how many people and at what Canadian Force Bases have such notices been circulated?
2.	Is active consideration being given now to expanding the facilities now available for the serving Forces?
October 2, 1968


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes, in May 1967, a Canadian Forces administrative order was issued to all formations on the authority of the chief of defence staff, which permits the officer commanding a command to limit married quarters' continuous occupancy to five years, or such longer period as he considers appropriate. Prior to May 1967, an identical order was in effect for the R.C.N. but not for the army and R.C.A.F. The authority to limit married quarters' occupancy was introduced so that all members of the forces should be given an equal opportunity of sharing the limited number available.
This order has been invoked by the officer commanding maritime command in regard to married quarters at CFB Halifax and Shearwater.
A survey of the 1922 married quarters administered by CFB Halifax revealed that 69 service personnel have occupied married quarters for periods ranging from nine to sixteen years.
In view of the long waiting list, the officer commanding maritime command ruled, in accordance with the CFAO, that personnel who have occupied married quarters continuously for ten or more years must vacate so that others may benefit from available housing at reasonable rent. Consequently on August 1, 1968, the 69 service members mentioned above were given one year's notice to
Questions
vacate. To date none of these have requested assistance in finding alternate accommodation. However, each case is being dealt with on its own merit and it is not anticipated that any undue hardship will result.
At CFB Shearwater, the survey revealed that occupancy of the 301 married quarters available varied considerably depending upon rank, size of family and other circumstances.
However, in accordance with the directive issued by the officer commanding maritime command some of those who received notice under the previous R.C.N. order have had it rescinded, e.g., one family with five children, although having more than ten years' occupancy, has been granted an additional year of tenure because they were unable to locate housing and the man was posted to sea duty. Ten families were given one year's notice on August 1, 1968. To date none have requested assistance.
2.	Yes, every effort is made to improve the housing situation throughout the forces, within the limitations of the defence budget.


FISH CATCH, LITTLE HARBOUR, N.S.
Mr. Forresiall: At Little Harbour, Nova Scotia, what constituted the total catch by species and what was the total under each, in terms of pounds and dollars, in each of the past five years?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minisier of Fisheries):: 


LANDINGS AND LANDED VALUE 1963-67-LITTLE HARBOUR, HALIFAX COUNTY, N. S.
[Stage Direction]
1963	1964	1965	1966	1967'000 lbs. $	'000 lbs. $	'000 lbs. *	'000 lbs. $	'000 lbs. $Cod	
73	2,869	114	4,630	130	5,886	54	2,701	90	4,578Pollock	
137	3,964	2	72	17	522	14	420	4	118Herring	
237	3,060	88	1,399	36	820	140	2,480	44	703Mackerel	
155	5,076	158	6,097	303	10,527	304	12,758	503	22,779Salmon	
1	919	2	967	3	1,722	3	2,101	6	3,342Lobster	
156	79,205	67	38,936	62	39,760	28	17,439	32	24,412Other	
12	971	40	1,231	2	259	40	1,464	20	873Total	
771 96,124	471 54,332	553 59,496	583 39,363	699 56,805

Mr. McIntosh: 1.	What is the total extent of Canadian aid to Tanzania for the calendar year 1968?
2.	Of the total amount, what proportion, in dollars, is provided under external aid and what proportion under military appropriations of National Defence?
3.	What are the terms of the recent five year agreement signed between Canada and Tanzania for development planning?
4.	What is the number of Canadian personnel, Defence and non-Defence stationed in Tanzania at the present time and to what departments of the Canadian Government are they responsible?

October 2, 1968
Questions


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1.
1967-68	1968-69
(Disbursed) (Estimated)

Grant aid	1,916,000	2 millionDevelopment loans	1,777,000	1 millionMilitary assistance	2,760,761	2,697,000Total	6,453,761 5,697,000
Note: As aid programs are funded on the basis of the Canadian fiscal year, the figures cited above are for the fiscal years 1967-68 and 1968-69.
2. In the fiscal year 1967-68, the total of $3,686,000 economic assistance was provided from external aid office appropriations. This includes the grant aid and development loan components of our assistance to Tanzania. The military assistance funds are a charge on the appropriations of the Department of External Affairs.
3.	The external aid office has signed an agreement with the Tanzanian authorities establishing the terms of reference of a five year technical assistance project in the field of development planning. Under the terms of this project agreement a four man team of Canadian experts will be provided to assist the ministry of economic affairs and development planning in Tanzania in analyzing and evaluating as to priority, development projects proposed by various Tanzanian ministries. The team will assist in completing Tanzania's next five year development plan.
The team will be recruited and administered on behalf of the external aid office by the University of Toronto; the university will also provide research facilities to assist the team in its work. The project will be directed by Dr. T. Easterbrook, chairman of the department of political economy at the University of Toronto, assisted by Professor Nowlan of the same department. Both have extensive experience in Tanzania.
4.	Canadian personnel in Tanzania
No. of personnel
(A)	Canadian high commission	14
(B)	Canadian armed forces
training team	89
(C)	External aid office
contract employees	72

(A)	The personnel of the Canadian high commission report to the high commissioner and through him to the Department of External Affairs.
(B)	The commander of the team reports to the Canadian government through the Canadian high commissioner in Tanzania.
(C)	The employees on contract to the external aid office are subject to the term of their contracts, which can vary from individual to individual.


SNOW REMOVAL, MONTREAL ORDNANCE DEPOT
Mr. Ricard: During the winter of 1967-68, to whom was the contract awarded for snow removal at the Montreal Ordnance and what was the price?


Hon. Don Jamieson (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, the contract for snow removal at the Montreal ordnance depot was awarded to Panzini Limitee, 2475 Jette street, Montreal, Quebec. The cost was $19,822.


ASSISTANCE ACT PAYMENTS TO NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. McGrath: What is the total amount of money paid to the Province of Newfoundland by the federal government under the Canada Assistance Act for the fiscal years 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68?


John Carr Munro: Attached is a table showing the federal payments to the province of Newfoundland authorized under the Canada Assistance Plan for the fiscal year 1967-68 and under the public assistance programs (unemployment assistance, old age assistance, blind persons allowances and disabled persons allowances) for the fiscal years 1963-64 to 1967-68 inclusive.
Provision is made under the Canada Assistance Plan legislation for the above mentioned programs to be continued as separate programs or, at the option of the provinces, to be integrated into a general assistance program under the Canada Assistance Plan.
October 2. 1968

Questions


FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO THE PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND FISCAL YEARS 1963-1964 TO 1967-1968
[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Year	Unemploy- ment Assistance	Old age Assistance	Blind persons Allowances	Disabled persons Allowances	Canada Assistance Plan	Totals	$	*	$	$	$1963-1964	.. 4,512,494	1,945,021	246,924	587,092	-	7,291,5311964-1965	.. 4,704,419	2,220,908	300,474	750,279	-	7,976,0801965-1966	.. 4,478,046	2,121,068	304,203	804,197	-	7,707,5141966-1967	.. 9,947,909	1,675,756	292,223	833,340	-	12,749,2281967-1968	.. -	985,356	285,162	465,500	17,901,873	19,637,891LEASES IN BANFF	AND JASPER	PARKS	party on a	first come,	first served basis for
Mr. Paproski: 1.	What is the present federal government policy regarding the awarding of leases to hotel and motel operators in (a) Jasper National Park (b) Banff National Park?
2.	What are the financial conditions precedent to the awarding of hotel and motel operators' leases in the above-mentioned parks?
3.	What is the present period of leases?
4.	What is the procedure as to calling tenders?
5.	To what parties, groups or individuals have leases been awarded in each of the above parks in the last five years?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. In Banff and Jasper national parks public calls for tenders are made when new park lands are being offered for hotel and motel development by private enterprise. The tenderer making the most acceptable proposal is awarded a commercial lease. Proposals are assessed on the basis of the proposed annual ground rental rate and/or proposed concession fee based on a percentage of gross annual receipts from all sales and services; compatibility of architectural and landscaping designs to the motif of the area; number of units of accommodation to be developed; schedule of development to provide the number of units of accommodation proposed for the site; quality of service and rates to be charged to the public; quality of furnishings and equipment to be provided; demonstrated ability to finance, manage and operate the concession at the amount tendered.
If no acceptable proposals are received, or if the department is unable to negotiate acceptable terms with tenderers, the department may then negotiate with any interested
the opportunity to develop the land. In such cases the requirements of the tender call are used as the basis for negotiation.
2.	Those tendering on visitor accommodation concessions must make a deposit in the form of an acceptable cheque, money order or draft made payable to the Receiver General of Canada in the amount specified in the call for tenders. Tenderers must show proof of financial capability to construct, equip, and operate the facilities.
3.	Commercial leases are for periods of up to 42 years.
4.	The department's requirements are defined and terms and conditions established. Then there is a public call for tenders by posting of notices in public buildings and by placing of advertisements in the major newspapers published within the region. Also, copies of the notice are sent to parties who have indicated an interest in such a development.
5.	Leases for hotel or motel facilities have been awarded to the following parties between September, 1963 and September, 1968: (a) Jasper National Park; Jas-Day Investments Ltd; Tonquin Valley Motel Ltd. (b) Banff National Park; Mountaineer Motel Company Limited.


CLOCK REPAIR, DARTMOUTH FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How long has it been since the clock on top of the Dartmouth Federal Building ceased to run?
2.	Is it to be repaired and, if so, when and at what cost?
3.	Why has there been a delay in repairing it?

Oclober 2, 1968
Questions
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public
Works): 1. Three years.
2.	No.
3.	Excessive cost of repairs.


INDIAN ADVISORY BOARD
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	For each year, since it was established, how many times has the National Indian Advisory Board met and what was the place, purpose and date of each meeting?
2.	Who are the members of the National Indian Advisory Board?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Since it was established, the National Indian Advisory Board met as follows: (a) in Ottawa, January 10 to 12, 1966. This meeting was held for the purpose of describing to the board the programs and priorities of the Indian affairs branch, (b) in Ottawa, September 19 to 23, 1966. The main purpose of this meeting was to discuss the Indian Act. (c) in Winnipeg, December 5 to 9, 1966. The main purpose of this meeting was to discuss the Indian Act.
(d)	in Ottawa, May 1 to 5, 1967. This meeting was for the purpose of holding discussions on several topics including long term objectives in Indian affairs, the Migratory Birds Convention Act and consultation and communication.
(e)	in Ottawa, August 2 to 4, 1967. The purpose of this meeting was to hold discussions on several topics including the role of the regional Indian advisory councils and the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
2. The members of the National Indian Advisory Board, as of the last meeting, August 2 to 4, 1967, were as follows: Maritimes: Mr. Wallace Labillois; Quebec: Mr. James Gaspe, Mr. Aurelien Gill; Ontario:	Mr. Arthur
Anderson, Jr., Mr. Monroe Linklater, Mr. Wilmer Nadjiwon, Mr. Ralph Bruyere; Manitoba: Mr. A. E. Thompson, Mr. Cornelius Bignell; Saskatchewan: Mr. Walter Deiter, Mr. Ernest Mike; Alberta:	Mr. Maurice
McDougall, Mr. Mike Oka; B.C. and Yukon: Mr. George Manuel, Mr. Phillip Paul, Mr. Kenneth Harris, Mrs. Clara Tizya; District of Mackenzie: Mrs. Agnes Casaway.


MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Will future heads of the Medical Research Council continue to report directly to a Minister of the Crown or to the Deputy Minister of National Health and Welfare?

2.	Will the Council and its advisory panels continue to be the sole authority over award of money granted by Parliament for Medical research?
3.	Will the composition of the Council and its assessment committees continue to be drawn mostly from senior men and women in university and scientific institutions?


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The president of the Medical Research Council reports directly to a minister of the Crown, in this case to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
2.	The appropriation of the credits voted by parliament for the outside research program of the Medical Research Council will continue to come under the jurisdiction of the Council.
3.	The members of the Medical Research Council and its assessment committees will continue to be chosen among the scientists in our universities and scientific institutions.


EXPERIMENTAL USE OF DRUGS TO PREVENT HEART ATTACKS
Mr. McCleave: Will the government make any financial contribution to the proposed experiments, dealing with possible use of potassium drugs to prevent heart attacks, to be carried out by Dr. Hans Selye of the Institute of Experimental Medicine and Surgery at the University of Montreal?


John Carr Munro: In so far as the Medical Research Council is concerned, Dr. Selye has made no application for funds for the support of this phase of his research although he does receive substantial support for his research in the field of calciphylaxis and aging.


CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN U.S. TRAINING PROGRAMS
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	Has the Minister or any of his military advisors decided against further participation by Canadian Service personnel in a number of American military training programs, whether relatively free or at a stated price?
2.	Specifically what is the degree of future Canadian participation in such training programs as Course 1181 at Fort Bliss, Texas, a missile guidance training program, in which Canada is not now represented?
October 2, 1968

3.	Has the retrenchment in participation in U.S. based training programs resulted in a cut back in the free flow of information to Canadian forces personnel in the relative sectors of military training and equipment?
Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National
Defence): 1. No. Canadian Forces personnel participated in United States military training programs only when similar training is unavailable within Canadian resources. The extent of this training is governed by the availability of funds to cover tuition fees, travel and temporary duty expenses. There has been no other reason to limit participation provided a valid training requirement is established.
2.	Attendance at various courses outside of Canada are reviewed annually to determine their relative importance and priority. Two Canadian Forces officers have just completed the guided missile systems officer course 4F-1181 at Fort Bliss, Texas. No candidates are planned for the next course. Should this course be considered necessary in the future it will be included again in the annual review of training programs.
3.	No. Canadian defence liaison staff, Washington, and the exchange and liaison program provide excellent channels of communication for relevant training information.


TRANSPORT TANKER AIRCRAFT
Mr, Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	Has any progress been made since November 1967 in formulating a firm proposal for the procurement of a number of transport tanker aircraft for refuelling use with the CF-5 in view of the fact that any C-141 aircraft were not obtainable?
2.	Is there now under study a firm proposal to obtain K-135 aircraft with a speedier and more powerful power plant more suitable to Canada's stated requirements and, if so, what are the details of the proposal-viz: number of aircraft, cost thereof, delivery dates, etc.?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Studies are still in progress and various options are being considered.
2. The KC-135 aircraft is out of production.
PENSION APPEAL BOARDS, LOTBINI^RE CONSTITUENCY


Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many commissioners are there on the Canadian Pension Commission?
2.	Are there any appeal boards located in the federal constituency of Lotbiniere?
Questions
3.	If so (a) in what cities are they located (b) what is the address of each (c) what is the telephone number (d) what is the name of the person in charge of each?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. 16.
2.	No.
3.	All members of the Canadian Pension Commission, including those who sit on appeal boards, are located in Ottawa. The three man appeal boards of the commission travel from Ottawa to centres across Canada hearing appeals.


SECOND NATIONAL PARK, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Southam: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to establish a second national park in the province of Saskatchewan this year?
2.	If so, where will it be located and when will the development commence?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The
government has no plans for establishing a second national park in the province of Saskatchewan this year.
2. N/A.


INCREASE IN FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Mr. Gauthier: Has the government considered increasing family allowances relative the cost of living and, if so, when would such a policy be initiated?


John Carr Munro: As this is a matter of government policy any proposed legislation would be announced by the government at the appropriate time.


PROTESTS AGAINST BREAD PRICE INCREASE
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs received any protests over the two cent per loaf increase announced by two major bakeries in Western Canada recently?
2.	What action has the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs taken to deal with this inflationary increase in the price of "the staff of life"?
3.	Does the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs intend to investigate the loss leader tactics employed in the sale of bread in the light of this recent price increase?

October 2, 1968
Orders for Returns


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Yes.
2.	It is the policy of the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act to scrutinize all significant price movements which come to his attention for the purpose of considering whether they reflect a breach of the act and he will take any action that may be required under the act.
3.	The Combines Investigation Act does not make the use of loss leader tactics, as such, an offence. However, section 33A of the act does prohibit certain forms of predatory pricing. The director of investigation and research under the act will continue to keep the situation under review and will take any action that may be required under the act.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Forreslall: 1.	In descending order of importance, which are the top 200 senior military appointments within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	Of these 200 posts (a) how many are restricted to officers of a particular element of the Service (b) how many are restricted to aircrew (c) how many are restricted to Technical Officers (d) to Engineers (e) to any other list/branch (itemize) (f) how many are open by competition to officers of all three elements of the Service (g) how many require operational (Aircrew) experience as a prerequisite?
3.	How many of the present incumbents in these 200 positions have engineering or science degrees, are Pilots, Radio Navigators, Technical Officers, and Engineers respectively?
4.	How many of the 200 positions during the past 5 years were held in each element of the Service, by officers who were Pilots, Radio Navigators, Technical Officers and Engineers?
5.	Of the top 200 military posts held by the air element of the Service, what was the list/ branch specialty of each of the last 4 incumbents for each position?
6.	For each month since June, 1966, how many officers in each element of the Service, have been released under QR&O Table Art. 15.01 Item 4(a), 4(b), 4(c) and Item 5(a), 5(b), 5(c) who were Technical Officers possessing Engineering degrees, Technical Officers other than those in categories (a), and (b), Pilots and Aircrew Officers other than Pilots, Dentists and Doctors?
7.	For each month since June 1966, how many officers have been recruited into each element of the Service as Tech/Tel Officers, Technical Officers, Pilots, Aircrew other than Pilots, Dentists and Doctors?
8.	How many Technical Officers as of January 1, 1968, are serving in each of the land, sea and air
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
elements of the Service at the rank of Colonel and above, Lieutenant-Colonel, Major and Captain and below?
9.	How many officers, as of January 1, 1968, in each element of the Service serving in the ranks of Colonel and above, Lieutenant-Colonel, Major and Captain and below respectively are Tech/Tel Officers, Tech/AE Officers, Tech/Arm Officers, Technical Officers in categories other than (a), (b) and (c), Pilots, Radio Navigators, Aircrew other than (e) and (f), Medical Officers, Legal Officers and Chaplains?
10.	How many officers, as of January 1, 1968, are there in the Technical and Aircrew categories possessing engineering and/or science degrees?
Return tabled.


REGIONAL INDIAN ADVISORY COUNCILS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	For each year since they were established, how many times have the Regional Indian Advisory Councils met and what was the place, purpose and date of each meeting?
2.	Who are the members of each of the Regional Indian Advisory Councils?
Return tabled.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND, LOTBINliRE CONSTITUENCY

Question No. 160-Mr. Fortin:
1.	What was the total amount of contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund by citizens of the federal constituency of Lotbinifere during 1965-66-67-68?
2.	What was the employers' share?
3.	What was the workers' share?
4.	What was the government's share?
5.	What amount was paid in benefits from the
Unemployment Insurance Fund during 1965-66-6768	(a) for all of Canada (b) for each of the
provinces (c) for the federal constituency of Lotbinicre?
6.	How many claimants in each of the provinces and in the federal constituency of Lotbiniere received these benefits?
Return tabled.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: The notices of motions Nos. 6 and 13 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and the consent of the relevant government authorities.
Would Your Honour be kind enough to call notice of motion No. 10.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.
October 2, 1968

NAICAM, SASK., MILITARY INSTALLATIONS Motion No. 6-Mr. Burton:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all agreements between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America with respect to the location of military installations or military training installations a Naicam, Saskachewan and/or Broadview, Saskatchewan.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
CANADIAN FORCES BASE, RIVERS, MAN. Motion No. 13-Mr. Stewart (Marquette):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all letters and other communications received by the Government of Canada since July 1st, 1968, with respect to the Canadian Forces Base at Rivers, Manitoba, and the replies thereto.
Motion agreed to.
ASSISTANCE TO MAPLE PRODUCTS PRODUCERS Motion No. 10-Mr. Fortin:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the Minister of Agriculture of Canada and the Minister of Agriculture of the Province of Quebec since January 1, 1965, relating to the request for assistance to the producers of maple sugar and syrup.
Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this motion I am advised by my departmental officials that there is no such correspondence on record. I would therefore ask the hon. member if he would be agreeable to having this motion withdrawn, since it would be a nil return.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion withdrawn?


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, since there is no document whatsoever in this case, I willingly advise the minister that this notice of motion can be withdrawn.

Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, who I am delighted to see in the house 29180-451
Inquiries of the Ministry apparently unbruised after returning from hostile territory. Could the hon. gentleman say whether the Minister of Finance was speaking for the government of Canada when he specifically endorsed Robert McNamara's plan to give first preference for world bank loans to countries which are willing to bring in programs of population control; and will the Acting Prime Minister say whether the Minister of Finance was stating the official policy of the government of Canada and of the Department of External Affairs?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to see or read what the Minister of Finance said, but certainly he is there representing the government of Canada and in the statements he would make in respect to those matters under his jurisdiction, including financial matters of various sorts, he would be speaking on behalf of the government of Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: For clarification, Mr. Speaker, then can we assume that this was an authorized statement?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would not want to comment specifically without having a chance to see it, but I am sure the Minister of Finance, who is a most responsible and alerted minister, would not say anything that was not completely in accordance with government policy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of this being the apparent policy of the government of Canada with regard to world bank loans, could the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether the government intends to apply this policy to Canada's own policy of foreign aid?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, I am not in a position to comment, Mr. Speaker, but this is not a new question. It is one which has been raised from time to time throughout the years. It has been commented on by U. Thant, Secretary General of the United Nations, and is a matter of real concern to many people in many parts of the world.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: And a very wrong
principle.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am simply seeking information. Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister could take the question under notice and he himself, or the Prime Minister upon his return, advise the house whether this is the policy of the government.

704	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR CANADA



WINNIPEG-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT RESPECTING OVERHAUL BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister of Transport. Is he yet in a position to make any statement regarding the future of Air Canada's maintenance and overhaul base at Winnipeg?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Tnere is nothing I can add to my previous statement, Mr. Speaker. The question is under immediately active consideration at the present time. There are alternative proposals being studied by the government and by the committee which had been formed but which now, regrettably, is operating without the direct assistance of the province of Manitoba.
I still hope we will be in a position to make an announcement soon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if there has been any consultation either on the part of Air Canada or on the part of the government with the unions that are affected, since I raised this matter last week?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I cannot answer that question specifically, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: As a supplementary question I would like to ask the minister whether the delay in this regard results from the fact that a task force has been set up to determine the course of Air Canada and the suggestion made by the chairman of that committee during the election campaign that he believed in a merger of Air Canada and C.P. Air Lines. Is that merger under consideration?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The first question, Mr. Speaker, as I understood it, asked if there was any connection between any delay with regard to an announcement concerning the future of the base at Winnipeg and the interesting proposition put forward by my colleague the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Richardson), and the answer is no.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, when the government is considering the replacement of the president of Air Canada does it intend to decide this important

DEBATES	October 2, 19G8
matter on the basis of merit only, and will political patronage be kept out of it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. While the different possibilities regarding the Air Canada overhaul base at Winnipeg are being considered, actively considered, under immediately active consideration, etc., will the minister give the assurance that no more employees of Air Canada will be transferred elsewhere from Winnipeg?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I cannot give a categorical assurance, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell my hon. friend what I am sure he already knows; that we have been getting the co-operation of the company in the last few weeks in respect of this matter. Every effort is being made to reach a decision so the employees in Winnipeg will know what options are available to them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But
no consultation with them


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that many things in Air Canada seem to have come to a standstill, how soon will the minister be able to announce the name of the new president of Air Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the Prime Minister's statement to the house with respect to this matter.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy Royal: How does "immediately active consideration" differ from plain consideration?



PLUTONIUM-REPORTED SALE BY U.S. AT HIGHER PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the honourable minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Could he tell the house why the United States is selling plutonium at $43 per gram whereas Canada got only $22 per gram for the plutonium sold to France?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The member's question, if in order, should be put on the order paper.
October 2, 1968	COMMONS



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Rilchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would the minister comment on the significance of the unusual policy of the wheat board of having lower grades of wheat predominate at export outlets, and say whether it indicates a change in the export pattern?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would not agree that the question as asked is not in order. The hon. member cannot ask a minister to comment about a statement such as the one to which he referred.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I believe the matter is urgent. It arises as a result of the many statements evolving around the Panarctic Oil project. Would the minister undertake to commence an investigation for the purpose first of determining whether the government has been guilty of or has condoned discriminatory practices against Eskimos, as recently alleged; and second, ascertaining the benefits or otherwise derived by Eskimos in the Northwest Territories from the Panarctic Oil project and whether such persons have been affected by discriminatory practices?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: I think the suggestion of the hon. member is very commendable. I will refer the matter immediately to the fair employment practices branch of my department for investigation.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the attention of the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Is he prepared today to make a report to the house which he indicated last week that he hoped to be in a position to make about this time in respect of the setting up of a parliamentary committee on the national capital?
DEBATES	705
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not ready.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister advise the house whether any further consideration is being given to the plight of over 300 Chrysler workers who have been denied the opportunity to upgrade their education or to complete grade 12?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as you know we are undertaking quite an ambitious training and retraining program in the province of Ontario. In the first six months of this year we have put several thousand persons in place for training. I shall be happy to consider this request in the light of the over-all program.



STEPS TO RELIEVE UNEMPLOYMENT IN SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Defence Production. Following the recent meeting of the minister, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with representatives of the Canadian Shipbuilding Association, could the minister now advise us what steps the government is taking to alleviate the unemployment in the shipyards of Canada which has been referred to as perilous?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to make this suggestion, but the minister may wish to make a statement on motions.



REQUEST FOR FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of charges of sex discrimination in employment which was made yesterday by the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, and in view of the need to ensure that women workers will
706	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry receive equal pay for comparable work and equal opportunity in respect of hiring and advancement, will the government consider the enactment of a fair employment practices act?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, 23 years ago I learned not to argue with a woman. I think the idea is commendable. I should like to refer the hon. lady to the remarks made at ten o'clock last evening by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace in respect of this subject and my opinion on the matter.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether the contractors working on federal-provincial road renewal projects are permitted to pay their employees wages considerably below the prevailing rates, as is now the case in St. John's, Newfoundland?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, we do have a minimum wage which we enforce quite rigidly. We do have, I must admit, a problem in respect of federal-provincial projects, but where there are any deviations permitted they are usually allowed only to give the working force in a particular area as much work as possible. I am not aware of the particular situation to which the hon. member alludes. If he will bring it to my attention I shall give him an answer as soon as possible.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as a quadruple Indian chief naturally I am interested in the Indians. I should like to ask the minister-and I do so with great respect for the industry which he is applying to his portfolio-whether because of the deep uncertainty among Indians everywhere across Canada he would give consideration to holding back the reconstruction or regeneration of the Indian department and himself pay a visit to the various major Indian reserves across Canada, in order to obtain the views of the Indians rather than the views of civil servants.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as "Chief Gooslap" a title given to me

DEBATES	October 2, 1968
recently I am happy to answer the right hon. member for Prince Albert.
This reorganization, as I said earlier, has no other purpose than a more efficient administration of the department here in Ottawa. We have no intention of changing the situation in the reserves among Indian bands. We intend to maintain the same system but as we had in Ottawa education services for Eskimos, education services for Indians, an engineering service for Indians and one for Eskimos, etc., in short, as there was a duplication of services, we decided to amalgamate them to enable Canada's Indians and Eskimos to be better served by the headquarters in Ottawa.


John George Diefenbaker: If the course the minister is following is as simple as he says it is, has he consulted with the general factotum, the Minister without Portfolio, and has he yet been able to convince that gentleman who is close to the Indians that the policy the minister has in mind is the correct one?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, whom I congratulate on being chosen chief of an Indian tribe; it suits him very well.
I would like to know whether, in view of the statement he has just made, the minister intends to make financially possible for the Indians what is physically realizable.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As a result of the sale of plutonium to France has any new allocation been made or will one be made to producers of uranium for the sale of their product?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the sale of uranium is in any way necessarily tied to the plutonium sale. The plutonium sale was an independent sale. As
October 2, 1968

hon. members know, the international safeguards were adhered to in that particular sale. It is not in any way tied to, nor does it necessarily connote, any new or future sale or arrangement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the minister knows that plutonium is derived originally from-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask the minister whether he intends to acquire new supplies of uranium in order to replace the plutonium which has been sold?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that his supplementary question might be placed on the order paper.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to ask another supplementary. Was this sale of plutonium made at a very substantial reduction from the going price?


Mr. Speaker:: That supplementary should also be placed with the first one on the order paper.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. A Windsor firm has offered to the market a virtually childproof pill container. In view of the fact that many children have died because of the ease with which some drug containers can be opened, has the department made a study of these new containers? If such a study should prove that the containers are effective, will the minister give his assurance that their use will be made compulsory in order to remove this threat to the lives of children?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That recommendation came about as the result of a committee set up by our own food and drug directorate. We have referred this matter to the specifications committee which will set up a subcommittee to consider the specifications for a bottle top. When this study is completed we intend to incorporate the specifications in the regulations of the Food and Drugs Act.
Inquiries of the Ministry DIRECTIVES RESPECTING MEDICAL TREATMENT OF INDIANS
On the orders of the day:


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It arises out of his statement on motions. Could the minister inform the house whether the revised directive of April to which he referred, which restored the traditional medical rights of our Indian citizens, has been replaced by yet another directive which reverts to the earlier restrictions, one being issued before the election and the other one following the election?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. To the best of my personal knowledge it has not been repudiated by any further directive, and these services are now being maintained at the previous level.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Is the minister not aware of the directive of July 15 from the regional office in Edmonton?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare with reference to the statement by the minister regarding medical treatment for our Indian people. Will the minister advise the house whether fees for the transportation of sick, injured and indigent Indians to hospital from the Eskasoni reserve, which were cut off by his predecessor, have been reinstated? I am sure the minister will realize it is most difficult for a person with a broken leg to walk 30 miles to the hospital at Sydney.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, my information is that this service was not cut out at any time, but I will check this out and provide an answer.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the minister for his reply, but I should like to ask him whether he would be so kind as to pay the several hundreds of dollars owing to individuals who have transported sick and indigent patients to hospitals but have been refused payment by the department.

October 2, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON POVERTY AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development whether he is now prepared to answer the question which he took as notice yesterday, regarding whether the two volume report prepared by ARDA on Indian poverty areas has been suppressed, and will the government make this report available if it has it?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, no report has been suppressed. There was an internal report on departmental affairs which we now have and which we are considering. As soon as it is submitted to the government-probably to the cabinet-I will be able to inform the house of its recommendations.


Robert Simpson: Was the report which was received brought to the minister's attention?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There was a report. I have received it and I intend to discuss it with the cabinet. Later on we shall presumably make recommendations regarding it.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Transport received any proposal from the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority relating to a new ship canal between lake Ontario and lake Erie, pointing out the short time that yet remains before the present canal facilities will reach the saturation point? If so, is the government giving consideration to implementing a plan and, if not, why not?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for

the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development in his capacity of reporting to the house on the P.F.R.A. I might say that the urgency of this question is due to the climatic factor of the approaching winter.
In view of the reorganization of the minister's department and the resulting serious slowdown in the development of water conservation projects in the three prairie provinces, will the minister say when this reorganization will be completed and these urgent and important water development projects resumed?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the reorganization will not be completed before the new law is accepted by the house, so I presume that in a few weeks or perhaps months everything will be reorganized.



INQUIRY AS TO ACTION TO CONTROL INCREASED NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. L. Whiting (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether his department is waging an all-out war on the use of drugs? Young people are experimenting with drugs without realizing the serious effects.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Rutherford (Rud) Lester Whiting: What is the department doing to educate young people, and is serious consideration being given to using modern communications techniques such as films, T.V. programs and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that questions should not be speeches, however short. I would suggest that the important question he has raised should be put on the order paper.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport to give an assurance to the house that his task force on housing, as it proceeds from one city to another, will make appropriate arrangements to receive briefs from important and major organizations. I have reference to the brief of the Toronto real estate board which apparently was not received by that group in Toronto.
October 2, 1968


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could give such a general assurance. As my hon. friend will appreciate, the response to the work of the task force has been so great it is quite impossible to hear all of the representations that might be made by larger organizations. The only way this could be done would be by extending the time allocated to us for reaching some conclusions. If we did that I think my hon. friend would agree it would not be possible to prepare any possible legislation for presentation this session and before next year's building program begins.
I think we will have to do the best we can and hear as many groups that have submitted briefs as possible. We must hear from a wide cross-section of these groups in order to get a varied point of view of all the ideas that are available. These will then have to be considered along with a reading of the other briefs in an attempt to reach some conclusion before the end of the year.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, will the minister give the house some idea as to what criteria are used in the selection of the briefs that are heard and considered and those that are not?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the type of information, if it is to be given, that should be given on motions.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Transport give the house an assurance that the government is taking his task force as seriously as it took the task force of the Minister without Portfolio?



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has been informed as to the starting date of the proposed rail link between Roberts Bank and our national railway system and, if so, what is it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have not been informed as to the starting date. As my hon. friend is no doubt aware, there have been a number of representations made in respect of the route of this railway. To the best of my knowledge no firm date for its commencement has been announced.
29180-4fi
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



CORN-PROPOSED EMBARGO ON IMPORTS FROM U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has met with his cabinet colleagues and discussed the possibility of placing an embargo on the importation of corn into this country, particularly in view of the position the producers find themselves in at this time?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have had meetings with many people including members of the cabinet in relation to this problem.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, has the minister dealt with the specific subject of placing an embargo on the importation of corn with his cabinet colleagues?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that I cannot answer that kind of a question because the discussions, the agenda and everything else that takes place in cabinet are confidential.


Mr. Baldwin:: Confidential and inadequate.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Crowfoot. I quite appreciate the point taken by the Minister of Agriculture that he cannot disclose anything that takes place in cabinet. But can the Acting Prime Minister assure us that none of his colleagues who took part in that decision had a conflict of interest in reference to the importation of corn?



CHEESE-DUMPING OF EUROPEAN PRODUCT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet perhaps I might answer the questions that were asked on September 24 and September 30. I have been in touch with Mr. LeClerc, president of the national dairy council, concerning cheese dumping or the allegation of cheese dumping in Canada. Mr. LeClerc advises that he was misquoted in the press release and he said that in his view there is no cheese dumping now. What he actually said was, "If there was cheese dumping as there has been in other areas of the dairy industry we would have to look into it further". Mr. LeClerc therefore has no specific evidence of cheese dumping in Canada.

710	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry



BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS ON CHICKENS OF MICROWAVE TOWER RADIATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture or to the Minister without Portfolio from Winnipeg, since I understand he is something of a farmer as well. I would like to ask the minister whether he has received a complaint signed by several hundred residents of central Manitoba alleging that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask the question directly.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I put the question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say whether his department will establish or initiate research into the biological effects on chickens of microwave tower radiation?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


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


Edward Richard Schreyer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the laughter of hon. members might leave the impression that the matter is a bantering one, but it is quite serious and I hope Your Honour will take it that way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is why the Chair suggested that this very important and serious matter be placed on the order paper.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the just society the hon. Mr. Trudeau has promised us, would the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell me whether the handicapped and the blind will see their pensions increased this year at the same rate as the old age pensions.


Mr. Speaker:: The question of the hon. member is much too general and I would remind him and the other members on both sides of the house that it is preferable to refer to a minister in making use of his title rather than of his name.
DEBATES	October 2, 1968



WHEAT-DELAY IN ANNOUNCEMENT OF SALES CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Last year we were told that the low sales of wheat were as a result of the fact that we did not have low quality grain. This year we apparently have it. Why is there a delay in announcing any specific contract for the sale of wheat?


Gerald William Baldwin: A low quality government.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member mind repeating the last part of his question?


Stanley James Korchinski: Last year we were told we could not sell wheat because we did not have sufficient quantities of low quality grain. I am now asking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question as asked is clearly argumentative.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, when will an announcement be made that a contract has been signed for the sale of low quality wheat?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, another hon. member just referred to the fact that the wheat board was taking measures to bring these low grades of wheat to export points. Obviously this is a policy that the wheat board intends to follow. Obviously, also, the wheat board has no intention of announcing, before the wheat sales take place, where they are going to take place. So the hon. member will know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for High Park.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, this question I wish to direct to the Minister of Transport. It has been brought to my attention that the status of the Department of Transport air traffic control instructors-

October 2, 1968


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask the question directly.


Walter Cyril Deakon: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you what it is about before I ask the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Cyril Deakon: I have been advised that the Department of Transport air traffic control instructors for civil aviation have been dropped from grade 6 to grade 5 level. This lower grade appears to be a level held by some of the people receiving this instruction. In other words, the instructors and some of the people they are teaching are at the same level. Has the minister considered this problem and, if so, what solution has been arrived at?


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



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. In view of the increasing number of new immigrants, particularly from Czechoslovakia, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has stated that it is not the responsibility of his department to provide language training for these people, could the minister tell us whether his department is undertaking to supply training in citizenship for new immigrants, including language training?


Hon. Gerard Pellelier (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, not only have we considered the question but we have set up a detailed project in this respect; as soon as the government will have adopted a policy thereon, the house will be informed.



FARM MACHINERY SYNDICATES CREDIT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 1, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Olson-Mr. Bechard in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure
amending the Farm	.ldicatss Credit
Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act Act to broaden the purposes for which loans may be made under that act; to enable co-operative farm associations and certain farming corporations and other associations to obtain loans under that act without the members or shareholders thereof being required to enter into any other formal agreement; and to provide for other consequential and related subjects.
The Depuiy Chairmen: Order. House in committee of the whole on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act. Shall the resolution carry?
Mr. McQuaid:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it abundantly clear at the beginning that I am completely in favour of the broad, general principles outlined in the resolution now before the committee. I do not think there is anybody in this house, in fact I do not think there is anybody in Canada, who will deny the necessity of supplying credit to those who are today engaged in our farming industry. It is generally recognized that there is an increasing demand for farm credit and that this demand arises from the capital requirements of farm business.
It is very evident that farming today is big business and requires a tremendous amount of capital. As an example we have the figures issued recently by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics which tell us that the capital value of farms in Canada in 1966 was $19 billion. That is a lot of money in any man's language. Of this amount, $13 billion was in respect of land and buildings, $3.5 billion for capital and equipment and $2 billion for livestock. In other words, our farmers have a large capital investment in their businesses.
Even in the maritime provinces, which are a comparatively small portion of Canada in so far as area is concerned, farm capital amounts to $443 million. In the province of Prince Edward Island the amount for land and buildings is $72 million, for capital and equipment $35 million, and for livestock $20 million. This means that $128 million has been invested by the farmers of Prince Edward Island in their operation. Therefore I suggest there is absolutely no question that farming today is big business and requires a tremendous amount of capital.
In order that capital may be available to farmers, credit facilities must be extended to them. This is the reason I say that we on this side of the house are in no way opposed to any measures which will make capital more readily available to our farmers.

October 2, 1968
Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act [DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
There is the further fact that it is costing more than ever before to farm in Canada today. For example, in 1966 the farmers of Canada spent $479 million on farm machinery in just one year. It would be interesting to know where this $479 million went. The fact is that $149 million was spent on farm tractors, $20 million was spent on planting and fertilizing machinery and $10 million was spent on barn equipment. Our farmers are naturally trying to make their labour as light as possible and are buying modern equipment in order to lighten their burden, and also because of the fact that farm labour is getting increasingly more scarce. To continue, $3 million was spent on spraying and dusting equipment, and $73 million was spent on combines. This is the amount of money which was spent on farm equipment in one year. It represents an increase of 12.2 per cent over what was spent six years ago in 1960. So it must be obvious to anyone who gives the matter any thought that credit must be expanded and more money must be made available to the farmers in order to enable them to buy equipment which is urgently needed by them.
In 1966 $13 million was spent on farm implements in the Atlantic provinces. In the province of Quebec $46 million was spent, 21.4 per cent more than was spent six years ago. In Ontario $102 million was spent on farm machinery. In Manitoba $62 million was spent. In Saskatchewan, where the most money was spent, $141 million was spent on farm machinery. In Alberta $102 million was spent, and in British Columbia, $10 million. I think that these figures must be convincing and must satisfy everyone on both sides of the house that additional credit must be made available to our farmers.
My chief complaint against the Farm Credit Act now in force is that apparently it only helps the big operators. The small farmers are not receiving the help from the Farm Credit Corporation which they should get. I remind the house that there is still a place in Canada for the small farmer. The annual report of the Farm Credit Corporation, while it does not say so in so many words, very definitely implies that there is no place in their program for the small family farm. This is not as it should be.
Let us look at the figures. In last year's report it is stated that the Farm Credit Corporation made 11,559 loans for a total of $251 million. If we divide the number of loans into
[Mr. McQuaid.l
the amount of money lent we will find that the average loan by the Farm Credit Corporation last year was $21,734. Apparently the corporation does not want to have anything to do with the small operator. How is the small operator going to survive if the policy of this government agency is continued in this way? As I said, there is a very important place for the small farmer, and I think that the necessary arrangements should be made with the Farm Credit Corporation so that the money required by the small farmer is made available to him.
The policy pursued at present by the Farm Credit Corporation is not the policy that was followed by the body which it replaced. When the old Canadian farm loan board was in existence it helped the small farmer. If we look at the average amount of the loans granted by the Canadian farm loan board we will find that it was around $3,000 to $5,000. That money was of some help to the small operator. Today, however, the small operator may just as well stay away from the Farm Credit Corporation because he receives no help and no encouragement from them.
As I said, there is still a place for the small farmer. To prove that there is a place for the small farmer and that he still plays an important part in our agricultural industry today, let me point out that in 1966 there were 430,000 census numbered farms in Canada, 104,000 of which, or 24 per cent, were in the 100 to 200-acre class. I suggest that this is a small farm. The small farmer might just as well stay home as go to the Farm Credit Corporation looking for help because they are just not interested in him unless he wants a loan of $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000. Where is the small farmer to get the money?
The minister said in his statement on Monday night that the resolution dealing with the Farm Credit Corporation was designed to help the young man engaged in farming. In many cases the young farmer who is trying to establish himself does not need or want a $25,000 or $30,000 loan. There are many young men who can get along on less and who could probably set up a decent farming establishment if they could obtain credit for $5,000, $6,000 or $8,000. These men can get no help at all from the Farm Credit Corporation, and this is one of the weaknesses of the corporation as it is now constituted.
Only one province in Canada, Alberta, has farms in excess of 100 to 200 acres. In that province the average farm is larger than that. However, in Canada today 24 per cent of our
October 2, 1968

farms are in the 100 to 200 acre class, and I suggest that help must be made available to these farmers.
I wish to say a few words about the interest on these loans. Personally I cannot go along with the suggestion of the minister or of the government that the interest rate on Farm Credit Corporation loans must be increased. If we look at the last financial statement issued by the Farm Credit Corporation we will find the following statement in its 1967-68 annual report:
Approximately 80 per cent ol the funds lent by the corporation bear the statutory interest rate of 5 per cent. The corporation borrows funds from the Minister of Finance at current interest rates which are much higher than the average rate the corporation may charge, thus creating an interest deficit which lasts for the duration of the loan.
Then the report goes on to say:
To finance its lending program during 1967-68, the corporation borrowed $194.5 million from the Minister of Finance at an average interest rate of 6.16 per cent ... The average interest rate on the corporation's borrowings is 5.294 per cent.
If we subtract 6.16 per cent, which is the cost of the money to the corporation, from the 5.29 per cent the farmers were paying, we get a difference of only .87 per cent. Surely in this just society in which we are supposed to be living the government can absorb that .87 per cent. The financial statement of the corporation shows that this difference in interest cost the corporation $3,809,000. When we consider that there are 1,960,000 people living on farms in Canada today, it means that the government is subsidizing them to the extent of only $2 per person. Surely this government, which thinks in terms of nothing less than billions and spends money like drunken sailors, can afford to absorb this $2 per person. This amount could be saved if some efforts were made to cut down the waste and extravagance in the various departments of government. We have heard rumblings and murmurs about green telephones, waste paper baskets costing $75 and electric pencil sharpeners. Some of these expenditures could be eliminated and money saved. In this way, enough money would be found to make up the very small difference of point .87 per cent or $2 for every man, woman and child who resides on a farm in Canada today.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: British Columbia is subsidized a lot.
Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act


Melvin James McQuaid: There are many things that are subsidized, though I am not complaining about that. When the coal industry in Nova Scotia got into trouble a year or so ago, the government did not hesitate to advance money to help that industry. There are 1,069,000 people living on farms in Canada today. Farming in Canada is big business, as I mentioned a moment ago, if one considers the capital investment in the industry. Surely the government could find enough money to absorb this small difference.
In his statement on Monday, as recorded on page 600 of Hansard, the minister is reported to have said:
-unrealistic interest rates-
A difference of .87 per cent is not an unrealistic interest rate.
-tend to cause misallocation of resources, and in particular terms any savings as a result of a subsidized interest rate on capital borrowed for the purchase of land could make the cost of land excessively inflationary.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, the giving of $2 for every person residing on a farm today in order to help the farmers is not going to make the price of land excessively inflationary. It is not going to mitigate the purposes for which the Farm Credit Corporation was established. Everyone will not be able to go to the Farm Credit Corporation to borrow money simply because the interest rate is low. The act stipulates that the farmer must have an established operation before a loan can be made, so it is only such farmers who will be going to the corporation. Surely the government can extend this privilege to that large segment of our population.
As I say, if the waste and extravagance in other government departments were eliminated the money would be found. We must remember that if a farmer has to pay more interest on the money he borrows he is adding to his operating costs. If his operating costs increase he will have to get more for his products if he is going to stay in business. If he has to get more for his products the consumer has to pay the added amount. All we are doing by raising interest rates, in the final analysis, is raising the cost of the product to the consumer. The results will flow back to the consumer. If the amount involved were a billion dollars, there might be some justification for the government's position. However, as I say, last year the amount involved was only $3,800,000 or $2 for every man, woman and child residing on a farm in Canada. I suggest very seriously to the government that
714	COMMONS
Farm, Machinery Syndicates Credit Act it could very well afford, in the interests of the agricultural industry, to absorb that difference or it could be absorbed by eliminating waste and extravagance.
There is another aspect of which I do not think the government should lose sight. I refer to the fact that much of the money now coming back to the Farm Credit Corporation is the result of the repayment of loans made several years ago, perhaps 10 or 20 years ago. At that time this money was borrowed at a reasonably low rate of interest. I suggest that the government give consideration to establishing some sort of revolving fund so that the money which is coming back to the Farm Credit Corporation would not go into the treasury but would rather remain as a credit to the corporation. This money would be earning interest until such time as it was needed. If the government felt it was unable to absorb the whole of the $3,800,000, the money now being returned could be used to help relieve the situation a bit. In any case, Mr. Chairman, I am definitely opposed to any policy which will tend to increase the costs of those farmers who are borrowing money from the Farm Credit Corporation.
So far as the Farm Improvement Loans Act is concerned, those loans are government guaranteed bank loans. I do not believe the interest rates on those loans should be fixed by the governor in council.
I am sure the farmers of Canada have serious doubts about whether this is the proper thing to do. Surely some formula could be worked out whereby a percentage just a little above the cost of money to the government could be established. Some formula could be worked out to establish a more or less fixed rate of interest so the farmer will know what he is going to have to pay. Leaving the matter up to the governor in council is definitely not satisfactory. I think the minister and his department will find that the banks will go along with this idea. These are government guaranteed loans. If the government guarantee is worth anything at all, a bank should be glad to advance these loans. The percentage of loss will be small. The experience of the Farm Credit Corporation indicates this fact. If you look at their report you will find it shows a very small percentage of loss. This same small percentage of loss would obtain under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The farmers of this country are honest. They do their best to pay their bills, and they will do so if they are given a decent break. If the government guarantee is worth anything, surely the
[Mr. McQuaid.l
DEBATES	October 2, 1968
banks will definitely go along with the setting of an interest rate a percentage point above the cost of money to the government.
I have little more to say, Mr. Chairman, except that when the Farm Credit Corporation bill comes before the house I will oppose it if it tends to increase the cost of money to our farmers. Again, I would recommend to the government that they give serious consideration to an attempt to broaden the scope of the Farm Credit Corporation so that it will be of some benefit to the small, family farmer who is still very important to this country.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Chairman, before discussing some of the points I should like to raise in connection with the resolution before us concerning farm credit I should like to extend congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture on his appointment. He represents a constituency in which I used to reside, and I am happy to see that we have a Minister of Agriculture who comes from a rural part of Canada similar to the rural area I am fortunate enough to represent. He used to farm in the area where I relieved as a station agent, so I heard a great deal about him, most of it favourable. I must confess that what I have heard about him in recent months has not been nearly as favourable, although I might have been talking to the wrong people in that area.
The resolution before us and the subsequent bill propose a number of changes in farm credit legislation, two or three of which I think are anything but desirable. The main intent of these changes is to increase the rates of interest charged under the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Farm Credit Act. In my opinion, this is another instance of the old line parties providing more socialism for the rich. This has too long been a practice and habit of the present and previous governments. The main beneficiaries of these changes will be the money lenders. A couple of thousand years ago the money lenders were driven out of the temple, but it seems they have sneaked in the back door with the aid of governments in this country.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
No one in this house, Mr. Chairman, will oppose measures that increase the availability of capital for agriculture. But surely such measures should not contribute to the increased cost of farm production. Farmers are about the only large economic group left in this country who have no say in how much they receive for their products. Therefore
Ociober 2, 1968	COMMONS
they have continually been faced with static or falling farm prices. At times they have received small increases but those have been accompanied each year with larger and larger increases in the cost of farm production. This is the old cost-price squeeze that every member of this house has been hearing about since the early fifties, and about which the minister spoke many times at great length when he was sitting in another part of this chamber and representing another interest.
It seems to me, that bringing about changes in the act to allow the governor in council to peg interest rates in accordance with the prevailing rate at any given period of time adds an additional cost to farm production for which the farmers are not prepared to stand.
I must say that one of the reasons I am in this house is that many farmers have told me they are not prepared to stand for this sort of thing, and that they had lost faith in their previous governments who did stand for it.
With the prospect in the current year of lower farm incomes the government's plans for higher interest rates under these measures come at the worst possible time. All indications are that the grain harvest on the prairies this fall will produce substantially less high grade wheat and record quantities of low grade. Instead of good No. 2 or 3 northern wheat to sell we may have a lot of No. 4,
5 or 6. The prospect is for a lot of tough and damp grain being harvested as well, which, of course, can mean heated and out of condition grain in the farmers' grain bins later this fall.
Let me illustrate the situation by giving the price today, basis Regina, for No. 2 northern wheat. It is $1.48-J. I was in my constituency last Saturday and Sunday and had a conversation with one farmer who had made two rounds in a field of wheat early in September before the rains came and threshed a few hundred bushels of wheat. The crop was running between 25 and 30 bushels to the acre. He took samples to his elevator and they were graded No. 2 northern. Then the rains came. Periodically since then he was able to get in half a day or a few hours of combining, and the samples that he next took to the elevator were graded No. 5 wheat. So instead of getting $1,484, basis Regina, he will get $1.23J, a drop of 25 cents per bushel. In addition, he has combined some of that wheat tough out of sheer desperation to get as much threshed as he could. Tough wheat, Mr. Chairman, means another four cents less per bushel.
DEBATES	715
Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act
The bins of this farmer are full of fairly high grade wheat from last year. The fact that he will have lots of low grade wheat may make the Minister of Trade and Commerce and also the hon. member for Winnipeg South happy because it will undoubtedly make it easier to sell larger quantities of grain on the export market. However, it will not make the farmers any happier, because large quantities of low grades of grain sold at a lower price mean a lower income to the farmers. Surely these difficulties are bad enough without the farmer applying for a farm improvement loan for the purpose, say, of building additional grain storage, either a lumber or a steel bin, which by the way are very difficult to get, being faced with a higher rates of interest, particularly when the building is for storing low grade wheat which will return to the farmer less money. The chances are that unless the farmer can get his grain out of the bins and into the elevators a great amount of it will be lost through spoilage. With the kind of harvesting conditions prevailing during the last few weeks in western Canada, surely this is the worst possible time for any government that has a social conscience even to contemplate higher interest rates for farm improvement loans and Farm Credit Corporation loans.
The standard excuse for increased interest rates, of course, since their rapid rise last winter and spring has been that the banks will not lend money under the Farm Improvement Loans Act at the present fixed rate of 5 per cent because they can get much better rates elsewhere. Personally, I feel that that is too darned bad for the banks. I submit that now is the time for the minister and the government really to do something about beginning the new politics. After all, production of food is of national importance. Surely now is the time for the Minister of Agriculture and the government to declare as a national policy that this most basic of all industries is no longer to be the victim of the cost-price squeeze, that this government will no longer burden farmers with increased cost of production as a result of its own legislation.
Canada, has one of the largest areas of good agricultural land of any country in the world. It is filled with the most competent and efficient farmers of any country in the world. Only the organizational genius of the present government and previous old line party governments could see to it that we now have 20,000 fewer farms than there were in 1961.
October 2, 1968
716	COMMONS
Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act
I submit, that the legislation the minister now has before this committee should continue the practice of incorporating a fixed interest rate and that this interest rate should remain at the present 5 per cent. That means, of course, subsidized interest rates for all of the farming industry. I might add that I feel that this should also pertain to the farmers of the sea as well as the farmers of land. This legislation, should require the lending institutions to make such approved loans at that fixed rate. If this government and the Minister of Agriculture wish to implement some of the new politics about which we hear, they will also direct some of the capital that is available for all kinds of investment to investment in farm loans. Surely the capital needed for farm improvement loans and for Farm Credit Corporation loans is far more urgent and carries greater priority than capital for fancy shopping centres and fancy hotels. That is why direct government intervention-call it compulsion or whatever you will-is required. The money market should be told what amount of the available capital will go into the field of farm credit and farm improvement loans.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The minister mentions that there is great urgency to pass these measures, no doubt because the capitalization of the Farm Credit Corporation is almost exhausted. The corporation is nearly out of money. The other day the minister said that the bill to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act must be passed at once since the previous act expired last June 30. However, about one and a half pages earlier in Hansard, he reported that the Minister of Finance had publicly assured the lenders that the new legislation when passed would cover guarantees retroactive to June 30.
Surely the minister and the government can make certain that, no matter how long it takes to pass legislation, loan applications may continue to be received, processed and approved. In the case of farm improvement loans the banks know that whenever the legislation comes into force, their loans will be covered by the guarantees retroactively.
In the case of the farm Credit Corporation it takes six to eight months on the average for loans to be approved. Sometimes it takes a year. The approving of loans has some time taken so long that land farmers wanted to buy was sold to others. Here, too, the government ought to arrange for the receiving, processing and approving of loan applications to continue before the amended legislation


comes into force. Lending institutions are protected by the knowledge that the legislation is about to come into force. In an emergency, should it happen that the funds of the Farm Credit Corporation became exhausted, farmers could walk into banks, credit unions or other financial institutions and borrow money at prevailing rates on the strength of the approved loan application. In any event, farmers could be accommodated over a short period until such time as there is more capitalization for the Farm Credit Corporation.
It is unlikely that the great majority of loan applications through the Farm Credit Corporation will be approved, let alone processed, in the immediate future. That being so I fail to see why the minister is raising all this fuss and furore in trying to push this legislation through the house as quickly as possible. His haste, it seems to me, shows nothing less than a desire to bring about an increase in interest rates as fast as he can. I shall be interested to hear the comments of the hon. members for Assiniboia and Saskatoon-Humboldt to their constituents on the subject of increased interest rates applicable to loans made under this legislation. I shall be interested to hear what explanations they make. I assure them that they have not heard the last of this matter for a long time to come.
I plead with the government, as others before me have pleaded, to fix the interest rate applicable under the legislation at the present level of 5 per cent. I submit that the most basic of our industries, agriculture, is entitled to this priority. If the cost of money is more than 5 per cent for farm credit the government ought to pay the difference out of the national treasury.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I only want to say a few words about the bill now before the house.
This bill deals with agriculture and I am very happy to notice that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is now occupying his seat. He is a capable minister in this field as he was himself a farmer. As a matter of fact, he is still a western farmer.
There is no doubt that the minister knows and understands the agricultural problems. When the present Minister of Agriculture was sitting on this side of the house as a Social Crediter he used to chide the government about the interest rates being too high and about the loan increases that did not solve the farmers' problems.
October 2, 1968

He is now the Minister of Agriculture. He is introducing legislation that is identical to the one he was fighting against when he was a member of Social Credit in this house.
For instance let us examine resolution No. 5 which reads in part as follows:
-a measure to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act in order to provide for a further three-year loan period-to substitute for the 5% rate of interest on guaranteed farm improvement loans made under the Act such rate or rates of interest as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council-
This implies that, from now on, those farmers unable to obtain credit or loans at 5% interest will perhaps be forced to pay 8, 9, 10 or 12%. The government will not then pledge itself to reimburse the difference in interest rates. That is not an improvement for the farmer, and the Minister of Agriculture, the member for Medicine Hat, would have a hard time explaining that to the farmers of his own riding, for that is not what he told them during the 20 or 25 years of his political life.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Today, he comes to us with legislation in every way identical to the previous one, but which allows the farmer to get deeper into debt, to incur debts today that he will not be able to repay in 10 or 20 years from now; and so agriculture will still be in the same state of stagnation in 10, 15 or 20 years from now, and the minister is well aware of it.
From here on in, farmers will be allowed to borrow $25,000 instead of $15,000 for-
-the purchase of land as an addition to an existing farm enterprise-
They cannot manage to earn a livelihood with the farms they already have; how can we imagine that agriculture will be saved by bigger farms.
My honourable friend the minister owns thousands of acres of land out west. Some of my relatives in southern Saskatchewan have whole sections of land-"You are looking for land? Here you are-". The problem is not limited to the size of farms. The problem is to have a farm policy which will enable the farmers to live on the land they are farming. That is what is lacking, and the minister is not proposing anything to that effect.
Taking for granted, Mr. Chairman, that agriculture is the basis-and I do say the basis- of the whole economic structure of Canada, we must work to improve the living conditions of the farmers, and not crush them with such legislation authorizing the loan companies and the trust companies to take control of the farms through long term or short term loans. Everyone knows that, and
Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act the minister knows it too. As I said, agriculture is the basis of the whole economic structure. Hon. Members' coat tails and top hats would just hang in the parliamentary restaurant on the sixth floor if there were no farmers in Canada to provide the food everyone needs.
And what are we doing to help the farmer? Three measures are introduced in succession to burden him even more, and the minister will say to Canadian farmers: See how liberal we are-not Creditistes, no sir-Liberals. Had he been a Creditiste, he would never have introduced such a measure. At any rate, we will recall what he said when he was sitting with us on this side when the government was putting forward such measures. As Social Credit spokesman on agriculture, he was driving the government into a corner in an attempt to indicate the course it should follow.
Today, on the government front benches, the minister takes over where the previous government had left off.


An hon. Member:: With a smile.


David Réal Caouette: With a smile, true enough, but the farmers will not feel like smiling.
Mr. Chairman, we should not let finance companies look after that. It is a fact, this is again a financial problem.
At noon, I received a delegation of Ontario corn producers who, at the present time, have to sell their goods at a loss. The hon. minister met them a fortnight ago. No solution has been found to their problem. The Americans are dumping corn in Canada, when our production cannot meet the needs of the Canadian consumers. We have to import corn and we allow American dumping in Canada. Then, corn producers in southern Ontario have to suffer tremendous losses and the hon. minister is quite aware of that.
There is some uneasiness in the field of maple syrup production in the province of Quebec. The hon. minister knows that we produce a first grade maple syrup. At the present time, the Beauce producers have a million gallons of maple syrup in stock but no attempt has been made to help them dispose of their goods from last spring. However, it would be possible to dispose of them. I noticed last week that there was no maple syrup in France. We could perhaps sell them some and have agricultural instead of cultural exchanges.
Mr. Chairman, in the dairy industry, for instance, the farmers of Ontario and eastern
October 2, 1968
718	COMMONS
Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act Canada are bringing pressure to bear on the government and the Minister of Agriculture with a view to having a set price of $5 or $5.25 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk. The government has not changed its policy since the last elections. It is exactly the same. We adopt measures to enable people, who even now cannot make a decent profit on the sale of their produce, to get into debt even deeper, and to have the privilege of paying higher rates of interest. What a policy of grandeur this government of ours has. What a responsible policy. Mr. Chairman, under this resolution which reads in part as follows:
-to authorize the Minister of Finance to designate certain trust and loan companies and insurance companies and certain credit unions, caisse populaire and other co-operative credit societies as authorized lenders under the Act; to establish a limit of $1,200,000,000 as the aggregate principal amount of guaranteed loans that may be made by all authorized lenders in that period and a limit of $300,000,000 as the aggregate amount of guaranteed loans that may be made by authorized lenders other than banks during that period-
To help the small lenders.. . The government is willing to take pity on the fate of the small lending concerns but he forgets to take pity on the farmers' lot. Lenders, okay; farmers, not okay.
Here is another point, in resolution No. 7, as given on the order paper. I quote:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure amending the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act-
With regard to farm machinery, I still remember the days when the present minister was the Social Credit member for Medicine Hat-he was the spokesman for his party in matters of agriculture-and, at that time, he denounced with virulence the shameful exploitation of finance companies which strangled the farmers when they bought farm equipment.
Everyone knows, for instance, that a small Ferguson tractor-I have sold them-which used to sell for $1875, now sells for $4300. The farmer borrows and will be able to borrow again at higher interest rates so that his small tractor will cost him $6,000, but his production does not increase. He does not get higher profits for his produce. What will his situation be in five or ten years from now with such laws?
It is all very well to tell the farmer: You can now borrow $25,000. When he gets his loan, the farmer is happy because it allows him to spend $25,000 instead of $15,000. However, when the time comes to pay back
[Mr. CaouetteJ

the capital plus the interest, and the farmer has not made a profit on the sale of his products, how can he possibly pay back the capital plus the interest when he cannot even pay back the capital? That is what the government does not understand. However, I am certain that the Minister of Agriculture understands it, for he said it often and loudly enough in this house when he was with us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, we do not ask for miracles, but if the government could introduce a bill intended to help the farmer by fixing the interest rate on loans at a ceiling of 2 or 3 per cent, for example, the minister would then really be helping the farmer by guaranteeing not only the loan the farmer gets, but a market for his products.
As I have said, if one million bushels of wheat were grown instead of one thousand, the loss would be greater. No need to be a genius to understand it and the minister understands it. The problem is not to know whether or not we can get the farmer more deeply in debt. Everybody knows that the farmer can, owing to the government guarantee, run up more bills. The farmer wants to know whether he will have the opportunity to sell his products at prices which will allow him to make a profit. That is precisely what the government does not take into account. The minister does not talk about that. Marketing is left to organizations such as the U.C.F., to farm associations such as the wheat pool in the West. It is left to agencies which absorb part of the production or the profits along the way, so that the farmer is always in the same situation.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, agriculture is the basis of society. The farmer cannot afford to strike. If he is a milk producer, everyone knows, for instance, that cows are not on holidays on Sunday and that he has to do the milking on Sunday as on any other day of the week. That means seven days a week, 365 days a year. The farmer's day starts at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning and ends at 8, 9 or 10 o'clock at night. But there are some people who get up at 10 o'clock in the morning to milk the farmers dry. That is happening in our own country, in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, all members should realize the importance of agriculture, when all classes in society have the right to strike for better conditions of living, and obtain them. There have been strikes throughout Canada, in every field. There was even one in my own
October 2, 1968	COMMONS
place which ended Monday. For what? Salary increases. But the farmers cannot afford that. The only recourse he has is to ask his member of parliament to pass legislation to help them, to guarantee the sale of their products. But the government procrastinates and finally presents legislation, saying to them: We help you, we enable you to go in deeper, to be worse off, to give you the assurance that you may not sell your products, but you will be able to get further into debt. They are thus given the assurance of more insecurity instead of security.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe that a solution is urgent and I bring up the matter again. The Minister of Agriculture who is acquainted with the problem of Canadian agriculture could find a solution, since he is so competent.
I travelled with the Minister of Agriculture to Russia and Czechoslovakia. The first thing which interested him in those countries was to see what was going on in farming and the minister knows what the trouble is. But he is caught in a government strait-jacket which compels him to bring down some bills which he inwardly disapproves, I am sure. He cannot admit it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: This is why he said in this house, as I did myself, that we are caught in a terrible financial system which is crushing us and nothing is done to free us.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It seems to me that if the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) would get up one morning and say: "I am the Minister of Agriculture of Canada, the first man responsible for agriculture in this country. Due to my knowledge of economics, to my knowledge of the creditistes tenets-here, he might stretch a little, expand his chest a bit, spread out his arms and loosen the purse string-I am going to do such and such a thing". Mr. Chairman, this would be a good thing and the hon. minister would help all the farmers in Canada. But he is afraid.
However, we are going to help him, we are going to support him, provided he makes up his mind and introduce other types of bills, bills which will not crush the farmer even more. In my views, these bills aim to strangle the farmer, to give another turn of the screw.
It does not mean, Mr. Chairman, that as a matter of principle, we are dead set against loans to farmers. They are useful for the
DEBATES	719
Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act farmer who is assured to make a profit and who needs to borrow money in order to expand. However, we know beforehand that the farmer who is borrowing $25,000. instead of $15,000. has no guarantee of a better price for his products and that he is already operating with a deficit. What we need, is legislation designed to help marketing and to enable the farmer to sell at a profit. It would be easy then for the farmer to find lenders; actually, the government would not even need to underwrite the loans, or to tell the farmer where to go or not to go. Let the government do its job. Let the Minister of Agriculture give to the farmers in my consttiuency, in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and in the whole of Canada, the undertaking that there will be a market for their products. In two years, Canadian production will increase threefold or even fivefold and we will then be in a position to meet the needs of our population; indeed, we are able to do it now. We will then be in a better position, all over the world to help the poor, as well as the underdeveloped countries where people die of hunger. It is said that two-thirds of the world population are hungry-


The Chairman:: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to carry on. I think there are only two minutes left before you call It five o'clock so that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business.
I see that one of my good friends wanted to rise but, I think as there are only two minutes, he might easily wait until tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, as I am in fine fettle, I shall proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: I think that the Minister of Agriculture takes the biscuit. I am amazed. Since I have known him-and he is one of my good friends-he has been most eloquent in the house on the matter in hand. But

October 2, 1968
The Canadian Economy today, he introduces these bills. I am astounded, and my colleagues who have known him well are astounded too. In fact, this is the man who if I am not mistaken, was to become eventually the leader of the Creditiste movement in Western Canada and, perhaps, the successor to the present Premier of Alberta. I cannot understand how he can attempt to introduce such bills today.
At any rate, Mr. Chairman, I wish that all the honourable members, and first the hon. minister, would understand the importance of our agriculture but in its true sense. We must not help our agriculture to deteriorate further, to get bogged down deeper, but we must recognize that agriculture is the basis of our economy and that when we help our farmers, we help ourselves, we help the other classes of society, we help the country, because in a country where agriculture is prosperous, the other classes are also prosperous. In fact, a country where agriculture is dying out, where it tends to die out or to decline, is doomed. We have had examples of that in Czechoslovakia and in Russia. I have seen examples of it in France last week where the farmers are faced with a lot of hardship, from which social troubles are likely to stem.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I wish that the hon. Minister of Agriculture would finally introduce bills really intended to assist the farmer and not to get him deeper in debt and get him fast out of the picture.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. It being five o'clock, in order for the house to proceed to the consideration of private members' business it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit at the next sitting of the house.
Progress reported.


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



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the possibility of passing a law under which every Canadian citizen, who is without work or other source of income, would receive a guaranteed minimum income as a way of recognizing, in a practical fashion, the dignity, the value

and the economic rights of the human being, in the context of the economic life of the nation; that the amount required for the payment of the guaranteed minimum income be derived from the national product so as to increase neither the taxes on individuals and companies, nor the cost of living, nor the price of any product or service; that this measure could, with advantage, replace the contributions and payments of all the systems of unemployment insurance, social welfare, family and personal allowances, Canada pensions and Quebec pensions, that the economic recognition of the guaranteed minimum income would be to the greatest advantage of all the citizens of Canada, and, at the same time, would be of great benefit to all the principal sectors of the national economy.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, about this notice of motion which I put on the order paper and which appeared for the first time in the September 20 issue, I wish to give only the main points of that method which would provide a guaranteed annual income to every Canadian citizen without any source of income.
It must be clearly understood in particular that it must be done within the ordinary framework of our monetary, economic and political systems and under a free enterprise system. In our present economy, it is possible to do something to improve the lot of Canadians without purchasing power. If it is normal that the national production of $68 billion be divided between consumption and capitalization, let us keep our methods of production, consumption and capitalization, but let us make only a slight change in the distribution of the purchasing power precisely where it is lacking, namely among the Canadian citizens without any income.
It is not necessary to turn our economy topsy-turvey. Nothing is to be changed in the production process; but change is to be made in the allocation of the purchasing power for 7.6 million citizens contributing to production on top of that, there would be an individual guaranteed minimum income, according to the age for all independant citizens. This program must be implemented within the framework of our monetary, economic and political systems. This technical formula of a guaranteed purchasing power to citizens without a job and without any other income, can, in my opinion, replace all programs of family and personal allowances, the subsidizing of services and many other pension plans in Canada and in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, one administration only instead of a hundred, one universal program only, and financing consisting simply of the
October 2, 1968

recognition, by a definite credit, of the right to live for every unemployed citizen. The right to a set and predetermined salary for work as agreed upon between the employer and the employee is recognized; so is the right to a set and predetermined interest on all capital invested or loaned as agreed upon by the debtor and the creditor, by the borrower and the lender.
In any event, in our present free enterprise economy, production and financing would be allowed to operate as usual. The distribution of purchasing power would continue to operate as it does now, by distributing the salary according to the work done and the interest according to the capital invested, in the case of the 7,700,000 citizens who participate in the production. However, the guaranteed minimum income and the right to the basic needs of the other 13 million citizens could be regulated.
All this could be done now, by adopting a single and universal legislative measure on the transfer of payments, to solve once and for all the problem of the guaranteed minimum income, monthly and personal.
The Canadian citizen who is without work and without income has a right to live, he has a definite right to live, at the minimum level recognized and evaluated on the basis of the economic facts of our Canadian national life.
The application of this technical formula would replace almost all those expensive and clumsy transfer payments and would solve the income problem of the 13 million Canadian citizens who have no other income.
And so, in Canada, 20,700,000 citizens would be assured of having 20,700,000 personal purchasing powers. I realize, of course, that this summary opens the door to a mass of perfectly legitimate questions.
However, I take this opportunity, as a member, to insert this notice of motion in our public documents, so that any one might refer to it according to his interest and his wishes.
I know that it is very difficult to understand that, within this formula, the guaranteed minimum income could be paid without leading to an increase in taxes, or an increase in prices and the cost of living, for individuals as well as companies.
That is precisely the point on which I am willing to give all the required information.
Mr. Speaker, if we wish hardship, poverty and insecurity to disappear from the Canadian scene, certain steps must be taken to that effect. The means I propose are of course
The Canadian Economy quite different from all that is being done now and which has led the population to the state of imbalance of which we talk and which we want to correct and rectify.
But we cannot correct or rectify it by acting as we did in the past; we must necessarily change or add something and, to my mind, there is a technical method which can readily be added to the machinery of our present systems, monetary, economic, political, capitalistic, democratic, and of free enterprise.
I point out to the house that the distribution formula of the guaranteed minimum income for each dependent Canadian citizen is a formula that can and should apply within the regular framework of our economy, of our political system, of our parliament, provided that the 264 representatives of the people, elected by the people, legislate accordingly. And according to the old saying, where there is a will, there is a way. It is true that this is more and more justified if we refer to a circular letter of May 1967, which we received from the External Aid Office, concerning international development, and I quote:
The West Indies, long standing partners of Canada -Canadians have for a long time shown interest for the improvement of the West Indies'-towards the end of the fifties, the Canadian government had considered the possibility of granting financial aid to the West Indies Federation-In 1958, Canada announced it was making a $10 million grant.
The report added:
In 1964-65, the assistance program was still greatly extended. Canada then allocated estimates of $9 million, $31 million in grants and $51 million in loans-
Moreover, there was a conference of the heads of the governments of Canada and of the West Indies in Ottawa in July 1966. Canada announced that it would increase its aid still more. The estimates for the fiscal year 1966-67 showed an item of $13 million in aid to the Caribbean islands, consisting of a subsidy of $6,100,000 and of $7 million in loans. Canada also informed the West Indies that a minimum of $75 million would be given to them in the next five years.
Mr. Speaker, in answer to a comment directed by an hon. member to the minister responsible at the time-the Secretary of State for External Affairs-the minister declared that these expenditures would be beneficial to our industries and our trade This money, he said, would result in those countries buying more Canadian products.
If funds that are given to foreigners help the good functioning of our national economy, it is clear that funds given to Canadians

October 2, 1968
The Canadian Economy would bring the same results, and would, at the same time, give families a little comfort.
Comfort and security are exactly what is not sought by the present system. On the subject of victims of the Canadian income tax, allow me to quote from page 1534 of the Hansard of June 14, 1967:
For Instance, the unmarried person who earns a salary of $4,200 pays an income tax of approximately $475, after a deduction on $1,000, which leaves a net income of $3,725.
The head of the family earning $4,200 pays $128 in taxes each year after benefiting from a deduction of $2,000 for himself and for his spouse, and a deduction of $1,150 for the three children, if we suppose that he has one aged 19 who is a student, one of 14 and one of 8.
The 14-year-old child receives an allowance of $8 a month, or $96 a year. The 8-year-old child has an allowance of $6 a month, or $72 a year. That adds $168 to the income, which then amounts to a total of $4,368 a year-$4,368 less $128 tax, which brings it to $4,240.
The net income of a father of three children of 19, 14 and 8 years old is $4,240 after payment of $128 income tax. The single person having the same salary of $4,200 has a net income of $3,725, after payment of $475 income tax.
I ask you to note, Mr. Speaker, that the difference between taxes and allowances leaves this father with a surplus of $515 to take care of his wife and his three children.
Therefore, here is the result: $515 more for four more persons, which is about, per person, $125 a year, or $10.50 a month, or 30 cents a day. Mr. Speaker, 30 cents a day for a man who has a wife and three children. Just imagine the small amount the members of a larger family can expect.
Mr. Speaker, 30 cents a day is the maintenance cost of little dog of 30 pounds. If the present system leaves 30 cents a day for the dog, I hope that, in the framework of a just society, we will grant to the Canadian mother an amount equal to her rank and her worth.
In order to have our industries and our trade run smoothly, a second group of citizens should be granted subsidies and I want to refer to students. At this stage, I will quote from an article published in L'Action of Tuesday, August 20:
Loans to students are curtailed by strict regulations.
Last week, the federal government announced a change in the formula which will add at least 2 per cent to the cost of bank loans under the student loan program.
Two factors have made these changes necessary: banks have lost money when lending to students at the relatively low rates of 52 per cent provided by regulations since the inception of the program four years ago.

Furthermore, the summer was bad with regard to employment for students and many of them will go back to university penniless.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that, for most students, life is not easy, and the system of loans at high rates is ideal, in my opinion, to train these young people to become tax collectors. However, I submit also that tax collectors do not alone account for the smooth running of the Canadian society.
Many other professionals are urgently needed. We need doctors, engineers and economists. To train honest, worthy and fair-minded men, it is absolutely necessary to free those young people from the chains of finance.
Mr. Speaker, if the estimates contribute to the development of foreign countries, let us develop ours by the same methods.
The third group which, in my opinion, would need additional help for the satisfactory operation of our industries and trade is made up of the old people, those who have reached retirement age. They should get monthly pensions much higher than those they are getting at the present time in order to be able to afford the things they are entitled to, namely medicine, a maid, or when they have to go to an old people's home, they should not have to be satisfied with the few crumbs given them after their ordinary room and board has been deducted from the little they get.
Mr. Speaker, the fourth group that should get something for a higher efficiency of our industries and businesses, is that of Canadian children, those who will replace us tomorrow. They also should get an amount proportionate to the cost of living. In view of the fact that since 1944, the member's salary has increased more than fourfold, considering that governments pay $60 a month to foster homes, considering that they pay $120-up to $150 a month in the Montreal area-to orphanages for the care given children of the same age, it would be in order, I think, to give more than the ridiculous amount of $8 or $10 a month now received for children in regular families.
Mr. Speaker, the method aims at helping families to flourish, and the family being the foundation of society I think that parliament should consider the problem seriously.
In order to have a prosperous country, let us first ensure the prosperity of all persons and all families. If families are prosperous, all institutions will be prosperous too. They will
October 2, 1968

disappear if they are not useful to the population.
We are witnessing a program of retraining of the labour force and we see small armament contracts. We have witnessed the payment of grants for winter works. Some advantages are at present being granted to designated areas. However, the economic unrest is growing.
Some ministers and members of the house as well as some highly paid economists seem to ignore the Canadian population, which is aware of this and quite understandably concerned. In view of the insecurity, poverty and deprivation of many things in the midst of affluence, we should be concerned.
Mr. Speaker, bundles of leaflets have been thrown from the gallery before. Not so long ago, a bomb exploded inside this parliament. From time to time, large and noisy delegations assemble on parliament hill. I have chosen the most courteous manner and I would suggest that a notice of motion be introduced on this subject in order to at least call the attention of the house to this matter through a normal and parliamentary process which is recognized and agreed to by everyone. This procedure is, I belive, the most logical, practical, official, regular, democratic, parliamentarian and I would also add the most efficient.
Mr. Speaker, along this line of thought, the motion which I have the honour to introduce to my colleagues today is intended to assist the 13 million Canadians who are penniless and subject to all kinds of taxes levied by the government at all levels.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope that all the members who are in favour of the development and progress of the country will grant me their support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for his interest and concern in the great problem of poverty in Canada and the improvement of assistance and welfare administration. I myself approach the problem somewhat differently, but I do want to congratulate him most sincerely upon his interest in the problem and for placing the matter before the house.
We claim to be a country that is concerned about equality; yet countless Canadians live today as they have lived for generations, in a web of poverty without the means, and very
The Canadian Economy often without the will, to make use of their lives. It is now well documented that the hidden community of the poor in Canada is falling farther and farther behind, while the rest of us are moving forward. These people are the cruel victims of a modern technology and a modern economy which denies them jobs and a society which all too often would like to believe that they do not exist.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The most striking instance of inequality in Canada concerns, of course, our native people but there are many others, as is now well documented. It is simply not acceptable in this age of affluence for children in Canada to be raised in a virtual prison of poverty where they are exposed to bad health and bad habits and where they have neither the incentive nor the chance to learn, to leave or to break out. Yet these are now the well documented conditions of poverty and deprivation in Canada.
There are no easy or instant answers. Poverty is a complex and stubborn problem at any time, and I suggest in all sincerity that now we have the added difficulty of having to repair the damage done by a Liberal government which broke faith with the poor. They declared a war on poverty and established a special secretariat for that purpose. That has now disappeared into obscurity and has effectively lost its impact and its identity.
No government can make a man more than he is, but a government can help break down the obstacle of chronic poverty and unemployment or lack of skill and it can help to develop an environment which will encourage each individual to pursue his full potential. It is my view that this must be the liberating purpose of the social policies of the government. We have nearly reached the level of minimum security in Canada, security from want and fear. Now we must encourage individual Canadians to use their freedom to enable them to live full lives. That is what I mean when I speak about improving the quality of life in Canada, and that is one of the reasons that we must develop a truly national policy of human resource development.
The other reason is economic. There is full and persuasive evidence that it is good economic sense to follow a policy which makes productive citizens out of people who might otherwise live in poverty or unemployment or in dependence on the state. I think we must change the thrust of social policy in Canada and emphasize programs which will bring disadvantaged Canadians to a point where

October 2, 1968
The Canadian Economy they have an equal chance to help themselves. Rather than simply subsidize reliance upon the state, we should encourage self-reliance.
For example, we must improve our programs of technical training and manpower mobility with the purpose of making available to every Canadian the trade and the skill he requires to get a good job and to do it well. I notice with great regret that one of the economies practised by the government, as is apparent from the estimates recently tabled, has been to cut back on the estimates for manpower training and mobility. We must begin a thorough attack upon the causes of hard core poverty in Canada and we must make use of the experience of other governments and private groups here and in other countries.
On the subject of the development of our human resources, I tried during the election campaign to initiate a dialogue between the parties on the problem of poverty in Canada. I had hoped we might have an intelligent discussion on the subject of how we might end the tragic waste of lives and the stupid waste of money that are inflicted on this country by chronic idleness and chronic poverty.
Naturally there is concern for people who because of age, disability or some other cause are permanently removed from the labour force. There is an obligation, which I think is accepted by all of us, to see that they have an income that will sustain them at a decent and civilized standard of living. We cannot feel satisfied that we have obtained that standard yet.
But there is a much more serious problem, more costly to the economy in terms of money and in terms of wasteful, idle and unproductive human resources. It is now clear there are thousands of people in this country who have been born into poverty, were raised and are living on public welfare when they can receive it and are perpetuating a cycle with each new generation born and raised in the same circumstances. They lack education or training and frequently they lack motivation. They lack an environment or an upbringing which develops incentives to work. Many of them would not be able to recognize an opportunity if they had one.
It is now clear that these people are to be found everywhere in Canada, in the slums of our cities, on our farm lands, and among industrial workers whom technology has overtaken and deprived of their traditional employment. They represent a continuing and

a growing charge on the country in many ways. Worst of all, they represent a waste of human resources that our country and our economy cannot afford, and a blight on their own lives. Many of these people are on welfare, and we have a welfare system which frequently makes it difficult for people to get off welfare. We have a philosophy and a program in this country which keep people on welfare rolls rather than encourage them to free themselves. This system does not combine temporary assistance or assistance as long as is necessary with incentive, and so it kills incentive and perpetuates the need for assistance. The system is not related to need and circumstances and so it is inequitable, uneven and, most important, frequently ineffective. Nothing could be clearer from the experience of a generation or more in this country than that our welfare system at present is wasteful and inefficient, that it is not doing a constructive job either for the individuals affected or for the country as a whole and, worse than that, it is perpetuating poverty and dependence from generation to generation.
Here I might just refer briefly to a statement which appeared at page 138 of the last report of the Economic Council of Canada. It reads as follows:
In many such cases, the increased earnings have in effect been "taxed" at very high marginal rates, sometimes amounting to 100 per cent or more. This type of occurrence defeats the purpose of anti-poverty policies designed to encourage the development of income-earning potential. It is of course no easy matter to devise policy mixes that ensure adequate minimum income but also incorporate incentives to seek earnings, but this is all the more reason for devoting much thought and effort to good policy co-ordination.
These are some of the considerations that I have had in mind for some time and which I have tried to discuss for some time. In the case of those who are old and handicapped or are outside the work force, the responsibility of the government, of course, is to provide an adequate income. In the case of that large group who are physically and mentally able to work but do not for one reason or another, I emphasize the need for incentives, training and opportunity.
We have not had much of a discussion on this subject. We certainly were not able to have it during the campaign and we have not really had it since, although the Economic Council of Canada has made a very significant contribution to the discussion of the problem in recent months. The Prime Minister responded to my invitation to discuss the matter by making offhand remarks to the
October 2, 1968



effect that I have promised to pay an income to everyone in the country. This and other crude distortions of my position have been their substitute for informed discussion.
I suggest we must reform our welfare system which in so many instances discourages people from working and adopt a plan which encourages rehabilitation and initiative. I say to the people of this country that, for reasons of economics as well as compassion, we must get to work on this. We must rescue a new generation of youngsters trapped in poverty and dependent upon welfare. The cost of perpetuating the system we have had is far too high, both in terms of human resources and economic loss.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In the United States, for example, authorities have become worried about the waste and ineffectiveness of the present welfare system. There is a strong consensus growing there in favour of a program that would make dependence on welfare something less than permanent by combining assistance with incentive and providing skills to take advantage of opportunities to work. The studies done on this subject indicate that such a program is perhaps far less costly than any system of indiscriminate payments. I think it is fair to say that some of the candidates who have been seeking the presidency of the United States support this general concept. Included in this group would be Mr. Nixon, Mr. Rockefeller and even Senator McCarthy. The idea has been supported by the captains of industry, leaders of the labour movement and a vast number of economists of widely differing economic views. However, the idea does not seem to interest this government.
The Economic Council of Canada has suggested that we should study very carefully some of these proposals that are being put forward and some of the experiments being conducted in order to get our system on a different basis. In order to eliminate poverty and get the waste and inequalities out of our welfare system, we must move toward a new concept and a better program. We must begin seriously a thorough study to develop a program that will be effective in Canada and in Canadian circumstances. The goal of this program must be to stop the waste of lives, to stop the waste of money and, above all, to stop perpetuating poverty and perpetuating dependence.
The Economic Council of Canada has thrown a challenge to the government of
The Canadian Economy Canada and to all of us. I think we should accept it. We must recognize that an effective approach to this problem involves all levels of government and is not just a matter of this parliament passing legislation. An effective attack will involve discussions, consideration and co-operation, and we must get at it.
I think it is important that the government of Canada accept the challenge that has been given to them to meet with the provinces to begin these discussions and to get on with the job. It is time we made a start. I again congratulate the hon. member upon introducing the subject and bringing it before the House of Commons. While I certainly cannot support the resolution in this form, I am very pleased indeed that he has presented us with an opportunity to discuss this subject. I again urge the government of Canada to give its most urgent consideration to the problem of poverty and to the challenge that has been placed before it. The government should begin the difficult process of making far better use than we do now of our most valuable resource, the people of this country.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity extended to us to take part in a debate on a guaranteed minimum income for Canadians. I should like to compliment both the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on their contributions to this debate. In the past few decades parliament has enacted many measures of social and welfare legislation which were proposed by the successive governments of Canada. It is only fair to mention at this time that every measure of social welfare on the statute books of our country has been introduced by a Liberal government.
In the battle against poverty, the most recent efforts of the Canadian government have been the Canada and Quebec pension plans, the Canada Assistance Plan, and the guaranteed income supplement. In all fairness, it should be stated that the Canada Assistance Plan has taken care of many income needs and welfare requirements of Canadian residents. These measures go a long way in providing a certain basic guaranteed income to our residents.
Such a guaranteed annual income program has also recently been dramatically brought to our attention by the special Senate committee on aging under the chairmanship of Hon. David Croll. This committee submitted its final report on February 2, 1966. In its

October 2, 1968
The Canadian Economy report die Senate committee recommended the establishment of a guaranteed income program to provide allowances during the entire life of Canadians beginning at the age of 65 and following certain guide lines. The committee proposed that the federal government give immediate study to this proposal.
As a result of the Senate committee's recommendation, the federal government introduced a guaranteed income supplement which came into effect on January 1, 1967. In the first fiscal year of its operation the guaranteed income supplement was made available to 715,000 Canadian residents. An amount of $235 million was added to the income of old age security pension recipients by this plan. The present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), when speaking to the House of Commons on May 19, 1967, also mentioned a guaranteed annual income for Canadian residents. He stated, among other things, that this type of social assistance would be under intensive discussion by politicians as well as many economists in our country. He stated also that the policy of a guaranteed annual income would sooner or later be implemented in Canada and that if it should be, and he hoped that it would be, he also foresaw the possibility of a dismantling of much of our social welfare legislation.
For several years Mr. Speaker, proposals for a guaranteed minimum income have been advanced by sociologists, economists and politicians. The concepts of a guaranteed minimum income and a negative income tax have also been the subject of much debate in the United States, as mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. Only a few weeks ago, some members of the Ontario select committee of the Legislature studying taxation problems were quoted in the Toronto press as being favourable to the establishment of a guaranteed minimum income in Canada.
Reference is made in the wording of the motion put before us by the hon. member to the dignity, the value and the economic rights of the human being. I should like to bring to the attention of the house the fact that early in 1968 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who was minister of justice at that time, took part in the federal-provincial constitutional conference and issued a paper entitled "The Canadian Charter of Human Rights". In this paper, one of the rights which he defended was an economic right. He stated that the universal declaration of human rights included such rights as the right to work, the right to protection against unemployment, the right
[Mr Haidasz.l
to form and join trade unions, the right to social security, the right to rest at leisure, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to education and the right to participate in the cultural life of a community. The guarantee of economic rights, he said, was desirable and should be an ultimate objective for Canada.
In the fifth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, which was also mentioned during the course of this debate, we learned that the problem of poverty in Canada was extensively treated and studied. The economic council also outlined the extent of low incomes in Canada and made a few recommendations. Among these was a recommendation for income maintenance when necessary and possibly the adoption of a negative income tax or a similar program that would provide families with a guaranteed annual income.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
We should note, Mr. Speaker, that the economic council also stated in that report that it did not wish to pass judgment one way or the other on such proposals at the present time and would like to confine itself to nothing that the adoption of income guarantees has been advocated by a number of distinguished political figures and economists. The council also stated that the possibility for the usefulness in Canada of income guarantees should be subjected to serious and thorough study.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the economic council suggested that this study must embrace, among other things, an examination of the costs and anti-poverty effects of a considerable range of existing policies, and how income guarantees would to some extent replace the present plans. In its view, we learn that only by having such broad studies made would it be possible to form a proper judgment whether some type of broader income guarantees might usefully be added to Canada's efforts in its attack against poverty.
It should be noted that the economic council has asked for greater efforts without delay to exploit the considerable anti-poverty potential of the Canada Assistance Plan. It is understandable that to come up with an adequate guaranteed annual income it would be necessary to establish an acceptable minimum standard of living for families and single persons residing in Canada. In terms of income, such standards would differ appreciably between various regions of this vast country. The establishment of such standards
October 2, 1968

would also be a difficult and perhaps a controversial enterprise, but very essential.
The increasing problems of modern living and the right to a decent standard of existence call for continuing attention by all levels of government. I believe there will always be some families and individuals in various parts of this vast country who will be unable to participate fully in the economic life of Canada because of age, disability, sickness or other reasons. To ensure an adequate standard of living, social assistance to such people should be provided in a way that will enable them to have at least a fair share in our affluent society.
In discussing the hon. member's motion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the concept of a guaranteed annual income is definitely a desirable one. However, he has introduced into his motion a few specific points which would raise many difficulties. One part of the hon. member's motion states that a guaranteed annual income should be given to every Canadian citizen who is without work or other source of income.
It should be pointed out that citizenship is not at the present time a requirement for any social security program in Canada. There is no social security program, either provincial or federal, which requires citizenship as a qualifying condition for either coverage or payment of benefits. It should be mentioned that ten years' residence is the usual requirement for social assistance. Residence, however, is not the only requirement. The aspect of eligible age is also one of the conditions to qualify for certain pensions now available in Canada.
Another aspect of this motion which raises some difficulty is the inclusion of the words "without work or other source of income". The motion, therefore, excludes those who are working for an insufficient income, those who work on a part time basis, or those who do not work at all and have insufficient income from other sources. In my opinion, a guaranteed annual income should not have any restriction except the one of need and residence. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the motion as it is now worded is not specific enough as regards coverage. The motion would seem to include housewives, dependants, students, other people not working and even those who have no intention of going to work.
It could be argued that the provision of a universal guaranteed annual income would undermine the incentive to work of persons who feel that they could get as much under
The Canadian Economy this program as if they were employed in marginal occupations. It is quite likely that a guaranteed annual income program would induce certain members of the population to withdraw from marginal employment. But it should be stressed that the actual cost to an individual or family of accepting a guaranteed annual income in lieu of working means the virtual acceptance of a rather low standard of living. The inducement to improve one's standard of living through increased income may still be sufficient incentive for persons who are capable of employment.
Many of the opinions expressed about the effect of high taxes, social security benefits and the incentive to work are based on attitudes rather than empirical evidence. There is not much information available today on the effect of high income tax rates and work incentives in all income groups. The effect of high marginal tax rates on low income classes may be quite different from their effect on upper income groups. The two groups may react quite differently because their attitudes toward work may not be the same or the levels of the average tax rates do not seem equally burdensome.
The hon. member also mentions in his motion that the guaranteed minimum income should be derived from the national product so as not to increase taxes on individuals or companies, the cost of living, or the cost of any product or service. The new program of a guaranteed minimum income for Canadian residents will, I believe, be considerably more expensive than the aggregate cost of the programs which it may replace.
Some economists have estimated that federal and provincial governments now spend about two and a half billion dollars per year on welfare schemes. It has been stated that a guaranteed annual income would cost the United States approximately $20 billion and in Canada would amount to about one and a half to two billion dollars per year. It is therefore evident, Mr. Speaker, that the new expenditure required to provide such a guaranteed annual income for Canadian residents would result in higher taxes, or increased borrowing by the government, or replacement of all social welfare programs by all levels of government, or the inflation of currency, or some combination of these choices. There is no other possible way, Mr. Speaker, in which a guaranteed annual income could be financed from the national product, as suggested by the hon. member in his motion. The financing of the increased cost consequent upon this

October 2, 1968
The Canadian Economy measure means that taxes would most likely have to be increased and that additional pressures would be put on the price level, therefore making it impossible at the present time to meet the objectives of this motion.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the fact that poverty still exists in many sections of the Canadian population means that our present social welfare system on the federal, provincial and municipal levels, as well as the assistance provided by charitable organizations, seem to be inadequate to deal effectively with the problem. A politically feasible, socially desirable and financially possible scheme for Canada, however, should be set up in such a way as to minimize both budgetary and real costs while providing an adequate minimum for those people who are unable to work or have insufficient income from other sources.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
To provide such an annual guaranteed income means, Mr. Speaker, that we need more research on many aspects of this problem. The present administration is committed to the removal of any existing inequities in our social welfare system and I am confident that the present government is tackling the problem of poverty vigorously. I wish to express the hope that soon the correct measures will be implemented by this parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is quite correct that there are defects in the motion proposed by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin). Some of us do not think that his way of carrying out his idea would work. But the gist of my hon. friend's motion is that this House of Commons should begin to consider a new idea, the idea of a guaranteed income for all our people. I regret that to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) this motion presented only an opportunity to berate the Liberal government for what it has not done and that for the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) it presented only an opportunity for him to boast of what he claims the Liberals have done.


An hon. Member:: And what's that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Sooner or later, and I hope it will be sooner rather than later, all of us who think we are in positions of leadership in this country will have to face this new idea of divorcing incomes, social welfare, pensions, and things like that, from work and the old concepts we still have. Sooner or later, we must recognize

that life itself carries with it certain economic rights. This motion places that question before us and I congratulate the hon. member for Portneuf for proposing it.
I regret that the rules of the house permit only one hour to discuss this question. Only five or six minutes of that hour are left to me to speak, so that some of my thoughts on the subject will have to be expressed on another occasion. Likewise, some of the interesting quotations on my desk must also be saved for another occasion. I must, however, draw the attention of the house to a few quotations I have because they come from a responsible person working in this field and they suggest to us, I believe, some new ideas that we must consider.
I hold in my hand a copy of an address that was given recently in Winnipeg by Dr. Reuben C. Baetz, executive director of the Canadian Welfare Council. Dr. Baetz was giving an address at the Social Service Audit workshop held in Winnipeg. His address was delivered on September 19.
As I say, if time had permitted I would have quoted a great deal from the remarks of Dr. Baetz. In the meantime I wish to quote to the house some remarks that are very much to the point. He said:
In any consideration of social rights and social welfare, the matter of a sufficient income, as a right, must sooner or later be faced squarely.
He is not talking about social welfare or the money you obtain because you work or do not work; he is not talking about a minimum income, a minimum wage which is just enough for a man to get along on; he is talking of a sufficient income as a right. He goes on to say:
This may be extremely unpalatable to some, but the logic of it is impossible to escape. Dostoevski said "income is coined freedom". In our society of free enterprise the man with sufficient income has substantial freedom. He has a wide range of choices as to where he lives, how he is housed and clothed, what he eats and drinks, and who his friends and neighbours should be. Conversely, the individual with an inadequate income loses substantial freedom of choice and action, and can become the most fettered and dependent of all men.
Dr. Baetz again asks the question, "Does a man have the right to an adequate income?". This is what we should be talking about when we discuss this subject, Mr. Speaker. We should discuss not just compassion in dealing with the poor, not just minimum incomes or the minimum wage, not just a handout for the people who live on the other side of the tracks to enable them to continue in their
October 2, 1968	COMMONS
meagre existence. We should be discussing adequate incomes tor everyone.
Replying to his own question, Dr. Baetz said:
This question has social, economic, moral, and political overtones. As a nation we have not resolved the question, either at the intellectual or practical level. The result is a prolonged and gigantic 'ad hocery" in social welfare programming. To the extent that we continue to "waffle" at the philosophical level, we will continue to "waffle" at the administrative level. If we are honest with ourselves we will recognize the present inconsistency in our position which states that no one should starve, but no one is guaranteed an adequate income either.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is as far as our contemporary society has gone in this field. We say that no one should starve and therefore we hand out relief, welfare and unemployment insurance. Yet when someone suggests that we guarantee an adequate income to all our people the hon. member for Parkdale stands up and says that this means allowances for women and children-Why not?-and it will cost an awful lot of money.
In an age as affluent as our present society, in an age where computer techniques enable man to go to the moon and return, surely we can declare our belief in the rights of human beings and devise a system that will provide a guaranteed annual income to all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: see that time is passing. I must save the rest of my ideas until I speak on a motion under my name later, perhaps in two or three days. But, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me
DEBATES	729
Business of the House to read another sentence from the comments of Dr. Baetz. He said:
I suspect that one or two decades hence, when the crop of post World War II students now coming out of university will be making the decisions, we will have some scheme for a guaranteed annual income which will probably be integrated with our taxation system. They will no doubt look back with some amusement at the income maintenance efforts and underlying philosophies in the "swinging 60's"!
We must do a lot better, Mr. Speaker, and we had better start doing it soon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour put aside for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask the government house leader to indicate the order of business for tomorrow and possibly Friday?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I propose that tomorrow we continue with the debate on the resolution preceding the bill to amend the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act, item 7 on today's order paper, thereafter proceed to item 5 on today's order paper, the resolution preceding the amendment to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and thereafter proceed to second reading of Bill C-110, item 6 on today's order paper. I shall be making a statement tomorrow with respect to the business for the oncoming week during the question period, at which time I shall deal with the business for Friday and for next week.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 3, 1968