Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):

Mr. Speaker, the CUSO organization has been in existence in Canada since 1961. During that period of time about 9,000 young Canadians have gone to various countries around the world where they have assisted in the process of development.

Recently a book written by Branca Lapajne has been published criticizing CUSO and its work.

CUSO has worked in left-wing and in right-wing countries. It has had its successes and its failures but, more than anything else, it has built up a great world of experience. It has built up an experience about what is development.

Development is not a movement by entrepreneurs, whether they are individuals or multinational corporations which go into a country to make a fistful of dollars. Development is about people-a freeing of people from the constraints of

poverty, hunger, and disease. Development is also political. When one goes to a country as a volunteer, one can accept the status quo, or one can accept the forces of change, or one can do nothing. All of these are political activities. For a people who have been slaves, oppressed, exploited and humiliated by groups within their own country or by economic, political or military forces from without, development also means liberation.

Liberation means a process by which a people have more control of their own affairs within their historic and cultural context and realities. Any action which prohibits this is not development.

I would simply like to say that I am supporting CUSO and everyone who has worked in it, so that the process of development will continue.

Mr. Ogle:

Out of those two choices I think I would have to select the second. Again I go back to the point that many times I felt my friend, the Minister of Agriculture, was able to reel off figures and percentages without too many facts. I appreciate that and I accept that.

Mr. Ogle:

Mr. Speaker, I believe if young people are going to school and they can see they are making progress, such as at Kelsey Institute where people learn to be nurses, plumbers, or mechanics, or they are moving forward to the University of Saskatchewan, they are doing something which is positive, human activity. They have a greater respect for themselves and for everything around them and are treated accordingly. On the other hand, when a person is out of work and trying to find a job and cannot, the whole effect, as far as I know from people I have talked to, is a very negative one in a personal way.

If we are making a choice, what I would like to see first of all is full employment and a regulation or a kind of six and five rule, some kind of rule relating to unemployment, so that that would become the priority. But barring that, I believe if funds which are now being used for welfare and other similar things

Established Programs Financing were directed to the upgrading and training of people in universities and technical institutes, not only would the country benefit from that action, but the people involved would benefit also because they would be treated more like human beings, which is what life is all about.

Mr. Ogle:

I was just going to say that. The Minister indicates by that remark that we get rain in Saskatchewan every year. I still believe the major thing we count on in agriculture is that we get enough moisture. I am sure if he has been in the Prairies during a period of time when there is no rain-and I grew up there during a period of time in which there was no rain-there would be no crops. Neither his Department nor any other Department will produce crops or double production unless we have natural conditions, which he does not as yet have any control over, as far as I know.

Mr. Ogle:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct one question to my colleague. We always enjoy the Hon. Member's speeches and even his story about the camel, although I did not exactly understand how that fitted in. From the Hon. Member's remarks it would appear that he is against medicare as an institution. At least, that is the way I understood the Hon. Member to speak. How does that fit into the Party position that seems to have been adopted to accept the health Bill? Is there a division in the caucus?