1953-02-18

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, in connection with the announcement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that he proposed to bring down his budget tomorrow night at eight o'clock, it has been pointed out that for the regularity of the record it would be preferable to have an order that standing order 28 in relation to the Speaker leaving the chair without question put be suspended for tomorrow. If I had the unanimous consent of the house, I should like so to move.
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr.   SI Laurent moved@: That the provisions of standing order 28 in relation to Mr. Speaker leaving the chair without question put for the house to go into committee of ways and means be suspended for the sitting of Thursday, February 19, 1953.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement to the house with regard to the marketing of western wheat, oats and barley. As hon. members of the house know, phenomenal grain crops were produced in the prairie provinces last year: a record wheat crop of 664 million bushels, a record barley crop of 281 million bushels and a large oats crop of 346 million bushels. The marketing of grain production of this magnitude has of course presented many difficulties and it was realized early in the crop year that these problems could be met only through aggressive selling on the part of the Canadian wheat board and the provision of maximum transportation for the movement of grain.
I am happy to report that good progress is being made with the receiving and the merchandising of western grains. In spite of elevator congestion, which must be
expected in the face of the size of the 1952 grain crops, producers had delivered a total of 461 million bushels of grain up to February 5,	1953-a quantity of grain not
exceeded during the corresponding period in any of the past ten years. As grain is moved forward from country elevators, producers will continue to add to their deliveries of grain throughout the crop year.
The bumper crops of 1952 have been accompanied by an excellent demand particularly for wheat and barley. Exports of grain are running well ahead of the corresponding period a year ago when new records were established. I have every reason to believe that the record exports of 1951-52 will be exceeded by a substantial margin by exports in 1952-53. The Canadian wheat board has made very large sales so far in the crop year and has large sales on its books for delivery during the balance of the crop year.
Having regard to the present sales position, the government has approved an increase in the initial price of all grades of wheat, excepting durums, from $1.40 per bushel to $1.60 per bushel, basis No. 1 northern in store Fort William, Port Arthur or Vancouver. The increase will become effective on March 2, 1953. This means that an adjustment payment of 20 cents per bushel will be made to producers covering their deliveries of all grades of wheat other than durums to the board between August 1, 1952, and February 28, 1953.
In the case of durum wheat, there has been an exceptionally strong demand during the present crop year and actually the production of durum wheat is not now sufficient to meet the demand for this type of grain. Therefore, the initial prices of all grades of durum wheat will be increased by 25 cents per bushel and an adjustment payment in this amount will be made to all producers delivering durum wheat to the board between August 1,	1952, and February 28, 1953.
This will bring the initial prices of durum grades from their present level of $1.40 per bushel for No. 1 amber durum in store Fort William, Port Arthur or Vancouver to $1.65 per bushel effective on March 2, 1953. There appears to be a growing market for durum varieties of wheat and it is my hope that this increase in the initial payment for this variety of wheat will serve to encourage additional durum production in 1953.

Grain
In regard to coarse grains, we must recognize that 1952 production and estimated marketings of oats and barley during the crop year 1952-53 involve extraordinary quantities. From the 1952 production, it is estimated that producers will have surpluses of about 175 million bushels of each grain. The position in respect to barley is satisfactory in respect to both marketing and sales and accordingly the government is increasing the initial price of all grades of barley by 15 cents per bushel effective March 2, 1953. The new initial price of barley will be $1.11 per bushel basis No. 3 CW 6 row barley in store Fort William or Port Arthur as compared with the present initial price of 96 cents per bushel. This will involve an adjustment payment of 15 cents per bushel on all grades of barley delivered to the board between August 1,	1952, and February
28, 1953.
I now wish to deal with the oats position. Up to the present time only about one-third of possible deliveries of oats for the crop year have been delivered by producers and while sales have been satisfactory, the Canadian wheat board do not feel in a position to make a definite recommendation at this time in regard to an increase in the initial price for oats. You will recall that a similar position was taken a year ago in regard to oats. Accordingly, it is the policy of the government to leave the initial price of oats at its present level for the balance of the crop year.
The adjustment payments which I have mentioned are, of course, subject to the one per cent levy under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
The wheat adjustment payment will commence on April 1 and will be followed immediately by the barley adjustment payment. If the present rate of producers' deliveries continues until the end of February, the adjustment payments on wheat and barley will amount to about $80 million.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I should like to ask the
minister a question. Will that 20-cent adjustment payment for wheat be paid out of moneys held to the credit of the farmer, or will it be borrowed as happened in 1949 when a similar payment was made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say as to that. I
presume that the wheat board will have sufficient funds, but if not its credit is good and I am sure it will borrow the money to make the payment which usually is made to farmers at this time.



INQUIRY AS TO 15-BUSHEL QUOTA THROUGHOUT WESTERN CANADA

Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I am sure
hon. members from western Canada are pleased with the minister's announcement. The question I should like to ask is this. When does he expect that the 15-bushel quota may be general throughout western Canada, and to what extent does he think that 15-bushel quota may be raised before the end of the crop year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am happy that my hon.
friend asked that question today because I asked the same question of the chairman of the wheat board yesterday. He told me he is hopeful that the 15-bushel quota will be made uniform across the prairies before the end of February.



THE BUDGET


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I desire to table copies in English and in French of the white paper in connection with the budget 1953-54. This procedure of tabling the white paper the day before the budget was adopted last year and has, I believe, proved useful to hon. members. I would suggest, if it meets the approval of the house, and I so move, that it be printed in today's Votes and Proceedings so that hon. members will have an opportunity to study it before I deliver the budget speech tomorrow evening.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CITIZENSHIP


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: Hon. members will be interested to know that it is the intention of the government to provide in the supplementary estimates for a sum from which grants may be made to provincial governments with respect to the education of our newcomers in citizenship. It is a well recognized fact that the sooner the newcomers are made familiar with the English or the French language, the habits and customs of the Canadian people, our history, our form of government, and our democratic processes, the sooner they will become useful and productive citizens. There are at the moment

approximately 45,000 adult newcomers attending citizenship classes in the various provinces and we hope that these classes will be continued and increased in number.
The grant to each provincial government would be one-half the amount contributed by the provincial government for these citizenship classes. Letters are going forward to each provincial premier advising him of this and inviting his government to join in making a suitable agreement.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the minister with reference to the answer he has just given whether the federal financial assistance is being confined simply to the instruction in citizenship, or whether it will extend to relieve the local school authorities of some of the burden they are now carrying in the instruction of those newcomers in the English or the French language.
Mr Harris: Perhaps my hon. friend did not hear the precise wording of the final paragraph, which reads:
The grant to each provincial government would be one-half the amount contributed by the provincial government for these citizenship classes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Apparently I have not made my question clear to my hon. friend. This is a question that is to be regarded as training in citizenship. Is it going to extend to include the type of education that is now being afforded to the newcomers by the local school authorities, and which takes the form in many municipalities of instruction in language?


Walter Edward Harris: If these schools qualify for provincial grants, then the federal government will make a grant to the province accordingly.


Mr. Brooks:: May I ask a supplementary question? Are special schools to be set up for this instruction?


Walter Edward Harris: I have no idea what the various provinces call their schools. The schools that I am referring to are in the main conducted by the local boards of education, mainly, almost exclusively, at night, and usually in the school building. There are, however, some other schools maintained by voluntary organizations which are doing good work as well.
Mr Simmons:	May I ask the minister
whether this provision will apply to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories? The minister just mentioned the provinces.


Walter Edward Harris: I agree that in the announcement I made no mention of the Yukon, but we never forget the Yukon; it is part of the Dominion of Canada.
Questions



QUESTIONS


DELAYED INCOME TAX RETURNS


Mr. Green:: 1.	Was any person, firm or company fined in Victoria, British Columbia, during the month of December, 1952, for delay in filing income tax returns?
2.	If so, what amount of fine was levied in each case, and how long after the due date was the return filed in each case?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	One individual and one corporation.
2.	The individual was fined $50 for failure to file a T4 information return in respect of the year 1950 on the due date of 28th February, 1951. As of 7th February, 1953, the return had not been filed.
The corporation was fined $25 for failure to file a T4 information return in respect of the year 1950 on the due date of 28th February, 1951. The corporation filed such a return on 21st November, 1952.



PRINCE ALBERT AIRPORT RUNWAYS

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Has the government given consideration to providing the city of Prince Albert with allweather runways at the airport?
2.	If so, has a favourable decision been arrived at?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Following a recent visit from a delegation from the city of Prince Albert to the Minister of Transport, arranged by the hon. member for Prince Albert, further consideration is being given to questions related to the improvement of the airport at Prince Albert. Decision as to the time at which further work can be initiated has not yet been taken.
2.	Answered by No. 1 above.



R.C.A.F.-FIRST CF-100 SQUADRON

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	When is it expected that the first Royal Canadian Air Force squadron will be fully equipped with CF-100 aircraft?
2.	How many CF-100's will this squadron have?
3.	Where will it be stationed?
4.	How far behind original schedule will the final deliveries to this squadron be?


Mr. Campney:: 1,	2 and 3. An R.C.A.F. squadron stationed at North Bay will be equipped for operations with CF-100 aircraft in the near future. It is contrary to the public interest to disclose the numbers of aircraft in a squadron intended for the defence of Canada or to give the exact date when it will become operational.

Questions
4.	The Minister of Defence Production at page 1952 of Hansard in answer to a number of questions has dealt with the production program for the CF-100. The schedule of deliveries to squadrons is directly related to the rate at which the aircraft are produced.



CANADIAN FORCES, KOREA  BOOTS

Mr. Harkness:: 1.	Is the ordinary type of army boot, generally designated "boots, ankle" equipped with steel -lcats on toe and heel, the type of boot on issue to troops in Korea?
2.	If so, has this type of boot been found suitable in Korea?
3. If a change was made in the type of boot issued, what was the date of this change, what was the new type of boot issued, and what proportion of the personnel in the Korean brigade was issued with a different type?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	Boots generally issued to the 25th Canadian infantry brigade in Korea are the regular type of boot known as "boots ankle" issued to Canadian forces in Canada and Europe. These boots are about 7J inches high; they have steel plates on the toes and heels and are hobnailed as necessary. Tank crews are issued with "boots ankle CAC", which are similar to the regular "boots ankle" except that the soles and heels are rubber and not equipped with steel plates or hob nails. Both knee and hip length rubber boots are issued for special purposes. During 1951-52 about 50 per cent of the brigade were issued with "boots rubber soles leather uppers" similar to the shoepacs used by lumbermen, being about 12J inches high. On balance this boot was not found to be generally satisfactory for
use in Korea because of the conditions of climate and terrain found there. A number of British boots "cold-wet-weather" were purchased and issued. Also, some 1,500 pairs of boots "X-49-C" made in Canada were issued for trial purposes in 1951-52. These boots are similar to the "boots ankle" except that composition soles and heels were used in the design. The results of these trials are now being evaluated. A further 500 pair of boots were issued for trials in Korea in June, 1952. These boots are similar to the X-49-C boots, but with a leather extension 3f inches high, making the total height of the boot about 11 inches. Other user trials have been made of other boots of Canadian, British and United States design and these trials are continuing.
2.	So far the Canadian ankle boot, as modified with the leather extension, has been found a most satisfactory boot for general use in Korea. A substantial number of the regular boots ankle have been modified in a similar way in the theatre. As stated in answer to question 1, other types of footwear have been, and are being given user trials.
3.	See answers to Nos. 1 and 2.



LANDED VALUES AND QUANTITIES, NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. Robichaud:: What are the quantities and landed value of all species of fish landed in the following counties of the province of New Brunswick, during the years 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952: (a) Charlotte; (b) Albert; (c) Gloucester; (d) Kent; (e) Restigouche; (f) Saint John; (g) Westmorland?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
County	1949	1950	1951	1952	Landings	Landed Value	Landings	Landed Value	Landings	Landed Value	Landings	Landed ValueCwt.	$	Cwt.	s	Cwt.	$	Cwt.	$Charlotte	759,497	1,914,665	1,100,900	1,723,290	822,931	2,371,495	962,753	2,279,823Albert	113	2,276	228	2,179	61	1,614	166	2,874Gloucester	459,229	1,302,526	485,368	1,345,592	514,883	1,508,768	508,252	1,573,906Kent	198,308	792,358	230,524	1,056,693	236,817	982,154	275,988	1,181,217Restigouche	12,961	135,564	10,714	190,041	11,440	169,848	9,181	184,970Saint John	93,769	321,230	144,928	296,081	89,467	331,706	148,987	402,942Westmorland	130,347	595,100	160,396	717,834	200,855	701,870	147,510	817,883

Mr. Balcer:: 1.	How many persons are in the employ of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in the city of Quebec?
2.	What are their various duties?
3.	What is the total amount of weekly salaries paid to such employees?
4.	How many program hours originate in the Quebec studios of the said corporation, each week?
5.	What are these programs?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Twenty-four.
2.	Technical operation, program production, announcing, stenographic, clerical.
3.	Salaries are not computed on a weekly basis. The total monthly cost of salaries is approximately $6,800.
4.	Approximately nine hours.
5.	Sample week-February, 1953:
Sunday
1:00- 1:15 p.m., Institutions Politiques. 7:00- 7:30 p.m., Match intercite. 10:15-10:30 p.m., Clement Lockwell.
Monday
7:30- 7:50 a.m., Badinage Musical.
7:50- 8:00 a.m., Boujour les sportifs.
8:15- 8:30 a.m., Elevations matutinales. 5:00- 5:15 p.m., La vie de la terre.
5:15- 5:30 p.m., Les grands phenomenes de la nature.
Tuesday
7:30- 7:50 a.m., Badinage Musical.
7:50- 8:00 a.m., Boujour les sportifs.
8:15- 8:30 a.m., Elevations matutinales. 6:30- 6:45 p.m., Les collegiens en vacances.
Wednesday
7:30- 7:50 a.m., Badinage Musical.
7:50- 8:00 a.m., Boujour les sportifs.
8:15- 8:30 a.m., Elevations matutinales.
Thursday
7:30- 7:50 a.m., Badinage Musical.
7:50- 8:00 a.m., Boujour les sportifs.
8:15- 8:30 a.m., Elevations matutinales. 10:15-10:30 p.m., La Politique Provinciale. 10:30-11:00 p.m., Recital.
Friday
7:30- 7:50 a.m., Badinage Musical.
7:50- 8:00 a.m., Boujour les sportifs.
8:15- 8:30 a.m., Elevations matutinales.
Saturday
7:30- 7:50 a.m., Badinage Musical.
7:50- 8:00 a.m., Boujour les sportifs.
8:15- 8:30 a.m., Elevations matutinales. 10:30-11:30 a.m., Concert intime. 12:00-12:30 p.m., Musique Legere.
7:30- 8:00 p.m., Trois de Quebec.
Questions
FISHERMEN'S LOANS, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, N.B. Mr. Robichaud:
1.	Have any loans been made to any individual or corporation in Gloucester county, New Brunswick, under the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act, since 1945?
2.	If so, (a) to whom and when were any such loans made; (b) what was the amount of each loan; (c) for what purposes were such loans made?


Mr. Lesage:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



IMPERIAL OIL COMPANY


Mr. Wright:: 1.	What amounts of revenue were received each year from 1944 to 1952 inclusive, from (a) royalties; (b) sale of production, from the unit area under section 18 of agreement between Canada and Imperial Oil Company, under agreements tabled on January 30, 1953?
2.	What was the number of barrels of oil produced in the unit area and the well head price per barrel?
3.	What other payments, if any, were received by the dominion government from the Imperial Oil Company, during the lifetime of the above agreements?
4.	What payments, if any, were made to the Imperial Oil Company by the dominion government, during the term of these agreements?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	(a)	(b)
	Royalties	Sale of
Year		Production
1944 	. nil	nil1945 	. $ 2,761.66	$ 20,158.251946 	. 11,434.02	92,191,831947 	. 17,048.74	127,352.861948 	. 20,192.18	171,457.391949 	. 3,596.09	3,236.511950 	. 11,621.00	93,614.281951 	. 11,253.72	88,580.79Note:-Under	the provision	of order in
council P.C. 6170 dated the 7th of August, 1944, royalty was not payable for "duration of the war"; therefore royalty payments did not commence until May 4, 1945. Statements for 1952 production and royalty have not yet been received.
2.		Well Head
	Production in	Price per
Year	Barrels	Barrel
1944 ...		nil
1945 ....	
86,138	$1-447411946 ....	
138,088	1-9021831947 ....	
231,844	2-20611948 ....	
319,688	1-86931949 .. .	
170,381	0-59021950 ....	
183,591	1-77261951 ....	
217,818	0-4500
Questions

3.
Acreage Rentals
on 3 leases included in
Year	"Agreement"
1944	 nil
1945		 $1,440.00
1946		 1,440.00
1947		 1,440.00
1948		 1,440.00
1949		 1,440.00
1950		 1,440.00
1951	  1,440.00
4.	No payments were made to the Imperial Oil Company under the agreement by the government of Canada.



H.M.C.S. &quot;SHEARWATER&quot;-COOKS

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Have any civilians employed as cooks by the Department of National Defence, at Shearwater, Nova Scotia, been replaced at any time this year by naval personnel?
2.	If so, how many of such civilian cooks were replaced? Were they dismissed from employment with the Department of National Defence?
3.	How many of such dismissed civilian cooks are veterans of world war I, or world war II?
4.	How many naval personnel have been or will be posted to do the work done by the said civilian cooks?
5.	Has the Minister of National Defence declared that it costs more to use service personnel than civilians for work which can be done by civilians?
6.	If so, how does the Minister of National Defence explain the replacement of civilians by enlisted personnel for this work?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Each having been given three weeks notice, 17 civilian cooks were released from 27 January to 6 February.
3.	Eight.
4.	At present 15 naval cooks do the work done by the 17 civilian cooks; not more than 17 naval cooks will eventually replace the 17 civilian cooks.
5 and 6. It is the policy of the Royal Canadian Navy to fill sufficient positions in shore establishments with service personnel to enable an adequate rotation scheme to function. If this were not done, naval personnel would be required to serve continuously at sea. Because of a shortage of naval cooks, civilian cooks were hired on a temporary basis in a number of shore establishments until trained service personnel became available.



CANADIAN FORCES, EUROPE-FOOD PURCHASES

John George Diefenbaker: How many pounds of (a) eggs; (b) bacon; (c) cheese, have been purchased from countries in Europe, during the last six months for the use of the Canadian forces in Europe?


Ralph Osborne Campney: In order to avoid the setting up of separate supply lines at considerable expense, rations for the 27 th Canadian infantry brigade and the R.C.A.F. air division are obtained through British and American, European supply lines. The Department of National Defence therefore has no record of the countries from which the rations referred to are purchased.



COBALT PRICES AND COSTS

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What price per pound is the Canadian government now paying for cobalt ores and concentrates?
2.	What is the total cost per pound to the Canadian government of refined cobalt, including the purchase price of ores and concentrates and the cost of refining by Deloro Smelting and Refining Company?
3.	What is the world price per pound for refined cobalt?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Canadian government is now paying the following price per pound of contained cobalt on an f.o.b. Cobalt, Ontario basis:
Contained Cobalt	Price Per Pound
7-	00-7-99%	
$1.208-	00-8-99%	
1.509-	00-9-99%	
1.8010-00% plus	
2.002.	As no cobalt concentrates purchased under the Canadian government's premium price plan have been refined into metal no answer can as yet be given to this question.3.	The E. & H. J. price for refined cobalt metal, 97 per cent grade is $2.40 per pound.



COBALT EXPORTS AND PURCHASES

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Was the export of cobalt from Canada banned as from any date in 1950 or 1951? If so, at what date? Is such ban still in effect?
2.	Did Silver Miller Mines Limited enter into a contract with any United States agency, at any time in 1951 or 1952, for the export of cobalt from Canada to the United States? If so, what was the date and what were the terms of any such contract, including the price per pound to be paid for such cobalt?
3.	Did the Canadian government approve of any such contract? If so, by what means was such approval granted? Was there any consultation between United States and Canadian authorities concerning this contract?
4.	Was this contract cancelled? If so, when and by whom? Were any representations calling for the cancelling of this contract made by United States authorities to the Canadian government? If so, by whom and when?
5.	Is Silver Miller Mines Limited exporting any cobalt at the present time? If so, to whom and under what terms and conditions and at what price per pound?
6.	Is the Canadian government buying cobalt from Silver Miller Mines Limited at the present time? If so, under what terms and conditions and at what price per pound?

7.	Is the Canadian government buying cobalt from other firms or companies at the present time? If so, from whom, under what terms and conditions and at what price per pound?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Export permits for cobalt ores and concentrates were refused, in line with the Canadian government purchasing policy announced in the House of Commons on February 15, 1951, by the Minister of Defence Production. Export permits have been available since January 1, 1953.
2.	No information.
3.	No.
4.	No information.
5.	No.
6.	Yes. The Canadian government is now paying the following price per pound for contained cobalt on an f.o.b. Cobalt, Ontario basis:
Contained Cobalt	Price Per Pound
7 -00-7 -99%	  $1.20
8-	00-8-99%	
1.509-	00-9-99%	
1.8010-00% plus	
2.007.	Since January 1, 1952, the Canadian government has purchased cobalt concentrates from the following producers, under the tariff outlined above:(a)	Silanco Mining and Refining Company Ltd.(b)	Mensilvo Mines Ltd.(c)	Harrison Hibbert Mines Ltd.(d)	Norbert Silver Mines Ltd.(e)	Penn Cobalt Silver Mines Ltd.(f)	Siscoe Metals of Ontario Ltd.(g)	Cross Lake Lease.(h)	J. H. Sutherland.(i)	Shag Silver & Nipissing.(j)	Silver Miller Mines Ltd.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many officers and officials of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation receive salaries in excess of $7,000 per year, giving names and positions held?
2.	Have any salaries been increased in such categories during the year 1952, and the present year to date? If so, what are the names of such persons and the respective amounts of the increases?


Mr. Winters:: 1. (a) There are 27 officers and officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation receiving salaries in excess of $7,000 per year.
(b) It is not the policy of the government to ask Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to disclose the names of this group,
Questions
because of the quasi-commercial nature of the corporation and its competitive position in securing and retaining staff in the mortgage and construction fields.
2. (a) Yes.
(b) see 1(b).



IMPORTS OF FISH MEAL

Mr. Applewhaite:: 1.	Has any fish meal been imported into Canada from July 1, 1952 to date?
2.	If so, from what countries and what quantity from each country?
3.	Was any such fish meal imported into British Columbia?
4.	H so, from what countries and what quantity from each country?


John Watson MacNaught: 1 and 2. From July 1 to December 31, 1952 imports amounted to 452,500 pounds all from Portugal.
3	and 4. There were no imports through British Columbia ports.



LANDED VALUES AND QUANTITIES, BONAVENTURE COUNTY

Albany M. Robichaud: What are the quantities and landed value of all species of fish landed in the county of Bona-venture, Quebec, during the years 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952?


John Watson MacNaught: Landings	Landed Value
	Cwt.	$
1949 	
146,152	330,4341950 	
90,115	314,7811951 	
61,896	341,6811952 	
77,083	346,373



SALES TAX AND DUTIES ON BOOKS

Mr. Knight:: 1.	What is the rate of sales tax imposed upon books sold in Canada?
2.	What classes of books are exempt from such sales tax?
3.	What is the rate of import duties on books entering Canada?
4.	Under what circumstances are books admitted to Canada free of Import duties?
5.	What amount of revenue accrued to the government in the last year of record from (a) sales tax; (b) import duties, on books?
6.	Has the government given consideration to cancelling the import duties on books imported by bona fide university professors which might be considered as reference books to the courses which they teach?
7.	If so, what is the result of such consideration?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	10 per cent.
2.	Books which are included in the curriculum of any university, college or school in Canada for use as text books or as works

Questions
of reference, not to include dictionaries; printed books for use in schools to test the degree of intelligence of pupils; all books for bona fide libraries, and being the property of the organized authorities of such libraries and not in any case the property of individuals or business concerns, under such regulations as may be prescribed by the minister; directories for free reference libraries; books received from free lending libraries abroad,
subject to return under customs supervision within sixty days;
Bibles, missals, prayer books, psalm and hymn books, books, bound and unbound, for the promotion of religion;
Books for the instruction of the deaf or dumb;
Text books, printed, authorized by the department of education of any province in Canada.
3 and 4. The rates specified in the following tariff items:
-	-	British Preferential Tariff	Most- Favoured- Nation Tariff	General Tariff169	Books, viz.:-Novels or works of fiction, or literature of a similar character, unbound or paper bound or in sheets, but not to include Christmas annuals, or publications commonly known as juvenile and toy books	Free	10 p.c.	25 p.c.170	Books, periodicals and pamphlets, or parts thereof, printed, bound, unbound, or in sheets (not to include blank account books, copy books, or books to be written or drawn upon) in any other than the English language	Free	Free	Free171	Books, printed, periodicals and pamphlets, or parts thereof, n.o.p., not to include blank account books, copy books, or books to be written or drawn upon	Free	10 p.c.	10 p.c.172	Books, pamphlets and charts, printed or published by any government abroad; official financial and business reports and statements issued by companies or associations abroad; books, pamphlets and reports, for the promotion of religion, medicine and surgery, the fine arts, law, science, technical training, and the study of languages, not including dictionaries. Scripture and prayer cards, and religious pictures and mottoes, not to include frames; books, bound or unbound, which have been actually printed and manufactured more than twelve years, manuscripts, insurance maps, freight rates, passenger rates and timetables issued by transportation companies abroad and relating to transportation outside of Canada, in book or in pamphlet form	Free	Free	Free172b	Prayer books, missals, psalters, religious pictures and mottoes, not to include frames	Free	Free	Free173	Books which are included in the curriculum of any university, college or school in Canada for use as text books or as works of reference, not to include dictionaries; printed books, pamphlets and cards for use in schools to test the degree of intelligence of pupils; all books for bona fide libraries, and being the property of the organized authorities of such libraries and not in any case the property of individuals or business concerns, under such regulations as may be prescribed by the minister; directories for free reference libraries; books received from free lending libraries abroad, subject to return under customs supervision within sixty days....	Free	Free	Free708a	< (1) Publications of the United Nations or any of its specialized agencies	Free	Free	Free(2) Publications of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any of its specialized agencies	Free	Free	Free5.	(a) No separate statistics are maintained of sales tax collected on individual commodities.
(b) The total amount of duty collected during the calendar year 1951 for importations 
under tariff items 169 and 171 is $615,194. (See answer to No. 3 above).
6 and 7. This is a matter of government policy.



RADIO PROGRAM


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Has an application been received by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from the British Columbia division of the Canadian Medical Association for the presentation of a radio program entitled, "The Doctors' Viewpoint", so that the listening public might be informed on health affairs?
2.	If so, was the application approved? If not, for what reason?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	A request was received by the C.B.C. from the British Columbia division of the Canadian Medical Association for the presentation of its radio program entitled "The Doctors' Viewpoint" on the Prince Rupert station.
2.	The request has been approved for the carrying of the program on this station.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What is the total amount of money now in the unemployment insurance fund?
2.	What was the total amount in the fund one year ago; two years ago; five years ago; ten years ago?
3.	Has consideration been given by the government or by the unemployment insurance commission to the size of the fund, as to whether it is overfunded, or too large? If so, what is the result of such consideration?
4.	Has consideration been given to increasing the benefits available to those insured under the fund? If so, what is the result of such consideration?


Mr. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: 1.	January 31, 1953: $862,371,504.10.
2.	(a) January 31, 1952: $776,134,110.49; (b) January 31, 1951: $654,051,465.58; (c) January 31, 1948: $435,682,436.15; (d) January 31, 1943: $101,471,458.29.
3.	Annually, in accordance with the statute, the unemployment insurance advisory committee has reported on the status of the unemployment insurance fund. Extracts from the last three reports of the committee are as follows:
1950.	While a great deal of valuable information has been accumulated over the past nine years, the period of the war and the ensuing years of very high employment do not appear to the committee a period likely to be sufficiently representative to yield dependable results on which to judge the future workings of the fund.
1951.	The fact that so large a proportion of the contributions was required to meet the benefit payments in a year of high employment shows that there may not be an unduly large margin for bad years. It is reassuring, therefore, that as a result of the sustained high level of employment ever since the act
Questions
came into effect the fund provides a substantial reserve against adverse conditions.
1952.	The committee reports that the unemployment insurance fund, in its judgment, is in a sound position.
4.	When the act came into force in 1940, the maximum weekly benefit was $14.40. On the recommendation of the unemployment insurance commission and the advisory committee, the rates have been increased by amendments to the act in 1948, 1950 and 1952, and the maximum weekly benefit is now $24. Supplementary benefits were introduced in 1950 and a number of other amendments have been made from time to time, such as the reduction in the waiting period, which have tended to increase the benefits available.



R.C.A.F. ACCOUNTS OFFICER, TORONTO-SENTENCE

Mr. Adamson:: 1.	What sentence was imposed on the Royal Canadian Air Force accounts officer who pleaded guilty to absconding $14,000 from the Eglinton station, in Toronto?
2.	Was this sentence imposed by a civil court?
3.	If the sentence was imposed by a military court martial, has it been confirmed?
4.	Will the entire sentence be served in a civil institution or just that portion remaining after the sentence is confirmed?
5.	By whom are these accounts officers bonded?
6.	Has the bonding company repaid the loss?
7.	Is the bonding company a private company or a government agency?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	The officer was sentenced to be cashiered and to undergo imprisonment with hard labour for six (6) months.
2.	The sentence was imposed by a general court martial convened by the air officer commanding, air defence command.
3.	The finding and sentence of the court were confirmed without alteration by the governor in council by order in council P.C. 1953-151 dated 5 February, 1953.
4.	The portion remaining after the sentence is confirmed will be served in a civil institution.
5.	Accounts officers are "public officers" for the purpose of the public officers guarantee regulations as approved by treasury board minute TB426150 dated 17 April, 1952, and defalcations are recoverable from the public officers guarantee account.
6.	The treasury board has been notified of the net amount of the loss, but recovery has not yet been effected.
7.	The public officers guarantee account is established as an account in the consolidated revenue fund which is administered by the Department of Finance.

Orders for Returns



R.C.A.F. PERSONNEL, NORTH BAY-SENTENCES

Mr. Adamson:: 1.	What sentence was imposed on the air force personnel who were convicted of stealing $8,000 from the Royal Canadian Air Force station, at North Bay?
2.	How many airmen were convicted?
3.	Were these airmen bonded?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	Each airman received a sentence of imprisonment for 12 months definite and 3 months indefinite.
2.	Three airmen were tried and convicted.
3.	No. Only personnel employed in the accounts branch are bonded. These airmen were all technical tradesmen.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	What is the total amount which has been expended to date on, or in any way concerning the Tracadie, New Brunswick, artillery range?
2.	What have been the annual amounts expended on, or in any way concerning the said artillery range, in each and every year, from and including the year of its inception, to and including the year 1952?
3.	What was the cost of maintenance and supervision of the said artillery range, in each and every year, from and including the year of its inception, to and including the year 1952?
4.	What are the names and addresses of suppliers, caretakers and other employees of the said artillery range, appearing on the payrolls or accounts, in each and every year, since the erection of the said artillery range, to and including the year 1952?
5.	What amount or amounts have been paid to each such supplier, caretaker and employee, during the above mentioned years?
6.	To what extent was the said artillery range used by the Department of National Defence, in each and every year since 1945 to and including the year 1952, showing (a) date and length of training periods in each of the above mentioned years; (b) name of units participating in such training periods, with number of officers, N.C.O.'s and men in each case?
7.	Has the said artillery range been utilized to its full extent since 1945?
8.	Was the said artillery range and surrounding vast area of available land considered by the Department of National Defence, as an appropriate and suitable location for the proposed military training camp to be set up in the province of New Brunswick?
9.	If so, what reasons have determined the Department of National Defence to select Gagetown, New Brunswick, as the site for the said camp in preference to the already established artillery range at Tracadie?
10.	If not, what are the reasons why the said artillery range was never considered as a possible site?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, not only does the answer to this question entail a vast amount of research and compilation, but a good deal of the information in the earlier

years covered by the question is not available. If the hon. member would limit the time back to which his question goes, to 1948, I would move that it be made an order for return with that amendment.


Albany M. Robichaud: I am quite satisfied to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return, in accordance with the remarks of the Associate Minister of National Defence.



PETAWAWA CAMP-INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS

Mr. Wright:: What were the costs to the government of the investigations and prosecutions at Petawawa military camp in (a) investigations; (b) police costs; (c) court costs; (d) legal fees; (e) any other costs?



GOVERNMENT PURCHASES OF PROPERTIES ABROAD

Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: 1.	What properties abroad, if any, have been purchased by the Canadian government since January 1, 1950, indicating the purpose for which the property was purchased and the total cost in each case?
2.	What has been the nature and total of expenditures to date in each case since property purchased?



INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES, COMMISSIONS, ETC.

Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: 1.	At what international conferences, commissions, committees or meetings, indicating auspices and location, was Canada represented during each of the calendar years 1951 and 1952, other than conferences or meetings where Canada is represented by a permanent member?
2.	What was the date, duration and total cost to Canada of each conference, commission, meeting or committee on which Canada was represented during the calendar years 1951 and 1952?



RENTED PROPERTIES SUBLET BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: 1.	How many properties or portions of properties under rent by any branch of the Canadian government during the years 1950, 1951 and 1952 were sublet to other than branches of the federal government, to whom and at what rate of rental in each case?
2.	Where are these properties located?
3.	What is the rental paid by the government in each case and from whom was the property rented?



GOVERNMENT POSTS ABROAD

Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: 1.	How many government posts were maintained abroad by Canada, indicating the nature of the post and under which department of government, in each of the calendar years 1951 and 1952?
2. What were the total costs for these services?
3. What were the total costs attributable to (a) salaries; (b) travelling and moving expenses; (c) entertainment account; (d) maintenance of property and offices?



CANNED FISH

Mr. Carroll:: 1.	How many fish canning operations are there in the maritime provinces apart from lobster, sardines and salmon?
2.	Where are they located?
3.	What amount of canned fish apart from the above was imported into Canada in 1951 and what customs duties were collected thereon?
4.	How much was imported into the maritime provinces excluding Newfoundland?
5.	Are any such canning operations carried on in the province of Newfoundland?



WAIN WRIGHT MILITARY CAMP


Mr. Fair:: 1.	What is the estimated training capacity of the Wainwright military camp?
2.	Is the camp a permanent institution?
3.	What amount has been spent to date on (a) construction of buildings; (b) installation of water and sewer facilities; (c) airport accommodation in the main camp?
4.	Have any buildings been erected for the accommodation of (a) married personnel; (b) permanent officers and workers at the camp, in or near the town of Wain wright?
5.	If so, what is the number and the cost of such buildings and equipment?
6.	Has any accommodation been provided by way of school buildings, furnishings, and teachers to take care of the children of servicemen training at the camp?
7.	If so, what does such accommodation consist of?
8.	If not, for what reason?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all reports made to the Department of National Defence regarding (a) shortages; (b) waste and extravagant spending, in connection with defence projects and supplies in the prairie command, since the 1st day of October, 1952, to date.


Mr. Claxion:: We would be glad to have this passed, subject to the usual qualifications regarding privileged communications.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think
that should be clarified, as to what privileged communications are in connection with this matter. I told the associate minister what I had in mind. I was not asking for a police report. I am asking for a report of investigations that took place in November and December in connection with the project to which I made reference.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member says he
is not asking for a police report, but also there are reports made by service police and other service personnel having the same position as police reports.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed, subject to the statement of the Minister of National Defence.
Motions for Papers



LOWER CARAQUET, N.B.  PUBLIC WHARF

Albany M. Robichaud: For a copy of all correspondence, from the 1st of January, 1945 to date, between the district engineer's office of the department of public works, Saint John, New Brunswick, the Department of Public Works, Ottawa, and any person or persons whatsoever, with reference to any addition, protection work or repair to the public wharf at Lower Caraquet, New Brunswick, also for a copy of all reports, investigations and/or surveys, if any, made by any member of the Saint John, New Brunswick, district engineer's office or of the Department of Public Works at Ottawa, in any way concerning or relating to the said wharf, from 1945, to date.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I have
no objection to the first part of the motion up to the seventh line, the words "New Brunswick" being the last words. But we cannot agree to the words-
-also for a copy of all reports, investigations and/or surveys, if any, made by any member of the Saint John, New Brunswick, district engineer's office or of the Department of Public Works at Ottawa, in any way concerning or relating to the said wharf, from 1945, to date.
Those reports are prepared for the information of the minister, so that he may make his decision. He becomes responsible for that decision, and never shirks that responsibility. But we never bring in those officials who advise the minister in these matters.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. I. Hetland (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. Would he make a further statement at this time regarding the grain handlers' strike at Vancouver?


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for having given notice of his question. In reply I must say that unfortunately there is nothing I can add at this time to the statement I made yesterday. I could say that the deputy minister of labour had his latest contact with the situation through telephone conversations with Vancouver this morning at nine o'clock Pacific time.
Before concluding I should like to assure hon. members that no effort will be spared within the scope of the potentialities of the department to hasten a satisfactory settlement of this dispute.

Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY FOR RETURNS



CF-100 AIRCRAFT  ORENDA JET ENGINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Minister of Defence Production or his parliamentary assistant as to the progress being made in connection with two questions passed as orders for returns on January 28, 1953, dealing with the CF-100 and the Orenda jet engine. When may I expect to have the returns tabled?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Surely the information the hon. member has asked for was given in my statement made in the house on Monday last. I do not think we can break the situation down piecemeal. I have given all the pertinent facts, and I am prepared to give any more overriding facts. I do not know what information the questions specifically asked for, but I would assume that they were answered.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The orders were passed on January 28, and were not covered by the minister's statement made two days ago. I drew his attention to that fact just after he made his statement, pointing out that I hoped it would not be considered that his statement contained a reply to the questions in those two orders. When the minister looks at the record for January 28, I think he will agree that the answers are by no means covered by his statement.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Resources and Development. On April 4, 1950, I asked him if an embassy post was to be given to Mr. Irwin, the director of the national film board, within three years. At that time both the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) and the Minister of Resources and Development said no. Now I would like to ask the minister if Mr. Irwin is resigning from the national film board. If so, has his appointment been made or is it being made as high commissioner to Australia?


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his intention to ask a question. In reply I would say that my answer to his earlier question in 1950 was correct at that time.


Mr. Irwin was first appointed commissioner of the national film board on February 1, 1950. He was reappointed on February 1, 1952. Since his appointment he has given outstanding service, which has been reflected in the work of the film board itself. He has those qualities of outstanding administrative ability, vigour and imagination which are so necessary for anyone in his present capacity.
However, an opportunity has presented itself for Mr. Irwin to continue his public service in another and broader field. This is a matter which my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has had under discussion with me for some weeks now. As a result the government has asked Mr. Irwin to represent Canada in one of the nations of the commonwealth, and my colleague has authorized me to say that he will be appointed high commissioner to Australia.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I ask the minister if the plum tree was planted when he was appointed director of the film board?
Mr. Abbot!: No plum trees around here.


ATOMIC ENERGY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: I
should like to direct an inquiry to the Right Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. During the debate on the setting up of the atomic energy committee the minister made reference to the cobalt bomb. In this connection I should like to ask the minister, in view of the greatly increased use of this bomb for medical purposes, principally in connection with cancer, if he can give the house any more information as to the progress that is being made in its production and how soon it is expected that a sufficient supply will be available to meet the requirements of the principal hospitals in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Cobalt 60 is being produced as fast as the operation of the pile at Chalk River will permit. As I said yesterday six bombs have been built already and two more are practically finished. Others will be built just as rapidly as production will permit. If the interest is in a particular project and those anxious to acquire equipment would care to take up their problem with the man in charge of that branch of the work at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, I am sure he would give them an approximate date as to when their requirements could be fulfilled.

Inquiries of the Ministry COAL
fisheries


STORM DAMAGE IN NEWFOUNDLAND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries if any decision has yet been taken regarding compensation for the losses suffered by the fishermen of Newfoundland during the storms last fall.


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: A similar question was asked by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) on December 4 and the answer given at that time was that this was primarily a matter for provincial responsibility and so far we had received no request from the provincial government. To date we have still not received any request from the provincial government.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like
to ask the Postmaster General if he can report any progress with respect to the institution of door to door mail delivery service in Port Credit and Lakeview.


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: May I first thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of his question. As my hon. friend was informed on January 15, the result of the inquiry held was that only 68 per cent of the population have so far installed the necessary receptacles for the inauguration of this service. According to the postal regulations 90 per cent of the population must provide such receptacles before a service is given. However, a new survey will be made at the beginning of March.


Gordon Graydon: May I point out that this
matter was under discussion during the debate on the Post Office Department and I thought the minister was going to make some further move in connection with the survey.


Alcide Côté: If the proper receptacles are not provided, we cannot give a service. It is up to my hon. friend to co-operate and tell these people to provide the necessary receptacles. As soon as the required proportion have done so we will be only too glad to start the service.


Gordon Graydon: If that were the whole
story it would be all right, but it is not.
68108-131J



REFERENCE TO ANSWER IN SESSIONAL PAPER NO. 77A

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton Souihlr
Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time on a question of privilege in connection with an answer contained in sessional paper No. 77A, brought down on February 4. This answer was provided by the Department of National Revenue and it is completely in error. Question No. 4 was as follows:
What are the names of the companies in Canada who import American coal?
The answer was as follows:
It is contrary to the practice of this department to furnish information which would disclose the private transactions of importers or exporters at customs.
I think the minister will agree that that answer is completely in error. I am not asking for the details of the business of importers or exporters, I merely ask for the names of companies in Canada that import United States coal. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to amend that answer and give me the information asked for. I think it is a complete evasion of the question. I did not ask that question for fun; I had a good reason for asking it. I should like the minister to tell me now if he will undertake to amend the answer, or should I put the question again on the order paper for a proper answer?
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I submit that under the circumstances the answer is a proper one. It has been the custom to provide information as to the quantities of imports or exports, but not the names of individuals making those importations or exportations.


Mr. Gillis:: That is not an answer. I did not ask for either the quantities, the qualities or the details of any business transactions, I merely asked for the names of the companies.


James Joseph McCann: It is not in the public interest to divulge the private business of people. We never give names.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I can allow any further debate on the question at this time.



EMERGENCY POWERS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: I
should like to ask the Prime Minister if any.
2062	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act order in council has been passed in recent days under the Emergency Powers Act which has not yet been tabled in the house?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I would be very much surprised if there were any. I do not know of any that have been passed within weeks, but I shall make inquiry and bring down a positive .answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the Prime Minister aware of the reference in yesterday's press to some such order?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I have not seen anything, except a reference to one passed several weeks or perhaps several months ago. There was an order passed granting authority to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to cancel radio licences for pilots of aeroplanes or to cancel the licence of the pilot himself for security reasons, but that order was included in the summaries produced here.



POST OFFICE


[Stage Direction]
'On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron North):: I should
like to ask the Postmaster General if any progress has been made in setting up the committee of the house with regard to the .Post Office Department.


Alcide Côté: We
hope we will soon have the second reading of the bill, and then the committee will be set up to study the whole matter.



FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 17, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Abbott-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944, to extend its operation for a further period by closing out on March 31, 1953, in lieu of February 28, 1954, the present three year pool of loans guaranteed by the government under the act and by providing for a new three year pool commencing April 1, 1953, and ending March 31, 1956; to provide further that the maximum amount of bank loans made in the new period and guaranteed under the act shall be three hundred million dollars.
Mr. Lesage:: Mr. Chairman, when we
adjourned last night the hon. member for Assiniboia had asked me if the last table that I had placed on Hansard dealt only with .single loans. The answer is yes. When the
.

hon. member for Assiniboia interjected his question I was in the course of answering a question asked by the hon. member for Souris, who had inquired if consideration had been given by the government to increasing the ceiling of $3,000 on farm improvement loans. I said that consideration had been given, but it had not been felt that the pressure was such as to warrant an increase at this time. I pointed out when placing on Hansard the table giving the number of maximum loans since the inception of the act that those loans represented only 2 per cent of the total loans made. I may add that in the first nine months of operation in 1952 the average loan was $1,180. May I also say that I know farmers quite well. I represent a farming constituency, and I have learned that whenever farmers have complaints or representations to make they usually voice them quite readily. According to my information, no individual farmer and no farmers' associations have made representations either to those administering the act or to the Department of Finance asking for an increase in the ceiling of $3,000.
I believe it is important to remember that the principle of the Farm Improvement Loans Act is to provide the average farmer with credit facilities for intermediate and short term loans. For longer term loans- the hon. member for Souris said yesterday up to $10,000

the facilities of the farm loan board are available to them. Moreover, there are other institutions in the provinces which look after credit for farmers.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Is there any limitation on age?


Jean Lesage: No.


Mr. Charlton:: What has been done by the
government to acquaint farmers in the east with the possibility of obtaining money by way of loan from the government under the Farm Improvement Loans Act?


Jean Lesage: Farmers in the east should
be as well aware of the facilities available under the act as farmers in the west. When I made my statement last night I gave what were in my opinion the reasons why farmers in the east have not in the past made use of the facilities available under the act as much as farmers in the west. I also added that farmers in the east were using them more and more as they heard about the facilities and as they became aware of the existence of the act. But there will always be the fundamental difference that farms in the west are newer, that farmers of the west require more expensive farm machinery than eastern farmers, and that farms in the east are smaller and much older. Farms in the east have been operated for 100, 200 or 300

Farm Improvement Loans Act
years. There are many more relatively new farms in the west which require the buying of more machinery, and more expensive machinery.


William Joseph Browne: Following
up the question which my colleague asked the parliamentary assistant, I should like to know if any efforts are made on behalf of either the Department of Finance or the Department of Agriculture to draw the attention of the farmers of Newfoundland to the benefits that are available. In looking over the list here I find that in 1949 not one loan was made in Newfoundland under this act. I believe that the only publicity that has been given the act in Newfoundland is the publicity that I have given it. I have been trying to tell the people there of the benefits they can get under this legislation. But they were up against the fact that the bankers themselves were not familiar with the legislation and shied clear of it. If you look at the figures, you will see that it was not until last year that any substantial amount was loaned.
Since January 1, 1951, there have been thirty-three loans made in Newfoundland. Thirty of them were in 1952. In 1950 there were only two loans of less than $1,000. In 1951 there were only three, and the total amount loaned in Newfoundland up to date is only $41,000 out of an over-all total of $337 million up to the end of 1952. It seems to me that someone is slipping up there. There is not much good in having legislation for the benefit of two or three provinces. Every province should receive the benefit of it. Inasmuch as Newfoundland has come into confederation and the people of Newfoundland have not received the benefit of the publicity that the people of western Canada get, it seems to me that some special effort should be made to draw these things to their attention.
I have in my hand several of the booklets that have been issued by the Department of Finance. One is entitled "Your Invisible Farmhand". It is an illustrated booklet showing farmers how they can get assistance to improve their homes. Another is entitled "What the Western Dailies Say About the Farm Improvement Loans Act". It contains extracts from different papers in the prairie provinces in 1945 praising this legislation. Then there is one entitled "Farm Improvement Loans". It is an illustrated pamphlet showing all the different purposes for which loans can be had and all the details concerning them. I should like to know if the parliamentary assistant is in a position to tell me how much of this literature has been circulated in Newfoundland. What efforts
have really been made to draw the provisions of the act and the benefits that can be obtained under it to the attention of the farmers of Newfoundland?


Jean Lesage: Quite a few pamphlets outlining the advantages of the act have been published by the Department of Finance. They are available at the request of bank managers all over the country. The head offices of the banks see to it that their branches get the publicity. I do not know how it is in Newfoundland. These pamphlets are at the disposal of the bank managers and the farmers themselves. According to my information the best publicity has been given-I will take my own constituency, if you wish, where the number of loans increased sharply in the last years-by dealers in farm implements, farm tractors and so on, who have convinced their clients that it is a very good way to obtain credit to pay for farm implements, trucks and tractors.
The hon. member is surprised that there has not been a larger amount of loans in Newfoundland. We must not forget that according to the 1951 census there are only 3,626 farms in Newfoundland, and out of that total 2,840 are operated by part-time farmers or are farms where the value of the products sold is less than $250 a year. Of the balance of 786 farms, 583 are such that the value of the products sold is less than $2,500 a year. That leaves in the whole of Newfoundland only 203 farms, the products of which sold for more than $2,500 in 1951.
I have never had the advantage of visiting Newfoundland but I understand that the principal occupation there is fishing. I understand that many fishermen have small pieces of land and are part-time farmers, but their main occupation is not farming. Therefore when you take into account the fact that there are only slightly over 200 farms which yield an income of more than $2,500 a year, it is not surprising that the amount and the number of loans have been so low.


William Joseph Browne: The point I am making is that if we are so backward in the development of our land-


Jean Lesage: No, I never said that the province of Newfoundland was backward. What I said was that farming was not the most important occupation in Newfoundland, which is quite different.


William Joseph Browne: The point is that our people as well as the people of other provinces deposit money in the savings banks. I do not know what the figures are. Has the parliamentary assistant the figures
2064	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act as to how much money is deposited in the branches of banks in Newfoundland?


Jean Lesage: No, sir, I have not that information available at this time.


William Joseph Browne: Approximately $350 million has been lent, and only '$40,000 has been lent in Newfoundland. This 3s a very insignificant amount of money and I do not think it would purchase one farm of any size in western Canada. What I am trying to stress-I am glad the Minister of Agriculture is here and I wish he would listen to what I am going to say-is that in Newfoundland you have to build up the farmers and draw attention to these benefits. 'The parliamentary assistant says that information has gone to the bank managers. 1 have been talking to the bank managers, and, as I said at the beginning, most of the publicity given to this measure in Newfoundland has been given by me.
There are still many farmers who do not realize that this piece of legislation is on the statute books at all and that loans can be made. There is another point I wish to make, and perhaps the parliamentary assistant can answer it. Some farmers tell me that they can make just as good a deal through the sellers of agricultural equipment. Is that correct? I am told that they get the same terms from the dealer as they can get from the bank.


Jean Lesage: If they can do that now, then it is a very good thing and the act has had that added benefit. Before the introduction of the act I understand that if a farmer wanted to finance a loan on a farm truck the rate of interest was around 15 per cent or more, and for farm implements it was around 8 per cent or more. If, as my hon. friend says, since the inception of the act the same conditions can be obtained from ordinary sources of credit as can be obtained under the act, so much the better; that is another advantage that has accrued from it.


William Joseph Browne: I notice that 90 per cent of this money has been lent for the purchase of tractors, combines and machinery of that kind. Is there any special reason for that? Has that feature of the benefits of the act been stressed more than the actual improvement of the farm as set out in the illustrated booklet in which the stress is put on improvements within the home itself by the introduction of electrical facilities and so on?


Jean Lesage: So far as the department is concerned there has been no more stress put on loans for agricultural implements than op loans for improvement of the farm itself.


What I said a few moments ago applies here.
I told my hon. friend that a lot of advertising had been put out by the dealers of farm implements, farm trucks or tractors, concerning the advantages of using the facilities of the act, and that had been used as a selling point.


Mr. Juiras:: Just on that point, I think it follows from the nature and purpose of the act that, particularly in western Canada, the greatest benefit of this measure would come from the financing of farm machinery. This is exactly the way the development has occurred in the west. I want to take this opportunity of joining with others to say that, in my estimation, this scheme is the best one ever devised in a great many years. It has had a great effect on agriculture throughout the western provinces. This measure has contributed to the peace of mind of the farmers, and has contributed greatly to the security of the farmers.
I believe it would be fair to say that this legislation, was devised primarily for the purpose of assisting farmers in securing machinery and equipment. It will be recalled that some years ago there was an investigation into the cost of farm machinery. Before this measure came into being the implement companies had to have their own credit organizations. There were a number of collectors attached to these organizations, who had to go throughout the country visiting the farmers individually before the crop was harvested to make sure when it would be harvested. Then, a second trip was necessary when the crop was harvested so the collector would be the first one to get the money. Really, these people were chasing the farmers up and down the country continuously. Naturally this was a costly procedure for them, and they had to charge from 7 per cent to 12 per cent interest, on the money that they were advancing to the farmer to purchase machinery. This proved to be a costly operation for the farmer.
Now, when this system came into being the farmer was able to go to the bank and secure a loan at 5 per cent. He could pay cash for the farm implements, so that from then on he had nothing more to do with the equipment company. When he sold his grain he got his money, went to the bank, and paid what he owed the bank and that was the end of it. In this respect, the act has been of great benefit to the farmers. In passing, I might say that I feel this measure is a living memorial to the late Dr. Clark. I think it is to the credit of this ' government as well that they had the vision to recognize the merit of this proposition, . and the courage to put it into force.

It is obvious that in western Canada the main purpose of this act is to enable loans to be secured for farm implements. In the last annual report for which we have complete figures, we find that 92 per cent of the money lent under this act was for financing the purchase of farm implements, and this amounted to $78 million. It is interesting to note that this $78 million represented a credit of $137 million in farm equipment. As the parliamentary assistant pointed out last night, it is estimated that that represents 45 per cent of all the new farm trucks purchased and 60 per cent of all the new combines purchased, so that one can see that the act has a great bearing on financing in western Canada.
At this point I should like to say something about the risk in agriculture. For some years past farmers have not been considered a good risk. I believe that this report provides a glowing tribute to the farmer, and shows clearly that he has been careful about his debts. It shows he has been faithful to his obligations. During the first year of operation there were no losses to the government at all. During the second and third years there were no losses to the country. During the last complete year for which we have figures, 1951, there were eighteen claims made on the government totalling about $6,000; that is eighteen claims out of 75,000 loans and $6,000 claimed out of $85 million lent. It is interesting to note that since the inception of the act there have been 54 claims out of 248,000 loans, with a loss to the government of $26,000 out of a total of $255 million lent. You can see that this measure has cost the country very little and has unlocked a great source of credit.
As we have seen, in the case of farm machinery, the loans of $78 million represented $137 million, so that by the same token it could almost be said that for this slight cost we have put practically a half billion dollars at the disposal of agriculture.
I just want to say a word on the question raised by the hon. member for Souris; I refer to the question of increasing the maximum of $3,000. As the parliamentary assistant has pointed out, there does not appear to be great pressure to have the $3,000 increased. According to the figures tabled, for instance those in Manitoba who have availed themselves of the total loan of $3,000 since the inception of the act amount to approximately 700 out of a total of 44,000. There therefore does not seem to be great pressure on the ceiling. Personally I must confess that I have never had any demands for it, and I do not know of any farm organization which
Farm Improvement Loans Act has raised the question. There may be a case for it but at the present time I am not aware of it.
But there is one thing that I think we should not lose track of and about which we should be careful in our consideration of this act. We have a good act. We have one that is doing a wonderful job and is serving a definite purpose. I think we should be careful not to attempt to stretch it to do something it was not meant to do. For instance, it was never meant to replace what the Canadian Farm Loan Act, for instance, has been set up to do. These two pieces of legislation should be made to go together and to supplement one another. We should be careful that we do not do anything whereby one will supersede the other.
As I said, the act as it is now has been most successful. It has done a wonderful job. There may be a case for increasing the ceiling, but I do not think there is a great case for it at the moment. Before we increase the ceiling my suggestion is that we be extremely careful that we do not weaken the act by attempting to make it do too much. It was made to do a job, and it is doing it. Let us be sure that we keep it that way.


Mr. Thatcher:: In my constituency, Mr. Chairman, this is fairly important legislation. Most farmers feel that it is good legislation; but I think they also feel that it does not go far enough. As the parliamentary assistant has pointed out, its main purpose is to provide credit facilities for farmers. It is an unfortunate fact that in Canada most farmers cannot avail themselves of the ordinary credit facilities which most of us have-such as loan companies, finance companies and so on- because these credit companies seem to feel that lending to farmers involves risks that are too great. Thus there is today a real gap in credit facilities for agriculture.
As I understand it, this legislation is going to do two things; I refer to the new amendments. First of all, it is going to extend the act to March 31, 1956. Second, it is going to increase the amount which the government is guaranteeing to the banks from $200 million to $300 million.


Jean Lesage: No.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: If the parliamentary assistant wishes to correct me, I should be glad to allow him to do so.


Jean Lesage: No; it is not an increase from $200 million to $300 million. It creates a new period from April 1, 1953, to March 31, 1956. The new amount which will be at the disposal of the farmers is an initial $300 million.
2066	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I understand. That is now clear. But the criticism which we in this group have of the legislation is that we still feel even when it is passed, and even with the existence of the Canadian farm loan board and everything else, it still falls short of meeting the credit needs of Canadian agriculture. We still think that many farmers are not going to be able to get the credit they need. We suggest that there are several steps which could be taken to strengthen this legislation.
As every hon. member knows, in recent years there has been a drift of farmers away from the farms into the city. That situation has been caused by a number of factors. One of the main ones is that young farmers are finding it harder and harder to get together adequate capital with which to finance farm operations. If they are young farmers starting out, they find that the price of land is extremely high; the price of machinery has skyrocketed; the price of livestock is out of reach. If they are established farmers and want to expand their operations they find it extremely difficult to get capital.
We think there are three or four steps that could be taken to make this legislation more effective. In the first place, I cannot agree with the hon. member for Provencher when he says that the ceiling on loans should not be increased. We think that the ceiling should be increased from $3,000 to at least $6,000. After all, if you buy a tractor out west today, it costs more than $3,000. One hon. member pointed out last night, I think, that a combine costs about $6,000. Therefore the present ceiling in the act is not practical as far as western farmers are concerned.
The second proposal we would suggest is that the banks lending under the provisions of this act be more liberal. We think they should be more generous in making loans. Quite frequently today farmers who really need money cannot get it. The banks lend money under orthodox banking principles and frequently marginal farmers are considered to be too great a risk. Even where the farmer is a good risk we quite frequently find that the banks will not lend the full $3,000. I think evidence of that fact was given last night by the parliamentary assistant.


An hon. Member:: Would you?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Possibly I would not; but that is the point I am making. Last night the parliamentary assistant said that out of
300,000	loans made only 2 per cent had been for the full $3,000. I think that fact indicates the need for some government guarantee which would permit the banks to extend credit more generously. Possibly the answer
tMr. Lesage.]

would be to increase the guarantee to the banks from 10 per cent to 15 per cent; I do not know.
I think the third step which could be taken under this act is for down payments to be lowered. Down payments on agricultural equipment now are 33J per cent. Perhaps they could be reduced to 20 per cent. On home and building repairs the down payment is 20 per cent. I think possibly that could be reduced to 10 per cent. The time limit of seven years is fairly short if we are going to increase the amount of the loan. Possibly that limit should be extended to ten years.
I suggest that amendments of this kind would not cost the taxpayer any money or, at worst, a very small amount. After all, total losses under the act have been $36,000 in eight years. That is less than $5,000 a year. I therefore believe that we could bring in reforms of this kind, and do it without their costing the taxpayers any additional sums of money. As I say, the main purpose of this act is to create better credit facilities for farmers. Today we have not those credit facilities and we are not going to have them unless the government steps into the field. I suggest that agriculture is far too important in this country to be restricted as it is today by lack of credit.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, might I make only one or two observations? Might I draw the attention of the hon. member for Moose Jaw to the fact that on December 31, 1952, there were 28,906 loans in default. One therefore has to be careful before talking about enlarging the facilities under the act. The original amount of those loans was $35,862,886. The present amount owing is $23,977,936. The total amount of arrears is over $12 million.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Might I draw to .the attention of the parliamentary assistant the annual report, page 7, where it is stated that claims paid by the government in 1951 amounted to $6,500.


Jean Lesage: The total claims paid

I gave the figure last night-amounted to about $38,000 all told, but I am not talking about the claims.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: This is-


Jean Lesage: The claims are paid by the government to the banks only if the banks have exhausted all means of collection, but I am talking about loans in default at the bank, of people who are late in their payments. That is quite a different thing.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Am I not correct in stating they have been included in the report?


Jean Lesage: They have been up until now, but according to some information that we have there have been some loans on livestock, quite a few of them in 1950 and 1951, I believe, for which we might be expected to pay heavier claims. That is why I am talking about loans in default at the present time.
Hon. members talk about the establishment of young farmers on farms. I am not sure that is the responsibility of the federal government. It has something to do with land tenure, which of course is under provincial jurisdiction. Moreover, the provinces have entered into that field. For instance, in my own province of Quebec grants are given to young farmers to establish themselves under the provincial law, and the farm loan board of that province is extending loans to them.
In Ontario the government last year adopted an act to incorporate the Ontario junior farmer establishment loan corporation for the purpose of assisting young farmers. It has been looked upon as the responsibility of the province. My hon. friend, who has great confidence in the government of his own province, might advise his own friends there to put up something.


Mr. Ferrie:: The provincial government of Saskatchewan cancelled the act.


Mr. Quelch:: I should like to say I am glad to support the measure. We think the legislation has provided a very valuable service to farmers. I think it represents the culmination of demands by farm organizations to have a low rate of interest and in order that the capital borrowed may be repaid over a longer period of time.
Before this legislation came down the banks used to make money available to farmers at 8 per cent, but they lent it for a period of three months only, which would be extended at the end of that period. But it became evident that loans to farmers have to be made over a longer period than three months or six months to meet their needs. This I believe provides for a period of two years, with 30 per cent paid down by the farmer when the machine is bought, and another 30 per cent has to be paid in the fall and the next 30 per cent the year after.
I would agree that in many cases it would help if the ceiling were raised, and also if the period of the payment could be extended. But I notice that the parliamentary assistant points out that it is really not necessary to raise the ceiling because only a very small percentage of the farmers are borrowing up to that amount. Immediately the hon. member for Moose Jaw jumped to the conclusion 68108-132
Farm Improvement Loans Act that the banks will not lend more, but in the area that I represent that is not the case. The banks are anxious to lend just as much as they can under this act, but in many instances the farmers cannot meet the cash payment. That is the trouble; and therefore if they do not have so much cash they have to borrow less in order to pay down 30 per cent. That is the reason in many instances why the farmers are not borrowing more under this legislation.
I will admit that in many cases that has been got around by the machine companies accepting the trade-in as the first payment. They have been very good in doing that. I do not know that that was intended originally under the act; I know it is happening in many cases, where the old machine is accepted as down payment, so actually no cash is paid; but I think all farmers would appreciate it if the period of repayment could be extended another year, because no doubt, if that were done, after a while they would try to get it extended another year. But when you consider the cost of machinery today and the hazards the farmers face-for instance they are apt to run into crop failures owing to hail or one thing and another-repayment over two years would be a great help, although I will admit that when a crop failure does come the banks seem to be quite reasonable, because apparently they have the power to extend it and they grant the extension. I think the act has been working very well. I know that is so in so far as the area I represent is concerned.


Albany M. Robichaud: I should like to make a few suggestions on this farm assistance legislation with reference most especially to the very small benefits that have accrued to the junior farmers and settlers in my province of New Brunswick, particularly in my own constituency, within the ambit of the provisions of this act.
I may say at the very outset that I am very much in favour of this act. It may be said that our farmers and our settlers probably do not take the trouble to derive the benefits to which they are entitled under this act. But in answer to this possible objection may I say that I am fully in accord with the remarks of some of the hon. members, particularly the hon. member for St. John's West, who has rightly said-and this situation applies to my province and county- that probably not all the channels of publicity have been explored and taken advantage of by the department concerned.	.
I heard the parliamentary assistant say- I may be wrong, but I interpreted his remarks in this way-that the main channel of publicity which was being utilized and
2068	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act exploited by the department was the banks. May I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that in my constituency most of my farmers and settlers are not regular and assiduous patrons of the banks. Moreover, the banks are located or centralized in the town of Bathurst, with branches in Shippigan, Cara-quet and Tracadie, and that is the sum total of our banking institutions in the county of Gloucester, which is the largest rural county in the province of New Brunswick, with a population of over 50,000 people. May I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that publicity through our agricultural societies would be in my opinion the best means of reaching the common people, the farmers and the settlers. This of course could be done very easily if the literature or pamphlets were forwarded to the provincial department of agriculture, which would distribute them through the various agricultural societies of our province. I ask the parliamentary assistant whether he could not make arrangements so that I, as the representative of Gloucester county, could receive some of these pamphlets. If I did, I would make a point of distributing them myself where I know they would do the most good.
The reason I rose in my place, Mr. Chairman, was to say a few words about the Farm Improvement Loans Act. When I read the annual report of 1951 I was amazed at the small benefits which accrued to our farmers, and particularly our settlers under this act.
I read for instance that in the construction of new houses there was only one loan in the province of New Brunswick out of a total of 587 loans throughout Canada. This one loan appears in schedule "D", and was for $2,000 out of a total of $941,960.35 in 1951.
With respect to repairs and alterations to buildings, the report mentions 23 loans for New Brunswick out of a total of 1,155 throughout Canada, representing an amount of $19,602 for our province as against $1,097,812.39 for the whole of Canada. But what amazed me more particularly was the one single and unique loan made under the provisions of this act in the province of New Brunswick which is reported in schedule "E" for brushing and breaking new land in 1951. We received one loan to an extent of $200 out of a total of 900 loans throughout Canada. That was all we got in New Brunswick, out of a total of $424,397.45. My amazement is oased particularly on the fact that in my own orovince, and especially in my constituency, luring the last ten or fifteen years we have rad a considerable program of colonization.
* venture to say that in the constituency of Gloucester we have probably the best settlers md the best junior farmers in the whole of 

New Brunswick. These are found in places such as Allardville, D'Aulnay, St. Sauveur, Nicholas Denys, Sormany, and Doucetville.
In those places we have hundreds of young men with families doing exactly those things this act was intended to assist, namely the brushing and breaking of new land. I may be under some misapprehension, but that is my understanding of the purpose of the act. Those young men simply do not know that these benefits are available to them. Hence the submission I made at the outset of my remarks, that more publicity should be given to the benefits our farmers and settlers may derive from this act.
I now return to that one unique loan for $200 for brushing and breaking new land, out of a total, as I said before, of $424,397.45 for the whole of Canada. It seems to me that if proper publicity were given, our junior farmers and settlers might derive from this act the benefits that should be available to them, and that in this way the act would become beneficial. As it is now we do not benefit from it.
It seems to me it was properly pointed out by the parliamentary assistant that in his native province of Quebec there are provisions in the provincial law for grants and loans to settlers and junior farmers. However, there is no such provision in New Brunswick law.


Jean Lesage: You did not say that in the last provincial election in New Brunswick.


Albany M. Robichaud: I certainly did. I blamed the McNair government, and we trimmed his government on that and other points. I blamed them, and I repeat we have not as yet any such provisions in our New Brunswick law. I submit therefore that if more publicity were given to this very beneficial provision our junior farmers and younger settlers would derive the full benefits of the act. Let me repeat what I said a few moments ago, that if it were possible for me as the federal member from Gloucester county-the member for the time being, at any rate-to obtain these pamphlets and literature in quantities from the department, I would promise to be the distribution agency and would see that they reached those junior farmers and settlers.


Jean Lesage: We will be pleased to hand to the hon. member for Gloucester the pamphlets he wishes to have, if he will but tell us the number required. However, it would be useless to hand them to settlers because this act is not for settlers; it is for farmers. Colonization is a provincial matter

under provincial jurisdiction, and my hon. friend knows that as well as I do. He should know, if he does not.
So far as the number of farmers in New Brunswick is concerned, the 1951 census figures show that, of a total of 26,000 farms in that province, 14,766 are exploited by part-time farmers, or are farms where the value of products sold is less than $250. There were 8,349 farms the products of which sold at less than $2,500 each. There -were only 2,200 farms on which products sold to a value of more than $2,500. This is at least one reason why the act has not been used to a greater extent in that province; there is a great number of part-time farmers and settlers who do not use the facilities under the act.


Albany M. Robichaud: There is one point I should like to clarify. I can assure the parliamentary assistant that I am well aware of the laws in New Brunswick governing colonization, but I would point out, as he well knows, that all our farmers today, both in his province and mine, were ab initio settlers. I agree of course with the statistics he has placed on record, but I would suggest that they are only for income tax purposes.


Jean Lesage: Oh, no; those are census figures.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Chairman, may I say something about this measure, upon which I congratulate the department. May I add that I am pleased to see the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet piloting this measure so ably.
I listened to the hon. member for St. John's West and the hon. member for Gloucester making reference to the lack of publicity given to this law. I would point out to them that in a democracy it is the duty of everyone to help publicize the law. I was going to say to those hon. members that, even though they are on the opposition side, it is their duty to do their share by way of publicity in their counties, as I do in mine, despite the fact that they do not support the government.
Dealers in farm implements are giving a great deal of publicity to this law, and I know that in my county many farmers have benefited from its advantages. The hon. member for Gloucester has complained about the small number of loans in his county. He should keep in mind that in his province, as well as in Ontario and Quebec, most of the farms are what we would call family farms. They have passed from the fathers to the sons and, on a high average, would run from 150 to 200 acres. In three of the four western provinces the acreages are much larger. In Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba we do 68108-132i
Farm Improvement Loans Act not find the number of small family farms that we find in the provinces I have just referred to. I have the statistics of the last census to prove my contention.
If members of parliament will do their duty, if the banks will carry out their function and if the agricultural organizations will do their part, I think more publicity could be given to this measure. I know if that were done there would be more loans in my province in the next year. I am sure this extension will be approved by hon. members, and I submit that farmers should be made aware of what they can obtain under this act. The speeches which have been delivered in this house and the statements made in the press along with the incentive given by all good democrats on both sides of the house in their respective counties will do much to increase the scope of this legislation.
Only 10,000 loans have been issued in my province where there are 134,336 farms. I repeat that more publicity should be given to this measure. I support what the hon. member for Gloucester has said. I would like to see the department send our pamphlets to hon. members and to the organizations in our counties. If my memory is correct, l'union catholique des cultivateurs of Quebec has provided some publicity in two or three numbers of the periodical put out by the department. Seeing that my hon. friends opposite are supporting the measure I know they will be ready to thank the government for having given this extension. I congratulate them upon that stand.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of farmer constituents who have taken advantage of this valuable legislation throughout the years, and for that reason I want to say just a word or two. My remarks are the result of conversations I have had with various farmers, either those who have borrowed money or who would like to take advantage of the act. Before proceeding I want to say that I think this act is a good demonstration of the value of government-sponsored credit in order to increase production. Most of the funds provided under the terms of this act are used for the clearing of land, the extension or improvement of homes and buildings and the purchase of machinery.
I am different from the hon. member for Assiniboia, who represents much larger land owners than those whom I represent. Many of the farmers in my constituency settled on forest land which had to be cleared. In discussing this question, as recently as last fall, many have suggested that the amount of money available under this act should be raised from a maximum of $3,000 to $5,000.
2070	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act That seemed to be the major criticism. Even those who told me that they thought it excellent legislation, even those who had been able to do things that they would not have been able to do without the legislation, "thought that it would improve the effectiveness of the legislation and make it more helpful if the maximum could be raised from -$3,000 to $5,000.
When you consider when this legislation was brought into effect and the prices that prevailed at that time I think you must admit that the argument is quite valid. I suppose the over-all cost of things between 1944 and the present time has doubled, particularly -materials required for home and building improvements as well as machinery costs.
A number of farmers in my constituency have had to clear their lands. We have a provincial land clearing scheme under which farmers can rent heavy equipment, I believe by the hour. By the use of such equipment they are able to clear in a few days as much land as it would have taken them ten years to clear by hand. This act has been most useful to men who have wanted to clear their land, because under the provincial arrangement they must pay for the clearing of the land in a much shorter time than they can borrow under this act.
I have talked to one or two men who have borrowed money with which to clear land by means of this heavy equipment and they have found that they were able to pay off their loans before they were due from the production of the land so cleared. I think that is sound evidence of the effectiveness of this act.
I want to bring to the attention of the parliamentary assistant that there is a general demand and need for the raising of the maximum that can be borrowed from $3,000 to $5,000. I cannot quite agree with the argument of the parliamentary assistant that because only 2 per cent have borrowed the maximum of $3,000-


Jean Lesage: Two per cent of the loans.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In number. I can quite understand that because possibly the greater number of loans would be made in eastern Canada where the farms are smaller and the amounts required would therefore be smaller. But in western Canada and British Columbia the amounts required would be somewhat larger. I have had suggestions from farmer constituents and from farm organizations that it would be of advantage if the time for repayment was lengthened by a year or so and the interest rate reduced from 5 to 4 per cent. I see the parliamentary assistant
IMr. Herridge.]

seems to be frowning at me. I realize it is quite easy to advocate longer periods for repayment and lower interest rates, but I have made some study of agricultural credit on the North American continent and in England and in Europe, and it has been found throughout the years that where credit is extended for agricultural development on sound security the land should not be required to pay more than 4 per cent interest on the capital loaned. I bring that to the attention of the parliamentary assistant.
I have just one other reference to make, similar to those made by previous speakers. I think a greater effort should be made to inform farmers of the benefits of this legislation. I have found the banks in my constituency most sympathetic. I think the act has been very well administered by the officials of the department, and the co-operation by local branch managers has been excellent. But I do not think the placing of a few dozen pamphlets in a rack in a bank lobby provides sufficient advertising to bring this legislation to the attention of all farmers. They should be told not only that there is an act but what can be done under the act. I have found many men completely uninformed or only partially informed.
I would suggest that both the provincial and federal departments of agriculture should do more to publicize this act through their officials in the field. Those men should take advantage of their meetings with farm organizations, or even at fairs and things of that sort, to direct the attention of the farmers of this country to the benefits that can be obtained under this legislation.
My suggestion is not quite the same as that of the hon. member for Gloucester. I do not want a large number of pamphlets given to me for election purposes. I would suggest that it should be done through agricultural organizations. From my contact with the farmers of my constituency, farm organizations and farmers of the country generally who have taken advantage of the act, I can say that they consider it sound legislation. It simply needs modest improvement.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I should like to tell the parliamentary assistant that if he wants to increase the number of loans made under the act in Ontario he certainly must advertise more than has been done in the past. I do not think many farmers know anything at all about it. I have been approached at different times for information about these loans. It is true that the bank managers make the loans to the farmers, but when a farmer comes into a bank for a loan and the banker can lend him money as a good risk

without using this particular act, he will lend the money directly from the bank and will not mention the act at all. I think that is one of the reasons the provisions of the act are not advertised as much as they should be. Another reason is the fact that the interest rate is too high. I understand it was 4| per cent but I believe it is now 5 per cent, is it not?


Jean Lesage: It is 5 per cent.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I think the rate is too high. Another reason you do not make as many loans in Ontario is the fact that the rate of interest is only 4 per cent, I believe, under the junior farmers' establishment and improvement act.


Jean Lesage: It is a maximum of 5 per cent. The banks are not forced to charge 5 per cent.


Mr. Low:: Have there been any cases where the banks have lent money at a lower rate?


Jean Lesage: No.


An hon. Member:: The maximum is the minimum.


Jean Lesage: Not as far as we are concerned.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I think the interest rate is too high. If you want to make the benefits of the act widely available, I think the interest rate should be lower. It is a good act and should do a lot of good for the country, but the interest rate is too high and there is also the fact that I do not think the banks make the provisions of the act sufficiently well known to individual farmers who go to banks for loans. If the farmer is a good credit risk, the bank lends him money directly and not under the act.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: I want to say a few
words about this measure. I am one who believes that any regulation or assistance which provides relief for primary producers is something that I should wholeheartedly support. I realize that the agricultural industry is also one that can have good years and poor years. After a poor year assistance is necessary in many cases and is appreciated. With respect to farmers being aware of the assistance that is available to them, I think one member who spoke a little while ago hit the nail on the head when he said that members of the house may be a little negligent in not giving the act the publicity that is required. I think the provisions of the act might have been known by a great many more farmers in my own county if I had given it a little more publicity.
As has been stated, however, the implement manufacturers and dealers are always anxious
Farm Improvement Loans Act to sell machinery and the bankers always want to lend money, and as a result a great deal of publicity is given by such people. But there was a statement made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Gloucester with which I must deal briefly. He asked a question of the parliamentary assistant and in answering it the parliamentary assistant put figures on the record with respect to the incomes of the farmers of New Brunswick. When he sat down the hon. member for Gloucester suggested that those figures would be for income tax purposes, or in other words that they would not be correct.
I take issue with that statement, because I believe the farmers of New Brunswick pay their income taxes to the same extent as farmers in other parts of the Dominion of Canada. I do not like that sort of implication to go on the record, and for that reason I want to state what I believe to be the fact. I believe the figures they would give for income tax purposes would be exactly the same as the figures they would give for any other purpose. I do not like the insinuation that the figures for income tax purposes would not be correct.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Jean Lesage: Oh, yes, he did.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: He certainly did.


Jean Lesage: I had to correct him.


An hon. Member:: He did not intimate that at all.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: He certainly made the statement I have just put on the record. He said that the figures would be for income tax purposes. I am going to watch Hansard. Those are the exact words he used. He said these figures would be for income tax purposes. I do not want anyone to get the idea that the farmers of New Brunswick give one set of figures for income tax purposes and another set for some other purpose.


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Chairman-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I will watch
Hansard very carefully.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: He did not say that.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will find that some of the people who are interrupting me now were not in the house at the time.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I was sitting right here.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am sure that the statement he made-and it will be on the record-was that these figures were for income tax purposes. I resent that statement.
2072	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act I believe it casts a reflection on the farmers of New Brunswick which is not warranted.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Chairman-


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman-


The Chairman:: The hon. member for
Assiniboia.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, some members have been making the point that in various provinces-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to a point of order.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member wants to raise a point of order?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It is apropos of what my hon. friend said a few minutes ago.


Louis-René Beaudoin: There was no point of order before the chair. The hon. member for Assiniboia.


Hazen Robert Argue: A number of members have made the point that in certain provinces the act apparently is not being given a great deal of publicity. If that is correct, and I am sure it must be, I would say that the bank managers must not be the best businessmen, because surely they are the people who should ibe promoting loans under the act when such loans comply with all the regulations and provisions of the act. If they are good businessmen for their particular banks they should be out to obtain business under the act. Surely it is good business for the banks. They cannot lose, because if the farmer does not pay, the government does. Therefore I think the bank managers in some provinces must not be pressing it as they should. Certainly ample publicity has been given to the act in western Canada, because the farmers there know about it.


An hon. Member:: They are smarter.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not know who has been publicizing these loans to the farmers, because they are often termed government loans which you go to the bank to get.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: The implement dealers tell them.


Hazen Robert Argue: One farmer will say to another: "I need a combine but I have not enough cash". His neighbour will say: "Go and get a government loan through your bank". I do not know whether or not the government party, the Liberal party, has been doing a sales job on this particular legislation, but certainly it is well known. It is used extensively and to the advantage of the agricultural industry.
The point has been made that the interest rate of 5 per cent is too high. I would not


say that it should not be lower, but in relation to other interest rates at the present time it is not as high as when the act was first passed. We know that there has been a tendency in recent months for interest rates to increase, and I am certainly pleased that nothing is being done to increase the maximum interest rate under the act.
I feel strongly, however, that there should be an increase in the maximum amount that can be loaned to a farmer by a bank under the act. When the legislation was first brought into parliament in 1944 it contained the present maximum of $3,000. That maximum is still in the act, but since that time the price of machinery has gone up tremendously. If I read the legislation correctly, when the act became operative in 1945 the down payment on an implement loan was 25 per cent. In other words, if a farmer had $1,000 cash in 1945 he could buy farm equipment worth $4,000 by getting a $3,000 loan under the act. In 1945 one could buy a lot of farm equipment for $4,000. You cannot buy any more than half as much at the present time, and possibly not even that.
One of the farmer members of our group was speaking to me a few minutes ago, and said that in 1945 he had purchased a large self-propelled combine for $2,800. He purchased a similar combine last fall and it cost $5,800. While the ceiling on loans made under the act is the same, certainly the price of implements-and one purpose for which this act was drafted was the purchase of these implements-has not remained the same. Indeed, in this particular instance the price has more than doubled. If a man had $4,000 in 1945 he could buy a combine and a medium-sized tractor, and he needed only $1,000 cash. Today, if he wants a combine of the same type the price is $6,000. The maximum loan is $3,000, so the farmer must put up $3,000 himself.


Jean Lesage: Unless he has one to trade.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes; he must put up the $3,000 cash himself. A man ' who is starting out and has nothing to trade must forget all about buying that medium-sized tractor which he could have purchased in 1945, and must also pay $3,000 cash. I feel, therefore, that a mistake has been made in not amending this legislation to double the $3,000 maximum loan in keeping with the increases in the cost of farm implements. Today it costs a lot of money to equip a western farm. It costs more to equip a western farm than a farm in the maritimes or in central Canada. Even though it does cost more, a farmer still has to have the equipment. All farmers want a full line of equipment. Naturally, they are progressive and they are anxious to get

modern equipment. If they purchase a full line of equipment, a truck, a combine, a tractor, a one-way seeder, cultivator, a grain loader, and all the other things that make up a full line of equipment, it will cost them about $20,000. Under this act the maximum amount that can be borrowed is $3,000. I say that the $3,000 figure was reasonable in 1945, but if you are to have a ceiling in the act today that will provide the same purchasing power to the farmer then that $3,000 must be greatly increased.
The parliamentary assistant gave us some very interesting figures on the number of loans that have been made in the amount of $3,000. He says they amount to 2 per cent.
1	am asking him how many loans have been made in the amount of $2,999; that surely would be close enough to the maximum to be included in that category. When one says that 2 per cent of the loans were made for the maximum of $3,000, that does not indicate very much. When his statement covers single loans in single transactions, it tells even less. What about a farmer who comes along in the spring and borrows $1,000, and then comes in again in the fall and borrows an additional $2,000? He has taken advantage of the maximum loan under the act, yet that transaction would not appear in the 2 per cent table. I say, therefore, that the figures the parliamentary assistant tabled showing that only 2 per cent of the loans by number were for $3,000 do not provide a fair indication of the demand for that type of loan.
If he could give us figures showing the number of farmers who, during the period this act was in operation, have had loans totalling between $2,500 and $3,000 at any one time, then that would be a fair indication of whether or not there is need for increasing the maximum amount. When he brings in these figures and says that only
2	per cent of the loans made were in the $3,000 category, that does not indicate very much. It does indicate, I believe, that the demand for an increase in the maximum is most prevalent in the prairie provinces. Of the loans that were made for the maximum of $3,000, as I add them up quickly, 90 per cent were made in the three prairie provinces. It may be true to say there is no great demand for such an increase in the maritimes or in the province of Quebec, where the parliamentary assistant says there are long-established farms which have been equipped for many years. However, when these figures show that 90 per cent of the maximum loans have been made in the three prairie provinces, I think it indicates that
Farm Improvement Loans Act at least in that area there is a need for an increase in the maximum amount provided under this act.
When this point has been pressed, the parliamentary assistant has said one of the reasons the government does not want to increase the maximum is that the act has been operating well and they do not want to jeopardize anything that has been done under it. I believe he mentioned-he can correct me if I am wrong-that there was about $12 million in overdue payments under this act. Well, that does not prove anything to me unless he gives me some further explanation. I would hazard a guess that probably half the loans in the three prairie provinces, up to a few months ago, were overdue because most of those loans become due on the 1st of November. The quotas were low and the farmer had all kinds of grain at home, but he was very short of cash in November. If the note had come due in April when the 20 cent payment was being made, and another quota might be available, the story might be different.
I am not saying the due date should be April instead of November. All I am saying is that because of the quota system and the difficulty in marketing this grain readily, the note will become overdue through no fault of the farmer. The bank manager is not worried, because he knows the farmer has grain on the farm. It is just a matter of time until the farmer will be in a position to pay off his obligation.
The parliamentary assistant has said this is a very good act. There has been a total of $355 million lent under it, and so far the government has had to pay over to the banks in the way of losses only $38,000. The 1951 annual report points out that so far the losses have been only -01 per cent. Surely if the .act is that good, and that is all it has cost the federal treasury, there should be no risk involved in increasing the maximum amount. The 1951 annual report points out that the moneys the government may have to pay out by way of losses will increase as the aggregate loans have increased, but it makes the statement that the increased losses are not likely to increase any faster than the increase in aggregate loans. The 1951 report would seem to indicate that the [DOT]01 per cent loss rate is likely to be maintained.
If that is the case, then certainly there should be no reason why the ceiling cannot be increased. You cannot have it both ways. Either this is costing the federal treasury very little or else it is costing the federal treasury a great deal of money and it is
2074	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act extremely hazardous. If it is as good as the parliamentary assistant says it is and as good as the annual reports say it is, then certainly the $3,000 should be increased, particularly when you keep in mind the fact that $3,000 today will not purchase any more than half as much in the way of farm implements as it would purchase when the act was first implemented.


John Alpheus Charlton: In view of the fact that the parliamentary assistant more or less criticized the hon. member for Gloucester for even suggesting that settlers should come under this act, I should like to have him explain schedule E, part 1 of the 1951 annual report, where it gives the number of dollars, namely $424,397.45 for brushing and breaking new land in 1951 and also a total-up to date so far, under the act-of $3,257,000. If it does not include settlers, what is the parliamentary assistant's definition of a settler?


Jean Lesage: According to what I know- and I have quite a number of settlers in my riding-a settler is a man who goes out on new land, opens the lot, cuts the first trees and then breaks new land. I understand that the loans made under this act by the banks for the breaking of new land have been made to farmers who wanted to increase their acreage. That is what it is. But you have to be a bona fide farmer to obtain a loan under this act. Settlers, as we call them and as we know them, who are settling on brand new land, are to my knowledge the responsibility of the province.
I should like to say a word about what the hon. member for Assiniboia has said. I do not want to go back to all the arguments I gave at the start of the discussion this afternoon when I explained that it had been felt that an increase in the ceiling was not warranted at this time. The hon. member for Assiniboia was saying that the western farmer needs normally about $20,000 worth of machinery.


Hazen Robert Argue: For a whole line of new machinery.


Jean Lesage: Yes; a whole line of new machinery. May I draw his attention to the fact that I do not believe it is possible for western farmers-in spite of the fact that I understand they are getting a large income from their farms-to repay any such amount as $20,000 on short terms. Let me tell my hon. friend that under the farm loan


board loans may be granted for these purposes, and I am quoting from the annual report of the farm loan board for the year ended March 31, 1952:
Loans may be granted to refinance existing farm indebtedness, to purchase livestock and equipment, to make improvements including . . .
And so on. But these are long-term loans which are to be repaid over a greater number of years, so the ceiling can be higher. I understand that at present it is a total of $12,000. I am informed that the ceiling would be a total of $12,000.


James Arthur Ross: It is $10,000 for land and $2,000 for equipment.


Hazen Robert Argue: 1 have just one little comment to make on that point. I am glad the parliamentary assistant mentioned the farm loan board and the provisions with respect to loans. I cannot quote them from memory, but I know that recently the amount of money that a farmer can obtain from the farm loan board has been doubled. It has been realized that the value of land has increased. The value of anything the farmer might use that kind of long-term credit for has gone up. That fact has been recognized in reference to the farm loan board.
All I am asking is that the same thing be recognized in relation to short and intermediate-term credit. I did not mean to imply, if I did so, that I wanted provision to be made so that a farmer could go to a bank and get $20,000 to buy equipment. I do not think any farmer is foolish enough to accept that large amount of credit on a short-term basis or even on a long-term basis for equipment only. The whole point I was trying to make was that when it cost $20,000 for a full line of new, modern equipment for the western farmer, $3,000 in relation to that sum of money is not good enough. In my opinion, with the increased cost of equipment, the $3,000 should now be $6,000. That would, of course, still be less than one-third of the amount necessary to buy that particular line of equipment.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The parliamentary assistant stated that the hon. member for Gloucester had made a statement-and it was verified by what the hon. member for Charlotte had said-with respect to the figures he had given. He asked a question whether that was for income tax or not. Is that right?


Jean Lesage: After I had finished quoting the figures-and I remember the incident very well-the hon. member for Gloucester told me that those figures were given for income

tax purposes. I corrected him. I said no, for census purposes. That is exactly what happened.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is exactly what I thought you said and that is exactly what I thought he said. That is what I thought was the question he asked or the statement he made-


Jean Lesage: It was a statement, not a question.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: -in order to correct in his mind-


Jean Lesage: I was not in his mind.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I know that.


Jean Lesage: And I do not want to be.


John George Diefenbaker: He is not in the house and is not able to answer for himself.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: What I am getting at is this. If the parliamentary assistant will just carry out the role he is supposed to be there for and answer this question, I shall be greatly obliged. Then he will know what I am driving at, I am sure, and not before. That question was asked because there is a difference when you are quoting income tax figures. Sometimes there is an exemption of $2,000. Motives should not be imputed with respect to a man's question. He may have wanted to know whether that was the total income or whether it was the income tax figures less the exemption of $2,000. That is quite a sane question. But the hon. member for Charlotte gets to his feet with crocodile tears in his eyes because any man would suggest that the farmer is having something said about him in the House of Commons that was not quite fair. That is the gentleman who will probably have to apologize to the tobacco farmers for smuggling cigarettes across the border, on his own admission.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member will realize, of course, that I should have stopped him before since this matter is one which is not between the hon. member for Simcoe North and the hon. member for Charlotte. It is one that has to be settled between the hon. member for Charlotte and the hon. member for Gloucester.


An hon. Member:: They are out settling it now.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Gloucester was not here when the hon. member for Charlotte spoke.


John George Diefenbaker: He is in committee, where he has to be.
Farm Improvement Loans Act


Louis-René Beaudoin: His language was not
offensive and therefore I could not stop him. But now it is unfortunate that the hon. member for Charlotte and the hon. member for Gloucester are not here.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is right.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I would suggest that we leave this particular matter to be settled between the two of them. If anything has to be withdrawn, I think the Chair can be relied upon to have the proper withdrawals made, if need be.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Chairman, may I proceed with this other matter, now that I have said that. This farm loan provision in our part of the country is certainly a great boon to the farmers. I do not know whether this is exactly the right time to mention this matter, but the parliamentary assistant's department is giving great aid to the farmers. But in the community in which I live it is very difficult for men in other occupations of life to obtain small necessary loans, owing to the fact that there is a great building boom going on in the larger centres and mortgages are hard to obtain by people to build themselves modest and necessary houses. At this time I would certainly suggest that the parliamentary assistant have his department look into the advisability of making money available to these people I have mentioned on the same basis as it is made available to farmers. I refer to small industrialists and workers-	.


Jean Lesage: Housing is under the Department of Resources and Development, not under the Department of Finance. This is out of order.


Gordon Graydon: The lending of money is under your department.


Jean Lesage: The hon. member is one of my very good friends, as he knows. I am not prepared to answer his question or hi9 suggestion.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I understood that the parliamentary assistant was representing the Department of Finance, and that he could be spoken to regarding this matter of finance. You make loans to the farmers and I was suggesting that on a similar basis money be made available to people who are desirous of having roofs over their heads. The lending companies will not do it because they are too busy lending money at high interest rates in the larger cities. They admit that quite freely. The same relief should be given to workmen in shipyards, such as the people in my community, and people in various other types of business.
2076	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act


Jean Lesage: On a point of order, I am not going to start a discussion of housing at this time.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member was just concluding his remarks. I know he will not pursue the matter, because this resolution has to do with farm improvements and not housing, even for farmers.


Mr. Montgomery:: I do not intend to take very much time. In fact I do not intend to enter into this debate, but I discovered from figures quoted by the parliamentary assistant this afternoon that most of the farmers in New Brunswick must be in my constituency. If I got the figures correctly, there are only about 2,000 farmers in New Brunswick who would qualify under the act. Is that right?


Jean Lesage: No. I gave some figures which I took out of the census of 1951, giving the number of farms in Newfoundland and New Brunswick in the various brackets of income they were getting from their farms. The act and regulations do not mention that a farmer must have such and such an income to qualify under the act. The requirement is that his main occupation must be farming, but the question of his income is one of the factors which is taken into account by the bank manager, as any businessman would take into account the income of a borrower before lending him money.


James Arthur Ross: He must be a good credit risk.


Jean Lesage: Well, he must not necessarily be a very good credit risk, because there is the government guarantee behind the loan and that is the reason for the government guarantee. But there must be a fair chance of recovery.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Thank you; that does make it clearer. The two points I wanted to mention in particular, however, were these. It is quite true that the income of a great many farmers in New Brunswick is not large. That is one of the handicaps under which we operate, and it is something about which I have no doubt hon. members will hear more before this session is over. However, in all fairness I think the explanation of the small amount loaned in the east, and especially in my section of my province, is the fact that they utilize the Canadian Farm Loan Act rather than this act to repair buildings and to improve their farms. I find in my experience of the last year or two that a great many people know about this act. I think it is well advertised in my constituency, and it is very generally used for the purchase of farm machinery and such things. It is pretty well administered, because it is administered by the chartered banks.


After having listened this afternoon to the arguments pro and con increasing the amount that might be available, I must say I have had no such requests, nor have I heard any complaints, because in our part of the province when a farmer has to borrow $3,000 for the purchase of farm machinery he has to think twice about how he is going to pay it back. Our farmers are in a hazardous occupation. There is no stability in their markets, and they do not like to risk too much; therefore I do not think I would press for an increase in the amount that may be borrowed. However, if it was going to benefit the farmers in other places, then I can see no particular risk in increasing the ceiling, because the governor in council and the banks have put adequate limitations in the regulations which require security that would protect the loan up to $5,000 just as it does up to $3,000.
As I said before, this act is well administered because it is administered through the banks. I know that in my part of the country the bankers are pretty sound businessmen. Probably another reason for the low percentage we are getting under this act-I do not blame the act nor the government; I do not blame anybody for that small amount that is coming to New Brunswick-is that as far as my section of the province is concerned it is a well-known policy that the banks will not lend money if they do not think there is a reasonable chance of getting the money back, and I think it is a sound policy.
This brings me back again to my province, and I think this is something which is worthy of the attention of this parliament. We are affected in many ways. We have two classes of farmers. They are all farmers, and they depend entirely on farming, but we have a farmer who has a small income. He is working hard to get it. He is eking out a living. That man cannot go into the bank and give a statement which indicates that he can pay back a loan of $400 or $500 for certain within a year or two.
Then we have the other man who is a larger farmer, he grows potatoes mainly. He is in a different position, because as I said once before in this house, it seems that the policy is driving our people into two classes. The rich are doing better but the poor are getting poorer. The other class of farmer does not need to use this act so much because he can finance himself. A good farmer can go to his bank and borrow on bonds-a good many of them might have them-and he can borrow at less than 5 per cent. Therefore as a matter of business he does not use this legislation.

The other man who may need it to get some farm machinery cannot satisfy the bank that he can grow sufficient crops and market them at a profit sufficiently high to repay that loan within three or four years. I am not blaming the act; I think it only fair, from what has been said here this afternoon, to say that in my particular part of the province this act is well known. It has been well advertised, and it is utilized by those who can use it. It is a good thing. I am very much in favour of extending it. I would support raising the ceiling, because I believe it is in good hands. Even if the ceiling is raised it may not assist many down in my part of the dominion, but it might assist other people in the dominion. It might assist some farmers, and if so I do not see that the government will lose anything on it because it is in the hands of the banks and the banks are good administrators of this type of business.
Therefore I am not going to take up more time on this matter, except to say that I am willing to support it as it is, and I would be quite willing to support it if the ceiling were raised.


Mr. Pearkes:: Has the parliamentary assistant a breakdown of the tables showing the amounts and numbers of loans as between Vancouver island and the rest of British Columbia? I have received complaints about the difficulty of obtaining loans on Vancouver island. Is it correct to say that application has to be made to New Westminster for final approval, or can it be done on Vancouver island?


Jean Lesage: I would have to inquire about that. Referring to the first part of the question, I believe that we can work out approximately the amount of the loans for Vancouver island, and between now and the time we reach the second reading stage we will attempt to do so.


George Randolph Pearkes: That would be satisfactory.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: This is of particular interest to my constituency, because I have noted that a higher percentage of farmers in Prince Edward Island have taken advantage of the loans under the act than in any other province of Canada, with the exception of the three prairie provinces. In other words it is the fourth province, so far as the percentage of farmers using the act is concerned.
Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would consider the points I shall now place before him. In his statement last night he pointed out that 92 per cent of the loans were for farm machinery and implements, and 4 per cent for the purchase of livestock. It follows therefore that only 4 per cent of the total
Farm Improvement Loans Act loans was used for such purposes as the improvement of buildings and fences, drainage, plumbing, heating and the like.
That state of affairs is most unfortunate, not because a large number of loans are made for the purchase of farm machinery but rather because so few are made to improve the standard of living of the people on the farms. I realize this is not the fault of the act itself, because excellent publicity was given to the fact that loans can be made for those purposes. I am wondering however if that side of the picture could be floodlighted so more farmers would realize that they can obtain loans not only to purchase farm machinery but for the installation of water systems, plumbing, sewage disposal units and so on.
I believe strongly that in this day and age it is more important for a farmer to live in a home with the proper outbuildings, and with a supply of running water and an adequate sewage system, than it is for him to own a small truck, for instance. In any case this is something to which I would direct the attention of the parliamentary assistant, with a view to publicizing that side of the picture a little more.
Then in this pamphlet published by the authority of the minister it says that loans under the act are obtainable for clearing, breaking and irrigating, and for reclaiming land, soil conservation, the prevention of erosion, the planting of trees and shelter belts, the sinking, construction, installation, repair, alteration or improvement of wells, dugouts, or an ice well. I notice that it does not specifically say that loans may be obtained for the purchase of agricultural lime.
In the part of the country I come from, where there is heavy rainfall, it is the natural tendency for the soil to become acid. In that area one of the fundamental factors in soil conservation is the application of lime. I think no loan would be better justified, so far as farm improvements are concerned, than those for agricultural lime. I believe I am correct in saying that farm improvements under the Veterans Land Act include loans for the purchase of lime, and I was wondering if consideration could be given to this matter under the act now under discussion.


Jean Lesage: The department would have to be satisfied that the purchase of lime would be for the permanent improvement of the farm land. According to my information, that has been considered a permanent improvement by the administration. It might be that some bank managers have given a different interpretation, and I am sure the administration here in Ottawa would like to
2078	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act know about any other interpretation that has been given. If attention were drawn to it, it could be corrected.
I understand that we are coming to the end of the discussion, and I wish to assure hon. members that every consideration will be given to the very helpful suggestions that have been made, so far as the giving of publicity to the act is concerned. I thank hon. members for their co-operation.


William Joseph Browne: Is the parliamentary assistant closing the discussion?


Jean Lesage: There is no closing in committee.


William Joseph Browne: I understood him to say it was the end, and I still have two or three questions to ask.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He means it is the end of the government.


William Joseph Browne: The hon, member said that $300 million was the new amount the government would be allowing the banks to grant by way of loans.


Jean Lesage: It is a new amount of $300 million the banks will be permitted to loan, with the guarantee of 10 per cent, when the bill is passed.


William Joseph Browne: Can the
parliamentary assistant say what actual amount was owing to the banks under the previous arrangement, as of December 31?


Jean Lesage: I gave that information last night.


William Joseph Browne: I would like to have the actual amount owing at that time.


Jean Lesage: The actual amount loaned since the inception of the-


William Joseph Browne: No; I want the amount owing.


Jean Lesage: I gave that information in three parts last night. I believe on September 30, 1952 the total was $145,700,000.


William Joseph Browne: What was the amount at the end of December?


Jean Lesage: The hon. member will understand that it takes some time before we can get complete reports from the banks.


William Joseph Browne: Does the parliamentary assistant expect that the whole amount of $200 million will be used up before the expiration date?


Jean Lesage: The $200 million was allowed by parliament in February of 1951 for a period extending from March 1, 1951 to March 1, 1954. On December 31, $183 million had


been loaned out of this total of $200 million. That is why we have to come to parliament at this session to create a new three-year period with a new amount of $300 million. The $200 million provided for the last period would lapse in April or May of this year.


William Joseph Browne: If there was $183 million outstanding at the end of December, presumably there must be nearly $200 million outstanding now; is that not right?


Jean Lesage: The $183 million was not the amount outstanding; that was the total of the loans made during the immediately preceding period. A loan outstanding is a loan which has not been repaid, and the total amount of the loans outstanding since the inception of the act is, as I have just said, $145,700,000. If my hon. friend wants a breakdown of that amount as between the three periods, he will find it in what I said last night.


William Joseph Browne: Is it not correct to say that for the next three years the maximum amount will be $300 million, and you cannot have any more than that $300 million at any one time?


Jean Lesage: Unless we do as we are doing now. If this government-I am sure we will be here at the time-after two years finds that the amount of $300 million is not sufficient to cover the three-year period, it may come to parliament, as it has come this year, and say, "We are closing out this period and opening up a new one."


William Joseph Browne: If the parliamentary assistant has not this information at the moment perhaps he can give it when we are in committee on the bill. Can he indicate the number of losses and the total amount in each province, and the purpose for which the loan was made where a loss has been suffered?


Jean Lesage: I understand that my hon. friend wants a breakdown of the 80 claims that have been paid by the federal government up to December 31, 1952, by provinces, and also the purposes for which the loans were made. I can give that to the hon. member when we reach the committee stage after second reading.


Mr. Hodgson:: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant a question or two on this subject. Will it be possible to apply this act in the northern section of my riding where areas have been long since used for agricultural purposes but where there are other areas that have been lumbered? Would it be possible for someone to buy up some of these old farms, borrow money and plant trees? It would be more or less a reforestation scheme.


Jean Lesage: The amendment made to the regulations in 1951 covered only fruit trees.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, before the resolution carries I should like to say a word or two in respect to this measure. I want to congratulate the government on expanding the amount of money to be available for loans of this kind, but I also want to draw attention to the general idea which has been advanced by the hon. member for Assiniboia. There are many large farms in my constituency, and I find that a good many farmers there feel unhappy because no provision is made to assist young men establishing themselves on farms.
As the hon. member for Assiniboia pointed out, it costs at least $20,000 to set up a farm in these areas where the size ranges from half a section to probably two and a half sections. With that amount being required it is sometimes impossible to devise any means whereby young men can get started. The result is that we lose a great number of our young men who would be admirable farmers, who have the skill and desire for farming, just because they cannot get established.
I would say that is exceedingly bad business for the country. We want the finest of our young men to stay in Canada. We want our young men on farms where they can support themselves and raise Canadians for the future. If we lose them to the United States or to the cities where they undertake work which may not be permanent, we suffer a serious loss.
There is a general feeling in my constituency that the maximum is far too low, which would naturally follow from what I have just said. I am not prepared to say that this is the particular measure under which provision should be made for larger loans, but I do submit that the government should keep that in mind and devise a scheme before too long to take care of the situation which I have just pointed out.
The interest rate is far too high. Five per cent is unnecessary. I should like to draw the attention of the house once more to the fact that the Bank of Canada can create money today by just printing on paper without having any gold backing whatever. We passed a measure last year making it possible to do that on the basis of bonds. It is simply ridiculous, it is a reflection upon the intelligence of the people in this house to expect our young people or even our older people to pay 5 per cent interest on money which the Bank of Canada can run off just as rapidly as it can print it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Farm Improvement Loans Act


John Horne Blackmore: That is the actual fact. The big trouble is that people are relying upon the concept of money which their grandfathers had. They are not up to date. Some hon. members were laughing a few minutes ago. I would like to get those members before me in a committee and I wager I would take all the laughs right out of them. They just are not in touch with what is actually going on today.
We should remember what can be done under the Bank of Canada Act. All these members from Saskatchewan who seem to know so much should listen to this, and I will give them the source of my information so they can verify it. On pages 140 and 141 of "The Canadian Banking System" by Professor James Holladay-I am sure I am right -it is pointed out that the Bank of Canada working in conjunction with Canadian chartered banks can take one dollar gold and upon that dollar of gold, establish $84 of currency and credit in Canada. Just try to laugh that off. Try to fit that into the silly laughs we had a minute ago. Let us keep in mind what are the actual facts-.
I do not intend to enter into a discussion of finance, but the fact is that under this measure we are charging 5 per cent interest on money. I say that is simply not in accordance with common sense under the financial system we have at the present time. I maintain that the interest rate is far too high.
I am not saying that the banks should be called upon to lend money at a rate lower than 5 per cent, but I am saying that it ought to be possible for the federal government through the instruments which it has at its disposal to grant assistance to the banks, to subsidize them, so that they can lend at 3 per cent. I do not think anyone can successfully show that that cannot be done without cost to the federal treasury. So I repeat that the interest rate is far too high.
As I said a moment ago, the term of the loan is not long enough. A young fellow buying a combine at $10,000 will have to pay one-third of the cost down, another third inside of a year and a half and another third inside of two years. Then if he has to pay 5 per cent interest at the same time it means that we certainly are providing a set-up under which it is practically impossible for him to operate unless he has the very best of success and unless he is sure of a good crop, a good market and good prices. I maintain that the term is too short and that the limit on the money that is available is altogether too low.
There is one matter to which the parliamentary assistant referred a few minutes ago.

Farm Improvement Loans Act I do not know whether or not he considered what he said carefully, and I am not sure that I caught the exact purport of his remarks, but I thought he implied-and he will correct me if I am wrong-that when it came to establishing young people on the land you were really dealing with property and civil rights and consequently you were going into the realm of provincial responsibility. I am not sure that I got him right; if I did not he can correct me. He went on to cite measures that had been adopted by various provinces under which they advanced loans to young people of their provinces to establish them, and I think that is where I got the impression. Have I the right idea of what he had in mind, that the establishment of young people would be largely a provincial responsibility? Is that correct?


Jean Lesage: What I said was that the establishment of settlers or young farmers on new farms, new land, was related to land tenure which certainly was a provincial responsibility, and that no doubt that was the reason some of the provinces at least had considered that that was their responsibility and had acted accordingly.


John Horne Blackmore: That is what I wanted from the parliamentary assistant. I was not sure whether I had interpreted him aright. May I point out that there are at least five provinces in the dominion that simply do not possess the financial ability to back their young people in becoming established. I refer to the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan. These provinces simply have not the ability to provide the necessary money. I maintain that that fact must be recognized. Alberta is in a somewhat more fortunate position at the present time because of the discovery of oil, but that oil is expendable and will become exhausted in due time so there will not be any more revenue from it. Then the same thing will apply to Alberta.
There is no doubt in the world that if we are going to establish our young people all over the dominion on the land and have them care for the land and produce the crops we want them to produce, we must find some means whereby the dominion government can assist the provinces in advancing money to establish young men on the land. I merely wished to make those comments before the resolution carried.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.

Mr. Garson (for Mr. Abbott) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 143, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EMERGENCY POWERS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Powers Act to provide for the continuation of the act for a further period of one year, that is, from the thirty-first day of May, 1953, to the thirty-first day of May, 1954.
Mr. Garson:: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) rises to continue the debate which he adjourned the other day, I should like to state on a point of order, if I may, that now that the Speaker has taken under consideration the point of order that I raised before during this debate and after further debate on that point of order is going to make a ruling upon it, I withdraw any objections I have to making a statement on points of substance in this present debate. If I may have the unanimous consent of the house, I would be glad to make my statement after the hon. member has finished his speech. If the house does not wish that I should do so, then I may say that I will make a full statement as soon as the house gets into committee. My only purpose the other day was to affirm the point of order which is now, I hope, in the process of being established.


John George Diefenbaker: It sounds like an alibi.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is not, though.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I was going to draw attention to the fact that the point of order which was under discussion when this matter was previously before the house is now receiving consideration under another arrangement, and that therefore it is not necessary to proceed with arguments on that score. I should like to refer to the Emergency Powers Act, which I have before me, and which certainly seems to me to require some statement from the minister before any extension should be granted. I would recommend that all members should read carefully the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) which I think brings out most of the arguments why it is not expedient that we should adopt this resolution.

I would refer especially to the very few occasions upon which the government found it necessary during the past two years to resort to the Emergency Powers Act. If the Emergency Powers Act was necessary during the past years there should be some evidence of it, but all we find is that five orders in council were passed under it. I believe they were the only purposes for which the act was used. None of those orders in council is of a very serious nature or is such as should require to be passed under the Emergency Powers Act. They could have been passed under other acts or by special legislation that could have been introduced when the house was in session. Actually I believe the house was in session when all these orders in council were passed. Therefore there was no need to have the Emergency Powers Act at all.
Inasmuch as we have on the statute books an act which covers far more ground than the Emergency Powers Act, and which can be brought into effect immediately by the stroke of a pen as soon as there is any necessity for it, it seems to me there is no reason why we should extend the Emergency Powers Act for another year. Therefore I would be of the same opinion as the hon. member for Peace River (Hr. Low), who said that the Attorney General will have to produce very strong reasons to convince him that the Emergency Powers Act should be extended.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do hon. members wish to grant the minister unanimous consent to make his speech at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has impressed me more than anything else about this measure is that the house was unanimous in 1951 in having it placed upon the statute books. When the principle of it was discussed on second reading it received unanimous support, and it was only upon third reading of the bill that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) said that it should be passed upon division. The house was likewise unanimous in renewing it in 1952-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, no.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -and although some members who took part in the earlier portion of the present debate seemed to be in disagreement with the government's position in this matter, I wish to submit that actually they were not. We really are all in agreement at the present
Emergency Powers Act time in respect of the present extension once we properly understand the real nub of the legislation and the real purpose of the extension of it which the government is now seeking. In this connection, I suggest that nothing is more important to a proper understanding of this matter than that we should comprehend with some precision the nature of the emergency which is the basis for the validity of this legislation. I think it is equally important that we understand quite clearly the distinction between the emergency which is the basis for this legislation, and the emergency which was the basis for the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, to which the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) made reference earlier in this debate.
I would submit that if the hon. member for Lake Centre objects to the term which I applied to the present emergency, namely that it is a post-Korean emergency-I still think that is as apt a three-word phrase as can be applied to it-then surely at least he will agree that the present emergency is an emergency of apprehended war. I believe he will agree also that the true nature of the emergency which was the foundation of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act was the emergency of the changeover from war to peace, and was not an emergency of apprehended war. This distinction is of very considerable importance; for the basic fact of our present position, I suggest, is that the emergency upon which we are depending for the validity of the act now under discussion is now the emergency of apprehended war. This emergency of apprehended war is one which could have been, and could now be, invoked for the purpose of the government without any reference to this parliament at all exercising the almost unlimited powers provided by the War Measures Act, which are wider than those in the legislation now under discussion, and can be invoked without reference to parliament. Moreover the War Measures Act does not require that the orders in council passed under it shall be tabled in parliament, nor does it provide that such orders in council shall be open to annulment proceedings by parliament.
When my hon. friends of the opposition parties who have taken part in this debate say, therefore, that they do so because they wish, upon the one hand, to restrict the powers of the executive, and upon the other to uphold the supremacy of parliament, I applaud their sentiments. I agree with them, and I think they agree with us. It was precisely to achieve those two ends that,
2082	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act instead of invoking the emergency of apprehended war by taking unto ourselves the wide powers under the War Measures Act without reference to parliament at all, we brought this present Emergency Powers Act into parliament. We said, "No, we are not going to invoke these unlimited powers under the War Measures Act without reference to parliament. Instead, we are going to ask parliament to say, in the Emergency Powers Act, just what powers parliament is prepared to give to the government under these present conditions of apprehended war. Far from using these unlimited War Measures Act powers without reference to parliament, we have proposed that the orders in council which we pass under the Emergency Powers Act shall be immediately tabled in parliament and be open for inspection by every member of parliament who wishes to see them. If any member objects to the manner in which we have invoked these powers or objects to the terms of an order in council which we pass under them, he may immediately by annulment proceedings in parliament, for which the Emergency Powers Act makes provision, attack such order in council, and he will be able to have it set aside if he can persuade the majority of members to support him in that regard."
Hon. members will recall that the Emergency Powers Act was before parliament first in 1951. If I recall correctly one of the members of the official opposition-I believe it was the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming)- said to me through you, Mr. Speaker, "You know perfectly well that if a private member brings in a resolution of annulment in this way it will go down to the bottom of. the order paper. Then, if the government used its control over the order paper with some tactical skill, this resolution will not be dealt with promptly, and perhaps not at all". Hon. members will recall that an undertaking was given by myself, after consultation with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), that the government would give priority to any resolution of that sort seeking annulment of orders passed under the present legislation.
Now, that being the case, it seems to me -and I offer this suggestion with great respect-that actually those members of the opposition who have said they were in favour of restricting the powers of the executive and of protecting the civil rights of the subject, and of upholding the supremacy of parliament, must support the extension of this bill. If they do not do so, then the position would be that the powers that are now available to the government under the War Measures Act in the present emergency of
[Mr. Garson.l

apprehended war are much more extensive and under less parliamentary control than those which are available under the Emergency Powers Act. , We can exercise those War Measures Act powers without coming to parliament at all. That does not require that we table the orders in council passed thereunder. The orders in council which are passed by the government under the War Measures Act are not directly open to attack in parliament. Therefore the position of those in this house who are in favour of restricting the powers of the executive and supporting the supremacy of parliament is that, if they mean what they say, then they must support the extension of the Emergency Powers Act which we now seek.
Lest there be any misapprehension on this point-which I think would have been quite obvious from a perusal of the Emergency Powers Act had opposition speakers in this debate taken the trouble, as it seems they did not, to have read that act-let me refer hon. members to the debate which took place when the Prime Minister was discussing the resolution introducing that act in February, 1951. First of all, let me quote from his remarks as reported in Hansard of that year, page 497, as to the nature of the emergency. The hon. member for Lake Centre will recall that there was an interchange between us as to the nature of the emergency upon which this act is based.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not here in February, 1951.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I meant the other day in this debate. The hon. member rather scoffed at my idea that there was any distinction between the emergency under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, which was involved in the Nolan case, and the emergency which was involved here. He will recall that he read from the preamble of the Emergency Powers Act itself. He read:
Whereas an international emergency exists that threatens the security of Canada.
He then argued that that is the full statement of the present emergency that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has to rely upon. But in the debate, in February 1951, leading to the introduction of the Emergency Powers Act, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said:
The question may be asked, what is the nature of the emergency which we are facing?


John George Diefenbaker: Will my hon. friend allow a question at this point?


Mr, Garson:: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: What the Prime Minister said would not have any effect in a court

of law. The preamble would be the preamble relied upon to interpret the emergency, and not any undertaking by the Prime Minister.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. My hon. friend is quite right. But at a later point I will endeavour to convince my hon. friend that the language which is used in the preamble to the act has reference to the same thing and means the same thing as the language of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said, as reported at page 497 of Hansard of February 20, 1951:
The question may be asked, what is the nature of the emergency we are facing? In the opinion of the government, it is as defined in the following language in the speech from the throne:
"The increased menace in the Far East reinforces the mounting evidence that communist imperialism is determined to dominate the world by force or the fear of force, and that the only hope of maintaining peace with freedom lies in the rapid increase of the combined strength of the free nations.''
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if my hon. friend had taken the trouble to read the language which I have just quoted, he might have had a more adequate impression of the language which he quoted from the preamble of the act, namely "whereas an international emergency exists that threatens the security of Canada"; because the emergency which is recited in the act in those terms is the same emergency which is described rather more fully in the speech from the throne which the Prime Minister quoted. I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, or to any hon. member whether it is or is not a reasonable submission that these two sets of language were referring to the one and the same fact, and that fact is the emergency upon which the whole validity of the Emergency Powers Act depends.
In addition, the Prime Minister at that time made it quite clear; and shortly I am going to show that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew)-in an excellent and thoughtful speech that shows that he understood these points thoroughly-agrees with all of these points of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, I say, went on to point out further down in his remarks:
Since that is so, it might afford justification for bringing into effect the War Measures Act, on the ground that we are in a state of apprehended war. I believe the dictionary definition of "apprehended" -perceived or feared-would be met in this instance. There is no doubt that the possibility of war is perceived. There is no doubt that it is gravely feared. If that is so, why not use the War Measures Act?
That is a question which certainly members of the opposition who have taken part in this
Emergency Powers Act debate have been re-echoing. Here is the answer. I am still quoting from the Prime Minister's speech:
One reason why we have not proclaimed the War Measures Act is that the government fears such a course might add to the feeling, already too prevalent here and in other countries, that war is inevitable. Since its passage in 1914 the War Measures Act has been used on two very critical occasions, but they were both occasions of actually existing war. It has seemed to us we should do everything possible to avoid any suggestion that we believe war is no longer likely to be prevented.
I believe we must increase our efforts to prevent a world war.
Then the Right Hon. Prime Minister goes on to point out that it will not assist our efforts to prevent a world war if we create amongst our own people and the people of other free countries an impression that war is inevitable.
In firmly establishing these points which are very apposite to the matter which we are now considering, let me quote further from the Prime Minister's statement, at page 498 of Hansard of 1951:
There are additional considerations which weighed on the government. The conditions being different from those which have at previous times led to the proclamation of the War Measures Act,

Let those who say that they want to uphold the supremacy of parliament and limit the powers of the executive listen to this: -the government feels it is preferable that there should be a departure from the normal constitutional distribution of powers, and that a decision as to the emergency should not be made merely on the judgment of the governor in council as to the present situation, but should rest with the people's representatives in this parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: At what page is that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: At page 498. I continue:
In view of the possibility that the state of emergency may be of an indeterminate length-
We have today a condition of emergency which is unique in our history. It is an emergency of apprehended war; but unlike war emergencies of the past this present emergency, as the Prime Minister here points out, may be of indeterminate length. I suggest that it is not desirable, as the government recognizes, that for a period of indeterminate length the government should be invoking the wider powers of the War Measures Act, without any control by parliament. I suggest that it is much more desirable, as the Prime Minister has indicated, that in the precise kind of emergency with [DOT]which we are now faced we should follow the course which we in fact followed oi coming to parliament, and that we should follow the course which we are following right now in asking parliament for an

Emergency Powers Act
extension of the specified powers granted by parliament under the Emergency Powers Act. I continue this quotation:
In view of the possibility that the state of the emergency may be of an indeterminate length, the government considers that all the powers transferred by the War Measures Act to the governor in council need not be available immediately. These powers are far-reaching, and they include the capacity to affect not only the ordinary property and civil rights of Canadian citizens, but their personal rights as well.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is always-and properly so; it is much to his credit-deeply concerned with the civil liberties of the subject. He knows perfectly well that the War Measures Act includes the powers of arbitrary arrest, detention, deportation and exclusion, none of which are contained in the present legislation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You can thank the official
opposition for the fact they are not in it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. I suggest that my hon.
friend cannot thank the official opposition; because if he will refresh his memory just slightly he will recall that the Emergency Powers Act, when it was introduced by the government, never included any such powers and expressly excluded them. I admit that in connection with arrest-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a question of privilege on that statement; because in November, 1945, the bill introduced by the government contained those powers; and we took the strongest objection, on a Friday as I remember it. On Monday there was a meeting of the dominion-provincial conference and they took the same objection that we took and withdrew them, or forced the government to withdraw them.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend speaks of 1945. Mr. Diefenbaker:	Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But we are now talking
about the Emergency Powers Act of 1951. My hon. friend is still back on the Nolan case and the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act. He should no confuse these two statutes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On that point may I say this. Vty hon. friend will remember that an amendment was introduced as a result of the suggestion of the official opposition on that accasion.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We had considerable argu-nent before it was accepted.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. My hon. friend is quite ight; there was an amendment introduced in 
relation to the Emergency Powers Act upon the subject of arrest. But if my hon. friend will carefully recollect, it was explained at that time that the only power of arrest which the original draft of the Emergency Powers Act intended, and as we thought did provide, was the power of arrest in relation to offences against regulations passed pursuant to the Emergency Powers Act. I see my hon. friend from Kamloops nods his head in assent to that. That is right, and it was very clear that the government did not at any stage of the Emergency Powers Act seek to include in it the power which is in the War Measures Act to make arbitrary arrest or detention within the meaning of the War Measures Act. There was at that time quite a long exchange between the hon. member for Kamloops and myself, the result of which was that although we of the government continued to think und to assert that the only power of arrest authorized by the Emergency Powers Act was confined to contraventions of orders in council passed pursuant to the Emergency Powers Act itself, we did accept an amendment from my hon. friend which cleared up that point beyond any peradventure of doubt.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And it was drafted by the Prime Minister.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It was drafted by the Prime Minister, as my hon. friend says. But my hon. friend will agree that at no time under the emergency powers bill did we seek anything remotely approaching extraordinary remedies of the War Measures Act which would adversely affect the liberty of the subject.
Let me quote further from the Prime Minister's remarks, as reported at page 498 of Hansard of February 20, 1951:
As this resolution indicates, it will provide lor restrictions on this general power. While providing adequate powers to deal with the type of situation which may be expected to arise, the government has endeavoured to avoid taking powers of the grave character which no democratic government wishes to have, as a government, unless those powers are really necessary for the safety of the state.
In other words, we were saying to parliament, we have available under an emergency of apprehended war the wide powers of the War Measures Act without reference to parliament at all. Instead of invoking those wide powers we are asking parliament to give us certain specific powers to be named in this emergency powers bill which we are introducing. We agree that if we exercise these powers to pass orders in council or regulations, we shall in every case table these

promptly in parliament within a matter of days after they have been passed. In this way every member of parliament shall have access to them to see if they are proper or not. If any member thinks that an order in council is improper, he has the right to bring into parliament, by machinery which the act provides for that purpose, a resolution seeking the annulment of these orders in council to which he objects.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when one member after the other of the opposition rises in his place and says he wants to know what orders in council the government has passed under this legislation, why are we so secretive about them, they surely have not read the act, because if they had read the act they would know that within a matter of days after parliament is in session the orders in council have to be tabled. When they are tabled they appear in the Votes and Proceedings, and then they go downstairs to the parliamentary papers branch where the text of them is available to any hon. member to see. And if they say they do not know what they are I say this in all kindness, I mean this in a very kindly way, I say they have only themselves to blame. I am not saying that because I do not wish to specify the orders in council which have been passed; I shall do that in due course.
What was the position of the opposition with regard to this matter and with regard to the arguments put up by my leader. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), in one of the finest speeches that I have ever heard him make-it seems to me he was much more sensible and to the point in this speech than in many statements I have heard him make from time to time-


Mr. Casselman:: Speak for yourself.


Gordon Graydon: You may not be a very good judge yourself.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I may not be; I am just
speaking-


George Randolph Pearkes: Do you want to be?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is not going
to prevent me from praising his leader, surely.


Gordon Graydon: No; I would like you to
make it more general, that is all.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: First of all, with regard to
the emergency, this is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say. He is referring to the Prime Minister, and this is what he said at page 500 of Hansard of February 20, 1951:
He has indicated that the emergency is the increased menace in the Far East-
I recommend this particularly to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker)
Emergency Powers Act who seems to be in some doubt as to the nature of the emergency. This is what his leader said:
He has indicated that the emergency is the increased menace in the Far East, which demonstrates the full extent of the threat of communisl imperialism. He has quoted from some words 1 used in the debate on the speech from the throne I agree that those words were intended to convej my own belief that there is an emergency of thf nature which he described.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What year was that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is at page 500 o
Hansard of February 20, 1951, and is in thi very same debate as that in which thi Prime Minister spoke.	As soon as thi
Prime Minister took his seat the Leader o the Opposition rose, and this is one of tb first paragraphs of his speech. Then he goe further. He not only agrees but he says
I would point out, however, that this emergenc; is not new. I would point out that when anothe bill was introduced in this house last Septembe we sought to emphasize that there was an emer gency of this very nature. True, the seriousnes of the emergency is being recognized more gen erally, but the emergency that exists today wa the emergency which existed in just as definit reality last September.
And might I say, Mr. Speaker, in orde to bring this up to date, as to the necessit; of extending these powers at the preser time, it is not more than a week or so sine the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes in a statement that was more detailed tha either of those that I have quoted, gave most excellent description of the nature c the emergency with which we are now facec


Mr. Green:: The Prime Minister said ther
was no emergency.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Prime Minister i quite willing to have his language, which i on Hansard, construed by anyone who wishe to read it and it will not bear out the coil struction suggested by the hon. member fc Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green).


Howard Charles Green: Just as much as the statf
ment of the hon. member for Nanaimo beai out the construction that the minister hi put on it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We are agreed upon tl emergency. As to the propriety of tl method by which we were seeking to de; with it, let me quote again from the Leadc of the Opposition as follows at page 50'
Having said that on that occasion and at a tin when we were seeking to point out the dangers the indefinite and almost unlimited powers whic were being sought, at that time, I wish to indica my own support for the proposition now placi before us that such emergency measures as are be adopted shall be brought clearly before parli ment and shall be the results of actual decisio: of members of this house.	*
2086	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act That is precisely what the government was loing under this Emergency Powers Act. The Prime Minister indicated the position of he government. We did not wish to invoke he War Measures Act. What does the Leader if the Opposition have to say as to that? I [uote again. He said referring to the Prime Minister:
He has said that he does not regard it as desir-ble that the War Measures Act should he invoked ecause it might convey the impression that war * inevitable.
Since the Prime Minister has referred to this lay I point out that never at any time last eptember, before then or since then, have I sug-ested that we proceed under the wide powers of sat act. When I referred last September to the xistence of an emergency I was expressing my wn opinion that if legislation is to be effective 'hich bases its validity upon the existence of an mergeney so that it may give to the government f Canada, powers ordinarily within the jurisdiction f the provinces, it is desirable to declare that lere is in fact an emergency.
I find that the suggestion has been made that on lat occasion I was urging that the War Measures ct be invoked. I was not, and I am not now.
Now, if I recall what some of the members f the official opposition have said in the resent debate, they were, if I mistake not, ipudiating their leader's suggestion-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -that the War Measures Act lould not be invoked, when they said to s "you do not need to use this Emergency owers Act because you have the War Meas-res Act".


Edmund Davie Fulton: We were discussing the nature - the emergency itself, that is all.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, let me read one more uotation from the Leader of the Opposition, e said, as reported at page 501 of Hansard : February 20, 1951:
I most heartily endorse - the suggestion by the rime Minister (Mr. St, Laurent) that whatever e say and do here should seek to convey to the :ople of Canada the thought that a general war not inevitable. I think that is of immense impor-nce. The spirit in which our people accept what-*er deprivations may be necessary as a result of e heavily increased burden of defence will be rgely measured by the degree of hope they have their minds that what is being done now may eserve that peace which every sensible person in e world desires so much today.
Now, if that is the case, and if those are e reasons on which the Leader of the pposition, leading his party, later supported i second reading the principle of this legis-tion, then I suggest that they apply with st the same force today-if not even greater rce-than they did at that time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I interrupt the minister, e will agree, I think, that those remarks jre not made on second reading of the 11. They were on the resolution stage.
.'Mr. Garson.]


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right. I said that these remarks were made on the resolution stage.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, on second reading.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; I said that the Leader of the Opposition and his party supported this measure on second reading-and they did support it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You mean simply that there was not a division.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will look at the record, as I have done, he will see that on second reading there was not an indication even that it passed on division. The house was not divided. And he will see that, after having approved of the principle on second reading, it was only on third reading that the words were added by the Leader of the Opposition, almost as a footnote, when he interjected, "on division".


George Randolph Pearkes: How do you do it, then?


Arza Clair Casselman: Do you stand up and turn a somersault?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Surely if it was proper to
pass the bill in 1951, and to renew it in 1952 unanimously-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, no.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There was no division in
1952	on the resolution which was put before the house at that time, and my hon. friend knows that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was after the Leader
of the Opposition had spoken against it. The minister knows the reason there was not a division.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I certainly do know how it
came about, that there was no division. It means, when there is no division, that members of the opposition do not call for a division. The only proper way in which the opposition members can express disapproval of a measure of this sort is by a certain number of them rising in their places and calling for a division. And they did not do that, with regard to the Emergency Powers Act.
The position today with regard to the emergency is surely as serious as it was in 1951 or 1952. If any member of the opposition thinks that it is not, then I would refer him to the classical description of the present emergency as set out by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) in a debate on a matter connected with the Department of National Defence.


Howard Charles Green: And the statement by the
Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to the contrary.
208'


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I cannot say as to that. I
am very wary when my hon. friends quote the Prime Minister. I find, with respect, that such quotations are almost uniformly inaccurate. I wish the hon. member would not ask me to agree or to disagree with his quotations of the Prime Minister's remarks.
But I still say that, whether we look at Iran or at the Balkan states, or Malaya, or Indo-China, or Korea, or Tunisia or Morocco or South Africa, or many other places in the world today-or, indeed, regarding the continuation of the war in Korea-there is no less of an emergency today than there was in 1951 or 1952.


John George Diefenbaker: What has South Africa
to do with it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Unrest, wherever it may be,
does not add to the feeling of security, so far as an emergency is concerned.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question? Is it his belief that so long as there are situations such as those in Iran and the other places he mentioned, that the government should have emergency powers?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that where an emergency of an apprehended war faces a democratic government, that has on its statute books an act like the War Measures Act, the proper course for that democratic government is to come to parliament and ask it to give certain specified emergency powers, under proper precautions as to the tabling of the orders in council and proper precautions as to the control that parliament will have over all the acts done under those emergency powers. And I say that it is quite reasonable that that special act should remain upon the statute books during the continuation of such emergency, rather than that the government and parliament should have to fall back upon the much wider powers of the War Measures Act.
Emergency Powers Act


Howard Charles Green: Even though that conditio: continues over a period of years?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, surely.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would point ou that it is now six o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the minister finished


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. I think I had better ad journ the debate.
On motion of Mr. Garson the debate wa adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we wil
continue consideration of this resolution o the Prime Minister respecting the Emergenc; Powers Act. Then if the Leader of th Opposition is in the house we will take u; the resolution to revise the Yukon Act, t continue the discussion of the point of orde under standing order 60. Then we will g on with Bill No. 48, respecting food, drug: cosmetics and therapeutic devices; the resolu tion in the name of the Minister of Fisherie to approve and confirm the international con vention for the high seas fisheries of th north Pacific ocean, signed by Canada, th United States and Japan. Then if we hav time we will take up the following bills Nos. 44, 46, 38 and 39.
Then everyone knows that at eight o'cloc the Minister of Finance will make his budge speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When is it the intention t call again the government resolution propos ing the setting up of the special committe on radio broadcasting, the debate on whic was adjourned three weeks ago last night


Alphonse Fournier: I shall consult wit my colleague and give an answer later t the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, with out question put, pursuant to standing orde:
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]

Thursday, February 19, 1953