1969-11-12

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be of some assistance to the House if I set out the government's intentions as to the business for the balance of this week. It would be the government's objective to call the following measures this week in the following order, in order to have them disposed of: First, as already announced for today, item No. 19, the Canada student loans bill, to be followed by No. 12, the small businesses loans bill, and item No. 10, the CNR financing bill. It would be intended then to call item No. 6, the Canada Corporations Act amending bill, which has already been under debate, to be followed by item No. 17, the repeal of the Deep Sea Fisheries Act, item No. 18 with respect to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, and finally item No. 30, the resolution standing in my name with respect to the Canada Elections Act.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I propose, pursuant to Standing Order 43, in view of the fact that no statement has been forthcoming from the government on motions today with regard to the greatly increasing dissatisfaction and unrest among the Indian people of Canada, to ask for unanimous consent to move a motion. I will exercise my right under that Standing Order to make a very brief explanation which I hope will move the House to let me move the motion.
Despite sincere efforts by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to deal with the increasing unrest and dissatisfaction with government policies, no substantial results have to date been achieved. Indeed, only today the Indian people on the Six Nations Reservation near Brantford, Ontario, have announced their intention to
secede from Canada and have sent notice of this decision not only to the Prime Minister but to the Secretary General of the United Nations.
This extreme action can only have been taken because of a sense of deep frustration among the Indian people at the treatment they are continuing to be accorded by the government. Indeed, the fact that such notice has been sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations can only embarrass Canada internationally and give those unfriendly to us an opportunity to discredit our good intentions with the newly developing nations.
The motion I will move, if the requisite consent is given me, is:
That the question of aboriginal and treaty rights in particular and the general dissatisfaction of the Indian peoples of Canada be referred at once to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and that this committee shall have the widest authority to look into these matters, to summon witnesses and to seek whatever expertise may be required to appropriately carry out this mandate.
Should I be granted unanimous consent the house leader of my party would be glad to consult with the government house leader as to an appropriate time for debate on the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there is not unanimous consent. In the circumstances we may not proceed with the motion proposed by the hon. member.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Who said no?


Mr. Trudeau:: I said no.



DOMINION COAL BOARD DISSOLUTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
First reading of Senate Public Bills-Bill S-3, an Act to provide for the Dissolution of the Dominion Coal Board and for the repeal of the Canadian Coal Equality Act, the Coal Production Assistance Act and the Dominion Coal Board Act-The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
728	COMMONS
Dominion Coal Board Dissolution Act
Mr. Speaker:: Before calling Bill S-3, an act to provide for the dissolution of the Dominion Coal Board and for the repeal of the Canadian Coal Equality Act, the Coal Production Assistance Act and the Dominion Coal Board Act, I have to refer to a procedural discussion which took place in the House during the last few days.
On Thursday last the hon. member for Peace River rose on a point of order to suggest that the provisions of Bill S-3, an act to provide for the dissolution of the Dominion Coal Board and for the repeal of the Canadian Coal Equality Act, the Coal Production Assistance Act and the Dominion Coal Board Act, constituted a violation of clauses 53 and 54 of the British North America Act and also of the provisions of two of our most important rules of procedure, Standing Orders 62 and 63. In his submission the hon. member contended in particular that the stated purpose of clauses 2 and 3 of the bill dealt with the appropriation of public funds and, this being so, that the bill could only be initiated in the House of Commons upon a recommendation of the Crown.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Subsequently, on Monday last the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre debated the point of order and referred in some detail to a number of authorities dealing with the question of appropriating public funds. I suggest that the hon. gentleman made a lucid and cogent presentation and received the strong support of the hon. member for Edmonton West.
The President of the Privy Council, when he entered the discussion on Monday last, quoted citations 449 and 450 of Beauchesne's third edition in relation to the proceedings on Bill S-3. Those citations read as follows:
449.	A bill, which does not involve a direct expenditure but merely confers upon the government a power for the exercise of which public money will have to be voted by Parliament, is not a money bill and no resolution is necessary as a condition precedent to its introduction.
450.	A bill designed to furnish machinery for the expenditure of a certain sum of public money to be voted subsequently by Parliament may be introduced in the House without the recommendation of the Crown and without a resolution being first considered in committee.
I have had an opportunity to review the origin of the citations referred to by the minister. They are to be found at pages 118 and 119 and page 240 in the Journals of 1912-13 but, frankly, I do not think those two precedents are analogous to the question now before the House.

DEBATES	November 12, 1969
In his ruling given on January 16, 1912, the then Speaker stated, in part, as follows:
The question is not free from difficulty. Mr. Bou-rinot in his observation seems to have extended the scope of the rule rather beyond the terms in which it is worded. What those terms cover is "A motion for any public aid or charge upon the people." This bill does not constitute such a motion. The most that can be said is, that under its provisions, something may be done which may give rise to a claim against the government. If this be sufficient to bring it within the rule, then it would have to be held that every bill conferring a power upon the government in the exercise of which expense might be incurred, comes under the rule. This, in my opinion, would be giving altogether too extensive an interpretation to the words ''a motion for any public aid or charge upon the people."
While the authorities are not absolutely reconcilable, I am not disposed to attach to the rule this very enlarged meaning. I am therefore of opinion that no resolution is necessary.
It will be seen from the remarks of Mr. Speaker in 1912 that there was no question of altering or amending any provision of any Appropriation Act.
The provision in subclause 2 of Bill S-3 cannot be construed in any manner except as an amendment to Appropriation Acts, past and future, and bestows upon the Governor in Council power to dispose of moneys in a manner not authorized by the relevant provisions of certain Appropriation Acts.
By allowing those financial provisions to remain in a public bill sent down from the Senate, the privileges of this House, in my opinion, have been infringed. Section 1 of Standing Order 62, which is explicit in that regard, reads as follows:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
My ruling, therefore, must be that as the provisions in Bill S-3 relating to the appropriation of public moneys infringe the privileges of this House that bill should be laid aside. Therefore the notice for first reading of this bill will be removed from the Order Paper.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Howard (Skeena): As of April, 1969, how many people were on the staff of the Indian Affairs Branch?
November 12, 1969


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The former Indian Affairs Branch has been reorganized and now forms part of the Indian-Eskimo Affairs Program. As of April 1969, 5,089 people including 1,585 persons who were formerly employed by religious denominations form part of that program.


NEWFOUNDLAND-DESIGNATED AREAS
Mr. Burton: 1.	What criteria were used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to select designated areas for the province of Newfoundland?
2.	Were there comprehensive consultations with the Government of Newfoundland regarding the selection of these designated areas and, If so, did the province concur with the areas designated by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Weighted measures of rates of economic growth (employment, income and population) and of potential for secondary industry.
2. There were comprehensive consultations. Under the terms of the legislation, the province was not asked to express formal concurrence.


QUEBEC-DESIGNATED AREAS
Mr. Burton: 1.	What criteria were used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the selection of designated areas for the Province of Quebec?
2.	Were there comprehensive consultations with the Government of Quebec regarding the selection of these designated areas and, if so, did the province concur with the areas designated by the Department of Regional Expansion?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. Weighted measures of rates of economic growth (employment, income and population) and of potential for secondary industry.
2. There were comprehensive consultations. Under the terms of the legislation, the province was not asked to express formal concurrence.


ONTARIO-DESIGNATED AREAS
Mr. Burton: 1.	What criteria were used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the selection of designated areas for the Province of Ontario?
2.	Were there comprehensive consultations with the Government of Ontario regarding the selection of these designated areas and, if so, did the Province concur with the areas designated by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?
Questions


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. Weighted measures of rates of economic growth (employment, income and population) and of potential for secondary industry.
2. There were comprehensive consultations. Under the terms of the legislation, the province was not asked to express formal concurrence.


MANITOBA-DESIGNATED AREAS
Mr. Burton: 1.	What criteria were used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the selection of designated areas for the province of Manitoba?
2.	Were there comprehensive consultations with the Government of Manitoba regarding the selection of these designated areas and, if so, did the Province concur with the areas designated by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. Weighted measures of rates of economic growth (employment, income and population) and of potential for secondary industry.
2. There were comprehensive consultations. Under the terms of the legislation, the province was not asked to express formal concurrence.


SASKATCHEWAN-DESIGNATED AREAS
Mr. Burton: 1.	What criteria were used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the selection of designated areas for the Province of Saskatchewan?
2.	Were there comprehensive consultations with the Government of Saskatchewan regarding the selection of these designated areas and, if so, did the Province concur with the areas designated by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. Weighted measures of rates of economic growth (employment, income and population) and of potential for secondary industry.
2. There were comprehensive consultations. Under the terms of the legislation, the province was not asked to express formal concurrence.


ALBERTA-DESIGNATED AREAS
Mr. Burton: 1. What criteria were used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the selection of designated areas for the Province of Alberta?

November 12, 1969
Motions for Papers
2. Were there comprehensive consultations with the Government of Alberta regarding the selection of these designated areas and, if so, did the Province concur with the areas designated by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. Weighted measures of rates of economic growth (employment, income and population) and of potential for secondary industry.
2. There were comprehensive consultations. Under the terms of the legislation, the province was not asked to express formal concurrence.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-DESIGNATED AREAS
Mr. Burton: 1.	What criteria were used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the selection of designated areas for the Province of British Columbia?
2.	Were there comprehensive consultations with the Government of British Columbia regarding the selection of these designated areas and, if so, did the Province concur with the areas designated by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. Weighted measures of rates of economic growth (employment, income and population) and of potential for secondary industry.
2. There were comprehensive consultations. Under the terms of the legislation, the province was not asked to express formal concurrence.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 132 is acceptable to the government.


WHEAT EXPORT BARTER ARRANGEMENTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 132-Mr. Burton:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to he laid before this House a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada and the Canadian Wheat Board concerning barter arrangements involving wheat exports?
Motion agreed to.
David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, would you please call notice of motion No. 97. I ask that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.


LOAN OF AIRCRAFT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 97-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Order-in-Council passed during June 1969, under the Financial Administration Act, the loan of one CL-41 Tutor Aircraft and one CF-104 Star-fighter to Canadair for Aerospace Exhibits Limited.
Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 97 is identical with notice of motion No. 266 which was accepted by the government and the document tabled on October 22. In view of this duplication I assume that the hon. member may wish to withdraw his present motion.


Mr. Orlikow:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



ORAL QUESTIONS


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. At the Brussels International Legal Conference on Maritime Pollution will the Canadian position with respect to the north be based upon the assertion of Canadian sovereignty over all the waters between the Canadian Arctic islands and the Canadian mainland? Will the Canadian position at the Brussels International Legal Conference on Maritime Pollution be based on that ground?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it will be based on the position that I have stated in my answers to previous questions by the hon. member: that Canada asserts its claim to as large a part of the Arctic waters as is possible and is proper. However, we have not yet instructed our minister in Brussels to put any lines on a map.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we to infer from the Prime Minister's answer that Canada will be attempting to negotiate at this international conference without making it clear what our area of sovereign responsibility is?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, because the conference is involved precisely with international waters and the minister will be discussing Canada's role and its desire to participate
November 12, 1969	COMMONS
in international controls. But what we do with our own waters is not a matter lor discussion at Brussels.


Mr. Baldwin:: The government is muddying the waters.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the Member of Parliament lor Don Valley stating the position ol the government ol Canada when he suggested at the United Nations' political committee that a percentage ol each sea, be it Atlantic or Pacific or any other, be set aside lor international exploitation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the question is in order and whether we are not attempting to extend the rule which allows the Prime Minister to comment on statements made by ministers outside the House on questions ol government policy. It seems to me that we are at this point attempting to enlarge that general rule.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wished to address a question to the Minister ol Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but since neither he nor his Parliamentary Secretary are present may I direct it to the acting minister and, hopelully, obtain an answer. To what extent did the government or the minister consult the elected members ol the territorial council ol the Northwest Territories in the preparation ol that puny document which was issued there the other day?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member may wish to rephrase his question since I do not think it was put in the proper lorm.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, will the acting minister tell us whether the elected members ol the territorial council ol the Northwest Territories were consulted in the preparation ol the speech which the Minister ol Indian Affairs and Northern Development made on Monday?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister will be returning to the House on Friday and I will draw the hon. member's observation to his attention.
DEBATES	731
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether the statement made in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory is the last statement with respect to gradual progress toward more autonomy in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories or is a farther statement anticipated, particularly in view ol the lact that next year is the centennial ol the Northwest Territories?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the question in detail, but I did see an early dralt of the minister's speech. To the extent that he adhered to it I could say that it is a statement of government policy.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-iings):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to ask the Secretary ol State lor External Affairs a question, as today is an appointed day for him to be in the House, but in his absence I will address it to the Prime Minister. In view ol the statement by Mr. George Aldrich, the legal adviser to the United States State Department, in his memorandum to the minister that "our embassy in Ottawa advises that the Canadian federal government does not have any great interest in reopening the case", would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House where its application for the extradition of Hal Banks now stands?
A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, il the Prime Minister is not going to answer.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secreiary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I do not think this will be necessary after I have said that I feel this question should be directed to the Minister of Justice.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, can I ask anyone who has nerve enough to answer my question? I am willing to listen. II the Minister of Justice would like to have a go at it, let him try.
November 12, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything in the newspaper story that the hon. member and I both read to change the facts of the situation, namely, that we have received legal advice from counsel in the United States that there would be no purpose in attempting to reopen the case. I only wish the hon. member would be as interested in the administration of justice as he in playing politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, if I, too, were a prima donna I would demand retraction of that remark because, as we all know, Members of Parliament are not allowed to make such remarks. However, I will not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Temiscamingue.


Mr. Caouelie:: Mr. Speaker-


George Harris Hees: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member will allow the hon. member for Temiscamingue, whom I have already recognized, to ask his question and I will return to the hon. member in just a moment.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. As the same memo to Mr. Rogers from Mr. Aldrich recommended that Canada be informed that "as a matter of law the Canadian government is free to make a second request through the courts for the extradition of Harold Banks", is it the intention of the government to make a second request?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can only reply by quoting from the same report to which the hon. member addressed himself. I quote:
Reports from our Canadian posts generally indicate that the Canadian political interest stems more from attempts to embarrass the Canadian federal government than from an interest in the return of Mr. Banks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: My question remains unanswered, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Minister of Justice a further supplementary: Who played politics more with Mr. Banks than did the hon. member?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
On the occasion of the famous demonstration against Bill 63 now before the Quebec National Assembly, a C.B.C. employee called the leaders of the Rouyn CEGEP, asking them to organize the said demonstration.
Does the Secretary of State know that some C.B.C. employees use the Corporation's telephones to organize similar demonstrations in remote areas such as Rouyn-Noranda? If not, would he inquire about the situation with a view to determining which C.B.C. employee made that telephone call to the Rouyn CEGEP?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of this fact, but I agree to inquire.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My
question is for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that the discussions leading to diplomatic relations between Canada and the People's Republic of China are apparently progressing favourably, will the Prime Minister consider making a statement to the House explaining why the government of Canada did not propose to the United Nations the seating of the People's Republic of China in that body, without prejudice to the eventual position to be held there by the government of Taiwan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would not make such a statement, Mr. Speaker, because I have nothing to add to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said in previous explanations.



MARIJUANA-STUDY OF EFFECTS ON HUMANS

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister initiated a study by his department concern-
November 12, 1969

ing the medical effects of the use of marijuana and, if so, when will he be in a position to inform the House of the findings?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Money is available to various scientists in Canada for study and research having to do with the effects of marijuana on humans. Some experiments are going on, first, with a view to ascertaining its effect on animals, and the findings will then be related to the study affecting humans. I do not know precisely when the results will be made public.
I should like to point out that the commission inquiring into the non-medical use of drugs has money available to it for similar studies. As the hon. member may know, it is expected to make an interim report some time in January and a final report about a year and a half later.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker. Has the Economic Council of Canada been asked to reduce its permanent secretariat and to refrain from entering into contracts with outside consultants?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: The Economic Council, like other departments and agencies of the government, has been given a budget for the next fiscal year. In some instances this will result in a reduction of staff; in some instances it will result in changes in programs, and in other instances it will involve changes in the practice of hiring consultants. The determination of which of these courses of action is to be followed is left largely to the agency.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I ask whether this important body has made representations to the effect that its work might be inhibited and proscribed by these respective suggestions?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker, such
representations have been made and given consideration.
Inquiries of the Ministry SPORTS



TELEVISING OF FOOTBALL PLAY-OFFS

Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: have a question for the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. Thousands of Canadians who receive only television coverage provided by the CBC will be able to see only four or perhaps five of the eight Canadian Football League play-off games, which is a great injustice to them. Would the minister contact the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and urge that all eight games be carried on the full network?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation. He has to assume he has the support of all hon. members and that this will be looked into by the appropriate minister.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with the tender recently let to build a national defence complex at a cost of $27 million. Can the minister assure the House that the final cost of this building will not escalate to $135 million, or five times the estimate, as was the case with the National Arts Centre?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as asked is argumentative.



HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES NEAR PEACE TOWER

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Public Works and it is on the same subject, but I hope in order. In view of the announcement that a $27 million national defence headquarters is to be built in centre town in place of the national defence tower at LeBreton flats, which was to have cost $90 million and would have been higher than the Peace Tower, may I ask the Minister of Public Works whether he can assure the House that there are no plans for any buildings in the immediate proximity of this building that would be taller than the Peace Tower of this building?


Arthur Laing: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think that assurance can be given.
734
November 12, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



SASKATCHEWAN PROPOSALS RESPECTING WHEAT AND POTASH

Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister had discussions with Premier Thatcher of Saskatchewan today, or is he about to have them and, if so, could he advise the House whether he is willing to support the Premier's barter deal on wheat and the prorationing of production and a minimum price for potash?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, which makes the second part hypothetical.


Richard Russell Southam: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the Prime Minister has his discussion with the Premier, will he look favourably on his representations?



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In his reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister referred to international waters. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what will be the status of the waters which lie between St. Pierre and Miquelon and Canada? Will any fishing activity be permitted in this area, and will our boundaries be the traditional three miles or will the 12-mile limit apply?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am afraid I cannot answer that statistical question, Mr. Speaker.



ACCESS TO NORTHWEST PASSAGE FOR FOREIGN SHIPS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the recent statement of the Minister of Transport that it is acceptable to Canada to permit free access to the northwest passage to United States icebreakers and freighters, is it the policy of the Canadian government to agree that access shall be permitted to all other nations irrespective of their purposes or their relationship with Canada and the western world?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Laing.l


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. In view of the fact that the United States has already made use of the passage, is the government making certain that there will be security restrictions and protection for Canada and, indeed, North America, against the use of access to the northwest passage by nations for purposes other than trade and goodwill?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In so far as it will be necessary and possible, Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of National Defence. I hope he will be able to reply to it so that I can answer a number of questions I have received. Has a decision been reached to locate any of the new CF-5 aircraft in northern Canada? If so, how extensive will be the navigational equipment necessary to meet Arctic conditions having regard to the proximity of the magnetic pole?


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression that this is the type of question that should be placed on the order paper. When the hon. member receives a reply in writing, perhaps he could pass on the information in writing to his constituents.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. By leaving out the last part-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon.
member might like to rephrase the question.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether a decision has been reached to locate any of the CF-5 aircraft in northern Canada?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: No decision has been reached, Mr. Speaker, because there are no such plans.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
November 12, 1969
Would he tell the House how he intends to divide between the provinces the $50 million ear-marked to promote the teaching of a second language, or, rather, which steps he will take to enable each member state of the federation to benefit equally from it? Would the province of Quebec be treated differently in view of its special situation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is seeking information which should normally be given to the House by way of a statement on motions.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Minister of Transport. Is the minister prepared to make a statement in the House concerning the circumstances of the tragic plane crash yesterday at Labrador City and can the minister, either now or in a subsequent statement, assure the House that this airport is adequately equipped with GCA equipment and DOT personnel to man it?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: In answer to the question put by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, the department started to look into this matter yesterday. I will be pleased to inform the hon. member of any further information, and when the department will have a report.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the serious effect on the standard of living of Canadian consumers caused by the price increases in gasoline and heating oil just announced by Shell Canada Limited, would the minister suggest to the Prices and Incomes Commission that they make an early investigation of these price increases?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that the price increase announcement made by that company is inflationary and a danger to the Canadian econo-21362-47J
Inquiries of the Ministry my. I regret very much that the company saw fit to make these price increases. I have endeavoured to make clear, as explained in the House many times, that the Prices and Incomes Commission is independent and entitled to look at this or any other question as it thinks necessary.


Winona Grace MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister, in view of his reluctance to advise the Prices and Incomes Commission of his opinions, whether he would now consider setting up a prices review board under his direct control to investigate these increases which keep occurring with rather alarming frequency?


Stanley Ronald Basford: First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I say that at one point the House wanted an independent body, but I am delighted with the hon. member's confidence in me since she now feels I should have direct control. I will certainly consider that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Are we to assume from his answer and from the view he has expressed with regard to this price increase that either he or the government are now expressing opinions as to specific restraints that should be applied, indicating what is appropriate to particular conditions, rather than simply calling for a general exercise of restraint?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, any general call for restraint must, of course, involve individual companies and price decisions, and I was commenting on one this morning.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question. I understood what the minister said very well. What I was asking him was whether the government is now doing what the Prices and Incomes Commission says it is unable to do in the absence of a consensus, namely, to indicate what does, in effect, constitute restraint in a particular circumstance?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, what constitutes restraint is companies and others making private decisions not to increase prices. I think I have made that very clear for some time.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whilby):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to do anything about the specific promise he made last August to investigate prices in the automotive industry?

November 12, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize that that question was asked; at least, it was according to my recollection. If I am wrong the minister may reply. Apparently I am right.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. In view of the fact that the minister has commented on the Shell Oil increase, what is his opinion of the apparent increase which is being voted on today as a result of the Inco settlement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking the minister to express an opinion, and I do not think that a question asked in this way is acceptable.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might rephrase the question, always recognizing the Chair. After we know what the Inco settlement is, will the minister be prepared to come into the House and express an opinion on whether it too may be inflationary?


Stanley Ronald Basford: If that should be indicated as a desirable course of action, yes.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Sleven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister which has to do with his visit to New York. Besides dancing with "Funny Girl", did the Prime Minister preempt his next election by going to see the Broadway play, "Promises, Promises"?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of National Defence inform the house whether the government is contemplating a drastic reduction in Canada's militia forces and, if so, will this involve the various cadet movements?


Mr. Speaker:: I should think that the question as asked is an invitation to the minister to make a very general statement of policy. I hope the minister will not attempt to do that at this time.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, Mr. Speaker. I intended to indicate to the hon. member that I did specify in my announcement of September 19 that the
[Mr. Broadbent.l

number of cadets would not be reduced. So far as the militia is concerned, we are currently discussing this matter with the Conference of Defence Associations, and I am sure there is going to be a meeting of minds on what the future structure of the militia forces will be.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the permanence of the tender to build a new defence headquarters I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether we should understand that the defence review has now been concluded?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, my own interpretation in respect of the defence building is that it is just an indication that we are still in business.



INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that almost two weeks ago we received the annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the evidence taken by the committee at the last session on matters referred to it, will the House leader take this matter up with the chairman of the committee and urge an early calling of meetings?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Rod Thomson (Batlleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of National Defence indicate when he will announce his plans in respect of Arctic forces, a subject of much discussion these days?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I hope this may be soon, if that is satisfactory to the hon. member. May I also indicate to him that after the many representations he has made the flights in the North are more regular than before.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it relates to his meeting yesterday
November 12, 1969	COMMONS
with the Secretary General of the United Nations. Can he inform the House whether or not in his discussions with U Thant any matters were raised relative to the war in Nigeria-Biafra, specifically the removal of some of the obstacles the Prime Minister referred to in his speech in the debate in reply to the Throne Speech in terms of relief and progress regarding the possibility of United Nations assistance toward a ceasefire?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can speak only in general terms because I believe I would be wrong to refer to the discussions in detail. The matter of confidence regarding these meetings is very important. I did want to assure myself whether Canada could usefully take any new initiatives at the United Nations. On that aspect of the question I received no encouragement from the Secretary General.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, was the Prime Minister able to ascertain from the Secretary General whether the United Nations might play some role in establishing effective relief corridors?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, and I would hesitate to speak in the name of the United Nations.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might be allowed to rephrase a question I tried to direct to the attention of the President of the Treasury Board on November 10. Having in mind the statement last weekend by the chairman of the Public Service Commission of Canada alleging discrimination in employment opportunities for women in the Public Service, will he undertake to inquire into this situation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I recommend that the hon. gentleman read the speech of the chairman of the Public Service Commission; I will send him a copy of it. It is an analysis of a situation which is perhaps to some extent reflected in this chamber. It involves obtaining adequate recognition of the rights and qualifications of women, even in Parliament. He was merely drawing attention to the fact that this situation also exists in the Public Service.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I should like to-
DEBATES	737
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is rising on a supplementary question. Perhaps he would kindly resume his seat so that it will be easier for me to indicate to him that I have the same reservations today that I had last week about questions concerning statements made outside the House by persons other than ministers of the Crown. Perhaps the supplementary question should be asked in another fashion.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to ask the minister whether, in spite of what he has said, he will have a look at this general situation?



TAXATION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio from Windsor West whether, in view of the statement by the Minister of Finance that the government will review its sales and special commodities tax as soon as Parliament and the country have digested the white paper proposals issued last week, he can indicate when this review will get under way and how it will proceed? Will we have a white paper on the subject of these other taxes and, if so, when may we expect it?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minisfer without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the white paper on tax reform points out in paragraph 1.19 that income taxes:
-should be given priority in the tax relorm program. Reform of the sales tax is less urgent and can be undertaken after action on the proposals in this paper.
I think these words speak for themselves. May I conclude by saying that the method of reviewing sales taxes will be announced in due course.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I take it this relates to something that is possibly in the dim and distant future. Do I understand the minister correctly that it is the intention of the government to have the country and Parliament study the proposals in respect of income tax changes without having had an opportunity to examine and consider in the same context changes in sales and commodity taxes which might very well have a bearing on attitudes toward the special proposals in the white paper?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Parliament and the public may well feel that the proposals in the
November 12, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry white paper are of sufficient importance that they should have primary attention for the time being.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Attorney General for the Northwest Territories. I understand he has that function. When will he be making a statement regarding the administration of justice in the territories?


John Napier Turner: Within the next two weeks, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Howard: In view of the fact that the report on Indians and the law has been sort of sloughed off by his colleague because this subject falls to a great extent within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and inasmuch as there is no such impediment regarding the Northwest Territories, will his statement about the administration of justice cover the salient points of that report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader whether he will bring in an appropriate reference in order that the Standing Committee on Regional Development can continue its study of the various regional development programs in the country, which it did not complete at the last session?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will discuss that with my colleague, Mr. Speaker.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, now that the Atlantic Development Council has been appointed I should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion when it will begin meeting and whether the minister is willing to make a
IMr. Gray.]
statement on the directions he gives the council, or table them in the House, in order that we may fully understand its duties and its r esponsibilities ?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Council will meet in Halifax in the very near future, that is next week, if not this week.
Its terms of reference are laid down in the legislation, and I do not expect we will issue other guidelines than those contained in it.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that undoubtedly the minister or his deputies will be giving further directions because of the very general nature of the act, when these directions have been given to the council will he agree to make them public by tabling them or making a statement so that all hon. members may be aware of the council's full responsibilities?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if general guidelines are to be issued to the Council, then I shall not object to their being tabled in the House.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
Could he tell the House when the federal government will appoint a Commissioner of Languages as provided for in the act that was passed during the last session?


Gérard Pelletier: In the near future, Mr. Speaker.
{English]



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Toward the end of last session there was a list of bills given, many of which were not reached. One of them was a bill to amend the Old Age Security Act. In view of the fact that such a bill was not included in the list of bills
November 12, 1969

that the Prime Minister tabled on the first day of this session, may I ask the minister whether there will be such a bill during the course of this session?


John Carr Munro: It is highly unlikely, Mr. Speaker.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PARTICIPATION OF MUNICIPALITIES IN CONFERENCE

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the oncoming federal-provincial conference, is it the intention of the government, in co-operation with the provinces, to invite representatives of the municipalities throughout the nation to attend this conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: At one point I made some general remarks along the lines suggested by the hon. member, but of course I cannot issue directions to the provinces with regard to the composition of their delegations.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister prepared to take leadership in this regard and to follow up the matter with the provinces in order to get their opinions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Sometimes I am asked to take leadership within areas of provincial juridic-tion and at other times I am asked not to take leadership in the area of federal jurisdiction, so I am not quite sure in which direction the House wishes me to go.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister say whether representatives from the Northwest Territories Council and the Yukon Council will attend the conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I expect the arrangements to be similar to the ones that existed in the past.



THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since he stated recently that he was contemplating setting up a committee on constitutional matters, is he in a position to advise us whether a decision has been taken in this connection? If not, would he be prepared to
Inquiries of the Ministry issue a statement on this subject in the near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the decision has been announced in principle. The main thing is to agree with the leaders of the opposition parties on the most suitable time for the creation of that committee.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question-


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question concerning leadership outside the country. In view of the continuing reports of repression and torture by the military government of Greece, is the government of Canada making any special effort within NATO to bring the strongest possible pressure to bear on the regime in Greece and, if so, what measures are being taken and what alternatives are being considered by the government?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the European Commission on Human Rights is studying this question at the present time, and I do not believe that an intervention by the government of Canada is advisable at this time, particularly in view of the fact that the Greek government has agreed to an inspection by a Red Cross international commission of the camps where Greek citizens are detained, and that this commission plans to publish a report on the matter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister ensure that the House is given a report on the present extent of Canadian sales and supplies of military and other equipment to Greece in view of the apparent increase in Canadian military exports to that country since the present regime took over?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, Greece is a member of NATO and this question must necessarily come under our general NATO policy.
November 12, 1969

Canada Student Loans Act [English]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Let me now turn to the proposed amendments. Hon. members will recall that the Canada Student Loans Act provides for a basic loan provision for each loan year. This provision is divided among the provinces, both participating and non-participating, into provincial allocations on the basis of the distribution among them of the general population in the 13 to 24-year age group. The provincial allocation acts as a limit on the aggregate value of certificates of eligibility which can be issued by a participating province. The basic loan provision was originally established for the loan year opening on July 1, 1964, at $40 million. The original act provided that this could be increased in subsequent loan years by the percentage increase of Canada's population in the 18 to 24-year age group from year to year. The $40 million, while sufficient over-all in the first loan year, proved to be inadequate in the case of a few individual, participating provinces. It was necessary, therefore, through the medium of the estimates to provide special increases for that year.
Early in the second loan year which began on July 1, 1965, it became apparent that the basic loan provision, which had increased by a small amount over the first year, would be inadequate to meet the demand for loans which would be placed on it. In June of 1966, therefore, amendments were made to the act which increased the basic loan provision for the year 1965-66 to $58 million. At the same time a supplementary loan provision, equal to 20 per cent of the basic loan amount in a loan year, was established.
This provision could be allocated by the Minister of Finance of the day on the request of a province where the demand for loans exceeded the available provincial allocation. This feature was incorporated in the act because it came to be recognized that there was a different relative demand for loans among participating provinces which could not be met simply by dividing the basic loan provision among provinces on the basis of population distribution.
These amendments enabled the Canada student loans plan to work effectively until the loan year 1968-69. During the intervening period, however, the rate of increase in the number of students attending post-secondary institutions was some three times greater than that in the 18 to 24-year age group. This inevitably meant that the growth in demand for student loans would outstrip the increase in the basic loan provision from year to year. When this situation in fact came to a head

Canada Student Loans Act last year, use was made of the supplementary estimates to provide a temporary solution.
The Appropriations Act, No. 1, 1969, established the basic loan provision for the loan year 1968-69 at $80 million and increased the supplementary loan amount from 20 per cent to 21 per cent of the revised basic loan provision. The same item also took account of the current loan year which commenced last July 1, setting the basic loan amount at $100 million and increasing the supplementary provision to 30 per cent. However, no provision was made for the period beyond June 30 of next year. This meant, in the absence of legislative action prior to that time, available allocations for the loan year 1970-71 would have to be determined under the basic provisions currently in the act itself, and these would be insufficient to meet current needs. It is primarily to prevent this from happening that this bill is being presented at this time.
Another reason for this bill is that during the period since the act was last amended a number of matters have arisen related to conditions spelled out in it, which have caused complications for borrowers and others involved in the effective administration of the program. A number of the proposed amendments are intended to deal with these complications.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the most important of the amendments before us is the one dealing with available allocations for the loan year commencing July 1, 1970, and for subsequent years. In 1970-71 the basic loan provision under the proposed amendment will be established at $115 million, a 15 per cent increase over the current year. For loan years subsequent to 1970-71 the basic loan provision will be escalated by the percentage increase in total post-secondary enrolment in Canada in that year rather than the percentage increase in the 18 to 24-year age group. This will provide for an automatic escalation factor of from 12 per cent to 15 per cent a year for the next few years rather than the 4 per cent to 5 per cent which would have been the case under the present act, and at least will allow the basic loan provision to increase in line with the increase in the post-secondary student population.
In addition to increasing the basic loan provision, the amendments will make permanent the increase in the supplementary loan provision which has been implemented for the current loan year. The supplementary loan provision, if Parliament agrees, will accordingly from this year on be established
742
November 12, 1969

Canada Student Loans Act at an amount equal to 30 per cent of the basic loan provision for a given year. This will provide greater flexibility in meeting the requirements of provinces which for one reason or another have relatively higher student loan requirements than others.
At the time the act was implemented virtually all students attending post-secondary institutions did so on the familiar academic year basis, that is, a fall and winter term followed by a relatively long summer vacation. Accordingly, the terms and conditions under which individual students could obtain loans were all related to the academic year, defined as a distinct period of full-time studies of not less than 26 consecutive weeks.
The past five years have seen a considerable growth in a new form of study program, the semester system. Under this system a student completes a study program which is broken into a number of distinct periods, generally three or four in a year, and to which the traditional concept of the academic year is not applicable. While these students were not definitely excluded from the benefits of the Canada student loans plan, a number of complications and problems were encountered by many of them. Amendments are contained in this bill which will explicitly include students studying on the semester system as well as those who study on the academic year basis. Thus, the full benefits of this program will be made available to a group of postsecondary students whom it was intended to include within it.
Provision is also made in the amendments to enable trust companies, insurance companies and mortgage loan companies to apply to the Minister of Finance for designation as eligible lenders under the plan. Lenders presently operating under the plan are all the chartered banks as well as certain credit unions that have applied for and received designation as eligible lenders.
This amendment will broaden the classes of lending institutions to which students can apply for loans. It will parallel changes made in the recent past in two of the other guaranteed loan programs operated under the Minister of Finance, the farm improvement loans and the fisheries improvement loans programs. It will also parallel changes which are proposed in the bill to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, which will be considered next by the House.
I would like to comment on another amendment in this bill. The existing provisions of the act provide that students are eligible for

loans if they are, among other things, Canadian citizens, or are not Canadian citizens but have lived in Canada for one year and have indicated that they intend to make their home in Canada upon completion of their studies.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The proposal in this bill is to require that persons who are non-Canadian, to be eligible for a loan under the act, must have landed-immigrant status and must have resided in Canada for one year. The effect of this amendment is simply to clarify the language presently in the legislation, since it is a condition to obtain landed-immigrant status, and provide that applicants for loans declare their intention to reside permanently in Canada. Let me stress that the amendment will, therefore, in no way restrict the availability of student loans to new Canadians who come here to make this country their home. The main effect of the amendment will be to make clear that foreign students here on student visas are not eligible under the act.
There are a few other amendments in the bill, Mr. Speaker, but I will not take the time of hon. members to describe them at this point. They are either consequential on one or more of the amendments I discussed earlier or are of a minor administrative nature. I am sure hon. members will agree that they can be covered adequately in discussions in the standing committee.
May I say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that the government believes that the Canada Student Loans Act has served a useful purpose in aiding tens of thousands of young Canadians to further their education beyond the secondary school level, enabling them to be better able to take advantage of the opportunities which Canada today offers its young people and thereby to make a greater contribution to Canadian society, which is ultimately of benefit to all Canadians, It is the hope of the government that the amendments being considered at this time will be supported by the House to enable the Canada student loans plan to work even more effectively in achieving its important goals.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What happened to all those scholarships?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Ten thousand!


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the minister for the very comprehensive statement that he has given to the House on a very important subject, the education of the youth of
November 12, 1969

our country. Perhaps it is a cliche to say that the future of our nation depends upon the education of our youth, but it is true.
I am deeply interested in this particular act for many reasons, as a parent and as the president of a school where many students have been able to take advantage of the provisions of the act. I feel the act is a good one but unfortunately-I shall touch on this in more detail later-there have been abuses as there have been in all acts designed to improve our lot. The first item, that of including more institutions to make loans, is a good one and brings this act in line with other legislation. I have often wondered why these institutions were not granted the right to make loans from the beginning. This is an item which we can recommend. Second, I am not entirely clear about the minister's statement on making changes under the certificate of eligibility. What has been deleted here, as I understand it, is explained in the explanatory section of the bill. The act provides that where an applicant-
- (B) has been resident in Canada for a period of not less than one year and has declared that he intends to reside in Canada after he ceases to be a full-time student-
In that event he is a qualifying student. That provision has been deleted, Mr. Speaker, and from the minister's explanation I am not sure why. Undoubtedly this will be raised and thoroughly discussed in committee. We all know, of course, of the brain drain to the United States and other nations every year. Perhaps it would help to retain those who are educated here with the help of these loans if there were such a declaration of intent. At the moment I cannot see the reason for the amendment.
The minister raised the point about the semester, and I think that is good. A great change is taking place these days in the whole educational system of our country. There is fomentation everywhere. Although some of it may be justified, events such as those at Sir George Williams University and Simon Fraser University, for instance, are deplorable. But coming back to the point which the minister raised, the semester idea, previously nearly all universities started in September and went through until May. If you failed two subjects and did not get a chance to write supplementals, the entire year was lost. So the semester idea is excellent; it provides good, progressive education.
The minister stated that the limit of the loan is to remain at $1,000 but is to be based 21362-481
Canada Student Loans Act on $500 for each semester. That is good. We all know only too well that under the British North America Act education is a provincial matter. But did the minister discuss the matter of authorization with the provinces? He used the word "payment" in reference to Quebec. Did he mean in this case that it was a loan to Quebec to make necessary loans to students or was this an outright payment? I think the minister indicated it was an outright payment. I would ask him to clarify that matter because I am not completely clear on it, and perhaps I should be as I am a native of Quebec. The minister did not discuss the introduction of the means test. I think he might also clarify that point.
I am completely in accord with this provision of the act. For many years it has disturbed me that children of wealthy parents can obtain a student loan whilst others, when there is a limit imposed, cannot because they do not have the necessary marks. I think the means test is a good idea. Just this morning, Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues expressed the thought that if we are going to reduce the voting age to 18 perhaps we should also be prepared to make students completely responsible from the age of 18. But that is debatable.
There is another point that we must not forget. Whilst these loans help students obtain a university education, it means that they start out in life with a debt of $5,000. Many of us here who were educated during the depression did not have the opportunity to obtain a university education. However, I believe in the means test. I know of the case of a young lady who at the beginning of the winter semester last year filled in the necessary application forms for a loan, went to the bank and obtained the money and terminated her education that day. She was married a few days later and never returned to school.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
These are abuses we should somehow or other try to correct. We all want to be on the side of the angels and see that every deserving youth receives an education, but this bill needs to be as carefully screened and looked into as other bills of its kind. As the minister said, in my province of New Brunswick we have a designated official who administers this program. The department responsible is the department of youth, with an able deputy minister and the program has been very well administered over the years. We have been very fortunate in that regard.
November 12, 19G9

Canada Student Loans Act
Last March I put on the order paper a question dealing with this matter. I was interested in knowing whether we had made many loans which could not be collected and had to be written oft. To be frank, I was surprised at the answer I received, but on reflection I can understand the reason for it. The answer to my question shows that at that particular time little had been written off by the government. An amount over $100,000 had been written off because of the death of the students concerned, and something over $500,000 in loans was owed by students who were in default. We shall have to see what can be done about students who are in default. However, only $22,000 had been written off at that particular time. I am afraid that as the years go by many millions of dollars will not be collectable for one reason or another; some students who have obtained loans will leave the country and factors other than death will enter into the picture. There will have to be proper provision for the writing off of such loans.
In conclusion, may I say that I think the amendments the minister is proposing in this bill are good ones and the legislation is good when it is used properly. I should appreciate answers in due course from the minister with respect to the points I have raised on this occasion.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with an aspect of student loans that was not dealt with directly or implicitly by the minister in his statement or by the previous speaker. I am speaking of the whole question of the social legitimacy or social desirability of higher education costs being financed through a loans program.
In the 1963 election campaign the former Prime Minister of this country, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, made what many considered a commendable promise, namely, to provide 10,000 scholarships for Canadian students. By granting scholarships we would recognize that higher education must be universally attainable and that cost should not be a factor in enabling an individual to obtain an education. Of course, no such program has been instituted since 1963. Instead, our program permits students to borrow money and pay it back, with interest. This approach to education is outdated on grounds of social philosophy and on grounds that it will not, even in pragmatic terms, lead to the kind of limited advanced society which we understand the Liberal party espouses.

I therefore wish to suggest briefly what the positive and negative aspects of student loans are when one compares them with the universal right to higher education. By making loans available to students, as opposed to giving them by right a chance of obtaining a post-secondary education, we do not really motivate students who have not reached university age to seek a university education. Only if post-secondary education is universal and as readily available as a public school or high school education will all our students be motivated to seek higher education. The point is-this has been demonstrated in many studies-that unless a child has acquired the motivation to go to university before reaching university age, it is very unlikely that he will go to university or even apply for a loan. Whether a child lives in one of the poor provinces of Canada or one of the rich provinces, he takes for granted his right to a secondary school education.
I submit that if a child has the ability to learn and the talent and desire to go to university, his right to do so should be a basic and fundamental right. I say this because the loans program militates against children of working class parents who view the loan merely as a debt. These children look on the loan as a burden. More important, perhaps, is that these children adopt their parents' attitude in looking on such loans as obstacles which must be overcome. Such children must surmount psychological barriers arising from their backgrounds, which barriers do not inhibit children of wealthy parents in the development of what I may call positive attitudes toward higher education.
All kinds of evidence is available to support my contention. The "Vertical Mosaic", a study of social classes and the power structure of Canada, although it is outdated shows very conclusively the maldistribution of our university population. It shows that the children of the wealthier people of this country are proportionately over-represented at universities when compared with students who come from other class backgrounds. Although student loans have rectified this situation to some degree, I submit that we would do much better if we made university or other post-secondary education free for all children of our society.
I should like to make another very important point about university education. Many consider a university education to be something that is bought-which it is now-and something which you acquire after paying a fee. That sort of thinking has promoted a
November 12, 19G9

wrong attitude towards what education is all about. At present our students see a university education as a commodity to be invested in so as to provide a future economic benefit. This, I suggest, is precisely the kind of education and attitude we do not want. We do not want to see that kind of environment nurtured in Canada. Education must not be looked on as a commodity. That is why I am pleased that certain educational authorities have suggested abolishing the B.A. degree. They know that some students want a degree only because it will enable them to get a better or higher paid job. The theory of these authorities is that if you do not grant a degree, only those interested in learning will seek higher education because at the end of it there will be no official recognition of their endeavours. This is a very serious point that others concerned about higher education ought to be considering carefully.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Professions, of course, are quite another matter. It is necessary to retain a formal recognition such as a degree to maintain technical standards. The point is that we in this country must do everything we can to get away from the notion that education is some kind of commodity which it is useful to obtain for a supposed kind of advancement. We must not look upon the loan factor as an inducement to regarding education as an investment.
The next point I want to make-and it was suggested by the previous speaker-is that under the present loans set-up thousands of Canadian students are deeply in debt by the time they graduate; the figure often reaches $5,000 owing on government loans. In my opinion this has an interesting class effect. Its impact weights more heavily on students from average income or poor families, which tends to affect the student's judgment in deciding which course he should enter. The duration of the course is very relevant to such a student. The studies undertaken bear out the fact that students from working class families are more likely to enter short-term courses. This is in fact happening. Students from these families know they will be in debt and therefore choose the shorter courses, avoiding post-graduate work and the longer professional courses. I say again the debt principle weighs very heavily on the thinking of the poorer members of our community. In short, it has an anti-democratic bias.
I wish to suggest the social consequences this attitude will have on our society. I have
Canada Student Loans Act already indicated that it more seriously affects students from lower income families. These students take the debt problem much more seriously than do the students from wealthier families. When such students graduate, they tend to accept more lucrative jobs in order to pay off their debts. What does this do to our society? Relatively speaking, fewer students are entering the field of social work, fewer are joining CUSO, and I suggest that fewer students are becoming members of the Company of Young Canadians. Fewer students are undertaking socially desirable work because a higher income is required in order to pay off their debt of $5,000. Therefore, in the long run the community as a whole is the loser; we Eire losing the creative work that many of these university graduates would be willing to carry out if they did not have to work in higher paying positions in order to pay off their debts.
With regard to the general question of extending the range of students to whom these loans would be available, I ask the minister to comment on why part-time students were not considered in the amendments. It is important that men and women who are working in our society and have the desire for some form of higher education should be eligible for a loan. As a first step toward universality, people in this category should also be eligible for loans under the program.
I have received letters from working wives in my constituency, as I am sure other hon. members have, stating that they would take university courses if loans under the program were available to them under this program. At the moment they are excluded. One reason they require a loan is to pay for babysitters while they are attending university. Why should adults who are working part-time be excluded from this measure?
These are my general observations, Mr. Speaker. Although the points have been made in a rather low-keyed fashion, they are extremely important to our society. Some years ago, under the leadership of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, the Liberal Party embarked upon a desirable program, at least in terms of commitment. The program in principle gave the right of education to every young Canadian, not as something that had to be purchased on borrowed money on which interest had to be paid but as something available according to one's own capacities, talents and desires. I suggest we do not have such a legislative program. Although this loans bill is important, it comes nowhere near
November 12, 1969

Canada Student Loans Act meeting this requirement and as a consequence many individual Canadians, and Canadian society as a whole, suffer.


John Chester MacRae: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member who has spoken so eloquently and has evidently done his homework on this matter? In doing his research, did he inquire into the question or make any estimate of what it would cost the nation to educate its students to the end of a baccalaureate degree?


John Edward Broadbent: I will be pleased to answer, although I will not go into detail. Perhaps the minister or the questioner could provide more specific information. I do know that approximately two-thirds or three-quarters of the costs of attending university are paid by the state, whether from a provincial or a federal source. This is merely an extension of that cost. I am not trying to underestimate the size of the problem.
A statement of commitment should be made by the government with regard to moving in that direction, and this is not accomplished by a loans program. A very different principle underlies the loans program. If the questioner would like a suggestion regarding the principle of universality, the initial step would be for the federal government to pick up the fee tab of every student who is admitted to a post-secondary institution. At this point perhaps it would not pay his living costs, but every student admitted to such an institution would have a least his fees paid and would not have to pay back those costs to the state. This is an initial step which the federal government could now take at not too great a cost.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of student loans is one of the most essential aspects of the evolution of our society. There is a fundamental principle: the right of the individual to education. It should not give rise to any financial problem, since I believe this right to be inherent in the freedom of the human being. Poverty, the number of children in the family, lack of education facilities in a region, none of those reasons should prevent a student from getting the education to which he is entitled.
That is why I unreservedly approve the comments of the previous speaker, namely that the matter of loans should not even be mentioned, as it is quite obvious that the
[Mr. Broadbent.l
students who are unable to pay their school fees should be helped. But since we are always stuck in the same system and we unfortunately refuse to consider the necessary reforms and changes within our economic system, we are compelled to accept the lesser evil of student loans.
The amendments brought to the Canada Student Loans Act seem to me worthwhile and I hope that they will further promote education. I take the liberty of pointing out that Quebec has a program of loans and scholarships and therefore has no need for the federal legislation.
It is our duty to see to it that justice prevail in that field. It would be imperative for the federal government to reach full agreement with the provinces which already have their own program so as to prevent any discrimination against any region of our country.
It is a known fact that certain political administrations in Quebec rejected many student loans programs during several years. Thus Quebec lost a considerable amount of money and this explains in part why it is lagging and must take giant strides in order to achieve a decent standard of living.
Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important that all the funds which Quebec needs to enable its students to complete their studies be made available to it by the federal government, without any restrictions whatsoever, in order to ensure an equitable distribution.
Such equitable distribution is one of the points I wanted to emphasize. It should not be based on a certain amount, as this would lead to injustice. Actually, should the number of students requiring financial assistance exceed the amounts available, some will be unable to obtain loans. These loans should be made available to all of them, provided, of course, they really need assistance.
Too often, students whose parents could well pay for their studies are using scholarships, so as to have things easy or perhaps to cause trouble.
We should be more wary of the conditions under which loans are granted in order that they may meet a real need. But with that reservation, is it not unfair to set an amount thus setting aside a number of applicants?
Under what principle can we justify discrimination? This problem should be looked into more thoroughly and I do not think we should impose any restrictions, if everybody recognizes the principle that every citizen has a right to education.
November 12, 1969	COMMONS
Starting from that principle, let us make the required amount available to those who need it and that without any kind of restrictions.
There is always a certain amount of injustice in the present loans plan. In fact, it seems that those are penalized who participate most in the development of the country, that is those who are not afraid of bringing up children. This is what happens when there are five, six or seven children of school age in a family. It is easy to imagine what it costs then and even wealthy families are unable to cope with education expenses if they have at the same time too many children at the postsecondary level.
Students who take advantage of these loans will have to repay them some day. Therefore, why not simply distribute equitably the necessary credit to those who need it?
We will have to come back to this matter in order to defend the freedom of the individual to get an education. Lack of money should not be an obstacle to the development of people, particularly in 1969, when there is an abundance of money. Without education, no one could possibly earn a living these days or consider playing a part in society. It is very important to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to get an education.
I hope that this amendment will be useful. And I close my remarks by saying once again that we will have to study the problem more seriously and consider granting interest free loans to all those who need them, in order to raise the educational level of our citizens, something which our people could be proud of.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to support Bill C-135 and to recommend that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
At the beginning of my remarks, I should like to stress a point just mentioned by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), as regards those students with better financial means who are nevertheless entitled to those loans under the plan. Even if their parents are rich, some of those students want to pay for their education. This feeling of independence is commendable, and I do not see how such a plan could deter-


René Matte: If it deprives others.


Herb Breau: Nobody is deprived.
DEBATES	747
Canada Student Loans Act


René Matte: Yes, because a certain amount is earmarked for this purpose.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Herb Breau: In any case, when dealing with education, one should remember that this question is within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments and that if the federal government intends to subsidize education, it should do so in agreement with the provinces.
In any event, it is important, in my opinion, that the federal government should often take the initiative since such a moving population as ours needs a well-coordinated education system.
Another very important aspect of education that should be taken into account is the fact that conditions change from one province to the other. That is why I think it is extremely important for the federal government to deal actively with this matter.
I should like now to talk about the priority of expenditures for education, and in particular of the change which occurred in the priorities in effect over the last 10 or 20 years.
Everyone knows that the per capita expenditures of the federal and provincial governments with regard to students and the people in general, as well as in ratio to the government revenues from taxation, have greatly increased in the last few years. At any rate, I think that even with an increase in expenditures we have not managed to really deal with the educational problem.
For example, 50 years ago in some provinces and about 20 years ago in others, the principle of free secondary education was accepted.
I think that today it is even more important to get a university education,, for instance a B.A. and in some cases an M.A., than it was 30 years ago.
However, at that time, the government assumed the cost of high school education while today university education is not free. Of course, a large part is paid for but education at all levels is not yet free.
Mr. Speaker, here and there, the need for education in our country has not been recognized.
I should like now to make mine the comments of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) when he spoke about free education.
Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that education is an inalienable right. Everybody should have access to it. Therefore, I think that in Canada we should enjoy free education
November 12, 19G9

Canada Student Loans Act because today schooling tees represent only a minimal part of educational fees.
This is due to the existing university systems. A student must leave his parents' home to go and study at university, for eight or ten months a year. Moreover, he must pay his expenses to live away from home. One should think of subsidizing students, of helping them to pay their expenses because they must live near the university.
Of course, when we talk of free education, among other things, we should mention in one way or another that what is necessary to pay for all that is deducted at the source. In my opinion, if we study the university education system in Canada, we will find out perhaps that it might be possible to change the priorities, in order to give this inalienable right to students.
Is it not more important to give free education and, perhaps, to spend somewhat less in other fields? Perhaps it would be possible to erect less costly buildings? And perhaps, to reduce some university services in order to give priority to free education?
In a society such as ours, I do not see how anyone could accept that only those able to pay $1,000 or $1,200 a year can go to university. I repeat that this is an inalienable right. Education should be made available to everybody. It should not matter whether a person can pay or not.
Before suggesting that the state should assume the cost of education, I should like to deal with the orientation our university system is taking. I think it should be advisable today to consider the very reason for the existence of the university today.
True it is something of an anachronism. It stems from a XIVth or maybe a XVth century concept, whereby educators gathered together in a center and students had to go to them.
Is that the only way to educate people? Is it the only way to have a university education system?
Today, we are witnessing lots of problems on the campuses where students and professors alike are questioning the authority of the administration and all sorts of other things for that matter. To put it in my own simple words, there is a conflict between the students, the educators and the administrators.
I suggest that we shall never make administrators out of professors and vice versa.
This should perhaps induce us to make a thorough reappraisal of our education system. We ought perhaps to wonder whether we are
[Mr. Breau.l

making the fullest use of our communication and transportation networks. Our universities remain uncharged in spite of the fact that, contrary to what prevailed 20 years ago, it is now possible to travel at a speed of 600 miles per hour and to enjoy very fast means of communication of which these institutions do not avail themselves enough.
Some do but, in my opinion, there is a duplication of facilities in these institutions. We are therefore spending a lot of money on those things while it is a matter of respecting a right or a principle. We are unable to find an alternative for the sole reason that it would cost a little more.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the provinces and the federal government should right now give serious consideration to the role of the university in the Canadian society. They should try to ascertain whether it is not imperative that we should better co-ordinate education, programming and teaching considered as such.
Today, for instance, a professor living in Montreal could deliver his courses across eastern Canada either by being on the spot, or with the help of television. It would be very easy indeed but it is not done.
There are three universities in my province, New Brunswick. It was said that one French university and one English were needed. But I shall not go into that. In any event, there are three universities for 600,000 people. To my mind, that is too many. A lot of money has already been invested in buildings and services alone, and for duplication in administration.
I should like to repeat that I agree with the members for Champlain and Oshawa-Whitby who say that education should be universal, should be accessible to all. However, before saying that more money should be spent on education, the system should be studied in depth as well as the role of the university which was conceived in the XIVth century.
Then, we may be forced by circumstances, by costs and by the standard of living, to review the whole question and see if we might not be able to dispense education at a lower cost.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about these amendments to the Canada Student Loans Act. Let me say at the outset that I think it has been a very acceptable and
November 12, 1969	COMMONS
worth-while piece of legislation. Since its inception in July, 1964, approximately 142,000 students have taken advantage of the act and obtained loans with which to further their education and, in a broad sense, to help Canada as a whole. I am particularly interested in two amendments which have been set forth.
The first amendment deals with landed immigrants. The act is changed in this regard. To be eligible, individuals must no longer be residents of Canada for a period of not less than one year. It seems only right and proper that loans should go to Canadian students or those with landed-immigrant status, rather than to students who may take advantage of the legislation and then return to their native land without being of further assistance to Canada. Of course, we hope they will be of assistance to their native land.
The other amendment makes it possible for students who are enrolled in colleges on semester systems to obtain loans. I am proud to say that the University of Guelph in my city and Simon Fraser University were the first two universities in Canada with a semester system. I think this is still the case. The semester system at Guelph University is working extremely well. It provides an opportunity for many students to continue their education, which they would not otherwise be able to do because of the length of time involved. Under a semester system they can go to school continuously. All in all, the semester system is working out extremely well, and I am happy to note that the plan is being broadened to include it.
I believe that two parts of the operation and control of this act should be considered. A number of people have spoken to me about discrimination in the allotting of student loans. I realize it is up to the provinces to issue certificates, but we at the federal level should be more concerned about this matter. Parents have come to me and indicated that their sons or daughters have been denied student loans. In one case the father and mother were both working and had a family of six children. A student loan was denied one of their children, yet in the same community the son of a banker was granted a student loan. It is very difficult to understand this discrepancy. In August of this year the minister issued a news release in which he said:
In revising these criteria, no change has been made in the basic principles. In considering whether a student needs financial help, the resources available from the student's family will continue to be taken into account, in most cases, and loans will
DEBATES	749
Canada Student Loans Act
be authorized only when a student's overall financial resources are insufficient to meet his costs of education. The new criteria include for the first time a uniform procedure to be followed in considering the amount of money that parents can be expected to contribute to the student's educational costs. This will take into account factors such as family income, the number of other dependent children, taxes paid, medical expenses, allowances for a working wife, and other considerations affecting a family's ability to support a son or daughter in college.
If these criteria are followed closely, we should overcome this discrepancy which has been brought to my attention on many occasions. I should now like to speak briefly about the mature and responsible attitude students must adopt when granted a loan. The act has been functioning for some time. At the end of the fourth year a growing number of borrowers have ceased to be students and have become responsible for regular payments on principal and interest. As of June 30, 1968, about 66,400 borrowers were in this category. The report of the Canada student loans plan sets out that the majority of them have adopted a mature and responsible position, but approximately 4 per cent have not done so. The question arises as to how much effort the banks put into collecting loan repayments. Are the banks taking a casual approach and only half attempting to collect the principal and interest because they are guaranteed by the government? Are they taking the attitude that if they do not collect the loans, they will be paid by the government anyway?
Those responsible for administering this act should make it very clear to the banks that they will not be paid the money which has been guaranteed until they have made every effort to collect the loans outstanding. This program has been very good for the business of chartered banks in Canada. In 1968 the federal government paid the chartered banks and other lenders $4,936,456.46 in interest. The plan has been in operation for almost five years, and the interest paid by the federal government to chartered banks on student loans must be in the neighbourhood of $22 million to $25 million. The chartered banks have here a very good account with the federal government and it is up to them to see that the principal and interest are paid.
How many students who received loans were here on student visas? How many of them went home and cannot be located? These are interesting questions. I hope that those responsible for the collection of these debts will ensure that the chartered banks do everything possible to collect them. I am
750	COMMONS
Canada Student Loans Act advised that when the program commenced, the banks were paid 4J per cent interest by the federal government. This rate has been increased to 8J per cent.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It started at 5i per cent.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Alfred Dryden Hales: It is now up to 8|- per cent. The federal government is paying a mighty good interest rate to the lenders of this money. I conclude by repeating that I feel this has been a very worth-while piece of legislation. I believe the plan must have careful guidance and direction from those in control, otherwise it will get out of hand. Those who take loans must be informed that they must be repaid. They must have a mature and responsible attitude when it comes to repaying loans which have been granted them for the specific purpose of their getting through university. It is a privilege that was not accorded to many in this House. Loans of this type were not available when many of us went through university, but by some way or means we got through. We worked hard to pay our way through. When today's society comes forward with such advantages as these, the only fair and reasonable response of students is to repay the loans on time and with thanks for the privilege that has been accorded them.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark and Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a few moments to make some comments concerning Bill C-135, to amend the Canada Student Loans Act. But before I make them I want to commend the minister who introduced the bill and say that not only myself but, I am sure, many members of the House are delighted to see him in the cabinet. We wish him well in all the responsibilities which he handles so capably.
I also want to make two observations about the speeches just made, one of them by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales). I suppose it is only good, common sense to put on the record the remarks he made concerning the necessity to crack the whip even over such venerable institutions as the banks. This is a laudable observation and I concur in it. The other notable comment was by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) who said that perhaps we should look at the whole structure of post-secondary education and ask ourselves whether we are getting good dollar value for the money that is being spent on it in Canada, and whether in a modern society with all the means and advantages of modern

DEBATES	November 12, 1969
techniques of communication we should continue to have a tremendous number of duplications of facilities, administrations, etc.
The main features of the act are these. First, the act will extend the insurability of loans that are issued by three groups other than regular banks, namely, trust companies, loan companies and insurance companies. Second, it will include students who are landed-immigrants. Several speakers have commented on that feature of the act and I shall not elaborate on it now. Third, I am delighted at seeing the flexibility clause included, that is, the $500 for a semester which is now added to the $1,000 for a whole year.
There is another very good provision to which reference has not been made hitherto in this debate. I feel it is important that we have a ceiling on the loan that a student can take-the ceiling here is $5,000-so that students do not come out of the end of the educational pipeline so encumbered by indebtedness that they are forced to do what the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) suggested some are already doing, that is, take employment and pursue goals in society that they would not normally pursue but for the fact that they are so encumbered by debts. In this sense we must do everything we can to enable those who pursue education not to become slaves of our economic system when they have finished their formal education. The clause in this bill specifying that the government will pay off the loan in the case of the death of a student is one that I am delighted to see. I think it is a genuine step forward. It demonstrates the sensitivity of the drafters of this bill, and of the government, to the needs of youth and to what can happen in extreme circumstances.
The main provision of the act is the one which states that the over-all amount of money that is being insured will be raised from $100 million to $115 million for 1970. That is an increase of $15 million of insurable loans at a time of austerity. I think this says in a more than symbolic way that the government is well aware of the priority of education and of the fact that improved educational opportunities should be at the top of its priority list. Thereafter, as the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray) has so well explained to the House, the amount of money to be made available will be tied to the proportion of the population that is made up of students.
This act also bears on the problem that is before us all in an increasingly technologically oriented society. Unfortunately, for many
November 12, 1969

reasons it has become necessary for people to spend a larger proportion of their lives in educational institutions than was hitherto the case. This has resulted in a larger and larger proportion of our citizens being engaged at one point in time in the business of being students. This development makes it progressively more incumbent on all governments, and certainly on the national government of our country, to provide means to enable students to continue their studies. For this reason X am delighted to learn of the elevation in the ceiling of insurable loans up to $115 million. In my view this is a first-rate example of federal initiative and involvement in education.
I wish to endorse the observation which has been made before in this debate, that although education comes under provincial jurisdiction we see in this act a worth-while contribution by the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, in an area of primarily provincial responsibility according to our constitution.
The whole discussion today regarding education so far as it relates to the federal government, and therefore to all of Canada-we are the government of the whole country, of course-gives me an opportunity to go one step further and make a proposal on this subject. I propose that in line with the concerns behind Bill C-135 we at the federal level give serious consideration to the creation of a federal agency to unify and standardize education throughout the country. The variety of education among the different provinces is a very serious problem that is faced by many of our citizens. It arises directly out of the mobility of people. This government along with others is already spending millions of dollars to enable Canadians to feel at home in all parts of this great country.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I ask you, Mr. Speaker: How can our citizens feel at home in all parts of Canada under circumstances which now exist wherein the education of their children is very seriously disturbed by most movements across provincial lines? It is true, and I repeat it, that education comes under provincial jurisdiction. But surely if we in this chamber are going to be concerned about techniques and means whereby Canadians can feel at home in all parts of our nation, we must also be concerned with instituting techniques whereby a family's children are not seriously disrupted and unbalanced, or put forward or put back, or failed or passed to other grades and

Canada Student Loans Act levels of education just because the family happens to move from one province to another.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, education already receives substantial financial aid from the federal government. Especially is this so at the post-secondary school level. There exist a number of areas of jurisdiction which, like education, are primarily the responsibility of the provinces but within which the federal government maintains an active interest. I would suggest but two or three examples to make my case. One is in the area of housing. Housing is a field in which the provinces have a primary responsibility but in which, as all members of this chamber know, the federal government maintains an active role both through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and through the assignment of the full attention of a federal minister without portfolio to the responsibility of housing.
Why has this bending of the constitution come about? Why do we have a minister who is responsible for housing, when housing is not even a primary concern of the federal government but rather, under our constitution, is placed under provincial jurisdiction? It seems to me that it is for a very pragmatic reason. It is simply because there has been demonstrated a need for federal involvement that has long been recognized, and so we have responded.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, you and all other members of the House recognize that most of the jurisdiction for mines, mining development, and so on, comes under the relevant provincial authority. Yet we have a federal minister in this area of concern who sort of backs up the provinces; he is known as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene). In the same way, forestry is primarily a provincial responsibility but in the federal cabinet we have a Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis). Of course, the other side of his portfolio, fisheries, is also a provincial responsibility except in so far as it involves coastal waters.
In addition to all these-there are also others but I shall not take up too much time of the House to develop this point-we have a minister in the federal cabinet, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), who is responsible for many of the educational interests of the Government of Canada, of Canada and of Canadians generally. So, Mr. Speaker, I propose that we do one of the following: (a) we ought to establish an agency under the Secretary of State to take an active lead in co-ordinating
November 12, 1969

Canada Student Loans Act and moving toward establishing a uniform system of education throughout all of Canada, to the end that a family moving from province to province would suffer no educational setback; or (b) if we do not want to make it a branch, a division or agency-whatever you want to call it-under the Secretary of State, it would seem to me that this is a sufficiently important area of concern that we ought to assign this responsibility to a minister without portfolio in the federal cabinet. In that way some order might begin to be achieved in what must be, for many mobile families in this country of ours, educational chaos. With that suggestion, Mr. Speaker, I would close my remarks and say that Bill C-135 is certainly deserving of the support of all parties in the House.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I begin by extending my congratulations to the minister not only for his elevation but for the presentation which he made of this important bill. It was brisk, it was competent and I think very elucidating, and I hope he will, so long as he is there, do this again. I would like to associate myself most strongly with the spokesman for our party, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae), who with his usual thoughtful wisdom seized the import of the bill and spoke with great lucidity. As an outstanding educator and a very successful businessman he said those things with which all of us are in agreement, and I will not go over that ground again. I agree with him, and I agree with my colleague from Waterloo (Mr. Hales) that it is important that everything be done to vitiate the potential discrimination in the measure and also to plug any loopholes that can be found.
I suppose our society has always thrown up the lead-swinger. Always there are these people, but it is up to the state to make sure its largesse is extended to them as seldom as possible. I suppose the youth of Canada must be somewhat disappointed with the hon. gentlemen across the way from us. I agree with the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) that it was a great disappointment and indeed a most misleading promise to suggest to the young people of Canada that by voting in a certain way, and if that were the course of enough people to put a certain group in power, that 10,000 scholarships would be made available. These scholarships have never been disbursed and I now never hear them mentioned. Apparently they are as remote as the Canada Development Corporation.
I suppose, too, the young people of Canada will see eventually that the Company of Young Canadians will be no more. And if I read aright the remarks of the Hon. Judy La Marsh, who must know a great deal about these things, it will not be primarily the fault of the young men about the country but of those who once having erected the edifice no longer offered any interest, direction or concern for this group, which could have been a most valuable organization. I suppose there was even another disappointment when the people of Canada discovered that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was not quite as young as he seemed to allege. In fact, when the true statistic emerged he was as old as I am, and with no flight of fancy would I ever pretend I was or could be a swinger.
The student loans measure is an important one, and heaven knows the student loans have been a real help. This has been valuable legislation. I am in accord with all those who have spoken in favour of this sort of thing. It underlines a federal concern in an area of provincial jurisdiction; there is no question about that. But how could the national government be unconcerned about the development of the nation's human resources? Such a course of action, such an abdication of concern would be totally irresponsible and indeed thoroughly impossible today. I think that despite those forces against it there will in fact be greater and greater involvement on the part of the dominion government in this broad question of educating the youth of our land, indeed educating all the people of our country. I am convinced that one area in which the federal government must become increasingly alert is in regard to the Americanization of our universities. In this connection I believe Professor Steele and those who think like him are on the right track.
I mention this not on the basis of anti-Americanism because that has never been a credo of mine. If I could not be a Canadian I would like to be an American; that is how I view Americans. My concern stems not from any latent anti-Americanism but from anxiety as to what is happening to the Canadian products of Canadian universities.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I hope that my learned friend from Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) will not be upset if I seem to use "commodity" language. I am interested, as are some of my colleagues, in the question of intent as to residence in this country. What has been our experience with the declaration as it exists at present?

November 12, 1969

How did it work? How was it administered? What did so-and-so really declare to make himself eligible for a loan? I think the amendment is an improvement but I have reservations about the age group. I agree with the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby that in these days of great adult education development it would be unrealistic to impose an age limitation in this bill. That would be passe, a bit old-fashioned.
It should be underscored, Mr. Speaker, that while student loans have helped a great many young people in Canada to further and finish their education, it would be foolish indeed to think that loans of themselves are enough to educate the young people. My own children are on the threshold of university education and when I think of the financial burden which I will not be able to bear alone, this becomes a matter of great sensitivity and something much more than an academic question, if I may risk a pun.
I have known personally some of the problems of working one's way through college, to use an old expression, Mr. Speaker. There was a time when those who had gone through that mill would express the view that it was a desirable thing and it should happen to everybody. I totally disagree. When I think of the wasted hours, the wasted energy, the misdirected hard work that went into the process, I thoroughly agree with the late Dr. Sydney Smith, a Canadian whom I admired greatly. Recalling his own experiences he said he would not wish them upon any young person in this or any other country. It is a very, very difficult problem indeed. In these days of inflation and a rapidly rising cost of living, let us not delude ourselves that this measure will relieve our young people or their parents of the whole burden. It is a good help but it is only part of the job.
Mr. Speaker, in this afternoon's very interesting discussion some hon. members have dealt with the problems of the universities. I note in particular the remarks of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) in this connection. However, I do not think that the most important problem facing our universities today is a financial one. There are problems which transcend this. The whole question of academic freedom is emerging in a manner which, in my days in the cloistered halls, would have been unexpected. At that time we thought that the great danger to academic freedom would come from without. But we are now living in an age in Canada and in the United States, and perhaps in most
Canada Student Loans Act of the western world and even beyond that, when academic freedom is threatened more from within the institution than from without. This is a problem with which universities must grapple, and some of them do so unwisely and bring upon themselves a proliferation of anxieties which make the whole academic process extremely difficult.
I have often wondered what would happen if I retired from this place-or should be retired from it by my electors-and whether I would return to the ivy towers to live out my declining years. But looking at the trouble at universities today I know that unless I were to gird my loins with new strength I should have to aspire to the Senate for more ideas and inspiration-


An hon. Member:: There are lots of ideas over there.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: My friend says there are lots of ideas over there. There may be a renewed elixir of life there, too.
Mr. Speaker, it is well known to members of this House that universities today are troubled, perplexed and torn and that quite often the danger comes from within. This may be one of the revelations in our society. Indeed, I have feelings about the future of this particular institution, our Parliament, and it seems to me that at the present time the greatest dangers are not from without but are from within. However, this is a topic for another day; indeed, I have a feeling it will be a topic for a good many other days.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that other problems are of vital importance- finances for the individual Canadian, for the young person aspiring to equip himself to better serve himself, the country or the community-and that these things are of tremendous importance as the task of making a living and making ends meet becomes more and more acute. To use the current expression, this is most difficult for the group usually called "the affluent poor", the middle-range group. Indeed, they may find it even more difficult if the white paper recommendations are enacted.
In recent years we have seen a tightening of job opportunities for young people in the summertime. This is another reason why loans are so important. Inquiries and complaints from students about the lack of summer employment are increasing every year. Last year was particularly bad for students seeking summer jobs and I am afraid that this summer will be worse.
November 12, 1969

Canada Student Loans Act
So, Mr. Speaker, we must continue with programs such as this and in so far as this bill makes the program more efficient-and I think in most ways it does-it is a measure which is all to the good. I think it will help the educational process and I am sure it will be of value to many students and therefore of value to the country and the people whom we, collectively, are trying to serve. I hope the minister will accept our support in this regard. Since he is a new minister, perhaps he will take note of what has been said by some of the wise men of the opposition.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise and say a few words on this topic which I regard as one of the most important in Canada today. It is encouraging that money for student loans will be increased from $100 million to $115 million. I should like to look at the purpose of loans and consider whether or not they achieve their objective. Certainly there is a need for student loans in this country. Thousands of students have already been helped in this way, as I was. But it must be remembered, as one hon. member pointed out, that many students find themselves in debt upon graduation. The main objective of the act is to ensure that every person in Canada who wants a university education has the opportunity to acquire it. The goal is universal accessibility to education, but student loans do not go all the way toward acheving this. I think we must take a broader and deeper look at the issue.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The Canada student loans program, as everybody knows, was begun in 1964 and arose out of the 1963 election campaign, at which time the Prime Minister of the country was on the campaign trail. Present student loans in Canada are quite inadequate, especially if one recognizes that living costs and tuition costs in the country have risen. Only 16.9 per cent of Canadians receive a higher education, as compared with about 40 per cent of the United States population.
Student loans are no longer adequate for student budgets. Perhaps I can illustrate this point by referring to a survey on student means conducted by the Canadian Union of Students in 1966. This survey, conducted by Robert Rabinovitch, outlines the difficulties students face nowadays. The survey shows that a typical student pays about 25.6 per cent of his budget money for tuition fees, this being an average of $430 a year. The survey also shows that room and board and other

household operating expenses take up another 25.28 per cent of the budget, or about $424 a year. Clearly, tuition fees and room and board account for over half of the average student's budget, which normally runs at $1,677 a year. These figures applied to average students attending university two years ago. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, present available loans would not be adequate to meet the needs of today's students, especially since living costs have increased vastly in the last couple of years. A previous speaker in this debate touched on that point.
Then, all across the country students, and particularly girls, have been finding great difficulty in being gainfully employed during the summer. I know that the students of the University of Saskatchewan are facing this difficulty. Girls, especially, have a hard time finding jobs that pay decent wages. Usually they work as secretaries or clerks. Therefore it is quite clear that as tuition fees, the cost of books and the cost of living have gone up, our student loans program has become inadequate.
We must also look at equity in education. Today we do not have equity. Our system in general favours students coming from middle class or wealthy backgrounds. In this regard may I refer again to the survey conducted by the Canadian Union of Students that I referred to a few minutes ago. It shows that those making $3,000 or less make up 22.1 per cent of Canada's population; yet only 9 per cent of our university population consists of children coming from such background. About 54 per cent of Canada's population has an income of under $5,000; yet only 28 per cent of the students in our universities come from such backgrounds.
On the opposite end of the scale we see that 6.1 per cent of our population has an income of $10,000 a year and over and that 25 per cent of our student population comes fom this upper group. These figures show that we have no equity in our educational system today. The class of society the student comes from clearly is a determining factor in his educational potential. A quarter of Canadian undergraduates come from the richest 6.1 per cent group of our population, and about 28 per cent come from the poorer 54 per cent of the population.
If you want higher education to be universally accessible to all, you must change the system. Student loans are good in their way but they do not go far enough. Many young people who want to go to university cannot afford tuition fees; many cannot obtain jobs
November 12, 1969

and earn the tuition fees and others, either because of family backgrounds or early marriages, do not have the opportunity of obtaining the tuition fees. The price of education has gone up in common with the price of housing, clothing and almost everything else.
I should like to emphasize one more point. Making higher education universally accessible means more than just removing the financial barriers to education. We must also remove many of the social, psychological and even structural barriers if most of our young people are to have the chance of going to university. Our so-called lower class people live on inadequate incomes. Many of them live in poverty and in homes where unemployment is rife. Such people have social values that are different from those of the middle class of this country or of similar people in the United States. They do not have the same values, the same confidence in education as their cousins from wealthier backgrounds, or the same motivation to learn. Also, you will find that the children coming from the poorer homes of Canada may not be as healthy physically as many of the children coming from the better-off families. All these factors must be taken into account if one wants to make higher education universally accessible to people of all income levels.
I think it is also true to say that our educational system, and especially our higher educational system, discriminates against children coming from the poorer backgrounds of this country. In support of that contention may I quote what Dr. John Porter had to say. I quote:
Systems of early selection always favour children from the middle and upper social classes. There are no true culture-free techniques of selection. Lower class children live in environments which are restrictive of their intellectual development. Middle class children are exposed at an earlier age and in greater intensity to a range of cultural items which have become important in the measuring of intelligence and aptitudes. Their parents, moreover, have a better knowledge of the system and can prepare them for it. Middle class parents can turn failure in being selected into success by dealing with teachers and school administrators as social equals or superiors rather than social inferiors which is very frequently the experience of the lower class parent. Some lower and working class children are able to compete in this selection system, but they tend to be the exceptionally able.
I think this point is valid and is borne out when one looks at what is happening in the underprivileged areas of the country. Even the curriculum in our classrooms, which is designed by middle-class Canadians and is
Canada Student Loans Act oriented towards children coming from middle-class backgrounds, is an example in point. Look at what happens in grade 1. The grade 1 story of Dick and Jane is essentially a story involving a middle-class background. The characters display middle-class attitudes and values which are not always relevant to those coming from poorer families. The stories seldom deal with poverty stricken backgrounds, and always have characters that are white. Children coming from the poor and rural background of the country see little that is relevant in such stories. They live in different worlds. Also, the atmosphere of the classroom alone is another barrier to the progress of lower class students because it is alien and, to them, unreal.
I have touched on some of the factors contributing to the inequities in our educational system today. We must take them all into consideration if we wish to solve the problems confronting us. Student loans go only halfway; they are, so to speak, a halfway house and to that extent they are good. May I emphasize, in summary, that the goal of universally accessible higher education is most desirable. I submit that every person, regardless of colour, economic background or social or ethnic origin, should have an equal opportunity to be educated. Only then will you have a just society.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
This means the removal of financial, social and structural barriers that many of these young people are facing long before they reach university age. It is also very desirable to have universal accessibility for society as a whole. Many economists say we are losing millions of dollars a year because students are dropping out of school. At this point I would like to quote from a speech made by the late Robert Winters when he was president of Brazilian Light and Power. This speech was made last year in Windsor, Ontario, on the subject of education. He said:
To bring such facilities and faculties to all who have the wish and the ability to use them is a financial undertaking of the first magnitude. It requires the resources of all levels of government and the private sector.
That is, the private sector of our economy. He went on to say:
The level of education and the standard of national economic well-being are inter-related. In our case, it is the major reason for the shortfall in our economic performance compared with our better educated neighbours to the south.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a very relevant fact and should be taken into consideration. Also,
November 12, 1969

Canada Student Loans Act it is a great contribution to society. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) talked about the social advantages involved. Much of the unrest we see in our society is as a result of people living in poverty, not only economic but social and cultural poverty. If we had greater opportunities for education for all we would remove some of the lack of purpose many of these young people feel, and many of the needs that go along with it.
I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying I welcome some of the changes that are being made to the Student Loans Act, but I think we have to go much further. The money is available in this country. All that is necessary is to set the proper priorities. The time to begin is now. Nothing will be gained by procrastinating, or conditions in general will continue to get worse.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, there is no need to speak at length on this measure. I intend to speak for only a few moments to indicate my continuing interest and also to urge the minister and the government to look far beyond the terms of reference of the bill now before us and to move forward to the next important step that is required in public assistance to Canadian students of university potential. I say this because the legislation that we have before us is merely housekeeping. It tidies up a bill that has been on the statute books since 1964. The minister in his outline of the amendments underscored this point. It regularizes procedures with respect to the position of students with landed-immigrant status It changes the act to deal with the new approach to the university timetable, namely, the trend in universities toward the semester system as contrasted with the yearly system that has prevailed hitherto. It also changes the amount of a loan in line with the inflationary condi

tions in Canada and the rapidly increasing student population eligible for the student loans program.
I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that this housekeeping approach to the problem of assistance to our rapidly increasing student population is not sufficient to meet the demands for skilled young Canadians with professional training to deal with the complexities of our modern twentieth century society. The student loans program was actually pioneered by the provincial governments. Most provincial governments had a student loans program operating before the federal government entered the field. The federal government entered the field because it was

not within the financial resources of the provinces to provide the sums that were necessary to meet the upsurge in student interest.
I recall the discussions concerning these subjects in the latter 1950's and early 1960's. The federal government's substantial participation in the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act was one of the strong motivating sources in stirring up federal government interest. It hardly seemed logical that the federal government would be providing substantial assistance to students at the technical and vocational level and ignoring completely the area of university training, wherein Canadians had the opportunity to become professionally qualified in order to meet the demands of the rapidly expanding Canadian economy as well as the expanding role of Canada in many other areas of human activity both domestic and international. It was entirely logical that the federal government should derive this inspiration from the provincial governments which had already pioneered in this field. I notice the minister did not give the provincial governments credit for being the first to enter this field.
The only other comment I wish to make on the matter on the administration of the present loans act is that the method of administration leaves much to be desired in terms of the allocation of limited loans to students on the basis of academic ability as well as on the basis of economic need. Only in the last year have I received increasing complaints from students who have been denied access to the loan fund because of what would appear to be arbitrary decision. As I have investigated each case that has come to my attention, the student has been eminently qualified in terms of academic ability. It seems that the elimination of these students from access to the loan fund is derived largely from the shortage of total funds available.
It may be that the increased amounts permitted under the amendments to the legislation will overcome the deficiency to this extent. However, I feel that the application of the needs test is on the basis of the old means test principle, which should have been discarded long ago. I think in all public programs of this kind which are administrated at both the provincial and federal levels it has become the accepted procedure to speak in terms of actual need and not in terms of the total means available.
The cases which have come to my attention have involved families where the father had a total income of approximately $10,000 per
November 12, 1969

year. In the light of that total amount the student was automatically disqualified, even though he might have been one of two or three members of the family attending university at the same time. The point I wish to make is that the program should be administered on the basis of need in light of the total financial picture of the family concerned, and not on the basis of the old, long outmoded means formula that was applied in the past.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I do not think there is any need for a complete and comprehensive speech at this time on the general question of university finances. However, I should like the government to think beyond this intermediate step in the direction of solving the growing financial problems of a student population whose number is rapidly increasing. The provincial governments have already occupied this area to a substantial extent. It was for this reason that Ottawa was thinking and speaking in terms of bursaries rather than in terms of repayable loans. Beneficial as it is to large numbers of students, the loans program does not in any way deal with the needs of the student who is denied an opportunity for university training because of his poor economic position. Other hon. members have drawn attention to the fact that there is a real problem of poverty in Canada; that there are families at the lower levels of the income ladder which cannot afford to send their children to university, simply because no money is available.
It might be argued that the loans program makes up for this deficiency. In fact, it does not, because it fails to meet the needs of those living at the poverty level, those whom the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is trying to assist in the white paper on taxation which he brought down recently. It seems the minister intends to rob Peter to pay Paul; he has adopted the Robin Hood philosophy of taking from those who have and giving to those who have not. It appears to me that this same philosophy should, then, be applied with respect to university students in need of financial assistance. Back in 1963 the government promised in most definite terms to make
10,000	bursaries available for Canadians of exceptional ability who would otherwise be unable to enter university. We pursued this subject in the House for several years. I was one who was interested in it. This afternoon I was looking over my file and I found there the record of a long series of questions which
Canada Student Loans Act had been put to Mr. Walter Gordon when he was Minister of Finance and to the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.
Each of these gentlemen had promised in specific terms that the bursary program would be implemented within a matter of months. Since then, years have rolled by and the promise has yet to be fulfilled. I suggest to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray) who is handling this legislation this afternoon that here is an area in which he might well become occupied in more than a housekeeping sense. Let us get on with the next stage, that of attending to the real area of need, by supplying these long-promised 10,000 bursaries, promise of which formed part of the 60 glorious days of decision under the late Pearson administration.
There is no need to labour the point further. This is merely housekeeping legislation bringing an old statute up to date. What we want now is some pioneering in this field of public assistance as applied to the needs of university students.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration concerning student loans is rather important.
This afternoon, I heard the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray) set out the purpose of this bill.
I also heard some hon. members deal with the situation the students experience in Canada and, with the exception of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), all more or less said the same thing. Our students lack the necessary means to further their studies and the government intends to increase the amount made available for education under Bill C-135.
The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), for instance, said that some students with well-to-do parents did not want their parents to pay for their studies but would rather borrow.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I suggest,-and I would ask the hon. member if he can give proof to the contrary,-that students who can afford to pay their studies do not usually apply for a bank loan and pay an interest rate of 9 or 10 per cent. It is those without any income, those for whom the amendments to this bill are intended, who will borrow $1,000 for a school
758	COMMONS
Canada Student Loans Act year, or $500 for a semester, at a higher interest rate than in 1964 when a student could secure a loan at 5J- per cent. In 1969, the interest rate has gone up to 8J per cent. If we add to that the bank charges, we get the equivalent of 9, 9J per cent, and even 10 per cent in some cases.
Now, a student who must complete a five-year university course may get into debt for $5,000 and on completing his studies, if he wants to establish himself, he will have to spend another $5,000 or even $10,000 in the case of a dentist, a doctor, a lawyer, a sociologist or a psychiatrist.
Therefore, a professional of 26, 27 or 28, is faced with debts ranging from $10,000, $15,000, $17,000 to $18,000. Is this likely to promote initiative? Is this the so-called free education promised by the federal and provincial authorities?
Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that if the loans allow students to complete their studies, they nonetheless mortgage their future. It may be one of the reasons why university students do not much agree with the way the central and provincial governments proceed in that matter.
After all, those young people are no fools; they are quite aware they will get into debt. Moreover, when they fail to find summer jobs to earn money in order to pay for their studies, this is no encouragement to them.
I saw something worse last week in western Canada. In Saskatchewan, university students, for instance, pay tuition fees at Regina University with wheat because they do not have any money. In Winnipeg, they pay with barley.
Are those young people encouraged by this government? I admit that education comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces rather than that of the central government as such, but the latter, for example, could set up a credit system which would enable the provinces to look after their respective educational systems and provincial autonomy would be entirely protected in that field.
Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that students cannot find summer jobs. I saw striking examples of that situation last summer; thousands of students were unable to find a job during their holidays, although they had to go back to the university for the fall term. Thousands of them cannot afford it; thousands of others can go back thanks to their annual $1,000 loans.
Is it any wonder then that young students rise against what is commonly known as the

DEBATES	November 12, 1969
establishment, that they rebel against a society to which they cannot identify themselves?
Young people of 20 or 22 still have to ask their father for a buck-and he may be a labourer in Montreal or a miner in Noranda- to be able to go to a movie or buy a pack of cigarettes. Are these young people of 20 or 22 not a bit ashamed to ask their father whose salary is not even sufficient to pay tuition fees for their children attending school or university?
Mr. Speaker, it is all very well for the government to introduce legislation which will enable students to go $115 million deeper into debt, but will it be able to take them out of the hole? All previous speakers mentioned students, young people, because everybody likes them, the future of the country rests on them. We sure like the future and the young people of Canada. But when time comes to help them in order to guarantee the future of Canada, bills are introduced to mortgage them to the hilt, to crush them still more.
Mr. Speaker, in 1964, I had the opportunity to visit communist countries. We are all afraid of communism. We are afraid of some communists in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Halifax. But when I went to Moscow, I made a visit to the university of that city, which has 35,000 students, with whom I talked. As a matter of fact, my Russian interpreter was a student.
At the Moscow university, education is free, although it is in a communist country. Besides the free tuition, the student is given $30 per month. I hope that hon. members have their ears open, and especially their mind. Mr. Speaker, it is possible to give each student $30 per month plus tuition fees, at whatever faculty he may be enrolled. And this is in a communist country. You may say that the individual has been deprived of his freedom, and it is true. But when the Canadian student is prevented from entering university because he cannot afford it, is it not a financial dictatorship which makes it impossible for him to pursue his studies under a system which is supposed to promote personal initiative and liberty?
In a country where private enterprise and freedom of the individual must be respected, the best we can do is to introduce Bill C-135, telling our students: "See how generous we are with you. Get into debt for ten or fifteen years. Borrow from banks or finance companies. Mortgage the future, yours and Canada's."
November 12, 1969

[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, a capitalist system must curb abuses, not deprive our young people from getting a university education or going to secondary and post-secondary schools because funds have not been made available. It is most shameful and we are condoning it. We tolerate this in the name of freedom, but what kind of freedom is that. I agree that we need individual freedom, that security is not enough. I know it is easy to obtain security. It is the easiest thing in the world when you forego freedom. If all of us here were to go to Freiman's on Rideau Street and smash a big show-window, within ten minutes we would have perfect security, but behind bars. We would be entitled to three meals a day, clothes and a bedroom. It might not be just like home, but it would be secure. If we needed medical care, we would get it. If we had a toothache, we would go to the dentist- free. That is security, but our freedom would be behind bars.
That is why we want to establish a system of security coupled with freedom, real freedom. We must not tell students they can get their education on credit and if next year they can no longer pay, well, just wait another year. We play with students as if they were pets, and we think we are settling their problems.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time we open our eyes. About a year ago, the American economist Robert Theobard suggested that students should get a salary, because, he argued, they do work as any other laborer in any sector of the economy.
What are we of the Ralliement Creditiste suggesting? We do not suggest to fetch the moon and bring it to earth. We do not suggest either to launch the students along with the astronauts to the moon next Friday. We are saying that the public sector of our national economy should be financed from interest-free loans issued directly by the Bank of Canada.
We still need scrip money to cope with the new production-and education is a kind of production-when we are building and developing a country. We say to the federal government to order the Bank of Canada to supply the provinces with the money needed for the administration of their education system. That is what we are suggesting. We can do that for several things, but there is nothing that keeps the government or parliament from ordering Mr. Rasminsky, Governor of the Bank of Canada, to grant the necessary

Canada Student Loans Act credit to the provinces so that they may take care of their education system.
The federal government should not tell the province of Quebec, the province of Alberta, the province of British Columbia or Newfoundland, how it intends to handle the students. That is the responsibility of the provinces since education comes under their jurisdiction.
The federal government must supply credits through the Bank of Canada so that the provinces may supervise the education system and erect, for instance, universities, postsecondary, secondary and technical schools, if need be. It must help also talented students to pursue their studies.
It is said today that students are faced with financial problems. It is not said that they are having difficulties with their teachers. No! It is not said that they are having difficulties with the university. No! Nor is it said that their text-books are a problem. No! It is said that they do not have the money they need to carry on their studies. So, let us pass legislation giving them the opportunity to go into debt. Such is our present system. But it will not last forever!
According to an old saying: One can fool some of the people all the time; one can fool all of the people some of the time; but one cannot fool all of the people all the time. That is not true, because that is exactly what is happening today!
Mr. Speaker, once more no doubt the credi-tistes will be laughed at but this will bring no change in the situation and will not help the students in any way.
There are complaints that everything is not well in Montreal and that students should be blamed for it! I met students last week in western Canada. I met students at the Alberta University, at Saint-Paul College in Winnipeg, at the Manitoba University. At Saint-Paul College, I met more than 600 students aged from 18 to 22 who listened religiously to what we had to tell them. Their problem is not so much a French or English language problem as an education problem, a finance problem!
Yet the government does not find any way other than introducing legislation that would allow students to get into debt. What a clever solution! How satisfied these young people must be with Ottawa! It is not surprising that the young are rising against the federal and provincial governments! They are given no chance at all. Why? Because there is too much to do at the same time.
760	COMMONS
Canada Student Loans Act
In western Canada, parents face a wheat surplus that they cannot sell; in eastern Canada, it is fish, in Quebec, it is wood and milk, in the province of Ontario, it is corn, fruits, vegetables, wood, and mines that they cannot develop. Parents and children, all are fighting the present system, which does not make sense at all.
That is why I said a while ago-and I have some evidence, because like the students, I got it on good authority-that some students are compelled to pay their school fees with barley and wheat, since they are penniless. The government says: "Now you will have some money because you will be allowed to borrow." But borrow where? From banks and finance companies. Instead of using the Bank of Canada to help the provinces to solve their education problems, students are allowed to be in debt to banks.
If the government has the means to draw up a bill, could it not also issue a government bond which would be bought by the Bank of Canada and made available to the provinces?
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
When they come to Ottawa, the provinces should ask the central government to use the means at its disposal rather than spend its time saying to the provinces, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does: We are sovereign, we administer the taxes that we collect, that is all. If we do not have money, it is because we do not collect enough taxes. To get more money, we will have to levy more taxes, and since we do not intend to do that, we advise the provinces to take their responsibilities, to get money from their own taxpayers, so the federal government will be cleared of the charges now laid against it.
But does that solve anything? No. We are going towards general paralysis in Canada, in education as in everything else. Not only is paralysis coming, it is a fact!
The farmers in western Canada are paralyzed with stacks of wheet and the people in the Maritimes, with stacks of fish. The same phenomenon appears all over Canada. And the government says: Our only financial solution is taxation. And inflation follows.
They try to quiet down reactions by telling the western farmers: You know, we are going through a period of inflation. Therefore, do bear with it, let your wheat rot on the field. To the eastern fishermen, they say: "We are going through a period of inflation. Let your fish rot there." And to everybody, they sing
[Mr. Caouette.l
DEBATES	November 12, 1969
the same tune: Inflation prevails. Let yourselves be paralyzed.
However, if war broke out tomorrow, the present government would find billions of dollars to get the young students into the army, to feed them, clothe them and house them decently, for then they would say: This is national urgency.
But, when it comes to helping our young people to build Canada and to prepare them to take over the reins, this government says: We are in a period of inflation, and newspapermen believe that, because we can read through the pages of the newspapers: Inflation prevents us from doing this and that. The first people that I would get into the army if war were declared, would be all the Canadian newspapermen. Then, they would learn the difference between inflation and deflation.
Mr. Speaker, there must be an end to all this deceit and it is done on the back of our young people, because we cannot do anything for
them.	But comes war, and immediately, we can do everything and nothing is missing. But in peace time, it is not the same thing any longer. Universities, let us close them.
I was referring earlier to Moscow and Prague where students have no tuition fees to pay and moreover get $30 a month to study. If under a communist system where freedom is non-existent, students are assisted, in a system where private enterprise must be respected, there is not a single worthwhile reason why they should not be treated in the same manner. I am in no way suggesting that communists are right or wrong, but they certainly look better after their students than we have done up to now.
Everybody knows how much I am against marxism whose aim is to make an individual the slave of the state. On the contrary, I want the state to serve the individual, the mother, the child and the older people. It is precisely this philosophy of life advocated by the Ral-liement Creditiste in our province, in our country.
We are not working against one another; we want a state, a government, a parliament that takes into consideration the needs of the individual.
If ever we legislate in terms of the needs of the individuals, of our physical possibilities,
then,	Mr. Speaker, we can say that in this country of ours we have a system of personal freedom that guarantees security to all the people, including the students who are entitled to a better treatment than the one provided for in this bill.
November 12, 1969	COMMONS
This is no solution; it is as effective as a band-aid on a wooden leg-as 1 often say-it will do nothing to solve the problem of Canadian students.
And so, in closing, Mr. Speaker, I say that the federal government should order the Bank of Canada to finance the provinces that they might offer the students, our children, an education system enabling them to pursue their studies and to fulfil themselves for the good of the whole Canadian population.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), outlined the opinions of our party on this bill; therefore, all I wish to do is deal with a couple of points to which my attention has been drawn over and over again in connection with the Canada Student Loans Act and the amendments in the bill before us.
On balance, we are very glad to see some of the improvements which have been made to the act, particularly in the clause which will qualify for a loan a student who has been a resident in Canada for a period of not less than one year and has declared his intention to reside in this country after he ceases to be a full-time student. I know that this provision will be welcomed in my city of Vancouver as well as in cities across Canada which are receiving a number of people who will make excellent citizens of this country.
I want to comment on the amendment which deals with the period of time for which a person may be eligible to receive a loan. I find that throughout the bill, as well as throughout the act, there is an insistence on the applicant being a full-time student in order to qualify I think the amendment to the act is an improvement in that it introduces the semester as a period for which a student may obtain a loan, but in my riding a number of people-a great many women are in this position-are not able to become full-time students. They are able to give part of their time to household duties and part of their time to studies to upgrade themselves. They cannot study for a full semester nor can they enrol for a full university year, but they can be part-time students or what I would call installment students.
I have known a great many people, not only in my own riding but all across Canada-and	this applies particularly
although not entirely to women-who are
DEBATES	761
Canada Student Loans Act well able to take one course in a year, following which they can take another course the second year and in due time work up to a full university degree. However, as I understand it, under this legislation even as it is amended they are not eligible for a student loan. These are the types of people who need a loan because very frequently they are most anxious to upgrade themselves after their children have left home and no longer need them. Very frequently their studies have been interrupted by an early marriage, but after their children have left home they want to go back to their career or to a job, and prepare themselves for it by going to university; but since they can only study part-time they do not qualify for a loan. I hope the minister will consider these cases because I think it is very important that an incentive in the form of a loan be given to these people to encourage them to study.
As I have said, improvements have been made to the act. It is not necessary now to enrol for a full university year in order to obtain a loan; a semester is sufficient. However, under the bill the instalment students who can take only one course or two in a year do not qualify for a loan.
The other comment which I wish to make applies to the moderate to low income people. There are a great many young people in Canada who are trying their very best to get to university. I have in mind in particular the case of a young chap who managed, through the efforts of his whole family, to enrol for the first year at a university and to get a loan. He found at the end of his first year that he was not able to continue his studies because he had to go out to earn money to help the family. He tried to get a job but was unable to get any kind of steady work after only one year at university. As the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) emphasized today, jobs are very scarce, particularly in the summer months. This young fellow could get only casual work for short periods but not a steady or permanent job. He went away to the hinterland of British Columbia to look for work, but he could not find a good paying, steady enough job that would permit him to pay back the loan principal and interest. In fact he got into real trouble about paying back his loan and it was only due to very special intercession that we were able to have his payments suspended until he had the chance to get a permanent job.
762	COMMONS
Canada Student Loans Act
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I wish we could have some assurance from the minister that in such cases a period of repayment suspension would be allowed, particularly where solid guarantees are provided to the effect that the individual involved has been trying hard to get work but has been unable to do so. Students who had ambition and who applied for and received loans have encountered real hardships, and if cases like these could be met it would be very helpful.
The third point which I want to mention, concerning students who get into a bad position with a heavy load of debt, has already been dealt with to some extent by previous speakers but I do not think anybody mentioned compound cases, such as the one I encountered involving a young girl student. She had almost finished her university course. She had a debt of several thousand dollars under the Student loans plan, and she told me, "I am married now. When I graduate I want to earn money in order to keep my husband at university, where he is trying to qualify as a doctor. Unfortunately, the only dowry I was able to bring him was this load of debt in the form of a student loan. But what if I become pregnant in the meantime"? Then she looked straight at me and said, "I suppose it could be worse in that case if it were twins or triplets." She regarded this as a distinct catastrophe. I hope there will be provision in the legislation for discretion to be exercised in cases of this kind, which are more frequent than many of us who are older realize.
I also notice that there is provision in the legislation that if a student dies suddenly the government must repay to the bank the amount of principal and interest due by the borrower at the time of his death. I suggest to the minister that there are other kinds of death; there is the death of lingering hope, where students hopes are trampled underfoot after receiving these loans. Discretionary power should be provided in such cases. I hope the legislation will before it is passed be amended and improved in respect of these two or three points. Perhaps the minister would touch on these points in his reply.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Bailie River):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). Having heard the sweeping suggestions he proposed, I feel a bit embarrassed at putting forward the minimal changes I would propose to the legislation.

DEBATES	November 12, 1969
Bill C-135 is not all I would wish, nor is it all that education requires from the federal government. Nevertheless, I make a point of expressing my approval for and appreciation of the fact that the government is concerned in this area. I sincerely hope that it is the beginning of an activist, pragmatic approach by the government toward the challenge of education and the development of the Canada that so many of us envision for the 1970s. I consider that the amendments proposed by the bill are worthy of support, but I wish to make a few brief comments on them. One proposed amendment extends the definition of a bank to include:
-a corporation that carries on the business of a trust company within the meaning of the Trust Companies Act, the business of a loan company within the meaning of the Loan Companies Act, or the business of insurance within the meaning of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, and that is designated by the Minister on the application of that corporation as a bank for the purposes of this Act.
This is wholly commendable. It substantially expands the number of institutions from which students will be able to borrow funds. It is very much like the amendments passed last session with regard to the Co-operative Credit Associations Act and the Farm Machinery Syndicates Act. Another amendment restricts the availability of loans to foreign students to those qualified as landed-immigrants. Previously, a non-Canadian student was only required to state his intention to remain in Canada after completing his studies. This amendment was not drafted out of malice to those who do not yet wish to become Canadian citizens. That is not why I support it. It is commendable in that it narrows the definition at this time simply because we must apply priorities with regard to public expenditure.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Finally, extending the provisions of the act to include semester students is something which is overdue and is welcomed. The semester is becoming more and more a part of the educational system, of university life in general. The Canadian Student Loans Act has been prejudiced against this system for too long, and the semester student should be included in any such program. Under the legislation parents are not liable to repay interest and principal on loans to their children; that is the sole responsibility of the student. Further, in the event of death or in the event of an assumed death beyond all shadow of doubt, the federal government is
November 12, 1969	COMMONS
held liable. Yet since the act became operative in 1965, to be eligible for a loan a student has had to prove that his parents or guardian are unable to pay for his post-secondary education. A student is declared independent only if: (1) the student is married; (2) the student has completed four successful years in a post-secondary institution; (3) the student held a permanent job before enrolling in a post-secondary institution; (4) the student is 25 years of age or over.
Bill C-135 should have removed from the act the distinction between "dependent' and "independent". Today growing numbers of young men and women are independent at the age of 18 simply because of their own choice or that of their parents.
This government is about to acknowledge in our Elections Act that an 18-year old is both independent and mature; otherwise, suggesting he should vote would be an insult to democracy. If an 18-year old is to be considered fit to vote, he should now be accepted as independent according to the Canadian Student Loans Act. You can call it undemocratic, or I suppose there is a great deal of other terminology which could be used, but if we consider a student old enough to vote we should consider him old enough to be independent under the Student Loans Act. The present classification of dependent for those not within the criteria of independence is unrealistic for our society today and therefore is of harm to the act and unjust for many young people. I am displeased that this was not one of the provisions put forward in the amendments.
The breadth of assistance has been extended and terminologically and administratively the act has been improved. However, there is another serious inadequacy in Bill C-135 which affects the quality of the program at this time. For five years the ceiling of loan assistance has remained at $1,000 per year. I argue that this figure is increasingly inadequate, it increasingly excludes the poor and, being arbitrary, should have been amended. This bill does not take into consideration increasing tuition costs and the cost of living which for five years have seriously diminished the real value of a $1,000 loan. I would
DEBATES	763
Canada Student Loans Act suspect that for all those who require a loan to the full level of the ceiling, this amount is now much too low. This must be painfully true of mothers and fathers who have lost their spouses.
I suggest that Bill C-135 should be reconsidered in light of the two points I have made. An adequate bill amending the Canada Assistance Act would accept that an 18-year old is often independent. I think we should consider raising the loan ceiling. I would not want to throw out a figure, but I would think $1,200 or $1,500 would be a little more realistic when we look at what inflation has done to the economy.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak of the Canada Student Loans Act in its fullest context. We can see immediately that this program in terms of aid to education provides more for the wealthy provinces than for the poor ones. For 1967-68 the plan provided $8.25 million to British Columbia, $23.6 million to Ontario, only $1.7 million to Newfoundland and only $4.2 million to New Brunswick. This makes sense considering the objective of the act. However, with the removal of federal assistance generally to education, the financial distribution of the act raises several questions regarding federal involvement in education. Is it responsible only to help students achieve accessibility and not assist the provinces to establish proper facilities? Should not the federal government, the guardian of our two founding cultures, be actively concerned with the Americanization of our universities? Are not accessible and effective universities a central factor in regional development?
I feel these questions are important and compel action. I suggest that the university has become a pivotal national institution as are, for example, the CPR and the CBC. Therefore, I appeal to this House to go beyond the housekeeping of present legislation and adopt an active and selective stance toward higher education within inherent obligations of the federal parliament.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, November 13, 1969