1957-03-05

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McCulloch (Piclou) presented the third and fourth reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the fourth report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Second report of standing committee on industrial relations.-Mr. Gauthier (Nickel Belt).
Third report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hunter.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Rene N. Jutras (Provencher) presented the first report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, if I may have the unanimous consent of the house to do so, I wish to move that the proposed resolution concerning the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, 1956, appearing as government order No. 7 on the order paper today, be withdrawn for the purpose of introducing a new resolution involving a change in the date of commencement of the application of the act.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fleming:: What is the date?
Motion agreed to and resolution withdrawn.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to ask the Prime Minister to give the house a report on the discussions which took place with the French Prime Minister over the week end. In view of his absence today, perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce will give a report or, if he wishes it, the matter could be allowed to stand until the Prime Minister's return.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I was not present at the discussions between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of France. I would therefore ask that this question be taken as notice pending the Prime Minister's return.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Elmore Philpott (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, may I address this question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister report on the meeting held in Seattle last week end between the federal governments of Canada and the United States and the governments of the Pacific coast states to discuss the serious problem of offshore fishing for salmon?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, last week, when I was speaking on the salmon commission bill, I mentioned that this problem of offshore fishing for salmon was the most serious one facing the west coast industry. The meeting in Seattle was a complete success. All governments agreed to ban offshore fishing by nets for salmon as soon as possible.
The government of the United States which controls the fisheries in Alaska has already banned this type of fishing. The governments of Washington, Oregon and California, which control fishing in those states, have agreed to introduce legislation in their legislatures as quickly as possible to ban this fishing off

Inquiries of the Ministry their coasts. When that is done we will pass the necessary regulations under the Fisheries Act to ban offshore Ashing by nets by Canadian Ashermen. At the same time this conference agreed on uniform regulations for troll Ashing for spring salmon and cohoe salmon on the high seas.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries arising out of his statement a little while ago on the Asheries meeting at Seattle. Is the policy that has been established there in any way part and parcel of a view held by his department and the government that Canada should seek extension of control to include the waters over the continental shelf outside our boundaries?


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, this has no direct relation for no matter what the territorial waters of Canada are this new agreement will control offshore Ashing beyond these territorial waters. Within our territorial waters we have, of course, complete control at all times over all types of Ashing.


Harold Edward Winch: Are you working at the same time for a recognition of Canada's control over the continental shelf?


James Sinclair: No, Mr. Speaker. Most Asheries authorities in most countries do not look with favour on the continental shelf as a boundary for the Asheries because it is so hard to deAne. It would be almost impossible for a Asherman to know whether he was over the continental shelf or over what is called the high seas. At the last general assembly of the United Nations our government advocated the extension of our territorial waters from the present three mile limit to 12 miles to give us proper control for the conservation of the groundAsh within that area.


Harold Edward Winch: What progress is being made?


James Sinclair: I would suggest that the hon. member ask either the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he returns to the house later this week.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs which

he may perhaps wish to take as notice. What action does the government intend to take on the United Nations request for an additional 170 military personnel to act in a reconnaissance and administrative capacity in the Middle East?


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has noted, it was not cSnvenient for him to give me notice of his intention to ask this question and I should like to take it as notice. I should point out, however, that at the present time there are countries which have offered to participate in the UNEF whose services and whose contributions have not yet been made available.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: But the
government of Canada was speciAcally asked for these troops.


Mr. Brooks:: Has Egypt accepted the offer of these other nations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is nothing I can add, except to refer to the statement made outside of the United Nations yesterday by the minister of foreign affairs for Egypt.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in his capacity as Acting Minister of National Defence. In view of the continued absence of the Minister of National Defence, is any action being taken regarding the grounding of Mitchell bombers pending investigation as to the cause of the last two crashes?


Hon. Millon F. Gregg (Acling Minister of National Defence):: I have nothing further to add. The matter has been referred to the department and is being taken up with my colleague the minister.



STATEMENT ON ANNOUNCEMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Can
the Minister of Trade and Commerce give an answer to the two questions I asked of his parliamentary assistant yesterday, and which were as follows:
. . . will the price rebates for export flour announced over the week end place Canadian millers in a position to compete with the United States millers, and to what extent does this move mean the institution of a two-price system for wheat and flour in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The first question, will these price rebates put Canadian millers in a position to compete with the United States millers, is answered as follows: They are intended to improve the competitive position of Canadian flour.
The second question, to what extent does this move mean the institution of a two-price system for wheat and flour in Canada, is answered as follows: In so far as prices of wheat and flour in Canada are concerned, no change is involved. The adjustment is paid only in respect to flour sales to certain markets where Canadian wheat is sold mainly or entirely in the form of flour.


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Is the
minister prepared to answer the questions I asked of the parliamentary assistant, and which he took as notice?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall do that
with pleasure.


Mr. Argue:: Answer them all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member asked whether the price adjustment means that Canadian farmers are being asked to subsidize the millers. The answer is that no subsidy is involved. The wheat board came to the conclusion that it would lose sales of wheat if Canadian flour was pushed out of certain flour markets outside of Europe and the United Kingdom. With the support of all the members of the advisory committee, which includes the heads of all the major farm organizations in western Canada, the board decided to try to hold these markets for western wheat by adjusting the price of wheat made into flour and sold to those markets. This decision was made by the wheat board after consultation with its advisory committee as part of its *sales policy. It has the same effect on returns to producers as any other price adjustment made by the board.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: My second
question of the parliamentary assistant was, do the Canadian farmers absorb the costs of the rebate made to the millers? The parliamentary assistant took that question as notice as well.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon.
friend can use his own judgment about the answer to that question. The wheat board is a producers' board and the wheat board has decided, in its judgment, that it is in the interests of the producers to reduce the price of wheat milled into flour destined for certain competitive markets that the board believes it is in the interests of the producers to hold for Canada.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: May I direct
a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that, as the minister stated, the government has taken no action, is the minister prepared to recommend to his colleagues that the government take action and pay the subsidy out of the treasury rather than out of the pocket of the Canadian farmer?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, if
any such action is taken by the government an appropriate statement will be made immediately after the action is taken.


Hazen Robert Argue: Let us hope it is soon.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce with respect to subsidies or price adjustments which have been referred to concerning Canadian millers.
Can the minister inform the house if the 8 cent subsidy being paid to Canadian millers is a substitute for kick-backs which some Canadian millers are apparently getting for the privilege of using Canadian brand names to fill Canadian export orders using American flour?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I must say I do not understand the reference to kick-backs. Who kicks back to whom in that case?


Hazen Robert Argue: The farmer gets kicked.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What foot do they use?


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldl-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What factors were taken into account by the government in arriving at the discount of 8 cents a bushel at Pacific and United States ports?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry, but I could not hear the question.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: What factors were taken into account by the government in arriving at the 8 cents discount at Pacific and United States ports?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the government took no action. This whole program was a program established by the wheat board and after consultation with their advisory committee about which the government was notified after the action had been taken. I would assume that the 8 cents to certain countries is regarded as a reasonable equivalent of a similar subsidy which has been paid for some time by the United States for similar flour shipments. For some time the United States has been giving a greater

Inquiries of the Ministry subsidy for wheat to be milled into flour than for wheat shipped direct. The purpose of the 8 cents was to offset that added subsidy for certain markets and thus put our farmers in a competitive position.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is not the result of this new policy that the Canadian farmer would have to compete with the United States treasury?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that he has been competing with the United States treasury for some time-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -and with some success, I might say; nevertheless the competition of the United States treasury has been present and a large factor indeed for some two or three years.



REPORTED DIVERSION OF CANADIAN WHEAT FROM RUSSIA TO EGYPT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I
ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the Canadian government has any evidence bearing on the statement recently appearing in the press that Canadian wheat sold to Russia is finding its way to Egypt?
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): The last Canadian wheat sold to Russia was shipped in June of last year. I would think it very probable that that particular wheat was consumed months ago. I have no information that Canadian wheat has been shipped from Russia to Egypt. Our wheat was shipped into Vladivostok, which is the point in Russia most distant from Egypt. I think all the circumstances would point to the fact that the suggested transaction is not possible.



NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING SALE OF WHEAT AND CREDIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. With reference to the negotiations between Canada and Poland for the sale of wheat, will the minister inform the house as to the credit terms which are under discussion and what differences of opinion in regard to these exist between officials of his department and officials of the Department of Finance?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, when negotiations are current between two countries it is not customary to announce any of the

particulars. When the negotiations are completed I shall be glad to indicate what the outcome has been.



LEAD AND ZINC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce who was not here and his parliamentary assistant said I might get an answer today. My question had reference to the strenuous efforts being made by base metal producers in the United States to bring about an increase in the tariff on Canadian base metals, lead and zinc particularly, imposed by the federal government of the United States. I asked whether any representations had been made to the United States government against an increase in the tariff as it would be very injurious to our Canadian producers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the first threat of added tariffs against lead and zinc by the United States occurred some 18 months ago. At that time the Canadian government made urgent and high level protests, and at least partly as a result of those protests no change in the tariff was instituted. Instead, the government of the United States introduced a policy of buying lead and zinc for the government stockpile. That practice has been maintained up to this time. We are making inquiries through our Washington office with respect to whether there is any new move toward increasing the duties on lead and zinc. If there are indications of serious threats we will, of course, renew our protests, but I believe that the Canadian position on that particular point is already well established in Washington.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In the minister's opinion, is it unusual for a member of the official opposition to promote the sale of Canadian raw materials in the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a question that should have been asked.



SALMON-EFFECT OF JAPAN-U.K. AGREEMENT ON CANADA'S EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct a question either to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Fisheries. I have not given notice, so they

may wish to take it as such. Will the appropriate minister inform the house what effect, if any, the recently concluded Japanese-United Kingdom trade agreement will have on Canada's exports of canned salmon in view of reports that larger quantities of Japanese salmon will be going to the United Kingdom?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look into the question. As a matter of fact, Japan has always been a large supplier of salmon to the United Kingdom. I would think the answer will be that the treaty will have no effect, but I shall be glad to explore the matter and give a reply as prepared by my officials.



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ON WESTERN FEED GRAIN__

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. T. Purdy (Colchesler-Hants):: May I
direct a dual question to the Minister of Agriculture? First, on what date does the increased freight assistance on western feed grain, announced on February 28, become effective? Second, when may I expect a reply to my question of February 28 in connection with the possible expansion of the provisions of the maritime marshlands rehabilitation program?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The instructions which were
given were that the changes in the assistance were to go into effect immediately, as soon as they could be put into operation. I assume they have been put into operation before this, but I shall look up the date and get that information. I am not yet in a position to answer the other question fully.



FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM LOAN AGREEMENT_____

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister add anything to what has been previously said with regard to the request from Britain for a deferring of interest on the Canadian loan?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minisler of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Supplementary to my
previous question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, regarding the British loan, may
Inquiries of the Ministry I ask now that he has had time to think it over if he could make an answer longer than one syllable?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Speaker.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister advise whether any portion of the $1 million loan to the United Nations for the clearing of the Suez canal has been made, and if so what is the remaining balance of this loan?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to make inquiries and report to the house.



BANKRUPTCIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the report contained in an issue by the dominion bureau of statistics on March 1 to the effect that commercial failures under the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Winding-Up acts increased 29 per cent in the third quarter of 1956 compared with the same quarter of 1955, is the Minister of Finance considering taking any active steps to prevent this trend?
Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance considers that this is additional evidence of too much credit in the country.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the assertion of the Minister of Finance on February 8, and subsequent information appearing in answer to question No. 137 of February 26, will the minister now instruct his department to close the files of taxpayers, where there was no evidence of fraud, on 1950 and 1951 income tax where reassessments were made in December of 1956, and where previous assessments had apparently been final?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question which is not asking for information; it is asking the minister whether he will take a certain action which is outlined by the hon.

Inquiries of the Ministry member putting the question. The minister was about ready to answer, but I simply intervened at this moment to make sure that the warning I gave yesterday is going to be followed as closely as possible.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I rather anticipated that the hon. member for Hamilton West would follow up her interview which was published in the papers on Wednesday, February 27, in which she described the tax action as "deceitful manipulation". On Tuesday, February 26, a report was tabled in the house for the hon. member for Hamilton West giving the number of reassessments of 1950 and 1951 income tax returns which were issued in December, 1956. Arising out of that report, the hon. member for Hamilton West is quoted in the Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, February 27, as having said:
This is just about as wicked a piece of deceitful manipulation as I have come across.


Mr. Lennard:: Hear, hear.


James Joseph McCann: I continue:
Here on the one hand is the Minister of Finance avowing it was not the intention to keep the door open on 1950 and 1951 assessments, while on the other hand the Minister of National Revenue does just that.
Rather than "keeping the door open" on these assessments, as the hon. member for Hamilton West puts it, what we did was to take action on them before the door was closed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Joseph McCann: In our view there was nothing reprehensible about so doing. On the contrary, it seems clear that, in deferring until January 1, 1957, the effective date of the amendment reducing to four years the period during which reassessment could be made, parliament intended the intervening period to be used for the purpose of completing our investigations of 1950 and 1951 returns. Where, having done so, it was found that a taxpayer had not paid all the income tax that he should have paid for those years, it surely was our duty to reassess him for the deficiency. If we had not done so before the time limit expired at the end of 1956 we could very properly have been criticized for having deprived the revenue of funds to which it was rightfully entitled.
As I remember the statement made by the Minister of Finance in reply to the hon. member's question relating to this matter, it was that the government was taking no action to circumvent the law as it had obtained at that time and coming into effect on January
1.	We have done, with reference to these taxation assessments, what has been done
IMr. Speaker.)
every year at the end of the year to try to close them up even when it was the six-year period to which it could go back. There was no effort made this year to issue assessments for 1951 and 1952 any more than had been done in other years at the end of the year in an attempt to clear up the work of the calendar year.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. Does he not think that when a taxpayer has received a final assessment or what purports to be a final assessment he has a right to expect it to be final unless there is evidence of fraud?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, if it is final, it is final; but a great many times they are not final and have to be reassessed or looked into a second time.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Apparently these were not.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resligouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. What action, if any, is being taken in regard to the representations made by the Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations for increases in veterans pensions?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been in the house last week he would have known, because a similar question was asked by his colleagues. I did say at the time that the matter was under consideration by the government.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I want to know what action is being taken.


James Joseph McCann: You have returned.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska. I was here last week and heard the minister's statement, and there was no information in that statement that I could convey to my constituents. Can the minister give us any information of that sort now? Can he now give us any information to convey to our veteran constituents who are asking questions?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely speeches of this character are out of order at question time.


Mr. Speaker:: The question period may continue to be very interesting, provided we avoid some of the inconveniences which are being thrown in from time to time. An answer by a minister cannot be debated, and the same applies even if an hon. member does not get an answer. That is quite -clear.
I have had occasion to read this before, but it seems to me that the more I read it the more useless it is. I will read it again. I have referred hon. members time and again to the rules which appear in Beauchesne, third edition. If at this time I have shown a spark of impatience I apologize because I take it that it is the prerogative of hon. members at their pleasure to abide by the rules or to try to keep away from them, and that it is my duty to try to bring them back. If the good will of the house is with me it is easy, but when that good will is withdrawn, no matter to what degree, it is much more difficult.
I refer hon. members to page 119 of Beauchesne, third edition, citations 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306 and 307 and others. I am going to read citation 307. It is in these words:
A minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal, and insistence on an answer is out of order, no debate being allowed. A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such refusal. A member can put a question, but has no right to insist upon an answer.
I should like to add that it is quite erroneous for some hon. members to think that at question time they can ask any question they like. That is not so in the United Kingdom and it should not be so here.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to direct another question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is the minister aware that the answer he gave the house on February 19, on which date I was in my chair-


James Sinclair: That was a rare occasion.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -gave us no information.


Hugues Lapointe: If my hon. friend was in his chair, as he puts it, I see no reason why he should have raised the question today, since he was going to get the same answer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister is still not answering.


Hugues Lapointe: If I may be permitted, I have listened to your comments, Mr. Speaker,
Inquiries of the Ministry on the type of questions that may be asked, and I should like to remark that I did not decline to answer the question. I did say to the hon. member that the government was still considering these representations made by the Legion.


Colin Cameron: I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has he received any representations from Canadian Legion branches since he gave his answer on February 19 and, if so, have they received any further consideration?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did receive representations since the last time the question was put to me.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I now ask for an answer to my question of yesterday, when I asked the Minister of Finance whether it is true that payments under the hospital insurance plan cannot be made to any province until all six agreeing provinces have their plans in operation, or will it be made clear that once six provinces have agreed to the plan federal payments can and will be made to those provinces whose plans are in operation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has before him the proposal which was made to the provinces and given to parliament last January, and he likewise has before him the resolution which has to do with the hospital insurance proposal. I should think that from those two documents the answer is clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare say when it is intended to proceed with the debate on the resolution to which he has referred?


Mr. Marlin:: That is a matter which the house leader and I have been discussing. I am sure my hon. friend will not be disappointed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a further supplementary question. Will it be proceeded with even if a sixth province does not indicate its agreement to the plan?


Murdo William Martin: Surely by now my hon. friend has been convinced of the determination of the government in this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, I have not.



Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. I have not been convinced of the government's determination, and therefore I should like to know if the government intends to proceed with the debate on this matter if the sixth province does not indicate its willingness to join the plan?


Mr. Speaker:: That is exactly the same question that was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But I did not get an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: We have in our rule book a standing order which provides that 48 hours' notice must be given to hon. members so that they will not be taken by surprise when legislation is to be introduced. This is question time. The resolution is on the order paper, and as to when the matter will be proceeded with should be referred to when the business of the house is being discussed at adjournment time and not at question time.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture is in a position to answer my question of yesterday as to the very severe drop in the price of hogs.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sure my hon. friend would not expect a mere Liberal to make the necessary inquiry to which he referred yesterday in this short space of time.



MERCHANDISING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister inform the house, in view of the report that the cost of living reached a new high in January, what consideration has been given to the submission of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that a commission be appointed to investigate the price spreads in the processing and distribution of meat and other farm products?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can add anything to the answer made by the Prime Minister on February 26 to a similar question asked by the hon. member for Dauphin.



QUEBEC SAVINGS BANKS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 106, to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act-Mr. Harris-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Copies for shareholders and minister.
Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, this bill was carefully considered by the banking and commerce committee. In this committee of the whole I see quite a number of members who were present at the sittings of the banking and commerce committee. They will recall that there was very little about this bill that was controversial. Representatives of the banks in question-and there are only two-were present. They were asked if they had any criticism of the proposals and they said no, and they had no reason to give any evidence before the committee. I do not recall that there was before the banking and commerce committee anything that needs extra explanation before this committee of the whole.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I think the parliamentary assistant has fairly set out what took place before the banking and commerce committee. The only thing I would care to add is that we had the superintendent of banks there who had considered the matter carefully, who recommended the proposed changes and who explained the matter fully. We also had representatives of the banks who answered such questions as were put to them. It is perfectly clear that these institutions which are exclusively savings banks have carried on their operations in a most conservative manner. I think they are now considerably more than a century old. They feel they would like to have two things. First of all, they wanted some expansion or some increase in the figures in certain cases owing to the fact that dollars do not mean what they used to mean. Second, they wanted a little more flexibility in their operations. It seemed to us that the superintendent of banks was clearly correct in indicating that the changes proposed were wise and conservative. As far as I am concerned I think there is nothing more that needs to be added.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Chairman, there is very little to which we object as far as this legislation is concerned. The hon. member for Greenwood talked about the desire of the banks to have additional flexibility. That was one area where perhaps there might be some disagreement because the banks obviously had been making a substantial profit. When there was introduced into the legislation a clause that the ceiling bn interest rates would be removed with

respect to mortgages, then all that is happening is that the banks are being permitted to make more profit than is altogether necessary these days. With that exception there is nothing else in the bill to which we would take exception.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 159, to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, before the bill is given second reading I think it would be of benefit to the house if a statement were made with respect to it. But in any event I should like to make some observations with respect to the report of the Canadian farm loan board for 1956. I understand this is the 27th report of the board which is an indication that it has been functioning for 27 years and has therefore become of great importance to financing farms throughout Canada. Coming as I do from western Canada, I may say that it is of importance to me because I represent an agricultural constituency. I am aware of the fact that the loans made in western Canada are more substantial than are those in any other part of Canada. I notice that loans made in Saskatchewan as well as those made generally throughout Canada are up over 1955 both in number and in amount. I think that is an indication that the farmers are finding it quite necessary to apply for larger loans. This situation reflects to some extent some of the things that we in this group have been saying in respect of the farm situation throughout Canada. In connection with the proposal which is before the house at the present time there are some things about which I am concerned. One, of course, is the fact that the governor in council will be allowed to set the rate of interest which was formerly set out in the act. I do not know what the reason for this is.


William Moore Benidickson: No, no. That is not so.


An hon. Member:: It never was in the act.


Edward George McCullough: That is right. We had 5 per cent interest. Now the understanding is that it is to be increased.
Canadian Farm Loan Act


William Moore Benidickson: No. Where is that said?


Edward George McCullough: It is
going to be under the pressure of this government. We have the N.H.A. report. I am concerned about the fact that even at the present time the financing of western agricultural credit is a tremendous burden on the farmer. Through the very fact that he has not been able to market much of his produce, for example, he is being forced to go and get various forms of credit. Credit which is long term, amortized over some twenty years, is in effect another burden on the farmer. In lieu of being able to sell much of his products, his grain on his farm, he is being obliged to finance by going to the Canadian farm loan board. I think that the percentage increase in farm loans in the first six months of last year, 1956, is an indication that there is going to be a greater than ever demand for this type of loan made to western Canadian farmers.
Then, too, I think that the regulations covering the making of application for these loans are somewhat out of line with relation to the needs of the western farmers. I am thinking more particularly, sir, of the young farmer who is not in a position to have a sufficiently large farm to be highly efficient. The house will probably recall that some weeks ago I brought to the attention of the minister the fact I had been informed that certain applicants for these loans had been turned down. The minister said he was not aware of the fact that applications for loans were being turned down on the basis a farmer did not have sufficient cultivated acreage. My question, of course, appears in Hansard and the minister, as has already been stated, said he was not aware of this condition.
I have a letter from a constituent who informs me he was in Regina and made application for a loan. According to the letter he was asked the amount of cultivated acreage he had on his farm. He states that it did not matter how many cattle he had or what chattels he had. If he did not have sufficient cultivated acreage he could not get a loan. The board would not send appraisers to appraise his farm so that he might qualify for the loan. I hope that if this condition does exist the government will give consideration to the plight of the young farmer who is not in possession of sufficient land to come within the regulations and thus justify a loan for the purchase of further land. I hope the board will consider the total assets of these applicants so that they may qualify for a loan and get a unit which will be highly efficient.
As I pointed out, a lot of these boys have come back from overseas. They have rented some lands and built up herds of cattle. In

Canadian Farm Loan Act view of the cost-price squeeze facing farmers generally, they have to have more land if they are going to get an efficient unit. It is generally accepted throughout Canada, and not only by the agricultural commission which investigated agriculture in Saskatchewan, that the size of farms is increasing. I do see a lot of danger in the fact that farmers are having to borrow, even at 5 per cent interest. It will be difficult for them to finance these loans unless we get some change in the cost-price situation facing agriculture generally today. It does not seem to matter whether the farmer is a livestock producer or whether he is a straight grain grower, he is caught in the cost-price squeeze. Yesterday I was reading an article that appeared in the Ontario Cooperative to the effect that farmers in Ontario are hard pressed because of the cost-price squeeze facing them. The western farmer is also caught in the cost-price squeeze because he, too, has tried, in many cases, to turn from straight wheat growing to mixed farming and livestock. Yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia asked about the serious drop in hog prices in the last week. The same situation prevails in respect of cattle. Taking into consideration the hi^h freight rates, the cost of marketing cattle and so on, the farmer today is getting no better price for his cattle that go to the Winnipeg stockyard than he was receiving during the hungry thirties when his price was cut down to six or seven cents a pound for good butcher cows. After the deductions for freight rates and commissions, the money the farmer has left with which to buy farm machinery leaves him in a position under which it is completely impossible to operate.
While I do favour and must go along with the idea of making larger loans to farmers to meet the increased capitalization necessary for modern farming, yet I look upon it as being a dangerous precedent to have established. It may very well mean that our farms throughout Canada will be loaded with debt and unless something is done they certainly will go into liquidation. The other thing which I mentioned was that I hoped the young farmers who perhaps have not got sufficient cultivated acreage on the farms to qualify under the regulations will be given consideration so they can participate in the loans if they so desire.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, although this measure is in the name of the Minister of Finance the course of the discussion very naturally was such that it was the Minister of Agriculture who really was the government spokesman. I think there is no doubt that everyone is in favour of the principle of this bill. It is really to enable the farm loan board to

extend its operations, and the $1 million increase in capital being a multiplier adds greatly to the possibilities of their making loans. The discussion ranged rather far and wide, and I think was very useful. I was glad to note that some of the points which had been brought out before the banking and commerce committee two years ago-


William Moore Benidickson: A year ago.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -and in particular the question of the length of time involved in dealing with loans, had caused a shortening in the time. It was encouraging to think that the discussion which took place then was useful. We had an interesting debate and we had furious charges by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and others, and we had the Minister of Agriculture in his usual way holding the line and occasionally making counter-attacks of his own, always with the voters well in his mind's eye.


William Moore Benidickson: Not on this bill.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As I said, the discussion was useful and various points of course came up. There were questions concerning the amount of the valuation and the nature of the famers' business. We even got to the point of considering whether farmers who came to get their loans were well enough dressed and ship-shape in their appearance. It was suggested on certain occasions it might have been useful if a man's wife had applied for the loan instead. Those are by-products, so to speak, of the debate. It would appear that although the debate ranged pretty far, there were questions which some of those close to the farming industry wished to ask. So far as I am concerned, looking at it from the point of view of the principle of the bill, it seemed to me there was no dissent from the point of view that the board may be able to operate more extensively. The questions which were raised and which I hope will be very seriously considered by the board were various questions of procedure and also, of course, the question of percentage of loan, which is a matter for consideration not by the board but by the government itself.
With these observations, Mr. Speaker, I think I can let the matter go to committee, so far as I am concerned.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, this amendment has to do with the Canadian Farm Loan Act. The observations that I should like to make may not come entirely within the Canadian Farm Loan Act.


William Moore Benidickson: Don't be out of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is no question of being out of order. I should like to express my approval of the objective as outlined in the words of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat.
In northern New Brunswick, and I may say throughout the maritime provinces in general, the Canadian Farm Loan Act is not doing the job that it was intended to do. Our farmers not only have tremendous difficulty in getting loans but they have very much difficulty in getting investigations made after applications are put in. The investigators simply will not work in the wintertime. They will not journey away from Saint John during the winter months because there is snow on the ground. Whether it is because they are afraid to get their feet wet, or whatever the reason may be, the fact is that our farmers cannot get their loans processed unless they are willing to wait for months, during which time the need for the loan becomes greater and greater and hardship is all the more real.
Another thing I should like to point out is that in my riding of Madawaska county very few of our farmers speak English. Why is it that the government insists on sending investigators who speak not a word of French? These people are placed in the position where it is impossible to do business with the farm loan board because of the barrier of language. Our farmers in Madawaska county do not understand English, let alone speak it. It certainly would not involve additional expense and it would be in keeping with the traditions of permitting people to do business in either the French or the English language, if steps were taken to remedy this grievance.
If this extra million dollars were to be used to grant those loans to our farmers who are in such desperate need of them, certainly it would be well and good. Our farmers not only have very much difficulty in getting investigations made and in making themselves understood, but it is impossible for them to get a loan. Our farmers are marginal farmers; they are commodity farmers. Many of them have to spend two or three months a year in the woods cutting pulpwood in order to implement their income. Naturally, they do not spend the whole 12 months of the year farming. In the winter months farming in the maritime provinces is very much at a standstill, except in dairy farming. All these factors should not prevent the farm loan board from recognizing the need of loans by farmers such as those I have mentioned. Steps should be taken to make sure that the applications are given the consideration they deserve.
I do not see why, for instance, a man should not be able to get a loan unless he can show
Canadian Farm Loan Act the government that he is working full time on his farm. I do not see why the loan should not be in excess of 65 per cent of the value of the security for the loan. Furthermore, many of the assets of the farmer are not acceptable as security and there is no good reason for that.
The government should take a new look at this act with a view to making the loans more readily available and permit the act to fulfil the purpose for which it was intended. That is the reason why the province of Quebec saw fit to implement their own farm credit. Since 1952 the province of New Brunswick has stepped into the field of making loans to farmers in order to assist them to buy their stock, their cattle and equipment and also to assist in the purchase of farms themselves. Certainly, there is no reason why this act cannot do the job it was intended to do. I hope this extra $1 million will help toward that end, but I am very doubtful whether the government intends to make this act do what it was intended to do in the beginning, namely, to help those farmers who need help.
Another factor that impedes our farmers in the maritime provinces is that they are not always able to show proper profit and loss statements. Possibly that is owing to the fact that many of our farmers are not sufficiently schooled in the art of bookkeeping. I know of several applications that have been turned down merely because the investigations revealed that proper bookkeeping did not show sufficient profits on the farm to warrant the loan.
I certainly hope that the government will take the means to make the Canadian Farm Loan Act an act which will answer the needs of our farmers and place credit at their disposal, and that is what this act is not doing for the farmers in many sections of this country at the present time. The farmer of the maritime provinces is the forgotten farmer of Canada in every way, including the operations of the Canadian Farm Loan Act.


Mr. F. G. Robertson (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support this amendment to the Canadian Farm Loan Board Act and I would commend the government on introducing it. By it, the authorized capital of the Canadian farm loan board will be increased from $3 million to $4 million; but since the Minister of Finance has authority to lend up to 20 times the par value of the outstanding capital stock of the Canadian farm loan board, this will provide an additional $20 million for the operation of the board.
Today, private lenders and lending institutions such as banks, mortgage companies and

Canadian Farm Loan Act insurance companies can find more attractive fields for their investment and, as a result, they are investing a smaller and smaller percentage of their investment funds in farm mortgages. The recent action of the Bank of Canada in restraining credit has also had an adverse effect on farm credit so that today the Canadian farm loan board, as never before, is the main source of farm credit in our country.
The amendments which were made to this act last session have been very beneficial, and I would certainly disagree with the last speaker when he says that the Canadian farm loan board is not playing an important function in agriculture. In my part of the country it is well accepted and supported by the farmers. I am glad to see that more money is being lent to the farmers than ever before by the Canadian farm loan board and that the amount of each loan has increased. To date the board has lent upwards of $120 million and at the present time has outstanding loans of nearly $50 million. These figures prove without question that the Canadian farm loan board is being of great assistance to the Canadian farmer.
I am particularly pleased to note that the time lag between the placing of an application and the granting of an application by the giving of a loan has been greatly decreased. I think the figures in the banking and commerce committee of last year indicated that 50 per cent of the loans took longer than 50 days; whereas a recent appraisal in the province of Ontario shows that during the present fiscal year 80 per cent of the loans are paid within 40 days. I believe, however, that further progress can be made in this regard and I would urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) to ask the Canadian farm loan board to do everything possible to cut down the time required for processing these applications. I know of a few isolated cases where there seems to have been an unreasonable delay in dealing with the applications.
In supplying credit to farmers at the rate of 5 per cent the Canadian farm loan board is supplying mortgage money at 2 per cent lower than the going interest rate and cheaper than other government agencies. I think this is very commendable indeed and is an indication of the interest of the government in the agricultural industry of this country. I must, however, agree with some speakers who have taken part in this debate that the board is too cautious in the appraisal' of farm property.
The appraisals are invariably made at figures much less than the market value. I would suggest that this matter be approached

in one or two ways; either that the maximum loan be greater than 65 per cent of the appraised value or that we have a more realistic appraisal policy. I feel that one or both of these approaches is necessary if we are not to unduly restrict farm credit. I would suggest, however, that the providing of farm credit is not the sole responsibility of the federal government. I think the provincial governments have a responsibility in this field and we know that some of the provinces are playing an important part in providing farm credit.
I think the most successful farm loan board is that in the province of Quebec but I would also pay tribute to the junior farm loan plan which is operated by the government of the province of Ontario. Under this plan money is made available to some of the younger farmers of the province. I believe that all of the provinces, not only those which have no farm loan board but also those that have, should review the situation to see if they cannot provide more credit for the farmers of their provinces.
I think that the whole approach to the farm credit problem should be periodically reviewed by all levels of government in this country and changes made to keep pace with the changing conditions of agriculture. I believe that on the whole the Canadian farm loan board has been most helpful and has played an important role in the development of agriculture in this country.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this measure at this particular stage. I welcome the addition to the capital fund of the board and I hope that it augurs well for more widespread activity in catering to the needs of farmers throughout Canada. I heartily endorse the words of the last speaker, the hon. member for Grey North-


William Moore Benidickson: Northumberland.


George William McLeod: -when he put forth the criticism that he thought the board was too cautious in its appraisal policy and its operations.
I am going to confine my remarks mainly to the province of British Columbia. There is from that province a general complaint that the appraisers are too conservative in the valuations which they put on the property and I believe that figures would bear this out.


An hon. Member:: The same is true in New Brunswick.


George William McLeod: I do not doubt it; apparently it is generally true across Canada. However, the figures I shall place on the record are

taken from the last report of the Canadian farm loan board and I shall use the figures that are applicable to the province of British Columbia.
As at March 31 last there were 18,931 first mortgages in existence or held by the board. Of these 889 were held in the province of British Columbia. This is a total percentage of 4.7. In other words, of the total mortgages that had been issued or were still in force and unpaid as at March 31, 4.7 per cent related to British Columbia. The value of the mortgages according to the same source was $429,397,773. Of this total $22,428,066 covered mortgages in the province of British Columbia. This works out at 5.2 per cent.
I agree, Mr. Speaker, that on a relative basis 7 per cent more of the money is held on mortgages in British Columbia in regard to the total number of mortgages in existence as compared with other parts of Canada. However, I think most hon. members will agree that land values in British Columbia are certainly a great deal in excess of that figure and therefore I deduce from these amounts that the appraisers do not take into proper consideration the high value of property in British Columbia. I know of cases where in arriving at the mortgage value in appraising fruit farms, for instance, the appraisers valued the land at $200 an acre. That is ridiculous because in the province of British Columbia $2,000 an acre is a more realistic figure.
I believe that is absolute proof that as far as British Columbia is concerned the appraisers are adopting a policy that is much too conservative.
I also think they are perhaps a little too conservative in their management. I would not suggest for one moment that the Canadian farm loan board should go into the bond market with the attitude that they are dealing with the taxpayers' money and win or lose it does not make much difference. I believe the farm loan board should be operated on a sound basis but I also believe it could perhaps be somewhat more free in its operations than are what we like to call the private mortgage companies. I am satisfied that it is not one particle more free; in fact, I do not think it is as open in its dealings as are some of the private companies.
I observe that the total money invested in loans is $42,939,798 and yet the board has a reserve for losses of $2,239,401. That appears to be a rather high reserve considering the amount of money invested and the loss ratio of the board has been very small. I do not believe it is necessary to operate a board so conservatively as to build up that huge amount of reserve to cover losses where it certainly is not warranted.
Canadian Farm Loan Act
Another complaint I have could perhaps best be expressed by the slang expression that there is too much red tape. It takes too long to process loans. I have heard of cases mentioned in the house where it had taken 50 to 60 days and perhaps I have an extreme example in my file here of an applicant for a mortgage in British Columbia who was informed on August 8 that his application for a loan had been approved. I do not know how long before that it took to have the appraisal made. For some unknown reason there were delays in servicing this loan, and I might mention that the loan was needed for construction which had to be completed before winter set in.
As I say, on August 8 the applicant was notified that the application had been approved. On November 23 the applicant wrote to the office in Vancouver advising that unless the money came to hand before the end of the month it would be useless to him and not to proceed further. More correspondence followed and on February 4, about seven months after the loan had been approved, this applicant received a letter that the loan was in the final course of being sent forward and that the lawyers were processing the agreement.
It appears to me that unless some changes are made in the internal operations of the farm loan board this increase in capital, which I welcome and which I believe every hon. member welcomes, will be ineffective and of little assistance to farmers generally.
I am in complete sympathy with other speakers who have suggested that there should be a widening of what you might term the policies of the board, that there should be encouragement given by way of loans to young farmers who wish to establish themselves on raw land. It is almost impossible for them to establish themselves on improved land, but there should be a program of assistance to help them get established on raw land. I believe the legislature of Alberta is taking action along these lines at the present session and is setting up a lending agency to make money available to young farmers within the province for that purpose. Here we have a federal board and federal legislation which should be broadened to take care of these things.
Besides assisting farmers to start on raw land and establish farms for the future provision should be made for the young son who is taking over a farm from his aged parents. This has been mentioned by previous speakers.
I am satisfied that the long-term agricultural picture in Canada should envision an expanded agricultural economy. There are

Canadian Farm Loan Act still large blocks of land in suitable areas -do not forget the word "suitable"-which could be opened up. I maintain that this will have to be done in order to provide for our rapidly growing population. Agriculture in Canada must remain a solid and permanent segment of our national economy and any encouragement toward this end will mean increases in our national wealth which should prove of great benefit to our over-all economy.
I believe that this board could be used to stimulate that kind of activity and it should be able to play a much wider part in assisting our young farmers and those who are on the land at the present time to take the action they feel is necessary and which they feel could be carried on to a successful conclusion in order that our young people may make a success of their planned operation. In closing I suggest that the internal operations of this board should be overhauled thoroughly and it should be made an active and dynamic force in our agricultural economy.


Mr.  A. W. Siuari@Charlotie: Mr. Speaker, any measure introduced into this house designed to improve the lot and the living standards of our primary producer always receives my support. I realize that many of the services provided for some of our primary producers may not be accepted by the producers themselves, and I am referring particularly to our experimental farms. We have a very beautiful experimental farm in our province and I am told by the officials of that organization that the farmers in some areas seek information at all times while it is difficult to interest the farmers in other areas in what they have to offer. I believe it would be well worth while for any farmer in the province of New Brunswick to visit that experimental farm where he will find that most helpful information is available and is being provided without cost. The officials are only too glad to lend assistance at any time.
In his remarks a few minutes ago the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) indicated that the farmers of the maritime provinces were the forgotten people. I know that many farmers in the maritime provinces are finding it difficult to get by at this time as many of them are located on what might be termed so-called farms where the farmer must depend upon his wood lot for ready cash. 1 acknowledge without any hesitation that many of our farmers are finding it difficult to get by, but at the same time I believe we should give full credit to the Department of Agriculture for the assistance that has been provided in an effort to meet

this situation. I note that the following expenditures were made at the experimental farm in Fredericton:
1952-	53
1953-	54
1954-	55
1955-	56
1956-	57

Scientific research, farm, woodland insect
pests:
1953- 54	$ 318,000
1954-	55	
354,0001955-	56	
352,0001956-	57	to date	
319,000
For marshland rehabilitation the following
expenditures were made:
1952- 53	$ 777,000
1953-	54	
1,066,0001954-	55	
670,0001955-	56	
885,0001956-	57 to end December	
363,000
Then subsidies on feed grain:
1953		 $1,144,000
1954	  1,007,000
1955	  1,004,000
1956	  1,112,000
1957	to	end	of January	 746,000
Provision of lime products:
1953	 $ 51,000
1954		 56,000
1955	  53,000
1956	  45,000
1957	to	date	 42,000
One method by which our farmers have been assisted, and which is given very little publicity, is through the subsidy to potato growers. I find that in the year 1954-55 potato growers in our province were paid a subsidy of $2,200,000. Last year they were paid $455,000. In the last three years they have been paid $53,000, $46,000 and $42,000 in hog premiums. I must give credit where credit is due, and I suggest that the Department of Agriculture has done everything it can to try to help the farmers in our area. I will admit there are many farms which perhaps will never provide the farmers with the type of living that we would like to see them have, but I wanted to put these figures on the record to show that the government and the Department of Agriculture have played their part so far as the province of New Brunswick is concerned.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Robertson) that there are some commendable features in the bill, but when he says that the farmers of Ontario are satisfied with the Canadian farm loan board I do not agree. Last year one-half of the applications from Ontario received by the loan board were turned down. In my opinion this is not very satisfactory. At the time the resolution

preceding the bill was under discussion I spoke and suggested the setting up of a tribunal. I find that the greatest objection is to the method of valuation of farms. Loans are supposed to be granted to the extent of 65 per cent of the value. I have no objection to that percentage but the difficulty is to find a valuator who will place a 65 per cent valuation on the farm that the applicant thinks is high enough.
If a tribunal were set up to which an appeal could be made I think it would not only do away with a lot of dissatisfaction and discontent with the board but would also be a great help to those who are trying to obtain loans. I know what would happen if I suggested an amendment to the bill. As it is a money bill the amendment would be ruled out of order. But the point is that if a tribunal were set up it would save the board a lot of criticism and would also help the applicant to get a loan in the reasonable amount that he wished to have. I think everybody would be much happier. It would not cost a great deal of money and would certainly tend to make things better both for the board and for the applicant. Before the bill receives final reading I hope the minister may see fit to bring in an amendment providing for the setting up of a tribunal to act as an appeal board.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few brief words on the situation in British Columbia. The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod) has already brought to the attention of the house the difficult situation that the fruit farmers face so far as the Canadian farm loan board is concerned. With respect to the Okanagan we feel that the Canadian farm loan board is a body that operates by very remote control both physically and mentally. They disregard entirely the values of our orchards. They disregard the value of trees, young, old or in between. It does not matter what their stage of growth is. They just deal with the land and do not pay any attention to the sale value of the property.
Unfortunately, they depreciate any decent building to the extent that a farmer who has a shack on his place can get just as much by way of a loan as the man who has a $10,000 or $15,000 home. I think they are not realistic as to the value of fruit farms and the buildings on such farms. I have had several cases of farmers who have come to me and have shown me the terms demanded of them by the farm loan board office in Vancouver. The terms were impossible. Obviously the board does not understand the situation.
I suggest to the minister that in order to be fair to the fruit farmers of the interior
Canadian Farm Loan Act of British Columbia and also the dairymen we should have a suboffice in the interior manned by people who understand the local situation and who definitely understand fruit growing. In this way the feeling would be removed that we have no contact or connection with the office in Vancouver and that the people operating that office have no contact with our type of problem.
Various cases have been mentioned by previous speakers, and I can duplicate them. I know of cases involving first class lands where applications for loans have been turned down flat by the farm loan board. I also know that several of these men, after having been turned down flat as poor risks by the farm loan board, have gone to their local banks and obtained loans. In that way I think the farm loan board is tougher to do business with than the orthodox banks.
My concept of the farm loan board is that it should be out to help the farmer and should be easier on the farmer when he wants a loan. I know one case where the farmer has got by very nicely. He gets his income partly from fruit and partly from cattle. In order to come within the terms demanded by the farm loan board he was told he would have to get rid of all his cattle, one of his sources of income, apply the money on the mortgage and then he would qualify for a loan. That is the most stupid thing I ever heard of. I advised him not to do it. He did not and he did not get a loan. He is able to get by now and has sufficient income to handle a loan but if he had got rid of his cattle he could not have taken care of his loan, his family or anything else.
Those are some of the problems we have and they arise through lack of understanding on the part of the head office in Vancouver of the peculiar situation in the interior. The last speaker made a very good suggestion and I think the minister should consider it. He suggested that a tribunal of farmers living in the district where these problems arise should be given the power to reconsider loan applications turned down by the farm loan board. They should be given the power to rescind such refusals if on the evidence presented and knowing the local conditions they think that the farmer is entitled to a loan. I hope the minister will pay attention to that suggestion because I think it is a good one.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say a few words. I spoke on the matter at the resolution stage. I quite agree with the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) that in the province of New Brunswick a lot more could be done for the farmers by the farm loan board. The fact that only 40 farmers made

Canadian Farm Loan Act applications for loans under the act last year indicates that it is not particularly popular. I agree with those who have asked for a different type of inspection. In my opinion a tribunal of farmers such as suggested by the last speaker and one of the previous speakers would be very satisfactory in my province and most parts of the country.
When I was speaking the other day the question of valuation was mentioned. At that time I stated that in the maritime provinces and in the province of New Brunswick particularly there is a rather peculiar situation. Most of the farms in many of the counties have what are known as lumber lots or woodlots in connection with the farm. They are really part of their farming operations because over a period of time the farmers have learned to harvest the annual growth of the woodlot and to treat it as a crop. When the inspectors come around to inspect their farms to determine whether or not they are entitled to a loan, it has not been the habit to take into consideration the woodlot. That has been my understanding. I may be wrong.


William Moore Benidickson: I have told my hon. friend the contrary.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Possibly the parliamentary assistant did so. But the farmers tell me different, many of them. I am now speaking of the inspection. I think it would be well to emphasize that fact, Mr. Speaker, to the men who make the inspection, namely that the woodlot is an extremely valuable part of the farm and could definitely be taken into consideration.
The hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) I considered to be very much out of order when he was speaking, and possibly I am out of order in replying to him.


William Moore Benidickson: This is a one-clause bill.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In case the house gets the idea that the farmers in New Brunswick are well satisfied with the treatment they have received in connection with the matters he suggested, may I say this. If he had wanted to make a comparison, I think he could have gone further. He speaks about experimental farms. Of course the experimental farm in New Brunswick costs money and we are pleased to have it. It is an excellent farm. But if you go through the records, you will find that there are experimental farms in every other part of Canada that cost in proportion just as much or more. In that regard we have not received anything more than has anybody else. The hon. member for Charlotte speaks of potatoes. We received

some small assistance in connection with potatoes but it was very little. When you compare it with the assistance that is received by the farmers of western Canada, what our New Brunswick or maritime farmers receive sinks into insignificance, and our farmers think so too. I am afraid the hon. member for Charlotte would have great difficulty in persuading them otherwise. Again, in connection with P.F.A.A.,-


William Moore Benidickson: That is rather out of order.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: -we were pleased that western farmers were receiving some assistance.


William Moore Benidickson: That is still out of order, on this bill.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Of course what the hon. member for Charlotte said was entirely out of order. They have received some assistance. We receive none comparable with that. As to P.F.R.A., we received a little bit of help in connection with our marshlands; but as far as money is concerned what we received in connection with marshlands is like the story of one horse, one rabbit. Western Canada is receiving the horse and we receive the rabbit and we are obliged to pay for the extra amount.
I am not going to extend this argument any further, Mr. Speaker. My idea was just to point out how utterly ridiculous are the statements made by the hon. member for Charlotte here this afternoon when you undertake to analyse them. Our farmers need more assistance. The hon. member comes from a fishing community and I greatly doubt that he knows much if anything about the needs of the farmers in other parts of the province of New Brunswick.


William Moore Benidickson: The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) said you had a good provincial scheme of your own.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We have the provincial
scheme. We are not unique in that. Quebec has a provincial scheme also. As I say, only 40 farmers in the province of New Brunswick last year took advantage of this present scheme. If there were some relaxation in the matter of inspection and in the matter of valuation, I think that more farmers in the province of New Brunswick would take advantage of this scheme.


Mr. Hayden Stanton (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I made a few brief remarks on this bill. At this time I wish to make two or three other observations but I will not take up too much time. I feel that the farmers who are trying to set up farming for

themselves are not being given the consideration they should be given. No doubt in the past the farm loan board have contributed much towards helping farmers set up a farming occupation for themselves.
Some time ago I put a question on the order paper and received an answer. I believe the following figures show beyond a doubt that the large percentage of those making applications for loans have been refused. I will not give the figures province by province but will consolidate them to cover the dominion as a whole. I find that in the year 1951-52 there were received 3,339 applications of which 1,367 had been refused or rejected. In 1952-53 there were received 4,444 applications of which 1,628 were rejected. In 1953-54 there were received 4,591 applications right across Canada, of which 1,752 were rejected. The same thing applies in 1954-55; 4,893 applications were received and 2,029 were rejected.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that these refusals or rejections are not in proper proportion to the applications received. It seems to me that a higher percentage of the applications received should have been processed. I find that during those years there is practically the same percentage of rejections year by year. I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether the farm loan board had something in mind, that perhaps the same percentage or approximately the same percentage each year would be rejected, therefore they would process approximately the same percentage number of loans.
I was quite taken by the recommendations of the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Cardiff). I feel that when an application is made for revaluation there should be a different procedure. At the present time it is the same appraiser who goes back and makes that second or third revaluation, as the case may be. I feel that it should be another appraiser or a board of appraisers set up for that purpose. I think all hon. members will agree with me that no two persons have the same idea when it comes to a matter of valuing property or farm land. Each one has a different idea. Each one will make a different valuation. I therefore feel that when an appeal is made for a revaluation, that revaluation should be done by another appraiser or a board of appraisers set up specifically for that purpose.
I believe those are all the remarks I have to make at this time. I hope that this bill will be given further consideration when it goes to the committee and when it comes back for third reading.
Canadian Farm Loan Act


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I had a few remarks to make. I had my little say at the resolution stage; at least I thought I had, until I listened to the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). I notice he mentioned a problem which also arises in my constituency. He mentioned the fact that woodlots, small timber holdings, were not taken into consideration when a loan was being considered to a farmer on a small farm. I had previously understood the situation to be as explained by the hon. member for Royal but I was extremely pleased to hear the parliamentary assistant say it was not so.


William Moore Benidickson: That wood-cut income is a factor in extending a loan.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr, Speaker, that income is a factor; but what I have discovered is that it is an extremely small factor. I do not think it has had a very favourable influence on the decisions of the Canadian farm loan board in respect to loans in my constituency. I have exactly the same problem as that which was brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Royal. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that you have personal knowledge of the district of which I am speaking. While I do not want to involve you in this debate I am sure in this connection we are two hearts that beat as one.


William Moore Benidickson: Maybe my hon. friend will draw these individual matters to my attention.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: To proceed with what I had to say, Mr. Speaker, I urge that every consideration be given to them. Possibly [DOT] the instructions received by the officials are so limited that these woodlots are not considered to be of much value. In addition to that, I suggest that consideration be given to loans to farmers who do not live on the major portion of their property. I know of one or two excellent farmers who were refused loans. One man was running quite a successful dairy and cattle ranch and he was refused the loan because the greater part of his farm was some eight miles distant up in a mountain meadow where he produced all his hay and fed his beef cattle. I do urge consideration be given to that matter.
I have said this before, and I wish to repeat it, Mr. Speaker. I feel a lot of these problems could be ironed out if the officials of the board, when visiting interior points, would meet with farmers' organizations and discuss these problems. I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding with respect to the operations of the Canadian farm loan board. I do not underestimate the good work that is done, but I think a lot of the

Canadian Farm Loan Act misunderstanding could be dissipated it officials would attend farmers' meetings on occasion and explain the workings of the board, the regulations under the act and so on.
In addition to that I think difficulty is caused by the varying circumstances in a province like ours. There is such a difference between conditions in the Fraser valley, northern British Columbia, the Okanagan and the garden of Eden where I live. I do suggest that advisory boards similar to those in operation under the Veterans' Land Act would be very useful indeed. I fully realize that someone has to have responsibility for granting loans, but I think a board composed of representative farmers in the district, who have had long experience there and who understand conditions, would be very useful in giving the farm loan board an accurate picture of any situation, and would be useful to the farmers who are making application for loans.
Before concluding, I do suggest that after the Senate committee has completed its study of land use in Canada it will become more than ever obvious that a number of farmers in all provinces are farming on submarginal land. I feel consideration will have to be given by this government to amending this act to meet that situation so that farmers now farming submarginal land will have an opportunity to be transferred to fertile soil. Then, there is the question of the young farmer without capital. If there is any aspect of the development of farm operation that should receive very sympathetic consideration, it is doing everything possible to place young Canadians who are willing and anxious to farm on suitable land and giving them an opportunity to assist in the agricultural development of this country.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: At
this stage I should like to refer briefly to two or three aspects of this legislation which the experience of borrowers would seem to indicate are rather objectionable. I should like to go along with the complaints and arguments that have been advanced by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) in his references to the shortcomings of the Canadian farm loan board in respect to farmers in the maritimes. I do feel that we in western Canada and the people in the maritimes possibly have more in common in respect of credit than other parts of Canada, which have other industries upon which the economy can fall back to a greater extent.
First of all, I should like to refer briefly to one of the objectionable features of this measure, and that is the amount of money
[Mr. Herridge.l
which is made available to borrowers, namely the 65 per cent of the appraised value. When we realize that the appraised value does not reflect the actual sale value, then of course this question becomes even more difficult. I feel there is still a case to be made for the supervision of loans. The supervision of loans has proved its worth in the United States, particularly in the north and northwestern part of the United States where loans up to 100 per cent would be made under the home improvement administration to people who are going to engage in a farming project.
It is rather disastrous to suggest that large sums of money, such as can be borrowed under this act, should be made available to farmers without supervision. Sometimes when the loan is made the board find that they have, in reality, financed an under-capitalized project. Certainly the losses incurred through this kind of business can be of tremendous importance; therefore, the government should give very careful consideration to this problem of making larger loans subject to supervision. I think farmers generally are prepared to accept a considerable amount of supervision. I know that in western Canada the agricultural representative service is always shorthanded, which is positive proof that the farmers are prepared to accept more and more supervision because agriculture is becoming a very specialized occupation. I believe that if the government would introduce larger loans with supervision, that is would lend money under a responsible body possibly even to the extent of the full capitalization of a project unless there were some reason to believe the project would not survive, we would have some measure of success.
As a matter of fact, money is lent under the Veterans' Land Act under much more favourable circumstances. There is supervision involved, and I feel that the results achieved have been something noteworthy. I think also it would be advisable-and I was glad to hear the parliamentary assistant on a former occasion during this debate refer to it-to have credit unions placed in a position similar to that of the banks with respect to lending money under this act. I feel the credit unions are in a good position to ascertain the character of an applicant and to know a good deal about his chances for survival in this operation. The credit unions would have the same privileges and protection that the chartered banks have today.
There is one other aspect of this matter I should like to mention in passing and that is concerned with this whole question of appraisal. This question has been dealt with by quite a number during this debate, but a further reference to it would be in order at

this time. The farmers on small farms are in great need of credit and the time element is of the greatest importance. I must agree wholeheartedly with the remarks made by the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Bennett) when he mentioned this question of the time taken in processing Canadian farm loan board loans. When we consider the very restricted time during which loans can be made, namely from the end of May until some time around the first of December, then we begin to see the real limitations that are imposed on the small farmer who has to depend on the Canadian farm loan board for his credit needs. I would suggest that everything possible should be done by the government to speed up the processing of the loans. I should like to say that the man on the small farm is quite possibly in a great deal more difficult position than the man on the large farm because, in many instances, the man on the large farm does have easier access to money.
In closing, I would once again like to emphasize the need of appraisers taking advantage of the very comprehensive soil maps which are available in many places, and using those soil maps as a guide in off-season periods for the basis of their appraisals.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On section 1-Capital stock.
Hazen Robert Argue: When we were at the resolution stage I pressed the parliamentary assistant and the minister to see whether I could get them to make a statement as to what the rate of interest might be that the Canadian farm loan board might charge between now and the next session of parliament. A retort was made by somebody as to whether or not I thought this particular government would be in office next year. I am wondering whether the parliamentary assistant can say that this government will give farmers across the country the assurance that as far as it is concerned there will be no change in the interest rate between now and whatever time it may be in power, and up to the next session, if it is still in power. I think it is a reasonable request to make that the interest rate should be held.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture impressed upon the banking and commerce committee and the government the need for having the current rate of 5 per cent substantially reduced. We know that the whole trend of interest rates across the country today is on the increase and I think the government should give the committee the benefit of its thinking on this question. I am wondering whether the parliamentary assistant has given any consideration to this
Canadian Farm Loan Act matter, and whether he can assure the committee at least thus far that even with the 4 per cent rate that is now being charged the farm loan board in fact will be able to continue to operate with loans at 5 per cent?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I know my hon. friend showed some interest about this point when certain amendments were made to this act last year and they were considered by the banking and commerce committee. We had as a witness before that committee the chairman of the board. He indicated that he could not see very far into the future on a matter of that kind.
I recall that this session when this particular bill was at the resolution stage the hon. member for Assiniboia raised a question very similar to the one he raises now in committee of the whole, and I said that decisions of this kind had by parliament been left to the board and I quoted to him at that time the relevant section of the farm loan act that related to interest rates.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the parliamentary assistant say whether or not, from his knowledge of the act and its administration, at 4 per cent the board can continue to show a margin of profit? Is it not a fact that if the 4 per cent rate continues for any great length of time it is bound to result in one of two things, either an increase in the rate above 5 per cent or a net loss to the board in its operations?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I think the essence of the hon. member's question is a supposition that a certain basic interest rate might continue. I said earlier that I would not want to forecast that basic rate, and if that is the basis of the question which he asks me I think he understands that I could not answer his question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has the government given any consideration to making the interest rates statutory? It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs to have this interest rate left uncertain, left up in the air. I want to express my personal satisfaction with the fact that the interest rate has been held since I raised this question in the banking and commerce committee last year; but it does seem to me that in an act as important to the agricultural industry of this country as this one is it would be a more satisfactory state of affairs if the interest rate were made statutory for a given period of time, even if reviewed from time to time, rather than leave it in the discretion of the farm loan board. I think the Canadian farm loan board itself might find it exceedingly embarrassing to attempt to hold down its own rate of interest in the

Canadian Farm Loan Act light of continued increases in its cost of money unless it is prepared to incur a deficit. I am wondering whether any consideration has been given to this by the government and, if not, will the parliamentary assistant bring it to the attention of the minister because I think it is a reasonable request and something that might be considered?


William Moore Benidickson: Well, my hon. friend knows that the finance minister is an avid reader of Hansard-he does not have to be constantly in the house-and I think he always gives consideration to my hon. friend's suggestions.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes; I appreciate that very much. Can the parliamentary assistant say from his own knowledge whether any consideration has been given to this question since the banking and commerce committee met last year?


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend knows that the question of interest is a fundamental section of the act and the proper answer that I could make would be that when any change in a statute is to be made, or recommended to parliament, it will be advanced by a member of the government.


Mr. Hodgson:: What is the present rate?


William Moore Benidickson: Five per cent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister can tell us to what extent, if any, funds are available under this act to young farmers for the purchase of farms? This whole matter was referred to earlier this afternoon by one of the other speakers. I think there is no question that one of the most serious features of our whole agricultural economy and set-up at the present time is that the great majority of farmers now are getting in the older age brackets. The number of young farmers is comparatively small and the reason for that essentially is the extremely high cost of buying and equipping a farm at the present time. It is impossible for a young man with a very small amount of capital to go into farming as it was possible, and as thousands and hundreds of thousands did, 50 or 60 years ago.
If our agricultural economy is to continue on a sound basis it is essential that we get more young men into agriculture, and that can only be done if funds are made available to young men, who are interested in the agricultural life, to purchase and equip those farms. I know the present act is not adequate to do that to anything like the extent that is necessary. As a matter of fact, what we need in this country is legislation along the line of the farm loan board act, but specifically to provide funds for the particular

purpose of enabling younger men to buy and equip farms. Unless we get something along that line in a comparatively few years I shall really be alarmed to think what the situation will be in our agricultural industry. We just simply have to get more young men into it and I would hope that this particular act would make some funds available for that purpose.
I would like to know from the minister to what extent this act is doing that, and I would also like to urge on him and the government generally the necessity of further legislation to cover this really basic difficulty which is facing agriculture at the present time and in a few years is going to face it in a much more acute form.


William Moore Benidickson: Well, Mr. Chairman, the act has no distinctions respecting the age of the borrower. A young farmer given a title would be in an equal position to borrow on the asset of his farm as would an older farmer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not want to interrupt the parliamentary assistant but he referred to a young man acquiring title. That is the very point I am bringing up. Is there any provision in this act under which a young man who does not have title can borrow money in order to acquire title; in other words, to buy a farm?


William Moore Benidickson: No; I think the asset must be in the possession of the applicant at the time of his application for the loan. I do not know the situation in Alberta but I do know that in the province of Ontario there is a specially designed bill for what is called the junior or the younger farmer in connection with a farm loan. I remind the hon. member of that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, Mr. Chairman, legislation along the same lines is in the process of being put through or perhaps has already been put through in the province of Alberta. I am not sure of its exact status. This legislation is designed to enable young farmers to get established on farms. I think the problem is too large for the provinces to handle by themselves and I think federal assistance along this line is going to be required in addition to what is already being done in some of the provinces. I think Alberta and Ontario are the only two provinces where legislation exists for this purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Northern Affairs and National Resources


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 161, an act to amend the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Act.-The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This bill, No. 161, is introduced following a resolution which was passed on February 22 and because the bill goes farther than the resolution I am taking exception to it on this point of order.
First may I draw your attention, sir, to the terms of the resolution which was passed by the house on February 22. The terms are to be found at page 176 of the Votes and Proceedings of the house. We read:
The following resolution was adopted:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Act to provide for the establishment of two national museums in lieu of one, as at the present time, to be known as the Canadian museum of natural history and the Canadian museum of human history.
And the note proceeds:
Resolution to be reported.
In my submission, sir, the bill goes beyond the terms of the resolution. There are two clauses to the bill. The first one deals simply with an amendment to a definition, but in clause 2 of the bill we have the provisions corresponding to those of the resolution, but we have something more as well. I draw your attention sir, to the terms of clause 9 of the act as they would be in effect if clause 2 of the bill were to be enacted. It provides:
The minister shall establish and maintain
(a)	a national museum, to be known as the Canadian museum of natural history . . etc.; and
(b)	a national museum, to be known as the Canadian museum of human history . . . etc.
And then at line 20 the clause goes on to introduce matter that is quite new. It reads:
. . . and the minister may establish and maintain such other national museums as he considers necessary or desirable for the purpose of affording knowledge and information respecting Canada and its resources.
It is quite clear as to the terms of subclauses (a) and (b) that they are within the terms of the resolution which the house passed on February 22, but there is no provision in the resolution of February 22 for the power that is sought on behalf of the minister in the last four lines of this clause.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to weigh the fact that this is a very broad power. Under it the minister would be authorized to establish and maintain such other national museums as
he considers necessary and desirable for the purpose of affording knowledge and information respecting Canada and its resources.
This bill was preceded by a resolution because it involves the expenditure of money. The power in the last four lines of this clause would certainly involve the expenditure of money. For that reason it required first of all a statement that the Governor General had already given approval to this expenditure, and secondly it required a resolution to be approved by the house. Now surely if it is conceded.-as it must have been-to be necessary for the Governor General to have given his approval to the provision of the bill that there is to be a national museum to be known as the Canadian museum of natural history and a national museum to be known as the Canadian museum of human history, then all the more it must have been necessary for the Governor General to have given approval and for the house to have passed a resolution approving the omnibus power contained in the last four lines of the clause.
This power could result in very heavy charges upon the public treasury. Indeed, if this power were used it could easily result in much heavier charges on the public treasury than would be involved in the setting up of either of the two museums specifically provided for in both the bill and the resolution, although that point is not necessary to sustain the argument I am submitting to you.
I think it is quite clear that this omnibus power, as I call it, in the last four lines of the clause was not approved by the Governor General and it certainly was not approved by the house. The resolution of February 22 approves it neither in express terms nor by implication. This omnibus power to establish museums is quite separate and distinct from the specific power to establish the museum of natural history and the museum of human history. It is a distinct provision conferring a distinct power quite separate from and clearly additional to the power to establish the two named museums. And because that addition involves a charge on the public treasury I think it is quite clear that the bill has no proper resolution preceding it to authorize its introduction.
May I refer to several citations in Beau-chesne, Mr. Speaker. The first is No. 439- I am referring, of course, to the third edition -and is found at page 168. It reads:
The object of the resolution-
That is to say, the resolution preceding the introduction of a money bill-
-recommended by the crown is to give the house a first opportunity to discuss the advisability of making a certain expenditure.

Northern Affairs and National Resources
The details of the projected measure are not then disclosed and debate is confined to the resolution which should not be lengthy, although care must be taken that the terms used are sufficiently wide to cover the whole of the bill which will be subsequently introduced. No amendment affecting the purposes for which the grant is recommended by the crown can be allowed. The constitutional principle which vests in the crown the sole responsibility of incurring national expenditure forbids an increase by the Commons of a sum demanded on behalf of the crown for the service of the state.
The balance of citation 439 is not applicable. Citation 440 reads:
The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the house with the Governor General's recommendation upon which a committee of the whole is set up cannot be amended. Amendments will only be in order if they fall within the terms of the resolution. The procedure in committee on those resolutions follows in principle the procedure of the committee of supply, and amendments are out of order if they are proposed with a view to substituting an alternative scheme to that proposed with the royal recommendation.
That citation draws attention to the importance of the terms of the original resolution because that resolution cannot be amended. Therefore it is buttressing the statement I have read already from citation 439. It is quite clear that the utmost care must be taken in framing the terms of the original resolution, that everything intended to be included within the scope of the ensuing bill must be stated in clear terms in the resolution and be clearly included within its scope.
Citation 443 on page 170 reads:
An amendment agreed to in committee of the whole on a bill was ruled out of order by the Speaker, on his own initiative, when the order was called for receiving the committee's report, because it contemplated a larger expenditure than was provided for in the original resolution which had been recommended by the Governor General prior to the introduction of the bill.
It is quite clear that here we are dealing with something that is essential in the Canadian constitution as well as something which is firmly embedded in the procedure of this house. Any expenditure to be authorized by this house must commence with a recommendation to the house by the Governor General. That recommendation must go the full length in including every expenditure which is subsequently to be embraced within the terms of the bill. It is not sufficient for the approval by the Governor General and for the resolution passed by the house to cover a portion of the expenditure subsequently provided for in the bill. The only departure from that firm rule has been in cases where the resolution makes provision for the payment of salaries and then the bill simply proceeds in the exercise of the power so given to name the amounts of the salaries.

But here we are in a different class of case entirely; here we are in a situation where the Governor General has given approval to a resolution which provides for the establishment of two museums. The terms of the resolution were clear as crystal in that respect. The approval of the Governor General stopped there. The extent of the consideration given to that resolution in committee of the whole stopped there. The approval given in committee of the whole house and subsequently by the house stopped there. There was nothing said about the approval of additional power which could involve additional expenditures.
Here we have in the bill before us not only a violation of the terms of the resolution but we have an unwarranted departure from constitutional practice as well as an untenable departure from firmly established procedure of the house. The resolution could not have been amended-and I ask you to give thought to that point-in the committee for the purpose of providing for larger or additional expenditures such as are involved in the omnibus power contained in the last four lines of the clause.
We therefore have a situation where this bill, being bad in part as not having been authorized by the resolution or approved by the Governor General, must therefore be bad in all. If the government desires to bring in a bill containing such omnibus power, then it will have to introduce a new resolution for that purpose. On the other hand, if they choose to proceed with a bill that provides simply for the establishment of two museums, then a new bill will have to be introduced in keeping with the limited terms of the resolution which was passed by the house on February 22. For these reasons it is my respectful submission that the present bill is out of order.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like on this
point of order to support the argument advanced by the hon. member for Eglinton. The resolution as presented by the minister and discussed by the minister in the house was a misleading resolution. It did not disclose the full facts that have now come to light in Bill No. 161.
The house gave approval to the minister's request that authority be granted for the setting up of two museums, and gave approval to nothing else. We now find in the bill that the minister is asking for very extensive powers. If the bill passes in this form the minister may set up any number of museums and simply introduce the financial authority by items in the estimates.

Your Honour's attention has been directed to certain citations from Beauchesne's third edition, but I should like to direct your attention to May's thirteenth edition, page 678, where these words will be found:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand or recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
Our submission here is that the full amount of the charge was not indicated by the resolution or by the minister's comments thereon and it exceeds, by the terms of the bill, the resolution which was accepted by the house. At the bottom of page 683 we find these words:
For the financial provisions in a bill are governed by the finally agreed form of the resolution in which the financial initiative of the crown is exercised: and this may be effectively restricted though it cannot be enlarged, in the house itself. '


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: I
am particularly sorry to have to interrupt an hon. member in the middle of a discussion on a point of order because I know it makes it difficult for him and for the house, but unfortunately it is five o'clock and the house must proceed to other business. Before it does, may I from the chair request hon. members who are interested in this point of order to give some consideration-I assume we will carry on with this discussion at eight o'clock-to the point raised by the hon. member for Eglinton, who made the argument that if one part of a bill exceeds the royal recommendation and the resolution based thereon the whole bill as a result becomes invalid. I would ask hon. members who are going to take part in this discussion at eight o'clock to give consideration to that point. It being five o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.



INTEREST ACT


Hazen Robert Argue: the second reading of Bill No. 8, to amend the Interest Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to correct a very grave injustice prevalent throughout the country. The purpose of the bill is to control the interest rate and other charges that may by made by firms selling goods on credit and on the instalment plan. As I believe hon. members are aware from the discussion that took place last year in connection with another bill, the rates charged by some of the firms providing instalment credit are very substantial.
Interest Act
Instances have been brought to our attention where rates are charged of 20 per cent a year, 30 per cent a year, 40 per cent, 50 per cent and even higher. Last year the superintendent of insurance, Mr. K. R. MacGregor, gave in evidence before the banking and commerce committee that a certain corporation in a similar field, a small loans company, had in fact charged a rate as high as 75 per cent per year.
I introduced a bill last year the purpose of which was to reduce and control the interest rates levied by small loans companies. As members are aware, when I introduced that bill last year the rates controlled by statute were on loans made by small loans companies up to $500. The law provided a maximum rate of 2 per cent per month, which works out to a simple interest rate of just over 26 per cent per year. The bill I introduced last year, which was similar to one I introduced the year before, was given widespread support across the country. As a matter of fact I do not think any measure I have proposed since I have been a member of the house gained more widespread approval than the proposition that the interest rates charged by small loans companies in this country should be controlled.
Members of the house who took part in the debate were sympathetic to the bill I proposed, and I believe substantially because of the discussion in the house and because of public pressure brought to bear, the government itself introduced a bill to extend the control of loans made by small loans companies. The purpose of the government bill was to leave the rate on loans up to $300 unchanged but to reduce the rate that might be charged on outstanding balances from $300 to $1,000 to a rate of 1 per cent per month and on balances from $1,000 to $1,500 a maximum rate of one-half of one per cent per month.
That bill was referred to the banking and commerce committee and we had a very long discussion there. Mr. MacGregor, the superintendent of insurance, gave evidence at length, and at this time I wish to pay a public tribute to the very fine work that has been done by our superintendent of insurance. I think the evidence he gave to the banking and commerce committee last year was very important in the influence it had on the opinions of members of that committee, because it helped to demonstrate that the government's bill was exceedingly reasonable, in fact was a very cautious bill and was the minimum that should be done at that time.
A good deal of opposition was generated in the committee by members on the government side of the house but in spite of that

Interest Act
opposition we received support from certain members of the government party and members of the opposition parties, and the government's own measure was saved in the committee from the objections of its own members. I believe the evidence taken before that committee will show that the bill passed by the house last year will be instrumental in saving the public of Canada who obtain loans from small loans companies an amount of at least $10 million over a 12-month period.
I believe that demonstrates that members on the opposition side of the house who sponsor a measure that gains widespread public approval can be instrumental in bringing about a very substantial saving to the general public. I am so bold as to hope at this time that the bill now before the house will result in the government taking action in the whole field of instalment credit. We found that on loans in excess of $500 the small loans companies were charging very exorbitant, in fact fantastic, rates of interest. I believe the work of the banking and commerce committee last year in this whole field was very important and demonstrated conclusively that parliament should take action in the whole field of consumer credit.
I have in my hand a Bank of Canada statistical summary which shows that in the 12-month period from September 30, 1955, to September 30, 1956, the amount of instalment credit in this country increased from $944 million to $1,152 million. The amount of instalment credit is very substantial. In addition, there is an amount of $345 million listed as charge accounts. This gives the house some idea of the tremendous size of instalment credit in the country at this time and the importance of parliament taking a look at the whole field.
On February 6 I asked the Minister of Finance the following question, as found at page 1015 of Hansard:
Has the government given consideration to the introduction of legislation at this session to control the exorbitant interest rates sometimes charged by certain business firms on instalment credit and conditional sales contracts?
At that time the reply was as follows:
I think the answer to that ought to be, Mr. Speaker, that if any such legislation is to be introduced notice will be given in the ordinary manner. Perhaps I could couple it with a question as to whether or not my hon. friend would recommend it?
My answer was, "Very definitely, yes." I further asked the minister whether in giving consideration to this question he would be prepared to extend at least the same control over general instalment credit as has been extended over the field of small loans. On

previous occasions we have proposed in the house that the government should introduce legislation to control the charges made by instalment firms. We have been told by members of the government that such a thing could not be done within the constitution of the country, that the matter of interest was something the federal government could control but that conditional sales contracts had to do with property and civil rights, and therefore the government had no control over the carrying charges or the charges made on instalment credit.
We had before the banking and commerce committee last year a very important witness, namely Mr. F. P. Varcoe, the deputy minister of justice; and on this question we obtained some extremely important information. This question was asked by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) as reported at page 684 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of that committee:
Q. Would not discounts, for example, and contract of sales be another form of interest? A. Yes, discount is a form of interest.
A little later on the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Enfield) asked the following question:
Q. Does parliament have the constitutional authority to modify a term of a conditional sales contract? A. The rate of interest or discount could be regulated, certainly.
Q. The regulation now is in the Interest Act. Section 2 of that act states:
"Except as otherwise provided by this or by any other act of the parliament of Canada, any person may stipulate for, allow and exact, on any contract or agreement whatever, any rate of interest or discount that is agreed upon."
A. Parliament could repeal that and say you could not contract for more than 5 per cent, or whatever it might be.
Q. So the conclusion of the arguments, then, is that any charges whatsoever under a conditional sales agreement by way of prior discount could, if we wished be regulated by an act. A. That is correct.
So I take it, Mr. Speaker, that it is within the constitution and that it is within the right of parliament to legislate on interest and, in legislating with regard to interest, to legislate with regard to discounts and all other charges that may be made by firms in granting instalment credit.
The terms of the bill that I have before me have been copied to a large extent from the terms of the Small Loans Act, chapter 251 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952. It defines what is a charge that may be made by a company providing instalment credit. It states as follows:
Except as otherwise provided by this or by any other act of parliament no person may stipulate, allow or exact on any contract or agreement whatsoever, a rate of interest in excess of twelve per cent per annum, whether it is called interest or is claimed as a discount, deduction from advance, commission, brokerage, chattel mortgage fees, or

recording fees, or is claimed as fines, penalties or charges for inquiries, defaults or renewals or otherwise, and whether paid to or charged by the lender or paid to or charged by any other person, and whether fixed and determined by the loan contract itself, or in whole or in part by any other collateral contract or document by which the charges, if any, imposed under the contract or the terms of the repayment of the loan are effectively varied.
From that comprehensive clause of the bill I take it that if it were passed the rate that may be charged by firms providing instalment credit and making conditional sales contracts would be regulated to the extent of a maximum of 12 per cent per year.
I have been asked why I placed the rate so high. I think a good argument could be made for a lower rate. Certainly loans made by the chartered banks and by a great many credit unions in the country, money loaned under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the National Housing Act or the Canadian Farm Loan Act, all carry lower rates of interest. But in my experience in parliament I have found that if one sometimes goes all the way, hon. members opposite will use every possible argument to suggest that the provisions of the bill are too wide-sweeping and that therefore it should be defeated.
I believe the terms of the bill are moderate. They propose a maximum rate which is the same as that which I proposed last year in Bill No. 3. With that proposal last year and with a similar proposal the year before the government did not see fit to go all the way but they did see fit to bring in a bill which is saving the public of Canada many millions of dollars. I suggest that the bill before us is one that the government and the house should consider. I think the suggested rate of 12 per cent per year is certainly as high as any rate should be.
Another reason why I suggest that rate is that many credit unions in Canada charge a rate of approximately that amount. I do not believe I should suggest any interference with the business done by credit unions. If I had made that suggestion I am sure it would have encountered a great deal of opposition from the government.
What firms are providing instalment credit generally? I think it is true to say that, generally speaking, instalment credit with the very high rates of interest that are charged is provided by the large retail firms such as Eatons and Simpsons-Sears and some of the big finance companies in this country. I do not think the ordinary merchant, the corner grocer or the independent dealer, is making any charge for instalment credit. As far as my experience goes with ordinary businessmen, it is that their credit almost invariably is extended without an interest charge. They provide credit for their customers-very often a substantial amount of 82715-120
Interest Act
credit, totalling for all of their customers many thousands of dollars over a one-year period-and that credit is provided interest free. Very often some of the customers have been doing business for some time on a credit basis with their friend the local merchant, and when they obtain a little cash they are sometimes tempted to take their business elsewhere, to some of the big firms I have mentioned.
In going to the large firms I doubt if many of the patrons are aware of the fantastic rates that are charged. I suggest that the very high rates that are charged are levied in order to make a substantial profit on the credit business itself. I have had information given to me to the effect that certain firms are far more anxious to do business on a credit basis than on a cash basis; that they find that their credit basis is a profitable basis because they can make these exorbitant interest charges.
One of my colleagues in this house, namely the hon. member for Regina City, told me last year that he considered buying a washing machine on the instalment basis until he calculated what the suggested interest rate was, and it worked out to 30 per cent per year. We know that the rates charged by many financial companies on conditional contracts are 15 per cent, 20 per cent and 25 per cent; and the instalment firms like Eatons and Simpsons-Sears on their smallest purchases charge the fantastic rate of 54 per cent per year.


Walter Edward Harris: Has my hon. friend put that on the record in detail, or is that just the first reference he has made to this matter?


Hazen Robert Argue: I doubt if it is either. I think it is the second reference. I do not think it is in detail. I have placed this same information on the record a number of times in years gone by and it has never been challenged in this house. I have used it many times. I had it challenged last fall by a man who worked for a long time, so he told me, for the Simpsons organization. I told him on what basis the calculation had been made by a man whom I considered to be a good mathematician, and I told him if he could show me that the mathematics were incorrect I would be quite prepared to make a public correction. The same thing, of course, applies here; but to my knowledge the figures are correct and the interest charges I have stated are correct.


James Sinclair: What was that charge?


Hazen Robert Argue: It was a rate of 54 per cent per year on small purchases. Here it is. On an unpaid balance of $20 the carrying charge is $2.25 with a monthly payment of $5. This

Interest Act
means that within a four-month period, with a payment of $5 per month, the balance is repaid and the charge made is $2.25. This works out at an annual rate of 54 per cent. In all fairness to the Simpsons organization, Mr. Speaker, I must say this rate goes down as the purchase becomes larger. It goes down until on the maximum purchase of $410, with a carrying charge of $51.25 and the balance repayable at a rate of $26 per month, the rate is about 14 per cent.


William Moore Benidickson: Has the Saskatchewan government legislation against this?


Hazen Robert Argue: Let us not wander all over Canada again and start talking about the 10 provincial governments as an alibi for this government. On every occasion this government turns the matter back to the provinces, but the deputy minister of justice says that interest rates and charges are part of the federal jurisdiction. The language in the bill I have drafted was borrowed from a section of the Small Loans Act, so I take it that the suggestion made by the parliamentary assistant is not one that can be taken seriously.
I was about to go on to say, Mr. Speaker, that Simpsons have another schedule of rates for more durable goods, and those rates are not quite as high. These are rates taken from page 598 of the Simpsons-Sears spring and summer catalogue for 1957. I see no reason why the law that is applied to small loans companies by this government should not be extended to apply to instalment credit. There is no reason why any of these huge firms should be charging these exorbitant rates of interest. I think it is a national disgrace that these companies should be allowed to get away with such tremendous charges.
The other day a farmer friend of mine who does not go into Simpsons very often told me he had been there and made a purchase. The clerk asked him what his charge account number was, and he said he did not have a charge account; he paid cash. He said from the attitude of Simpsons-Sears it appeared to be the wrong thing to do. He felt rather guilty that he was a cash customer and did not just have a charge account number that he could relate to the clerk and then, of course, be placed in the category of paying very exorbitant rates of interest.
The government has legislation which controls the interest rates that are charged by small loans companies. The government has legislation in other fields. When we were discussing this general question before the banking and commerce committee last year I made the statement that the National Housing Act, which was then providing mortgage money at 5J per cent, was an example of

what the government might do in the field of credit if it really wanted to perform a service. We in this group have always said that 5J per cent for housing was too high. It is now up to 6 per cent, and the whole trend of government policy since the good bill reducing the rates charged by small loans companies last year has been to help interest rates and charges go up and up. The government stands idly by while lending institutions in the country are steadily increasing rates and charges.
I have mentioned instalment buying and I have mentioned finance companies. The other day I had a person from the city of Ottawa come into my office and give me some information about the rates being charged on second mortgages. He told me to use the information publicly but requested that I should not use his name. He said if any member of the house should question the information he would be quite prepared to interview the member and prove that this information was, in fact, correct. I imagine this is something that is probably being done in many cases.
The rate of interest on the second mortgage is 6 per cent. This particular man should have had a second mortgage of less than $1900, but he had to add to it a bonus of $450. I take it he has to pay 6 per cent on the mortgage plus the bonus. The loan is for a period of five years. The parliamentary assistant, who seems to be paying some attention, can do the arithmetic; and if he does he will see it is a very substantial interest.


William Moore Benidickson: Are you taking care of this in your bill?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, I think so. The advice I have been given by authorities even more eminent than the parliamentary assistant is to the effect that if this bill were passed it would control all interest charges in the country.


William Moore Benidickson: No, no, it would not.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am wondering if the parliamentary assistant is suggesting that if this bill should not apply to all cases such as I have suggested, and if we amended it in committee to apply to all such cases, he would be prepared to support the measure. He is not going to get me quarreling about any technicalities of draftsmanship. All I am interested in is having legislation passed by this house, in line with the statement made by the deputy minister of justice last year before the banking and commerce committee that such legislation is within the jurisdiction of parliament. If such a measure were passed the tens of millions of dollars now paid unnecessarily in instalment rates, I suggest, might in fact be reduced.

I suggest when a person wants credit one of the best places to get that credit ordinarily is through the chartered banks. The credit unions also occupy a very important field. I believe that the policy of the government in restricting the level of bank credit generally to the extent that the ordinary people of this country depend more and more on instalment credit is a policy that should be changed. The government should give consideration to this whole field and refer the matter once again to the banking and commerce committee. I believe that if the banking and commerce committee of this house were given a chance this year to study this whole question, the chances are excellent that a bill might be brought back from that committee which would in fact result in a very substantial saving to the ordinary people of this country.
As I said earlier, I think such a bill would not only help the ordinary person in this country who is obtaining goods on the instalment plan, but at least to some extent it would help place the independent merchant in a more competitive position. Today he must compete with these very large firms which, because of the nature of the instalment and credit business in which they are engaged, are able to make very large profits on their transactions and, because of those large profits, in many instances are able to undersell the small merchants. I believe this measure I have presented will gain the same kind of widespread popular support that was given to the measure to reduce the interest rates charged by small loans companies. It is the kind of measure that will receive-


William Moore Benidickson: You did not support that legislation.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, I voted for it.


William Moore Benidickson: You voted against it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Now, the parliamentary assistant cannot get away with that. He can check the record. As a matter of fact we not only voted for it, we saved the bill in the banking and commerce committee from the very definite attack on it by members of the Liberal party, not by all the members but by some of the members of the Liberal party sitting on the banking and commerce committee.


William Moore Benidickson: Nonsense; you went to extremes as usual.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is not an extreme at all. The record will show that, as the parliamentary assistant very well knows, and I am sure the hon. member for Nanaimo will have something to say on that point in a very short time. Since we are on this point I want to congratulate the Minister of 82715-1201
Interest Act
Finance on the position he himself took, as; I understand it, in relation to the bill whichi was presented last year to reduce the rates-charged by the small loans companies. I think the prestige of the Minister of Finance and his influence in the Liberal party, together with the exposure by members of the C.C.F. group of the attacks by some members of the government, resulted in that bill being, reported back to this house by the banking, and commerce committee and subsequently passed by the members of this house.


James Sinclair: Did you say "members of the government"?


Hazen Robert Argue: Members of the Liberal party. I know the Minister of Fisheries is very tender on that point because, you see, he-just made it; and any suggestion that anybody else might soon make it, of course, leads to-some comment by the Minister of Fisheries..


Mr. Hosking:: Jealousy will get yout
nowhere.


Hazen Robert Argue: I believe the public of Canada will support parliament in any move that is made to reduce the rates that may be charged by those companies and to prevent them continuing, as they are now doing, to exploit the ordinary Canadian.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Assiniboia on bringing this question once more before parliament. I say that not because I have any enthusiasm for setting a ceiling of 12 per cent, but because it does deal with a matter that requires serious attention.
I think this bill should be given second reading and sent to the banking committee in order that we may have a thorough investigation into the whole subject of instalment and credit buying at large. I believe the Minister of Finance himself will agree that this is a question that needs very careful consideration at the present time. I have noticed that the governor of the Bank of Canada has held conversations with certain people regarding this matter, but there do not appear to have been very great results from those conversations.
Last year when I spoke on a similar measure I said I thought that setting a ceiling rate of 12 per cent was too high, and that I would have preferred to see a ceiling of around 7 per cent or 8 per cent and then pass federal legislation to cover any cases where a higher rate of interest was needed, such as we have done under the Small Loans Act. The trouble is that setting a ceiling of 12 per cent appears to give an aura of respectability to that rate and, generally speaking,

Interest Act
I consider that rate altogether too high. In other words it is a very exorbitant rate of interest.
I recall that some years ago in western Canada it was the common practice to charge 7 per cent or 8 per cent on current notes for farm machinery, insurance and so on, and then as soon as the notes became overdue the rates went up anywhere to from 10 per cent to 12 per cent. That practice has gone out, but I am afraid it may come back again because interest rates are going up and we see the machine companies getting into the credit sales business.
In the past few years most farm machinery has been sold under the Farm Improvement Loans Act but, as I say, once again machine companies are selling machinery on time, and it is hard to say just how high those interest rates will go. I understand that today if you take the interest rate, plus service charges, you will find they are well above 12 per cent. For that reason I am quite prepared to support this bill because I think some action will have to be taken to curb the practice of charging those exorbitant rates on instalment buying and other general credit-buying practices. Therefore I hope the government, even if they are not prepared to support this bill, will at least take action to bring down some legislation at an early date to deal with this very important question.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on this bill for just a moment or two. I believe there is some usefulness in bringing to the attention of the people of this country the fact that exorbitant interest rates are being charged and that people should be on their guard against paying exorbitant interest. I think it is a shame that people will go and borrow money and be prepared to pay 20 per cent interest. Most of the loan companies, and most of the odd methods of raising money, require that the borrower pay 20 per cent interest.
I do not think many of the people who borrow money realize that when they are repaying these loans they must work one day out of the week to pay the interest. That fact does not seem to sink in. They do not seem to understand that when they obligate themselves to borrow money and they have to repay it, the interest charges alone will require them to give up one day's work in every week to pay the interest. This is a pretty heavy penalty to pay for borrowing money. If the majority of the people will go and see their bankers if they have a reasonable cause for borrowing money they will find they can borrow it at around 6 per cent or 7 per cent, and there is no need to pay those exorbitant interest rates.

If I were asked whether I could support this bill I would have to say no. No person loving his freedom and loving his rights will say to someone else, "You cannot do this", just because it is good for him not to do it. It is not in the philosophy of a Liberal to say to some person, "You must do this or you must do that". Therefore it would be impossible for me to support a bill that would deprive a person of his freedom; but on the other hand I can ask any person who finds himself in the position where he requires money, when he is prepared to borrow that money if he is willing to work one day out of five to pay the interest on it. I say he should examine his situation carefully to determine if he really needs the money.
The sponsor of the bill should remember that if you say to people who loan money that they can get only 12 per cent, there will be people who require money who will not be able to borrow it, and that may be a good thing. Would it not be better for the person who is borrowing the money to make the decision himself that it would be unwise for him to borrow rather than for the government to establish a law prohibiting borrowing under certain circumstances, or to have the government say, "We will legislate in such a way that it will be impossible for you to borrow"?
I could not agree more that this is a bad situation, but because I go that far it does not mean I will go so far as to dictate that a person is not going to be able to borrow.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I have heard some extraordinary arguments adduced in his chamber, but I have never heard one quite so extraordinary as that which the hon. member for Wellington South has just adduced. I would presume that if he is going to be logical about this, before the end of the session we may see him introducing a bill to amend the Bank Act to do away with the limitation of interest that is included there, because of course it is illegal for the hon. member for Wellington South to go to the manager of his local bank and say, "Well, you and I will go around the corner here and sign a contract, and I will pay you 10 per cent on this loan instead of the 6 per cent which the Bank Act allows you to charge."


Henry Alfred Hosking: I have had no experience in going around to the back door to conduct transactions of that kind.


Colin Cameron: I would suspect that when the hon. member for Wellington South was searching in his mind for some reasonable excuse for opposing this bill this argument was the best he could come up with, and had he been honest of course he would

have said, "Unfortunately I agree with this bill, but I shall have to vote against it because I understand my party is not prepared to accept it."


Henry Alfred Hosking: That is not the case. Those are not facts.


Colin Cameron: Then I am obliged to accept the position that the hon. member for Wellington South has the strangest sense of logic of any hon. member in this house, when he tells us that because of his love of freedom and his love of human rights he is going to oppose a bill which will prevent various individuals in this country from signing documents that commit them to pay interest of more than 12 per cent, or signing documents which will permit companies to charge more than 12 per cent. Our whole mass of law in this country is full of that kind of prohibition which has been found necessary for the proper conduct of our society.
I was interested earlier this afternoon when the Minister of Finance in answer to a question made a statement to the effect that the question asked revealed the soundness of the government's decision that there is too much credit outstanding. I believe the minister said something to that effect, and perhaps he will correct me if I have it wrong.


Walter Edward Harris: No, no.


Colin Cameron: Well, perhaps the minister will tell me what it was he said. I understood him to say he was expressing the view of the government that there is too much credit outstanding.


Walter Edward Harris: Oh, I beg your pardon. I thought you were referring to the question of the hon. member for Assiniboia of a few minutes ago.


Colin Cameron: No, I was referring to something you said earlier this afternoon during the question period. I was pleased to hear the minister say that, because I think we are all in agreement that there is too much credit outstanding. It does appear to me if that is the case-and it is a very reasonable position for the government to take, I think, and certainly it has been the basis of the government's policy with regard to credit restrictions-the government should also examine the position of these instalment purchases which are the basis of a great deal of the credit inflation in the country today.
The enormous rates of interest which are charged do entail what is in fact a very large addition to the price of the article being bought, a substantial inflation of price, which is a very important factor in the general
Interest Act
problem of inflation. I do not think there is really any argument about it that this business of enormous interest charges in instalment buying is becoming more and more a serious problem in our society.
It is not altogether a joke when we hear the remark made, which we do almost every day, that the so and so's are just managing to keep up with their payments on the washing machine, the car, the furniture and the house. We all know that is the case today, and one of the reasons that many family units in Canada are having great difficulty in keeping up with these payments is the iniquitous interest rates they are being charged.
The hon. member for Assiniboia mentioned the reports he has heard of certain firms which try to discourage cash buying. I must admit I was quite frankly flabbergasted last year when I was in Vancouver to discover that there is a large firm there which sells household appliances and household goods, and which has virtually stopped all cash selling. In effect they have turned their institution, which is ostensibly a retail store for furniture and household appliances, into a front for a small loans business at exorbitant rates of interest.
When I mentioned this to a friend of mine in Vancouver, a woman who had spent many years in the retail trade, she told me of her experience in working for another large retail firm in Vancouver. After having retired from work for some years following her marriage she again took a job. After her first week of employment she was warned that her sales book showed altogether too many cash sales and not nearly enough credit sales.
The answer of course is perfectly obvious. These firms make more money out of instalment buying than out of cash sales, and carried to the extent it is today the practice threatens the welfare of people in Canada in two ways. The first and most obvious way, of course, is by the exorbitant prices the people have to pay for the goods they require, the heavy strain on their individual financial resources and also the larger question of the inflationary effect of this large-scale, widespread inflation of prices through exorbitant interest rates.
I must say I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. member for Acad'a that the 12 per cent limit put by my colleague the hon. member for Assiniboia is somewhat on the generous side. Like everything else we become accustomed to such things too readily, and I think he had a point when he said that a rate of 12 per cent included in an act of this parliament would tend to become

Interest Act
regarded as a respectable rate of interest, when it is not so many years ago that it would have been considered as outrageous usury.
However, this limitation of 12 per cent would have a very great effect in curbing Some of the more iniquitous practices now engaged in by firms throughout the country, and should I think form part of this government's attempts to control the increasing inflationary pressures in our economy at the present time.
I would hope to see the government either accept this bill or introduce a measure along similar lines before this parliament is dissolved. I am not going to go into the question of the small loans bill, as hon. members know what happened there. The important thing is that it got through in spite of a number of obstacles. I have not the slightest doubt that by exercising the same skill and persistence the Minister of Finance could get a bill along this line through the banking and commerce committee and through the House of Commons if he saw fit to do so.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that hon. members in all sections of the house, even though they have not participated in this debate, feel that the hon. member for Assiniboia has performed a very valuable service in bringing this matter before the house. I am sure the Minister of Finance feels that this bill deals with a very important Canadian problem.
The Saturday edition of the Toronto Globe and Mail contained an advertisement addressed to prospective home owners, indicating the houses which are open for inspection over the week end. I should like to mention some of the prices that are set out. In Bayview Terrace there are apparently quite a number of houses of the split level type to sell at $32,900. In Bayview Village the prices range from $26,000 to $29,000. Then over in the Cloverdale subdivision the prices are down considerably, ranging as low as $18,400 to $19,200. In Knob Hill the prices are $14,000, which seems about the lowest I have run across. These prices range up to $16,900. In Lakeview Gardens the prices range from $23,500 to $25,000.
Out Danforth road the prices are down as low as $14,300. In Oakville the prices start at $29,500. Out in Pine Grove park in Port Credit you have a price range of $30,000 to $50,000. In Uplands Gardens in Thornhill the prices range from $32,000 to $34,000. On Prince George drive the prices range from $14,800 to $26,600.
I am quite sure there are not enough people in the greater Toronto area able to finance houses of this type out of their
IMr. Cameron (Nanaimo).]
earnings. As the hon. member for Assiniboia pointed out, you have second and third mortgages involved in connection with these transactions, and consequently people are forced to pay rates of interest which are bound to get them into trouble very shortly. When you move into a house costing $32,000 it is generally agreed that you should have an annual income of at least half that, or about $16,000. There are not enough people anywhere in Canada who are able to finance all the houses which are being built for sale at these prices.
After you have moved into a $32,000 house it is imperative that you scrap your old furniture which you may have had since you were married. The old furniture goes to the second-hand dealer, then you take on a new set of furniture for the house and pay the rates mentioned by the hon. member for Assiniboia.
Apparently many people think this is quite sound. Recently I read an article by an outstanding United States economist, who pointed out that the economists seem to be divided into three groups. One group feels that this spending spree will go on forever. The second group is of the opinion that we are about to have a minor recession. The third group considers that the present threat of inflation is much more serious than it has been at any time since 1928-29.
This economist writes a story expressing the views of a well known banker who said it is folly to think in terms of another depression, that with our fiscal and financial controls everything is under control and there is no need to worry. The economist pointed out that those opinions were expressed by a banker back in 1929 just before the crash, at a time when it was thought that everything was under control.
I submit that the proposal which has been brought before us today should receive the support of this house and the bill should be sent to the banking and commerce committee, so we may have an opportunity to examine witnesses and have before us officers of the Bank of Canada who can give us information as to the problem, as they see it, of the recurring volume of instalment buying. We should consider whether to have people who are in such desperate circumstances that they are willing to pay 50 per cent per annum in order to postpone until next year the problem they should face today is in the best interests of Canada, and whether or not we should have legislation which would put some real brakes on the small loans companies and those engaging in merchandising who apparently consider that the sky should be the limit.

On motion of Mr. Nicholson the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 161, an act to amend the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Act.-The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


Jean Lesage: -I am afraid the hon. member for Eglinton shows by his applause that he knows what I am going to say. I recognize with good grace, Mr. Speaker, that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Eglinton is well taken. The four lines objected to in Bill No. 161 are in the bill by mistake. Sir, may I point out that the order for second reading has been called by the deputy clerk but that the motion for second reading has not been put by the chair.
Such being the case, sir, I wish to move at this time, if I have the unanimous consent of the house:
That the order for second reading be allowed to stand and that Bill No. 161 be reprinted without lines 20 to 23 inclusive.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I just say that I am happy the minister has taken the position he has with regard to the point of order, because I think there is a serious question of constitutional usage involved here as well as-


Jean Lesage: Don't rub it in.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -the question of the proper procedure within the house. I think the suggestion made by the minister for the reprinting of the bill is the proper way now to deal with the matter in the interests of the business of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We too are happy to join in giving unanimous consent, and we congratulate the minister on solving this procedure and constitutional problem in this way.


Mr. Speaker:: This is the easiest ruling I have ever been called upon to make. Is it
Export and Import Permits Act the pleasure of the house to give unanimous consent to the motion that has been moved by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 206, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliameniary Assistant, for the Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this bill is to extend the Export and Import Permits Act for a further period of three years. By virtue of section 27 of the act it will expire on the 31st day of July, 1957. In this bill no amendment of the act is proposed except the substitution of a new expiry date, namely the 31st of July, 1960.
The necessity for exercising some control over the exportation and importation of goods has existed in varying degrees of intensity for a number of years. It is the opinion of the government that the provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act are adequate to meet current or foreseeable problems in this connection, and that the provisions of the present act should be continued for a further period.
The act provides the authority necessary for control of exports from Canada of arms, ammunition and implements of war, of atomic energy materials and other strategic materials, in order to ensure that these are not shipped to destinations where their use might be detrimental to the security of Canada or her allies. The act also provides authority to control the export of materials which become in short supply, in order to protect the supply position of Canadian industry. The act provides authority for control of all exports to certain countries listed in an area control list, which includes all countries in the Soviet bloc.
The act provides for control of imports only for specified purposes. The most important of these is authority to control imports of any commodity which is under price support in Canada, as butter is at the present time. There is also authority to control imports of any item which is subject to international allocation, as sulphur was during the Korean emergency by the international materials committee. Similarly there is authority to control imports of a commodity by arrangement with the government of the supplying country. This is of

Export and Import Permits Act particular importance to arrangements with the United States government, which does not impose any control on exports to Canada but which may ask Canada to regulate her imports of some scarce commodity from that market in time of emergency.
During the war years and prior to 1947 regulations were issued under the War Measures Act and the national emergency transitional powers act to meet the demands of the situations then existing. The Export and Import Permits Act became part of the statute law of Canada in 1947. The statute was re-enacted with substantial changes and improvements in 1954. The 1954 re-enactment provided for the expiration of the act on the 31st of July, 1957, and parliament is now being asked to continue the act in force for a further period of three years.
I am sure all hon. members look forward to the possibility that future developments in the world situation will be such that this legislation will not always be required. However, under present conditions and having in mind our national security and commitments to our allies, there appears to be no reasonable alternative to the continuation of this act.
I do not believe that any lengthy review of the world situation or the specific provisions of the act is appropriate at this stage of the debate. All of us reach our own conclusions respecting possible developments in the international situation and the prospects of peace or war. However different the bases may be for our views, I doubt that there is a single member of the house who does not agree that if this legislation was required in 1954 it is still necessary today. The experience of the last three years proves conclusively that this act was essential to enable this country to deal effectively with urgent and continuing problems.
The provisions of the act were carefully reviewed by this house during consideration of the bill which was before us in the 1954 session. Since that time its provisions have been found to work satisfactorily for the protection of the security of this country, and have enabled us to comply with any requirements of an international character which have arisen. However, perhaps I should remind the house that the scheme of the act is quite simple. With reference to exports it provides means for the control of the export of certain commodities from Canada to any destination, and the export of any commodity to certain destinations. With respect to imports the act contains power only to control the import into Canada of certain commodities, irrespective of their source. The act also contains the necessary [Mr. Dickey 1

provisions for its administration and enforcement. Continuing efforts have been made to improve the administration of the act, to simplify its application and remove in so far as is practicable inconveniences to Canadian exporters and importers.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this is a very short bill. Its effect will be simply to change a date in the present act, but the house had experience in 1955, in the case of the bill to amend the department of Defence Production Act, of the importance of an amending bill that simply changes a date in an existing act and thereby extends the life and effect of a statute which will otherwise, according to its terms, expire. This act, if it is not extended, will expire on July 31 next.
It is well, sir, that the house should recall that the present act vests sweeping powers in the governor general in council. The mere change of a date by the present bill will have the effect of vesting these same very wide powers in the cabinet for a further period of three years, until July 31, 1960. It means that the cabinet will continue to have powers to set up control lists, including an export control list, an import control list and an area control list. When it has done so the statute will provide that no person shall export or attempt to export any goods named in the export control list or to any country included in any area control list except in accordance with a permit issued under the provisions of the act. Similarly, in the case of goods named in any import control list the statute will provide that no person shall import or attempt to import any goods included in such an import control list except under the authority of a permit issued under the act. Because the goods and commodities that can be named in this export control list, import control list and area control list are virtually without limit, the house will have no difficulty in recalling how sweeping are these powers and therefore how important is the measure now under discussion.
The house will also recall, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation has always been put before the house as emergency legislation. This type of control came into existence during the war. It was continued until 1947 under the powers then existing. In 1947 the whole subject came before the house for consideration, and at that time the house took what I venture to consider was a very sound course. It referred the legislation to the standing committee on banking and commerce for review. That committee not only conducted a review of the proposed legislation but also a review of the way in

which the Department of Trade and Commerce had administered both import and export control. The committee was greatly assisted in that task by Mr. W. Frederick Bull who was, until this past week, the deputy minister of trade and commerce and who made a profound impression on the members of that committee as he reviewed the administration of these important controls with which he had been closely associated.
May I in passing pay this brief tribute to Mr. Bull. I think all members of this house recognize the fact that Mr. Bull has been an exemplary civil servant and an extremely distinguished deputy minister of trade and commerce. I am sure that in his new duties in the diplomatic field as this country's ambassadorial representative to Japan he will carry with him the good wishes of all hon. members of this house.
That was the last time any opportunity has been afforded to the house for a detailed review of the operations of this control legislation. I might interject here that it was extended by annual bills for a time, because this kind of control was regarded as so definitely of limited duration in those days- I refer to the late 1940's-that it was simply extended a year or a year and a half at a time until 1951 when the legislation was somewhat recast.
At that time the government asked for five years' extension of the legislation and of the very wide powers that were conferred upon them. They managed to pass their bill through the House of Commons, but the Senate proposed an amendment limiting the duration of the bill to three years. That amendment was finally accepted, and accordingly the legislation expired in 1954. In the bill introduced in that year it was given three years' duration. I therefore emphasize the fact that in the past decade, every time this legislation has come up for discussion it has been put before the house on the basis of being legislation for a limited duration because it has been recognized that the powers are so wide that there could be no justification for conferring them in permanent statutory form upon any minister.
What then are the conditions existing today which justify a continuation of these very wide powers for a further period of three years? It is fair to compare the conditions today with the conditions which were thought to justify the conferring of these powers in 1954 or earlier years.
So far as export control is concerned, if we turn back to 1947 we will see that at that time the principal condition with which the bill sought to deal was a scarcity of goods. The argument was put forward that controls 82715-121
Export and Import Permits Act had to be introduced with a view to equitable distribution of goods. The statement was made by the then minister of trade and commerce on February 18, 1947, as reported at page 568 of Hansard of that year:
While the main purpose of the export control is to ensure adequate supply in Canada, the export controls are also necessary to enable us to carry out Canada's commitments in connection with those foodstuffs which are in world short supply and which, by common agreement of the United Nations, must be formally allocated to ensure an equitable distribution.
Then he added this:
A third type of control which is envisaged by this measure is that relating to the movement of arms, munitions and war materials and supplies.
When the powers were renewed in 1954 it was recognized by the government that the need for maintaining control over goods in order to ensure equitable distribution no longer could be regarded as a serious matter in view of the fact that the scarcity of goods no longer existed. But in the meantime the other purpose of the bill had loomed into larger proportion. We were in the post-Korea period and the necessity for preserving, in concert with other interested nations, a form of export control over strategic materials was very pressing in its impact upon the house. Even in 1954 there were indications that the nations concerned in applying these export controls on strategic materials during the Korean period were beginning to take a second look at the list of strategic materials and were considering some modification of the list and of the strict controls attached thereto.
There has been some change in conditions in that regard since then. There has been some modification in the list of strategic materials. But the question that must confront the house and, not least of all, those of us who are chronically opposed to the conferring of sweeping powers on the government under conditions short of emergency, is this: is it essential under present conditions that power should be continued in the government to impose, by order in council or by ministerial order, control over export of strategic materials with a view to preventing them from falling into the hands of the communists or being exported to communist countries? It seems to me that is the nub of the problem that must be faced by the house in addressing itself to the question of whether it shall or shall not support the principle of the bill.
Sir, conditions in the world today may be somewhat improved in some quarters over 1954. They are worse in other quarters of the world. We have not had any occasion since 1954 to learn to trust the communists or their
1906	HOUSE OF
Export and Import Permits Act intentions any more than we did then; therefore as long as there are communist powers in the world and they are prepared to embark upon aggressive adventures when it may suit their particular purposes or whenever they see in such manoeuvres an opportunity of extending their ideological domain, then I suppose we must reconcile ourselves to the continuation in some form of the power to impose control designed to prevent the export of strategic materials to communist countries.
The other grounds which were put forward to sustain the right to impose export controls, it seems to me, have very much less weight now than they had in 1954.
On the import side, sir, the case for the maintenance of the power to continue import controls is much weaker than is the case with respect to export controls. One has only to look at the figures, which I shall give the house in a moment, to find proof of that assertion. This measure contemplates import controls in three situations, and they are set forth in the act in this form in Section 5:
The governor in council may establish a list of goods, to be called an import control list, including therein any article the import of which he deems it necessary to control for any of the following purposes, namely,
(a)	to ensure, in accordance with the needs of Canada the best possible supply and distribution of an article that is scarce in world markets or is subject to governmental controls in the countries of origin or to allocation by inter-governmental arrangements;
(b)	to implement any action taken under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, the Fisheries Prices Support Act, the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act or the Agricultural Products Board Act, to support the price of the article or that has the effect of supporting the price of the article; or
(c)	to implement an inter-governmental arrangement or commitment.
Now, sir, there may be something to be said for the maintenance of import controls where these are necessary as the handmaid of price support legislation of the type set forth in paragraph (b) which I have just read. The types of situations contemplated in paragraphs (a) and (c), however, do not seem now to exist on a serious scale. There are undoubtedly situations such as the one to which the parliamentary assistant referred, where we have some arrangement with the United States, but I do not think the government can pretend that the case for import controls is any longer very weighty.
I said I would refer to the figures. The figures are interesting and, indeed, they speak for themselves. In 1954 I drew attention to the fact that in the four years 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953 the number of export permits which had been issued, and which ought to be a reliable gauge of the need for export controls,


was 115,609. On the other hand, the number of import permits issued in that four-year period was only 2,332.
Under the 1954 legislation I might offer the house these figures. For the year 1955 the applications for export permits numbered 10,262; the export permits issued during the year totalled 9,962. In 1956 the number of applications received for export permits was 13,352; the number of export permits issued was 13,123. Now, sir, compare the figures on import permits. In the year 1955 the number of import permits issued was 4. In 1956 the number of permits issued was only 3. I am sure that in the face of those figures the government is not going to pretend there is a very serious case any longer for the maintenance of import control by order in council.
There is, to complete the picture, a provision in the act for import certificates. These are provided for under the act to facilitate imports into Canada from countries which would otherwise require satisfactory proof that the goods being exported from that country to Canada were not intended eventually for communist countries. In 1955 the number of import certificates issued was 637. In 1956 the number of import certificates issued was 559. So far as using import control to strengthen our price support legislation is concerned, it is significant that the only commodity under price support which has been brought within the scope of import control is butter.
I have offered this limited review in order to stress the fact that I think the time has come when there should be conducted by one of the standing committees of the house- obviously the standing committee on banking and commerce is the proper committee for this purpose-a review of the legislation and the administration of the act. A careful examination should be undertaken of the question whether or not the forms of control that are permitted by the act are now all necessary.
So far as second reading of the bill is concerned, I am prepared to take it on the basis that as long as we are threatened with aggression in the world there must be some power provided for control of the export of strategic material. Therefore, as the bill makes that provision, I think it must be given second reading. But I do strongly urge that before the bill goes any farther it ought to be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce for that detailed review which I have submitted is necessary, and which has not been given to this legislation or the administration under it for 10 years.
Ten years is a long time with respect to the administration of a system of controls of

this kind. I feel the time has arrived, indeed the time is overdue, when there ought to be that reference to a committee for serious study and consideration. I put that before the government, and I urge that after second reading the bill should go to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
In conclusion, sir, may I remind the house that this legislation has always been recognized by the government as of an emergent nature which can be supported only for a limited duration. The limited duration which is now expiring is three years. The government is asking for an extension for a further three-year period. I would say that unless the government is prepared to have this bill go to the committee on banking and commerce, serious consideration should be given to making it a shorter period; because I think there is every reason to expect that if the committee on banking and commerce had the opportunity to conduct a thorough review of the administration of the act and the existing controls it might be found that the wide powers now conferred by the act upon the governor in council and upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce could be reduced without the loss of anything that is vital to meet the needs of current conditions or conditions that are foreseeable within the near future.
The list of export materials that have been classified as strategic materials has been revised from time to time. It is likely to undergo further revisions. The last one was carried out just two months ago.
So far, then, as the principle of the bill is concerned, sir, one can give it a limited sort of approval. At the same time I urge that because of the nature of this legislation the government ought to agree willingly to send this bill to the banking and commerce committee after second reading, in order that the scheme of the act and the administration of the controls under that act could be very carefully weighed and reviewed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house will agree that there is a continuing need for legislation of the kind contained in the Export and Import Permits Act. Indeed I note with interest that despite the criticisms the hon. member for Eglinton offered in the course of his remarks, even he is not unwilling to vote for the second reading of this bill which provides for the continuation of the Export and Import Permits Act for a period of another three years.
I think we are all pleased that the government across the way has learned a few lessons during the course of this parliament.
82715-121J
Export and Import Permits Act It is not so long ago that there was another bill more or less in this same field. I refer to the Defence Production Act, the continuation of which was sought by the Minister of Defence Production, who is the same minister responsible for this bill, only in that instance the continuation was sought on a permanent basis. We all remember the battle that took place over that matter in the session of 1955, as a result of which the government's bill was amended to provide for the continuation of that legislation only for a further three years. It would look as though a lesson was learned at that time; for the proposal now before the house is that this legislation, which is in a sense a companion piece to the Defence Production Act, is to be continued not on a permanent basis but just for another three years.
We all agree that the world situation is still such that there does have to be control over exports; and even though the previous speaker may not agree with us, we think the economic situation is such that there does have to be some control over both exports and imports. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we feel that in principle we must agree with the request to have this legislation continued for a further period of time. However, we think there is validity in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Eglinton that this bill might be referred to a standing committee such as the committee on banking and commerce.
One of the difficulties that always confronts us in dealing with a piece of legislation of this kind is that the form in which it is set up does not present an opportunity to discuss in detail what is actually being done. The bill is a very simple one of just one section. When second reading is carried and we go into committee on the bill we shall then have only that one section to discuss, which in turn provides for an amendment to but one section of the existing statute. Nevertheless, though that is all the amending bill does, in effect it continues in existence for another three years a statute consisting of some 29 sections. Not only is it impossible to discuss those 29 sections when we are on second reading, as we are now, when we must deal with the principle of the bill, but it is likewise very difficult in committee of the whole, on a one-clause bill, to discuss those 29 sections which in effect are to be continued for another three years. Everyone knows that it is much easier to have a discussion on all that is involved in those 29 sections if the bill is referred to the banking and commerce committee.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, it is our view, generally speaking, that this type of legislation is necessary under present conditions.
1908	HOUSE OF
Export and Import Permits Act We are glad that the government, in asking for this extension, is not making the mistake of asking for it on a permanent basis but just for three years. Nevertheless we do feel that there is justification for the suggestion that the act that is being extended might be looked at more closely by a committee of this house, namely the standing committee on banking and commerce. I therefore rise to express on behalf of this group the hope that the minister will accede to the request that after second reading of this bill it be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, in addition to this legislation providing for control over certain strategic materials going to various nations of the world, in other words, a form of export control, there is also a very wide provision for the control of imports. I certainly agree with my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and the hon. member for Eglinton, that this bill should be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce for further study. Because of the changing international situation it might be well if members from all sides of the house could look at the various items that are controlled, that are banned, and so forth, from going to various countries of the world, to see whether those items seem appropriate in the light of present international policies. I myself have no idea whether or not the list is too broad or too restrictive; but I think when trade is so important to Canada it would be wise if members of the house could make a thorough study of the provisions that are now in existence.
Then the other section allows for control of imports for purposes of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, the Fisheries Prices Support Act, the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act and the Agricultural Products Board Act. The only commodity that is controlled in terms of importation under this provision of the act is butter. With farm organizations across Canada making representations to the government that the price support legislation is being threatened by certain trade practices that are being followed, I feel an additional reason for having this legislation referred to the banking and commerce committee would be the opportunity it would present to invite representatives of farm organizations to appear before the committee to express their opinion as to whether or not the Export and Import Permits Act as it is now being administered is in fact being administered in the best interests of the agricultural industry and of the nation as a whole.
(Mr. Knowles.]

Hon. members know that farm organizations-perhaps not so much on the prairies as in Ontario and British Columbia-have complained from time to time of very large quantities of poultry being shipped into this country, including turkeys in certain seasons of the year and so on, in such a manner as to unduly depress the structure of prices paid to Canadian producers. The same thing was said to me recently by Mr. Albert Cormack, president of the Ontario farmers' union.
I am not an authority in this field, Mr. Speaker, but since this act makes provision for import permits as well as export permits I feel that this would be the right time for a committee of this house to consider the general trade policies of the country as affected by this act, and more particularly to hear the representatives of farm organizations so we could ascertain whether or not the other acts that are related to this legislation are in fact functioning in the best possible way.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the parliamentary assistant speaks now he will close the debate.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one or two comments on the debate we have had on second reading. First of all I wish to express great appreciation to the hon. member for Eglinton for his very complimentary reference to the deputy minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Bull. Certainly the hon. member's reference is highly merited. There is no doubt that Mr. Bull has impressed hon. members of this house whenever he has appeared as a witness before one of our committees, and that was certainly the case in connection with the Export and Import Controls Act when it received consideration in committee.
I know the minister would want me to express this word of appreciation to the hon. member for Eglinton, and to say that Mr. Bull's work in the department has been very greatly appreciated. Our regret in seeing him leave the department is relieved only by our great satisfaction at the important new responsibilities he is assuming and the highly merited promotion in the public service he is receiving.
I do not think I should allow the debate to conclude without pointing out to the hon. member for Eglinton that his description of the powers that are vested in the minister under this act was not quite accurate. The powers he referred to with respect to the establishment of control lists on commodities and an area control list-that is, the general

over-all powers contained in the act-are vested in the governor in council, not in the minister. Orders made by the governor in council in pursuance of the powers contained in the act are of course subject to tabling in the House of Commons in accordance with the provision of the Regulations Act. For this reason I think they are more appropriately dealt with than would be the case if they were ministerial powers. The powers of the minister under the act are the more detailed powers of the day to day issuing of permits and certificates, and in this respect are very much more appropriate powers for ministerial action.
The hon. member for Eglinton and other hon. members have spoken of the reasons underlying the existence of this act. The hon. member for Eglinton indicated that previous extensions of this act prior to 1950 or 1951 were for one year's duration. I think I should point out to the house that those extensions were in the period before the Korean emergency, and I believe the Korean emergency changed the whole situation materially with respect to the necessity for controls of this kind and also a number of other matters.
The hon. member also indicated that in 1947 the main basis for having an act of this nature arose out of the scarcity of materials that then existed. In a general sense I think that is probably true, but the fact that in 1954 this was no longer one of the main reasons but had been supplanted by another reason, which was the necessity of maintaining control of exports of arms and other strategic materials to the communist bloc, simply shows how fundamentally and rapidly situations of this kind can change. It indicates, I believe, the basic requirement for an act of this kind which is carefully drawn to keep the necessary authority and power within reasonable limits, but still contains the powers that may require to be exercised, sometimes with very little notice, in the national interest and to ensure national security.
The three hon. members who have spoken said they feel this bill should be considered and studied in the committee on banking and commerce. I cannot agree with that suggestion, Mr. Speaker. As has been pointed out, the bill itself is very brief indeed and consists of only one clause. In the opinion of the government there has not been any fundamental change in the situation which gives rise to any justification for considering basic changes in the act, either in terms of extending its provisions to cover additional matters or in terms of reducing the coverage of its sections.
Export and Import Permits Act
The hon. member for Eglinton suggested there was not as good a case for the retentions of the controls over imports as there was concerning exports.
That is a matter of opinion. When you realize that the control over imports is an absolute and fundamental necessity for the implementation of any price support legislation of the type referred to by the hon. member, you come to the realization that this is a most important power to have in some statute or other for the exercise of support, for agricultural and other commodities. Therefore I submit that second reading should be given to this bill, after which it should be studied in the normal manner in committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Duration.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, we are
having another experience which we have had so often and which we should be used to; and whatever pain it causes us, it should cause us no surprise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are used to pain.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We have here a bill containing powers which if it were possible to detach ourselves from the situation to which in spite of ourselves we have grown accustomed, namely the common use of these almost absolute powers, we would regard as almost incredible. Clause 5, to which the hon. member for Eglinton has referred, gives the minister powers that almost defy description, but the parliamentary assistant says they must retain these powers because they may be required to assure national security. Those words may mean something to the parliamentary assistant, but they mean nothing to me and I submit they mean nothing to the ordinary man of common sense.
The truth of the matter is that when we ask members of the government why these great powers, the answer we get is "Why not." If they were frank I know they would say, "We have had these powers for years, we like them and we are not going to give them up." When it is pointed out by the hon. member for Eglinton that this situation should be considered by a standing committee, when it is pointed out that after 10 years we should have another look-see at it, even that reasonable request is turned down.
I think the truth of the matter is that the government have grown so accustomed to exercising these powers that to them they have become quite normal. I recognize that the abnormal has become the normal, and We have to accept that by force of a large

Export and Import Permits Act majority. The hon. member lor Eglinton has pointed out the import situation. What is really happening here is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has a sort of vest pocket tariff power which he can carry about with him and use in whatever way he likes. It is far more than a tariff power, because an import quota or import prohibition is really more effective than any but the most extreme tariffs, indeed more than any tariff.
I do not think there is much to be gained by repeating this, by going around the course again. It would have seemed to me that there could be nothing more reasonable than to ask that these powers, which are extraordinary powers, should be considered in the most efficient manner we have available, which is by a standing committee. But as I say, the abnormal has become normal. The parliamentary assistant and his minister apparently have ceased to regard this as abnormal, have ceased to regard this as being an emergency. Although they did use the word "emergency", no attempt was made by the parliamentary assistant to point out what was the emergency.
We all know that 10 years ago there was an emergency; and, as the hon. member for Eglinton pointed out, even three years ago there was the post-Korean situation. But without even taking the trouble to give us a scintilla of evidence that there is an emergency now we are asked to deal with this bill in this manner. I rise merely to record my feelings of regret, but not of surprise, that we have again run into the usual stone wall.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: How many
permits were issued for exports to countries behind the iron curtain during the last year?


John Horace Dickey: Those countries are all on
the area control list and permits for the export of non-strategic items are quite freely issued, but the number is relatively small. We have no exact figure here, but it is available and can be secured for the hon. member.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should also like to inquire about imports of canned meats from those countries. I understand that a year or two ago they discovered in the United States that some canned meats which had come from behind the iron curtain were not fit for human consumption and had to be condemned. Are we getting any of that kind of meat in this country?


John Horace Dickey: There is no power under
this act to deal with matters of health or of the quality of any product imported. The
[Mr. Macdonnell.l
particular matter with which the hon. member is concerned would come under the Department of Agriculture, health of animals branch. They have powers under the appropriate legislation to deal with a situation of that kind, but we could not deal with it under import control.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would not
your department check before issuing an import permit for such food? The Minister of National Health and Welfare told me here in the house that this would come under the pure food laws. Meat packed in those countries might be packed under conditions that would not be accepted in this country.


John Horace Dickey: Actually canned meat or
products of that kind are not under import control, and there is no regulation under this act respecting them. The main point that I should make clear is that the reasons for which import control can be applied under this act do not include reasons of the kind the hon. member has in mind.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant a couple of questions. Can the importation of fruits, potatoes and other vegetables from the United States be prohibited by the use of this act?


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Chairman, if action is taken by the agricultural prices support board, for example, under the exercise of its responsibility and its authority, then that decision can be made effective by the issuance of an order under this act restraining the importation of a particular item dealt with by the agricultural prices support board. But there is no power under this act to initiate action to keep out a particular import.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As I understand it, then, the price has to be supported first, and a recommendation then comes from the prices support board to the minister concerned for action under this act.


John Horace Dickey: That is correct. The appropriate board has to take the action available to it to provide price support, and then in order to make that action effective an order can be issued under this act. But it is not possible under the terms of the authority given in this act for initiating action to be taken to exclude some particular import such as fruit, vegetables, or anything of that kind.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would it be possible, then, that in some cases the government has denied price support to certain agricultural commodities because of the possibility of the use of this act under these circumstances?


John Horace Dickey: I do not quite understand the import of the question, but I think it is quite

unlikely that the actions of the agricultural prices support board have been in any way influenced by the existence of this act. If this act did not exist the agricultural prices support board might find it impractical to attempt to support the price of a particular agricultural product because the floor could be broken by that product being brought in from outside the country. The existence of this power is really a support of the action taken by the agricultural prices support board, and certainly not a limitation of it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the committee should have some information with regard to the matter of strategic materials and any changes that have recently been made or that are in contemplation with respect to the countries included within the scope of the export prohibitions with regard to strategic materials. At the bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5 the report of the Minister of Trade and Commerce respecting operations under the act for the year 1956 has this to say with reference to general export permit No. EX 2 of June 2, 1955:
It allows-
"It" being this general export permit.
-certain non-strategic goods, irrespective of country of origin, to move freely to all destinations, with the exception of Albania, Bulgaria, China (including Manchuria but excluding Taiwan), Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Germany (Soviet zone only), Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, North Korea, Poland, Roumania, Sinkiang, Tibet, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Macao, and Indo-China, without the necessity of obtaining individual export permits.
It is evident, Mr. Speaker, that nonstrategic goods are permitted to move freely to all destinations with the exception of those countries which are under communist governments or are communist satellites of the U.S.S.R. The report continues:
This general permit also allows the same nonstrategic goods, when of Canadian origin only, to move freely to all destinations with the exception of China (including Manchuria hut excluding Outer Mongolia and Taiwan), North Korea, Sinkiang, Tibet, Macao, Indo-China and Vladivostok and neighbouring ports, without the necessity of obtaining individual export permits. Hence considerable relaxation has been established on shipments to Hong Kong and also to a lesser degree the European Soviet bloc countries, by dispensing with certain formalities.
There are various questions that arise out of that reference. I should like to begin by asking first of all if that report, from which I have read an extract, represents the position today. In other words, can we take it that no amendments in the control provisions have been made since the report to which I have referred?
Export and Import Permits Act


John Horace Dickey: I am informed that there have been no changes in the list and no changes in these general permits since that time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are there any changes in contemplation either in the list of proscribed countries or in the terms of the export order to which I have referred?


John Horace Dickey: I am informed that there are no changes contemplated at the present time in the area control list.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What are the commitments or agreements with the United States which enter into the imposition of either export or permit control on the part of Canada?


John Horace Dickey: Did the hon. member say just export control?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Or import.


John Horace Dickey: With respect to export control, goods are permitted by the United States to move freely into Canada without the imposition of their export controls, so we have to see that our export control provisions are similar in character and in effect to the export controls of the United States in order to ensure that goods of United States origin which come into Canada free of their export control are not then transshipped out of Canada to a destination to which they would not have been eligible to move from the United States itself.


Owen Lewis Jones: Can the parliamentary assistant inform the house whether to his knowledge fruit, potato and other vegetable growers have tried to come under the provisions of the act? I understand they could not directly, but have they tried to do so indirectly?


John Horace Dickey: No. I am informed that we have no knowledge of any efforts of that kind. Certainly no approach would be made to the minister or the officials responsible for the administration of this act from such a source. It would have to come from the board itself.


Owen Lewis Jones: The act would cover it if they complied with the other provisions? Am I to understand that?


John Horace Dickey: Once action has been taken by the appropriate body that has the authority to institute some sort of price support program, then action could be taken under this act to implement that decision.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: When shall this bill be read the third time?

Supply


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Applewhaiie):
Next sitting of this house.

On the order:
House again in committee of supply (the message of His Excellency the Governor General with estimates, referred).-The Minister of Finance.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Applewhaite):Is there unanimous consent for the house to resolve itself again into committee of supply	at this	time?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker,
this is a rather unexpected and unusual situation as far as we are concerned. The business of the house as set down yesterday was the four bills which have been taken up. Of course owing to the fact that one of those bills, namely Bill No. 161 was out of order, this situation has arisen. We do not know what department would come into supply.


Hugues Lapointe: Post office.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I might say that I know there are quite a number of members who would like to be here but who are not here and who would be interested in supply. I do not think it would be altogether fair to the house or to the members if we went on with supply, they not expecting supply to come up tonight. If the minister intends to make a speech and take the rest of the time until ten o'clock, I do not think there would be any objection to that procedure; but as far as the items are concerned, I do not believe the members feel that they wish to go ahead with them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The position in which the chair finds itself is that Order No. 8 for the house again in committee of supply has been read. It is my interpretation of the rules that with the new rules we could only go into supply on a Tuesday by unanimous consent, and that under those circumstances we could not introduce a department which had not already been introduced. The question before the house then is this. Is there unanimous consent for the house to resolve itself again into committee of supply at this time?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I think I hear some people saying "Agreed" and other people saying "No". Under those circumstances I think there is objection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is there not an alternative? Could the government not move that
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite).]
we go into supply? It is true that it might be a debatable motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I was not proposing to debate the motion.
I realize that hon. members might have drawn that conclusion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: find myself in the position that I do not think I can accept a motion to go into supply because the new rules, as I read them, say that motions to go into supply at this stage shall be made on a Monday so that, if some subject is raised for debate, hon. members may have the full Monday and Tuesday for debate. If I remember rightly, without looking it up, the order must be the first called on a Monday and must be the first called on a Tuesday so the full two days debate is allowed.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think I am in agreement with what you have said. That was why it was suggested that we might ask for the unanimous consent of the house to proceed with the Post Office Department. This does not come as a surprise to hon. members opposite. I indicated earlier this evening that this would be the case if this order of business was completed. If my hon. friends say they cannot find it possible to agree, all I can say is that on future occasions I should simply say that I shall call the whole order paper, and then there will be no question of not being able to go on with any given item.


Mr. Casselman:: The steam roller.


Walter Edward Harris: I want to be perfectly frank with hon. gentlemen opposite and just say this. I do not know of an occasion when I have not met their wishes with respect to the business of the house, either this session or any other session. If for the sake of 45 minutes they cannot agree with the government once upon this occasion, it seems to me that I should draw that fact to their attention at least once publicly during each session. If my hon. friends cannot find it possible to consent, in order to get behind them at least a small part of the Post Office Department, knowing that we will not complete it in that time, I can only suggest that I move we adjourn.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the minister throwing the blame on the opposition, may I say that if the government had intimated last night more business for the house-he mentioned four bills-there would not be this difficulty. It is the government's fault that there is not more business on the order paper.

As far as intimating something here an hour or so ago to one or two members is concerned, that hardly seems to me to be an intimation to this house of 265 members that the Post Office Department was to be considered. Very few members knew. As a matter of fact I did not know myself, and I do not think other members over here knew.
We should like very much to meet the wishes of the government, and we usually do so; but under the circumstances we are not prepared to do so in this instance. As I say, there are members who are away and who are greatly interested in the Post Office Department. They would like to be here when those estimates are taken up.


Walter Edward Harris: But there are members who are here.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: For the sake of 40 minutes we do not feel that we can give unanimous consent. I am sorry, but we do not feel that we can do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might make another suggestion in the hope that it might be acceptable all round. Would it be possible for hon. members to agree to go into committee of supply and deal with the post office estimates, on the understanding that the first item would not be carried tonight? There are members here who are prepared to deal with some matters on the first item. It would mean a little progress if some of these remarks could be made. I realize that it is difficult to play the role of a peacemaker after some of the things that have been said, but at any rate I am trying.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, we did not hear anything about the Post Office Department being taken up. However, we are quite agreeable to taking up the post office estimates and following the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the first item remain before the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Under the circumstances is there unanimous consent for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: want to make it clear that, as occupant of the chair, I am not trying to lead the house. I would suggest that I hear a conglomeration of sounds. Could I perhaps put it this way so we will know whether or not there is unanimous consent. Is there opposition to the house resolving itself into committee of supply?
Supply-Post Office


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: To what are we agreeing? Has there been agreement on the part of the leader of the house on the government side that the first item of the Post Office Department shall not be passed tonight?


Arza Clair Casselman: No, there is no agreement.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not think you can expect that I would engage myself to do that if it happened that hon. members opposite came to the end of their remarks and did not want to proceed with them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Oh, we cannot agree to that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is just a supposition.


Walter Edward Harris: It seems to me that in all probability we will have speeches on the first item that will last at least until tomorrow or until Friday. Under those circumstances I do not expect the first item to be passed. But should it happen that hon. members opposite exhaust their activities before ten o'clock, I will move the adjournment before item 1 is carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is fair enough.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: It
being unanimously consented to, the house will resolve itself again into committee of supply.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
333. Departmental administration, including an amount of $250,000 to defray the expenses of the 1957 congress of the universal postal union to be held in Ottawa, $2,091,516.
Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I have just a small matter I want to bring to the attention of the minister. I wrote to the minister on November 27 last year concerning the Peters-field rural route outside of Winnipeg. As I tried to explain, the trouble there is that the mail arrives at the post office at 10.30. It is sorted and ready to be delivered by 11.30, but it stays in the post office at Petersfield until the next day, when it is delivered.
What I was asking the minister to do was to see if some arrangements could be made whereby the mail would be delivered on the day it arrived from Winnipeg. That is all I was asking and I have not got any satisfaction, other than that the minister told me he would look into the matter. If he has looked into it and it cannot be done, then I want to know, because I want to bring some more evidence to show that it can be done.

Supply-Post Office


Hugues Lapointe: What is the name of the place?


William Scottie Bryce: The Petersfield rural route. The mail comes from Winnipeg in the morning, and it is at the office at 10.30; it is sorted by 11.30, and then it lies there until the next day. People who receive newspapers do not get them until a day late. I would appreciate it if the minister would look into that.


Edward George McCullough: I want to be as constructive as I can in the comments I make on the minister's estimates. In so far as my knowledge is concerned, the personnel of the Post Office Department are to be highly commended for the service they render. I know quite a few of these people in my constituency, and they are happy and proud of the service they do render to this country. I think the service they render often goes beyond the call of duty of the particular office they try to fill in the Post Office Department.
I want to pay particular tribute to the rural mail couriers. In my own constituency we have quite a number of them. I am sure all hon. members who have seen them carrying the Queen's mail know the adverse circumstances under which they perform their duty, and will join me in paying tribute to the kind of service they attempt to give. I know quite well that many rural carriers use power toboggans; some of them use jeeps, and some use horses and cutters in order to get around their routes. I am one of those who would like to join other hon. members in commending these rural carriers upon the type of service they render.
However, I do want to say I feel this government should be criticized in many respects, one of which is with regard to the cost we now have to pay to send ordinary mail. I recall the debates which took place in this house when the members of this group in particular fought the increase in the letter rate from 4 cents to 5 cents. I feel that time has proved what we said then to be correct, namely that it was not necessary for the government to make this increase. At the time they pulled a trick on the Canadian taxpayer by removing the requirement for stamps on cheques, but increased the price of stamps on ordinary letters to 5 cents.
It is true that much of our mail travelling on the 5 cent rates goes air mail; nevertheless I think it rather a scandalous surprise, if I may put it that way, to find that this year the Post Office Department has a revenue surplus of over $30 million. The minister shakes his head, but that is what I understand and he can put the'record straight when he speaks. I feel that the people of Canada

want service from this department, and not a surplus. They do not want it being used by the government to gain revenue. I suggest to the minister that he should try to improve the service, particularly in some of the rural areas.
At this time I want to bring to the minister's attention some problems relating to my own constituency. He will recall that I have been in touch with him with regard to several post offices in my constituency. I have here a communication from the secretary-treasurer of Torquay, Saskatchewan. I think the minister will be aware, Mr. Chairman, that we have suffered a great deal from the curtailment of rail service in Saskatchewan. This may be outside the scope of the minister's department and perhaps we should score the Minister of Transport in that regard. I see he is in his seat. However, apparently the railroads serving western Canada have curtailed passenger service in their economy drive, and that has meant that postal deliveries have been similarly curtailed.
I hope the minister will deal with this when he replies, but I want to bring to his attention the fact that there is a branch line from Estevan to Torquay over which the mail travels on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. This means that from Thursday until Monday no mail is received. I have had representations from that area suggesting that the mail be carried by truck. I hope the minister will see fit to put in some type of truck delivery at those points at which there has been serious curtailment of mail delivery, so the people can receive adequate service.
I should like to point out also, along with the hon. member for Selkirk, the fact that there are many points where mail now comes in late in the evening and is not delivered on the rural routes until some time the next week. I know of one point where that situation applies on the Winnipeg-Arcola route, and that is at Manor. The mail comes into Manor at around seven o'clock in the evening. If it comes in on Friday evening, to my knowledge it is not sorted and sent out until the following Tuesday. If it comes in on the seven o'clock train from Winnipeg on Tuesday it is not sorted and delivered until the following Friday. I suggest that at least mail coming in during the late evening should be sorted and sent out as soon as possible in order to give better service.
There is one other matter, and that has to do with the post office at Maryfield. I made representations to the Postmaster General, suggesting to him that there is quite a good deal of pressure at that point for a new post office. I am fully aware of the fact that the basis upon which new post offices are built

is the revenue return. I think it is fair to point out that we have two railways serving that point, since both the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific come into that area. A great deal of floor space is required, particularly during the Christmas rush when there is an excess of mail, to do the sorting at that post office.
I suggest to the minister that since the revenue of the office is getting up to the point where it would be proper to build a new office, he should give consideration to the building of an adequate office for that point.
I know that some attempt has been made to get somebody locally to build that post office. After taking into consideration the revenue return which a person would get from renting a building with the necessary space you would hardly expect a local person to build it. I know officials in that town have tried to find a satisfactory location and accommodation, but I am suggesting to the minister that the people in that area would be very happy if he could see fit to do something about that problem. I suggest that what is needed is a new post office.
I should like, Mr. Chairman, to give credit to the government for undertaking some of the representations I have made in the past, and I hope the ones I am making this evening will be as successful as some I have made in the past. I think I have already thanked the department-if I have not I wish to do so now-for the construction of the fine post office at Kipling. Hon. members will realize that on several occasions since 1953 I advocated that building, and I am very happy that the former minister recommended to the Department of Public Works that this post office be built. I wish to thank the government for that.
I also wish to thank the government for building a post office in what has now become the ninth city in Saskatchewan. I speak, of course, of Estevan, one of the finest little cities in southeastern Saskatchewan, which was incorporated on the first of this month. It is true the government is building a new post office there. Mr. Cote, the former postmaster general, was very kind and generous when he wrote me, after I made my representations in this house on the need for a federal building there, to say that he was recommending that it be built. I am very well pleased with that. I think it will be opened this spring or summer, and it will certainly be a fine asset to that city.
However, I wish to point out to the government that there are some things in connection with that building about which we are not happy in Estevan. I think the government are to be severely scored for their actions in connection with that building. In
Supply-Post Office
the town of Estevan we have a crown corporation producing some of the finest brick produced by a brick plant anywhere in Canada. I fail to see why the Department of Public Works had to go outside that city to get brick, why they had to import it from outside the province in order to erect that building. I am convinced that not one contractor, local or otherwise, could say that building would not have been more beautiful had the government seen fit to use Estevan brick.
I do not know the reason they did not. I do not know whether or not it was political, but we just do not like it. While we are happy to get the building, as I say, we certainly think consideration should have been given to using the fine brick produced in our own plant at Estevan. Today that brick is being shipped to all parts of Canada and, of course, beautiful buildings are being erected with it.
I do not think there is anything more I wish to say at this time, Mr. Chairman, but I do feel that perhaps at this late date, if the Post Office Department does not intend to use some of this revenue to increase services, particularly on rural routes, and give finer service, it would be well to give consideration to reducing the postal rates in this country.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Chairman, before this item passes there are a few observations I should like to make in connection with the general operation of the Post Office Department as it affects the rural communities.
As hon. members are aware, residents in rural communities gained very little advantage from the increase in postal rates. The principal direction of their mail is to the larger cities within the provinces, and it must travel there by rail or bus. They get advantage of the speedy service by air only if their mail happens to be going to a distant point in eastern or western Canada. It is apparent, then, that they have contributed in large measure to the $30 million surplus which the minister has reported for the Post Office Department without gaining any benefit, or a very limited benefit from those increased rates. My observation, then, is that the minister should surely give increased consideration to providing better mail facilities for those rural towns and communities.
I have heard hon. members from other parts of Canada request twice a day mail delivery service. This simply means that the postman is asked to deliver the mail on your doorstep twice a day rather than the once a day service that normally applies. In the case of the rural farmers it is not a matter of the mail being delivered to his

Supply-Post Office
doorstep; it is a matter of him making the effort to travel anywhere up to 10 or 15 miles to get his mail under varying conditions, depending on the weather. The advantage that man could get would be to have good postal facilities in those towns and rural communities, and adequate provision to see that the mail is delivered to those post offices as early as possible and not on a weekly or a bi-weekly basis.
It is apparent to me that if hon. members from cities are requesting twice a day mail delivery in towns, certainly farmers in rural communities should expect their mail to be delivered to the post office once a day so they could make an effort to go there and get it. Instead of the rather shabby post offices which we have, I think more consideration should be given to an increased expenditure to build up those facilities to allow people in rural communities to get something for the increased postal rates.
I think the minister has given consideration to this matter, and I notice that a deliberate effort has been made to increase postal services in the larger towns and communities. I notice that the growing community of Unity received a post office which was opened only recently, and which allows farmers in the district of Unity to be in pleasant surroundings after they have made a trip of five or six miles to the town to collect their mail.
I would point out at the same time that there are many other communities in my constituency, and indeed in all rural Canada, which are as deserving. We have the community of Leader south of the river, which is quite a distance from the larger points. It is quite obvious that anyone sending mail there will not get immediate advantage from the air service. My request to the minister, then, is to give increased consideration to providing postal facilities to the farmers in those areas.
The town of Leader has a considerable postage stamp and money order business, since it is located a relative distance from the larger towns. In my opinion it would be deserving of increased postal facilities in the form of a federal building. If the minister is going to give consideration to those rural areas the natural outcome would be a recommendation for a new federal building in the town of Leader.
In the same connection I would suggest that increased consideration be given to placing vans on certain routes to deliver mail to rural communities, so the mail could be picked up there. I have in mind the village of Eatonia which, upon the removal of the train service, was getting its mail delivered by bus. It was found that there was some

difficulty in connection with a bus arriving at that village on a daily basis, and my suggestion there is that a small van of some type be rented or hired to deliver the mail from the larger town of Kindersley to the towns of Eatonia, Laporte, Glidden and Mantario on a daily basis.
They would then be receiving some advantage from the increase in the postal rate from 4 cents to 5 cents. These are the two matters to which I would like the minister to give consideration, and I think they apply to many of the rural areas which are located some distance from larger cities. In summing up, they do not benefit from the speedier air service because the greater portion of their mail is within the province and on rail lines, so let us enable them to benefit from the increase in the postal rate by providing better service and better facilities for those in the rural communities.
I would appreciate it if the minister could give me any information concerning the town of Leader, which I mentioned as an example, and also concerning the possibility of putting on buses to deliver mail to rural communities so it may be more readily picked up by farmers in those communities.


Mr. Zaplilny:: Mr. Chairman, I have only two matters I wish to raise at this time, and both are matters of policy. I think this is the appropriate time to raise them.
The first is the matter of parcels that are sent by Canadians to their relatives and friends in what are known as iron curtain countries, and particularly Soviet Russia. That question was raised in the debate on the speech from the throne by the hon. member for Vegreville, when he set out a few examples of what transpires when someone wishes to send a parcel of clothes, food or whatever the case may be to someone within the Soviet union.
The hon. member cited figures and said- if I remember them correctly-that a parcel valued at approximately $12 would cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $36 or $38 by the time it arrived at its destination because of the many extra charges that are added.
In recent months I have received a great many inquiries about this matter, as I am sure many other hon. members have, and I am wondering whether the department has in mind any change of policy or could indicate any new channel through which this type of mail could be handled. If so it would be highly desirable for the minister to announce it at the earliest possible moment, so that people who desire to make use of the post office as a medium through which to send parcels to friends and relatives in iron curtain countries could do so at the least possible expense.

The other policy matter I wish to raise is in connection with rural mail delivery. I am going to mention only one phase of it, and though many other things could be said concerning rural mail delivery other hon. members have either already said them or are going to say them before this discussion is over.
One problem that is encountered in my province at least, and it is probably common throughout the prairie provinces, is the difficulty experienced by mail contractors who serve rural routes during the winter months when the roads are blocked with snow. The contracts that are entered into contain certain provisos to the effect that the roads must be kept open and in a condition which permits of travelling on them. After each snowstorm it is the duty of the local patrons to break a track so the mail carrier does not have to plow through snowdrifts.
That in itself does not solve the problem. I do not know whether the minister is aware of this, but if a mail carrier were to attempt to provide continuous service during the winter months, as most of the patrons expect, he is almost required to have what for lack of a better term I must describe as an amphibious method of transportation because the traditional methods of winter travel-that is by team and sleigh or by motor vehicle-are not feasible. The situation is that most of the roads today either have a gravel surface or are in such a condition that you will find one part of the road completely blocked with snowdrifts which will make it impossible to use a motor vehicle, whereas another part of the same road will be completely bare of snow which has been blown off by the winds, thus making it impossible to travel by sleigh.
If it is the policy of the department to make it possible for rural mail carriers to provide continuous service under all conditions during the winter months-and that certainly would be the ideal situation-it seems to me there is only one solution. That is, they will have to pay the rural mail delivery contractors enough money so they can maintain some sort of amphibious transportation in the nature of what we call in the west a bombardier, or what in some cases is called a snowmobile, but at any rate a vehicle that will travel on both bare ground and snow.
As I say, that would be the ideal situation. If it is not the intention of the department to provide sufficient remuneration for the rural mail carriers to secure that type of transportation, then I think the least that could be done at this time would be to notify rural mail patrons to this effect so they would know what are the responsibilities of the
Supply-Post Office
contractors. I think that would be rather easy to do. All the Post Office Department would have to do would be to issue a leaflet each fall and have it delivered to every patron on a rural route, notifying him in summary fashion what are the provisions of the contract and what he can expect in terms of service from the mail carrier during the winter months.
Year after year complaints pour into the local postmaster or to the local member of parliament or to the director of transportation of mail service in the city of Winnipeg, and hundreds and hundreds of letters have to be written quoting from part of the regulations and pointing out that the mail contractor is limited as to what is expected of him under his contract. I am not suggesting that simply letting them know why the mail contractor cannot deliver mail under all conditions in the winter months would solve the problem, but if nothing else is going to be done at least that much should be done.
I would hope that with the substantial surplus the Post Office Department is showing for the current year perhaps the policy at this time will be to endeavour to provide continuous service under all conditions during the winter months. That would mean providing sufficient remuneration to these carriers to enable them to purchase and maintain some sort of amphibious vehicle which could travel equally well on snow or bare ground, and in that way they could deliver mail regularly to their patrons all the year round.
These are two matters upon which I would be pleased if the minister could make some comment when he takes the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I hope the Postmaster General will not mind if with respect to the matter I would like to raise I discuss it with his parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare. The matter has to do with a bit of confusion that appears to exist regarding the correct name of a community in the constituency of my hon. friend. The community, if I may give it what I believe to be its correct name, is Wood's Harbour in Shelburne county, a community which is in fact three communities, Upper Wood's Harbour, Lower Wood's Harbour and Central Wood's Harbour. I am using the name as I find it on page 503 of the chief electoral officer's report for the 1953 election. I could tell my hon. friend how many votes he got at these points, but that is not relevant to the present discussion.


Hugues Lapointe: You might remind him.

Supply-Post Office


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is another day coming. The point I am making is that in the chief electoral officer's report the name of the community is Wood's Harbour. I also have a copy of the official map of the province of Nova Scotia which has been prepared by the chief electoral officer, and again I find that the place is known as Wood's Harbour. I confess that among the various bits of evidence I have "Wood's" is sometimes spelled with the apostrophe and sometimes without it. I have also the Canadian National timetable giving the names of stations on what is known as the Halifax and Southwestern railway which runs from Halifax to Yarmouth along the south shore. Here again I find, for example, the name Upper Wood's Harbor.
Despite all this evidence I find that the post office lists the name of one part of this community as Lower Wood Harbour. Likewise it lists the name of another part of this community as Upper Wood Harbour. I hasten to say, as my hon. friend knows, that on another page in the post office directory, Upper Wood's Harbour is listed correctly as Knowles post office. As the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare knows, it carries that name because my grandmother happened to be the first postmistress in that area. My hon. friend will be interested in this because it is in his constituency and I would hope he will find it possible to get the name of this community straightened out.
Since I discovered this discrepancy between the post office records as set out in this document entitled "List of Post Offices in Canada" and various other sources of information, I have checked with an aunt and uncle of mine who are still living and who were brought up in that community. It came as a bit of a surprise to them to learn that there is any doubt about the name of the place, because it was always known to them as Wood's Harbour or Upper Wood's Harbour, depending upon what part of the community one had in mind.
I also have in my hand a book with which my hon. friend is familiar. This is entitled "A History of Barrington Township and Vicinity" and was written by Edwin Crowell, M.A., D.D. It gives a very interesting history of that part of Nova Scotia. Starting at page 382 I find references to part of the township under the general heading of "Wood's Harbour and Pubnico Beach". I quote in part:
We will here give some account of communities which were growing to some importance just outside the borders of old Barrington township and afterwards were incorporated with it. No event of those eventful times was of more moment to the township than the settlement of Wood's Harbour and Pubnico Beach.

Later on there is reference to the fact that there were at one time a few French speaking inhabitants at Upper Wood's Harbour. I am interested in the names that appear here because I remember from my childhood hearing my father refer to some of the people who lived in this community, such as the Ameros and the D'Entremonts. I also find that certain property in this area was bought in 1828 by Harvey Doane and Jonathan Knowles, both of whom were greatgrand-parents of mine.
My hon. friend will also be interested in this fragile piece of paper which I have in my hand; it is a family heirloom. Members of my family believe, and I have checked in Dr. Crowell's book and I think they are probably right, that this map was drawn in the late 1700's, well over 150 years ago. I am pretty sure from checking with the facts in Dr. Crowell's book that it must have been prepared prior to 1800. It is a sketch of the area in question, and the parliamentary assistant will recognize some of the names on it such as Nickerson, Chetwynd, Lyons, Forbes and so on. I am sure the parliamentary assistant would like to look at this. I will not send it across because it might fall apart in the process, but we can get together when the house rises. He will note that the largest grant of land was made to Rev. Samuel Wood, from whom the area apparently took its name. Out in the centre of the harbour is written in very clear script the words "Wood's Harbour".
As I say, there are one or two other places where there is some confusion, but in the main most of the evidence I have obtained supports the belief, of my forebears at any rate, that the name of the place is Wood's Harbour. I would appreciate it if the parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General would look into the matter. If it is found that the name of the community is Wood's Harbour and Upper Wood's Harbour instead of Wood Harbour and Upper Wood Harbour I trust that this error will be corrected.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Chairman, I rise to again place before the minister and his parliamentary assistant some details of the difficult problems facing the rural mail couriers. I understand that earlier in the session the hon. member for Kent and others brought to the attention of the minister the possibility of arriving at some solution to the problem. A man will tender for a contract and carry it out for four years, and then someone else believes he can do it for less. That man gets the contract at a lower rate, and then finds it is more costly to carry out than he expected. A vicious circle is created. I trust that some solution to this

problem can be found. I am wondering if the minister can tell us what decisions have been arrived at out of discussions the hon. member for Kent mentioned.
The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand there is a difference in the regulations in the different provinces covering the number of potential box holders required to extend a rural mail route. I understand it is the same in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario.
I have heard other members ask for twice a day mail delivery, but I should like to join with other speakers who have pointed out that there are still many people in this country who would be glad to get mail once a day. In this day and age, with modern transportation of one kind and another, I think the Post Office Department should consider every possible way of providing mail service to those who are perhaps some little distance from rural routes. Some older people on farms have to travel quite a distance to get their mail each day. I know it would be appreciated and would work to the advantage of the department if they would look into the further extension of rural routes.
Progress reported.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow I understand the municipal grants bill will be on the order paper, having been returned from the committee on banking and commerce. We shall take that bill, and then proceed with the present estimates.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand the minutes of that committee have not been printed. It seems unfortunate that we are to consider this bill without having seen the committee minutes. We had a very serious discussion in the committee, as the minister knows.


Walter Edward Harris: It has not been customary on all occasions to hold up legislation until the printing of the committee minutes. My hon. friend was a member of the committee, and unless he feels there are some matters that are very serious that should hold up this bill I think we ought to proceed. As I say, we do not await the printing of the material on every occasion.


Mr. Creslohl:: There were no amendments.


Walter Edward Harris: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not going to press it.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS	hospital construction-federal assistance
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Balcom: 1.	In each province, during 1956, what was the number of applications approved for (a) old age security; (b) old age assistance?
2.	In each province, during 1956, what was the number of those previously in receipt of old age assistance becoming entitled to old age security?
3.	How many persons in Nova Scotia received (a) old age security; (b) old age assistance; (c) family allowances, from the federal government during 1956?
4.	What was the total amount paid in each case?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
1 and 2.
Province	1. (a)	1. (b)	2.Newfoundland 	. 1,700	1,257	1,112Prince Edward Island .	. 658	170	213Nova Scotia 	. 3,734	1,364	1,296New Brunswick 	. 2,854	1,404	1,364Quebec 	. 18,995	7,865	7,253Ontario 	. 32,633	6,188	5,513Manitoba 	. 5,378	1,395	1,243Saskatchewan 	. 5,601	1,618	1,198Alberta 	. 6,111	1,660	1,386British Columbia 	. 11,140	1,790	2,092Yukon and Northwest	Territories 	. 89	50	233.	As of December, 1956.
(a) 38,779; (b) 5,055; (c) 247,073 children in pay.
4.	Federal contributions to the province of Nova Scotia for the year 1956-
(a) old age security, $18,628,725; (b) old age assistance, $1,039,723; (c) family allowances, $17,898,959.

Question No. 181-Mr. Denis:
What amount of financial assistance is the government giving, at present, towards the construction of hospitals?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
Under the national health program, financial assistance is being provided under the hospital construction grant as follows:
1.	$1,500 per bed for mental, tuberculosis, chronic and convalescent beds,
2.	$1,000 per bed for active treatment beds,
3.	$500 per bed for nurses' beds,
4.	$1,000 to community health centres for each 300 square feet of floor space devoted to those services that provide diagnostic and treatment services to out-patients as well as in-ipatients, and
5.	$1,000 for each 300 square feet of floor area devoted to training facilities for health and hospital personnel.
For 1956-57 $17,918,174 is being made available (annual allocation of $6,683,660 and revote of $11,234,514).
Since the inception of the national health program in 1948 federal grants totalling $73,751,533 have been made toward the construction of new hospitals and extensions to existing hospital facilities.



WATER SUPPLY, CHURCHILL, MAN.

Mr. Weaver: Has the Department of National Health and Welfare made any study of the water supply problem at Churchill, Manitoba?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
Yes. The public health engineering division of the Department of National Health and Welfare completed a preliminary study during the summer of 1956. The subsequent report is now being studied by federal and provincial departments of government which have an increasing interest in the provision of an adequate, safe water supply in this rapidly growing community.

Wednesday, March 6, 1957