1958-07-16

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., O.A., D.S.P. queen's PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1958
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 16, 1958 [Later:]

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McCleave.
Second report of standing committee on veterans affairs.-Mr. Dinsdale.
Second report of sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and controlled by the government.-Mr. Rowe.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South) presented the fourth report of the standing committee on estimates, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did an employee of the external affairs department die recently in Saigon?
2.	If so, what was his name, career position, and original home address?
3.	Where, when, and under what circumstances did the death take place?
4.	Is the case completely closed? If not, what steps is the Canadian government taking to clear it up?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this question relates to an event that is supposed to have happened recently. I am not quite sure how one can interpret the word "recently" but I presume it refers to an event that happened in April of 1957. The answers to the questions are as follows:
(1)	Yes, in April, 1957.
(2)	A. E. L. Cannon, foreign service officer 4, Quebec city.
(3)	Saigon, April 12, 1957. Murder.
(4)	A thorough investigation was, of course, made but failed to establish responsibility. There is a possibility that further evidence may come to light and the case cannot, therefore, be considered as completely closed.
57071-3-145
On the orders of the day:


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: May I
ask a supplementary question following the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to this starred question. I should like to request that more information be given to me personally, rather than in the house, concerning part 3. Under all the circumstances I feel there was not sufficient detail supplied in the answer, and I would ask him if he would give me the details personally.


Sidney Earle Smith: I would be ready to discuss that with the hon. member.


Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Was Walter Mitchell, of the city of Montreal, an employee of the Department of Agriculture at the port of Montreal?
2.	If so, in what capacity and for how long?
3.	Was he dismissed from his employment?
4.	If so, for what reason and on whose recommendation?
He said: Mr. Speaker, is the acting minister in a position to answer this question?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not. I would ask that the question stand.


Mr. Chevrier:: It has stood twice now.
Question stands.


HIGHWAY BRIDGE, CHATHAM-FERRY ROAD, N.B.
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 31
Mr. McWilliam:: Does the federal government assume any responsibility, in whole or in part, in connection with the proposed construction of a highway bridge across the Miramiehi river between Chatham and Ferry Road, New Brunswick?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is that this would depend on whether the federal government had any responsibility for the highway of which such a bridge would form part.

Orders for Returns QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


KENORA-RAINY RIVER ROAD CONSTRUCTION   FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	To what road construction projects (except trans-Canada highway) in the Kenora and Rainy river districts in Ontario has the government been asked by the government of Ontario, since February 1, 1957, to make a financial contribution?
2.	To which projects has a contribution been made and how much was paid in each case?


AGE GROUP, 65-70
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	How many persons are there over 65 years and under 70 years in each province?
2.	How many persons in each province are receiving payment under the Old Age Assistance Act?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of Ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime
Minister indicate whether the report is accurate that the British foreign minister is flying to Washington to see the United States Secretary of State? If so, can he throw any light on the purpose of this mission?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the only light that I can throw on the question is that Right Hon. Selwyn Lloyd is going to Washington, there to consult with the Secretary of State of the United States, and the consultation will have to do with the gravity of the situation in the Middle East. Because of this fact I feel that the house generally will give support to the desire of the government to have the Secretary of State for External Affairs leave for Washington and be there tomorrow so that he may consult with the foreign minister of the United Kingdom and with Mr. Dulles.
If that is acceptable to members as a whole, then I would suggest that the debate on external affairs, which was to come up tomorrow and would have come up otherwise, be postponed for a few days. Necessarily, the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have to be present. I feel it is very necessary, having regard to conditions generally throughout the world, that the responsible minister in this very important field should be in Washington at this time to consult and also to be consulted with.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances we on this side are quite agreeable to the postponing of the debate that was to have taken place tomorrow, because it is

obviously important to have the Secretary of State for External Affairs here at the time of that debate. I would merely express my hope that perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs will find it possible not only to visit Washington on this trip and consult there with his two opposite numbers but might find it also possible to participate in the work of the security council at this very difficult time.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group are very pleased to agree with the suggestion of the Prime Minister that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should make this trip to Washington to discuss the very grave matters that are in the minds of all of us. I would certainly agree with the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that he might also visit the United Nations to use the prestige that Canada has in that world body in the interests of peace.



MIDDLE EAST


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, if I might at this time I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister anything further to add to his statement regarding the safety of Canadian nationals in the Middle East; in particular, has the minister any information regarding the whereabouts and safety of a former member of this house, the former minister of labour, Hon. Milton Gregg?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. As I endeavoured to indicate yesterday, in a foreign country in which Canada has no diplomatic representation it has been the practice for the United Kingdom diplomatic representative, the minister or ambassador, to look after Canadian interests. In Iraq-and I am repeating what I said yesterday because I desire to have the record clear -the British ambassador is normally responsible for the acceptance of registrations of Canadians resident in Iraq and for the extension to them of whatever protection is possible in times of emergency. Canadian citizens are thus accorded exactly the same treatment other British subjects would be given by the British embassy.
However, in countries where we have no representation and where it is not possible to work through the British embassy, we have had long-standing arrangements with the United States authorities whereby they will

give assistance in such a case as this. As I stated in the house yesterday, we cannot now rely on the embassy of the United Kingdom, but we have had reconfirmation of the arrangement with the United States in the past few hours; indeed, the direct statement from the department of state of the United States government that that government will assume responsibility for the protection and evacuation of Canadians from Iraq if that becomes necessary. The picture today, I am very happy to report, is much clearer than it was yesterday.
With respect to the second part of the hon. member's question, according to what information we have available, there has been no report of any molestation of Canadian nationals during the present crisis in Iraq. A report received this morning from the United Nations secretariat states that it has received a report from Mr. Milton Gregg to the effect that all personnel of the United Nations and its specialized agencies in Iraq, including their dependents, are safe. This group includes one other Canadian, Mr. L. W. Reiman.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
a supplementary question. Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position now to report whether or not any word has been received from our mission in Beirut as to the situation confronting some 147 Canadians in that country?


Sidney Earle Smith: I have nothing further to add to the reply to a somewhat similar question yesterday.



REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF STATEMENT BY MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs clarify the statement he made last night on television to the effect-and I quote from the text of the statement as issued by his department-that:
We have instructed our representative at the United Nations to support every constructive measure that is put before the United Nations for the attainment of the objectives of the United States for the Middle East.


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to reply to that question. I feel sure that the context of that statement will indicate that it is related to the statement I made in the house yesterday that our representative at the security council was instructed to support any constructive measure. The United States has put before the security council a resolution which is being discussed today by the council to the effect that the security council be requested to take such measures 57071-3-1451
Inquiries of the Ministry to stabilize adequately, in the opinion of the United Nations, the situation in Lebanon to the end that the military forces of the United States will be withdrawn. That is what I was referring to.



PROPOSED HIGHWAY FROM U.S. VIA ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the report in the Financial Post of July 12 to the effect that Alberta highways minister Taylor flew to Washington some time ago to encourage Washington to build a link to Alaska from the United States via Alberta and the Alaska highway, and in view of the fact that this proposal is in opposition to the proposals being made by the government of British Columbia, would the minister inform the house if these proposals by the representative of a province are being made after consultation with the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Is this procedure regular, according to protocol?


Sidney Earle Smith: I received notice of this question after coming into the house. I shall take it as notice.


Hazen Robert Argue: My question is in the same vein but not exactly the same as that of my deskmate. I wonder if the Secretary of State for External Affairs would care to comment on a report in the Financial Post that a bill has been presented to the United States Senate providing for the sharing between Canada and the United States of the $125 million that would be involved in the paving of the Alaska highway. Has the Canadian government made any commitment that it would share in this very large venture?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, Bill S4097 was introduced recently in the United States Senate by an individual senator on his own behalf, not on behalf of the United States administration. The Canadian government was not consulted.
As to the substance of the proposal contained in the bill, careful examination will have to be given to it before any comment is made. However, hon. members may be interested in knowing that some discussions have taken place between a Canadian interdepartmental committee and the United States Alaska international rail and highway commission concerning improved transportation facilities between the Pacific northwest of the United States and Alaska. I should like to emphasize that these discussions are merely exploratory at this time.

Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of what I have just said, the last part of the hon. member's question becomes inapplicable. However, I should point out that there can be found in the estimates of my colleague the Minister of National Defence an item relating to a start on the paving of the Alaska highway.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like to direct to the Acting Minister of National Defence or to the Prime Minister. I wonder if they would undertake to have an investigation made into the report that 13 newspaper photographers were locked in a small room aboard a naval vessel for 3J hours during yesterday's naval review by Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret, near Victoria, B.C., and were not allowed to report on the review as were the C.B.C. photographers.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Acting Minister of National Defence):: The minister of National Defence will be back tomorrow, I expect, and I shall bring this question to his attention. I am sure he will give an answer at the earliest possible moment.



REFERENCE TO PRESS REPORT OF DIRECTIONS TO CANADIAN FORCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Ottawa West):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask whether he has any statement to make to the house concerning the press report of the directions purported to be given by General Partridge to the Canadian forces forming part of the NORAD forces.


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer that question from our department.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly that question might have been directed to me, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it concerns more than one department. In connection with the press report may I say this. During the past week of deep tension in the Middle East and generally throughout the world the United States has throughout kept the Canadian government informed of the steps being taken and the consequential action which their authorities considered appropriate both in that area and in general. Throughout the week

there has been the closest consultation on the highest governmental level as well as between the chiefs of staffs of the two countries.
The nature of our defence program and problem is such that, when a period of international tension arises, it is most essential that the military authorities, particularly those concerned with air defence, shall act prudently so that the forces will be in such a position that should grave eventualities take place that are not anticipated, none the less the defensive and deterrent quality of those defences will be in readiness.
Those in charge of NORAD came to the conclusion that it would be proper to increase the state of readiness of the air defence forces under its operational control. This increased readiness of air defence involves increasing the number of aircraft ready to take off on short notice as well as increasing the number that are available for use at various times in the future.
The commander in chief of NORAD informed both the Canadian and United States chiefs of staffs in this regard yesterday. The decision that was made was the type of decision which our own air defence authorities would have made under all the circumstances had they been operating our defence forces purely as Canadian forces and not as part of an integrated system. However much one regrets the disturbed conditions in the world today and hopes that the tension will be relieved, there are periods from time to time-and this is one of them-when calm judgment and cool deliberation are necesary, and when as a normal practice the defence forces must be brought up to various states of readiness which the circumstances of the moment demand. To take this course is the course of prudence, caution and common sense.
The course that was taken is not intended in any way to be of an alarmist or provocative nature. It is not to be interpreted as such. The course taken is one that was determined on the basis that every potential eventuality in defence must be assured at all times; and I think on the basis of what I have said that while in no way desiring or feeling that what I have said may extend the fears of our Canadian people, at the same time due caution, having regard to the circumstances, will I hope be accepted as the reason for this course which, as I said earlier, would have been taken regardless of whether our air defences were joined or entirely separate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure members on this side of the house would consider this a normal precautionary measure in the circumstances, and not to be regarded as alarmist in any

shape or form. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government, as such, is informed when a decision of this kind by the NORAD commander is taken, and if so through what channel?


John George Diefenbaker: Information comes to the chiefs of staffs committee, and through the Canadian chiefs of staffs to the government, in this case to the Acting Minister of National Defence and to the Prime Minister.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Artha-baska):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or in his absence to the acting minister. Has he any announcement to make to the house in view of the statement attributed to the premier of Manitoba in a report appearing in the Montreal Gazette of July 11, that he expects the federal government will immediately make several changes in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to bring it more into line with Manitoba conditions?


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise the hon. member that we discussed that matter or similar matters for some time last night. As I understand it, the question relates to the policy of the federal government being in line with something said by the premier of Manitoba; is that it?


Samuel Boulanger: We did not discuss the Prairie Farm Assistance Act last night, but the question of deficiency payments. My question concerns an announcement by the premier of Manitoba to the effect that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act will be amended to bring it into line with Manitoba conditions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have not seen the article in question, Mr. Speaker, but I shall bring this question to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture. I believe he will be back on Friday.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Justice. I hope notice of it reached him in sufficient time. Would the minister inform us when it is expected that the report of the commission on restrictive
Inquiries of the Ministry trade practices regarding the production, purchase and sale of fish in the province of British Columbia will be made public?
Hon. ,E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):
I regret that I received notice of this question too late to enable me to have more than a very quick check made in the department, but that check so far indicates that we have not yet received this report, though I understand that the inquiry is being proceeded with as expeditiously as possible. I am not able to say, and will not be able to say until I receive the report, when it will be made public, because the nature of the report itself will have a bearing on that matter.



SAINT JOHN, N.B.  STATUS OF AGREEMENT RESPECTING THERMAL PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of recent press reports that tenders are being called for the thermal plant at Saint John, New Brunswick, can the minister tell us if an agreement has yet been reached between the federal government and the provincial government?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The actual agreement for the Saint John plant between the federal government and the government of New Brunswick has not yet been signed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister know whether it is true that tenders are being called?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the report is correct, it is my first awareness of it.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In the light of the fact that legislation ties National Housing Act interest rates to rates paid on government securities, and in view of the recent rise in interest rates on government securities as announced by the Minister of Finance, is the minister in a position to assure the house and the country that no further increase is going to be permitted in interest rates on National Housing Act loans for the next several months? I am asking this so

Inquiries of the Ministry there may not be any withholding of the regular flow of mortgage money on the part of private lenders.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention of raising the interest rate. Mind you, a certain category of loans do go up and down, as the hon. member knows; but on the ordinary insured loans under the National Housing Act and those under the small house loan plan there will be no raising of these interest rates.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, on June 28 and again on July 3 the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked a question regarding the number of persons receiving seasonal benefits at the time seasonal benefits expired, that is, the end of June. The figures which are now available relate to active claims on June 28 and
are as follows:
Atlantic region	 24,383
Quebec region	 44,426
Ontario region	 36,970
Prairie region	 12,437
Pacific region	 13,662
Total, all Canada	 131,878



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the Minister of Labour would care to give the house a report on any conclusions that were reached at the conference held in Ottawa on winter unemployment and whether, as a result of that conference, steps will be taken shortly requiring legislation to be placed before parliament.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, that report has not yet been presented in final form. The resolutions were submitted in first draft form to the chairmen of the various committees who will prepare them in final form. They will be submitted to me when completed, and I in turn will bring them to the attention of the government for a decision to be made on what action should be taken on these recommendations.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. I wonder if the minister will say whether any conclusion has been reached regarding the

provision of financial incentives for the construction industry during the winter months.


Michael Starr: No decisions have as yet been made with regard to what has transpired during the last two days, and what I said in answer to the previous question applies.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the Minister of Labour whether as a result of yesterday's conference he feels disposed to recommend to his colleagues the desirability of the dominion-provincial conference being convened at an early date?


Michael Starr: I will present to the government for consideration the ideas and recommendations that were made in the last two days.



YUKON ACT


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the second reading of Bill No. C-35, to amend the Yukon Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of a bill to amend the Yukon Act I should like to refer the house to the remarks I made a week ago today in dealing with this matter, on which occasion I outlined the five amendments in the bill, four dealing with administrative matters and one with territorial boundaries. There is not a great deal I can add at this stage to what I said a week ago today, so I shall confine my remarks more or less to the content of the amendments.
The first amendment deals with section 19 in which we broaden the purposes for which the governor in council may borrow and lend money in the territory. Under the existing act the right of borrowing money is limited to borrowing for territorial expenditures and lending money to municipalities. The new amendments make it possible to lend money for territorial purposes, municipal purposes or local purposes. The words "local purposes" in this amendment refer to school boards, hospital boards and similar organizations in the territory. At the present time there are no school districts in the Yukon, but it is hoped that as the districts and communities of this new territory accept the responsibility of self-government, school boards will be formed. This amendment, therefore makes it possible for the commissioner on behalf of the territory to borrow money which may be loaned to a school district. The bill contains two new clauses, (b) and (c) which read as follows:
(b) for the lending of money by the commissioner to municipalities and school districts, in the territory, and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the minister would find it possible to discuss the bill without detailed consideration of the clauses at this stage, because it goes from here to committee, and if there is a principle which runs through the bill perhaps it would be well to confine the debate at this stage to that principle. If it is a series of isolated amendments then, of course, there is no other way in which the hon. gentleman could proceed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, it would assist me a great deal if I could merely review again the main principles of the bill. The first four amendments are administrative. The first deals with the power of the commissioner in council to borrow and lend money and extends the freedom of the territorial government to take action in this very necessary part of a provincial government's activities. The next amendment is in connection with police magistrates and is designed to give the Yukon territory the same provisions that apply in the Northwest Territories with respect to the appointment of deputy police magistrates.
The third amendment gives to the governor in council the right to appoint judicial and other officers for the due administration of justice in the territory. The fourth amendment deals with the importation of liquor into the territory, and' simply gives the right to the commissioner to appoint another person to authorize such importation of liquor.
The fifth amendment deals with the precise description of the territorial boundaries.
With those remarks I can conclude by saying that these are moves to increase the efficiency of the administration of the Yukon territorial government and broaden its powers, as part of the transitional procedure of giving to this area increasing authority over its own affairs in the ultimate hope that some day it will be a province of this dominion.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Borrowing and lending.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, we in this group read the bill and listened to the minister's remarks with keen interest. The necessity for the introduction of the bill to improve the efficiency of the administration of the Yukon Territory clearly indicates the growth and expansion of that area, and the broadening of the powers of the commission is, we hope, another step in the evolution toward the development of a provincial administration in the Yukon Territory.
Yukon Act
With respect to clause 1, would the minister give the committee some further information as to how the funds are borrowed and how the financing is done; to what account borrowings are charged and things of that nature so we can better understand the relationship between financing in the Yukon Territory and in the provinces?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Kootenay West, what I could do is give him a statement of the revenues and expenditures of the territory, which will illustrate the proportion of income from federal and local sources.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes; that is what I wanted.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Using the 195657 figures, the total revenues of the Yukon Territory were $2.1 million. These were broken down, in round figures, as shown in the following tabulation:
Revenues-1956-57	Amount
Tax revenue	 $400,000
Licence revenue	 140,000
Fees	 9,000
Road Tolls	 33,000
Fines	 8,000
Miscellaneous	 59,000
Expenditures recovered	 24,000
Federal subsidy and grant	 588,000
School fees	 84,000
Equipment and rentals	 25,000
Liquor profits	 731,000
Total	 $2.1 million
In simple terms, Mr. Chairman, the big revenue sources are first, liquor profits; second, ordinary tax revenue; and third, the subsidy from the federal government, which is similar to the dominion-provincial subsidy.
The expenditures are illustrated by the
following tabulation:
Expenditures-1956-57	Amount
Administration	 $159,000
Municipal and town administration____	106,000
Education	 454,000
Health and welfare	 330,000
Roads, bridges and public works	 628,000
Sub-total	 $1.6 million
Capital expenditures	 $876,000
Grand total	 $2.5 million
In the year 1956-57 there was an excess of expenditure over revenue of $439,000. It should be pointed out that capital expenditures are included in the statement. This section actually gives power to the territorial government to borrow money rather than paying everything out of the annual revenue.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister give the committee some idea of the amount of money that may be borrowed under the authority of this section, how the money is to be borrowed, what the terms are and generally just how this power may be used?

Yukon Act


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In answer to the first question about the extent of the borrowing, I do not think anyone could answer that precisely. The hon. member will notice that subsection 3 reads:
No money shall be borrowed or invested under the authority of this section without the approval of the governor in council.
We have maintained that control in order to keep an eye on the extent of their borrowings in relation to their income, and even though we do not know the exact amount they will be borrowing, as no one could be expected to know, we do have control on the extent of their borrowing, something the same as obtains under the powers of a local government in a province.
The type of borrowing we have done to date has required coming to the House of Commons under the Appropriation Act. The two loans that we have agreed to so far are for a sewer and water system in the city of Whitehorse and a hospital in the city of Whitehorse. These are the two loans they requested before, but I think the procedure is under discussion with the territorial government and the local councils, in this case the city of Whitehorse. If they come up with a capital expenditure they are not able to cope with within their own finances they request us to participate. In the past we have had to bring an amendment to an act before the house before we could lend them that extra money for capital expenditure. This simply empowers the territorial government to borrow without coming to this house and asking for legislative amendments to an existing act, but we do control the limit or the extent of the borrowing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the minister mentioned an expenditure of $300,000 for a hospital at Whitehorse.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The loan was $750,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does that take into account grants given by the federal government under the national health program with respect to available funds for hospital construction, or is the $750,000 in addition to moneys paid out for hospital construction?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have not the full records here in this particular file of the loan or of the affairs of the hospital at Whitehorse in the Yukon; but my memory is -and I am fairly sure I am right-that the total cost was just short of $4 million. This was broken down into several parts. The city of Whitehorse had to contribute, I think, $1 million. This is purely from memory. In connection with the hospital in

the city of Whitehorse they had to put up a certain amount, which I think was $750,000, and they had to come to us to borrow the $750,000. Then the Department of National Health and Welfare put a sizeable amount into it as well.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They made an outright grant of $2 million, I think.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have forgotten the exact amount, but I think it was a major item. Then the Department of National Defence made a contribution. Therefore we have the territorial government, the city of Whitehorse, the Department of National Defence and the Department of National Health and Welfare all contributing to this hospital. Since Whitehorse did not have the money we had to bring in an amendment to the Appropriation Act to make it possible for us to allow the commissioner in council to borrow this amount on behalf of the city of Whitehorse.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I recall it, the grant to the hospital by the Department of National Health and Welfare was an ad hoc grant. I was wrong in attributing to it the authority of the national health program. When was the request made for the loan that is now requested of the federal government for the hospital? Was it within the last three months?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I have not the information here as to the date when the request for that money was made. I certainly know it was before the time I came to the department. I can look for the information and have it available for the hon. member. I made one mistake when I spoke of the loan of $750,000. The loan was not for the city of Whitehorse; it was for the territorial government, which was borrowing the money for its participation in the hospital cost.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The reason I asked the question is this. If the federal government thought it desirable to make an outright grant of $2 million, which may or may not be accurate, what I cannot understand is why the remaining moneys are given by way of a loan and not by way of an outright grant.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The understanding I have of the responsibility here is that, putting it under our local situation, when you build a hospital there are certain government grants that go to that hospital, as to all hospitals, but in the case of the Whitehorse hospital the Department of National Defence have a responsibility because they have people in the community

who want hospital beds. The territorial government has a responsibility because they are responsible for the health of the people in the territory, and they had to make this contribution. The share was worked out among the parties interested so they contributed according to their relative responsibilities; but with respect to the territorial share of $750,000, they did not have the money in their annual revenue and they had to come to the government for permission to borrow the amount.


Mr. Nielsen:: If I might make an observation to augment the observation made by the hon. member for Essex East, I would say that these contributions were worked out by the last administration, to my knowledge. They have not been changed at all since that time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not the $750,000.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, I believe that is so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It would be unusual if I were wrong.


Mr. Thomas:: Does the territorial government of the Yukon receive assistance for their roads and other public works according to a formula, or is each grant dealt with individually?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The question of the hon. member for Middlesex West is a very wide one, because we have several classifications of assistance that we give to the Yukon. In the general situation at the present time the territorial government is responsible for roads in the territory, but in practice the division of responsibility as between the federal government and the territorial government is roughly along this line. We are responsible for the natural resources of this area. Therefore when a development road goes in we would pay for the development road, and if the road is used by the people of the Yukon when they are responsible for 15 per cent of the maintenance and we are responsible for 85 per cent; that is, allowing for the use of the road by the Yukon people.
The second part of the question dealt with public buildings. These are dealt with by the territorial government. If the building is a territorial building they erect it; but there are occasions, and there will possibly be occasions in the future, where the capital expenditures they wish to undertake will be beyond their means if they have to use the annual income each year. That is the reason for asking for this broadened power, to give them the right to borrow.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: While we are on this clause, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question just to satisfy my insatiable curiosity about many matters in life, including the Yukon.
57071-3-146
Yukon Act
I may say that I became interested in the Yukon in the early days because as a boy I met a famous woman of the Yukon called Yukon Iola. That was my first interest in the Yukon. Anyway, I wanted to ask about the constitutional basis for the municipalities in the Yukon and their financial relationships with the federal government.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member is not alone in that. Everything is in a state of transition there but you do have municipalities. I think there are three cities. There are other areas which are not even organized into municipalities and therefore the territorial government has direct dealings with a large proportion of the people of the Yukon. It is only in Whitehorse, Dawson and Mayo that you have any form of municipal or local government at the present time. There are other areas where people live that have no organized government whatsoever. Therefore the situation is in a state of transition. We are hoping that step by step the communities will form themselves into local self-governing bodies with all the rights and responsibilities of municipal governments. We are also hoping that they will move into the field of education, form local school boards and accept their responsibility. At the present time these responsibilities are looked after by the territorial government where there is no organization into municipalities. We are hoping that the formation of local governments will spread in the territories and that they will assume their full share of governmental responsibility.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for his explanation but what I am not clear about concerns the municipalities within the Yukon. Are their financial relationships somewhat parallel to the relationships that exist between a municipality and a province? Do they get grants for their schools, hospitals, certain street improvements and things of that sort?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer is roughly yes. There is a municipal ordinance but they do not exercice in full the responsibilities that are exercised in a normal community in the provinces. At one time, for instance, a debate had been going on in the city of Whitehorse with respect to how far they should go in accepting responsibility for providing sewer and water services. The same situation applies to other improvements. They have worked out ways of handling things which are not orthodox in ordinary municipalities in the provinces. Fire protection is one example where they have worked out their own arrangements. Fire protection is provided partly by the local army unit in Whitehorse and the city of Whitehorse partly

Yukon Act
assumes the responsibility. The municipalities are gradually moving more toward accepting full responsibility for running their own communities.


Erik Nielsen: With respect to the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West may I say that I have a certain amount of intimate knowledge of the area to which the bill will apply and perhaps the minister will allow me to say that while there is the power under the municipalities and taxation ordinance to create incorporated cities in three areas, namely Dawson, Whitehorse and Mayo, only Dawson and Whitehorse have taken advantage of the provision to create themselves municipalities within the provincial meaning of that term. The area of Mayo is still not governed by what is known provincially as a municipal council. The authority for the creation of municipalities comes initially from the powers contained in the Yukon Act which the bill purports to amend. The Yukon Act as it now stands may be compared almost in every respect with the relevant provisions of the British North America Act which delineate powers as between the provinces and the federal authority. That is where the constitutional power comes from for the creation of municipalities in the Yukon.


Mr. Caron:: When a municipality wants to
obtain a loan for public works does it have to ask the permission of the territorial authorities? If a municipality wants to borrow money for a municipal public works does it have to seek permission or authority from the territorial authorities?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is correct. The municipal governments and school boards when created are creatures of the territorial government. They go to the territorial government to borrow money and if the territorial government cannot provide them with sufficient money to meet their needs the territorial government then comes to us and sees what can be done.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Deputy police magistrates.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, as the minister knows, in the provinces appointments of magistrates are made by the provincial government. What is the reason behind the decision that has been taken to make appointments of deputy police magistrates in the Yukon by governor in council rather than by action of the territorial council?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am informed that under the Yukon Act the territorial government does not have jurisdiction in
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1
relation to natural resources and justice, which are left under federal control.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether the minister or his parliamentary assistant would tell me whether it is contemplated that any action will be taken under this section with regard to these appointments?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This same
provision was placed in the Northwest Territories Act last year and at that time I promised the house that I would bring in a similar amendment to the Yukon Act. We have not given any consideration to the matter yet.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Clause 2 reads as follows:
The governor in council may appoint one or more persons who are barristers or advocates of at least three years' standing at the bar of any of the provinces of Canada to be deputy police magistrates-
Under this provision it would seem that a barrister who had been disbarred in a province would be eligible for the position. Would it not be wiser to say "lawyers, barristers or advocates in good standing at the bar of any of the provinces of Canada"? Otherwise you are liable to have a man who has been disbarred in one of the provinces because there is nothing to prevent it there.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If any person
has been admitted to the bar and has three years' standing I think the inference is that he would be considered to be in good standing. If a lawyer is not in good standing I understand he is disbarred. There is one thing I should like to mention while I am on my feet. Hon. members may have noticed that the word "provinces" is used which would seem to bar barristers or advocates from the territory. That does not hold. In Whitehorse there are several barristers resident there and they are not ineligible under this section because the definition of the word "province" in the Interpretation Act includes the territories.


Mr. Cardin:: Can the minister tell me why provision is being made to appoint deputy police magistrates having the same power as police magistrates rather than increasing the number of police magistrates? Why do you have deputy police magistrates?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: At the present time I understand there is no necessity for additional magistrates. The purpose of the clause is simply to have the power to appoint a deputy police magistrate if the magistrate is not available. If you have just one magistrate in a big area and that is all that is needed it is fine if he is there 24 hours a day 365 days a year. You have to have the amendment, so if he is away or incapacitated you can move in another person to take over.

National Parks


Alexis Pierre Caron: Does the minister intend to Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle): I took this change the words "any of the provinces of matter up with justice, and their ruling is Canada"? This wording excludes the North- the word "a" does mean any, in the full west Territories. If the words "Northwest sense of the word. You can appoint one or Territories", were included, then a person more.
in that area could take the position.	Mr. Pearson: Any number of persons?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am trying Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle): Yes. to understand the hon. member's question.
Is he suggesting that we should limit this Clause agreed to. to people within the territories?	Clause 5 agreed to.


Alexis Pierre Caron: No, but by adding those words to the definition, as it is now, this area would be included. It says "any of the provinces of Canada", but the Yukon Territory is not a province of Canada as yet. This would clarify the interpretation and make it clear that those living in the Yukon Territory would be eligible for the position.


Mr. Winch:: They are, under the Interpretation Act.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It would be much clearer if it were written in this section.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I raised the same matter, but my friends in justice informed me that the word "province" is used continually throughout our legislation to mean, under the Interpretation Act, the provinces and territories. The addition of the word "territories" would make this phrase superfluous.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Manufacture and importation of intoxicants.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There has been a sort of fable in existence throughout Canada for many years to the effect that the content of alcohol in spirits sold in the Yukon and Northwest Territories greatly exceeds that usually obtainable in the other provinces of Canada. Can the minister inform the house if that is correct, and by what extent the alcohol content of the spirits exceeds that of other provinces?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This rumour is true. Transportation into the north country is very expensive, and it seems such a waste to spend money for the transportation of water. I understand the liquor known as rum is particularly potent, but I believe the other liquors are more or less average and in line with those sold in the rest of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before this clause carries does the expression "a person authorized by him", mean that the appointment can be made of any person? Can there be any number of persons appointed or just one person?
57071-3-1461


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Rea): When shall this bill be read a third time? Now, by unanimous consent?
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NATIONAL PARKS


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the second reading of Bill No. C-36, to amend the National Parks Act respecting the boundaries of Cape Breton Highlands national park.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Lands withdrawn from Cape Breton Highlands national park.
Harold Edward Winch: Could we have an explanation in detail because this concerns the withdrawal of certain lands from a park area?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A week ago, Mr. Chairman, I outlined the reasons for the withdrawal of this area from the park. I shall repeat briefly, if I may, the situation that exists. The purpose of withdrawing these 10 square miles from the Cape Breton national park is to provide for the Wreck Cove hydro development of the Nova Scotia power commission. As I said a week ago, the National Parks Act does not allow the exploitation of the resources of that area when they are inside the park. If it is decided, however, that the national interest requires the development of these resources within that area, then that area has to be removed from the park. There are precedents for this.

National Parks
In this particular case a request came in November, 1956, for the use of these headwaters for the development of hydro at the Wreck Cove plant. It was contended that the use of these waters within these 10 square miles could boost the capacity of the plant considerably. The two governments of Nova Scotia and Canada undertook a joint survey to ascertain the facts from an engineering and economic point of view. The report recommended that these approximately 10 square miles would provide sufficient water to increase the output of the plant and make the provision of hydro power in the Wreck Cove plant much cheaper and much more satisfactory.
I did mention a week ago that I was very sorry that we had to withdraw this land from the park. It is true that the lands are not too valuable from a scenic point of view because there was much of the same type of land in the park, that is in this south-central part of the park. The provision of this additional power would help the provincial program and improve their economic position by providing excess power for peaking. We did try to obtain additional lands from the province of Nova Scotia. I believe this was referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria last week. We looked at the lands to the north and west of the park, and as I stated at that time, those lands were similar to areas already in the park. The situation was further complicated by the fact that there were fishing villages along the shore which would add many complexities to our already difficult problem of administering parks.
Now, the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria mentioned that the fishing villages would be an asset to the park. I agree with him that they would be a great tourist asset.
But the task of administering a park with private land within that park is extremely difficult. So for these reasons we decided not at this time to take on these difficulties but to look around for something else that we could get in compensation. So we asked the Nova Scotia government if they would make available to us those five acres of land close to the Champlain Habitation which would make this national historic park a much better place from a scenic and general attractiveness point of view. They assented to that proposal and we have now made arrangements with the province to get the five acres on the Champlain Habitation in exchange for the ten square miles in the park.


Harold Edward Winch: Five acres or five square miles?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Five acres. The Champlain Habitation is a very small area.

By acreage there is no comparison but many people who have been down there visiting have expressed approval. I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made mention of this matter a week ago, by expressing his gratitude or appreciation that we had been able to get this land for the national historic parks. I think that is the summary of what I said a week ago as to why we are withdrawing this land from the park.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We in this group and, I think, a good many other members in the house are interested in the maintenance of our parks and their extension wherever possible and wise. But in view of the explanation given by the minister as to the need for the withdrawal of this land and also his reference to the commendation from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate we in this group, without any further knowledge of the situation, support the bill because, while it is unfortunate to withdraw land from our parks, we think it is in the public interest at this time.


Mr. Benidickson:: What will the area of this park be after the ten square miles are withdrawn?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: About 400
square miles. I will pass the map across the floor of the house if the hon. member would like to look at it and see the size of the area that is being withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the third reading of the bill.
He said: As this bill, if enacted, will divest the crown of an area of land in Cape Breton Highlands national park, title to which is presently in the crown, may I say that His Excellency the Governor General was informed with respect thereto and has given his consent to the consideration of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act to increase the authorized capital of the Canadian farm loan board from $4 million to $6 million.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair .


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before the committee is simple and clear in its terms and urgent in its nature. The bill to be founded on the resolution is likewise simple and very clear in its terms. The bill increases the capital stock of the Canadian farm loan board from $4 million to $6 million, and that is all the bill does. That is the sum total of the extent of the bill.
The Canadian Farm Loan Act provides that the farm loan board may borrow money from the Minister of Finance for re-lending to farmers but that the total amount of such borrowings may not exceed 20 times the par value of its outstanding capital stock. At present the outstanding capital stock is $4 million which fact therefore limits the board's borrowing capacity and consequently its relending capacity to $80 million. At the beginning of this fiscal year, April 1, 1958, the board had loans outstanding in excess of $61 million and nearly $6 million of approved loans awaiting distribution. Loan applications on hand at that date exceeded $5 million and indications at that date were that at least $20 million of approved loans would be processed this year. But in the nearly four months that have passed since then, it is quite clear that the lending business of the board is greatly expanding beyond those expectations.
I may say that the board's actual lending in this fiscal year has accelerated considerably in excess of the increase estimated at April 1. Loan approvals at the end of June this year are 70 per cent ahead of those at the same date in 1957. Loans placed with the board's solicitors for disbursement at the end of June this year are 106 per cent ahead of those at the same date last year. Loans actually disbursed up to July 15-that is yesterday-this year equal those of last year to October 1. The best estimate at this time is that loan commitments by the board, unless the present measure is adopted, must cease by about August 15 and available money for commitments made will be exhausted by about October 31. There is therefore urgency in this present resolution, Mr. Chairman.
By increasing the capital stock which the Minister of Finance is authorized to purchase from $4 million to $6 million, the proposed amendment will increase the board's lending capacity from the present $80 million to $120 million. As all hon. members know, the government is keenly aware of the importance of agricultural credit and finance for the prosperity of our farming community. There are on the statute books three important acts
Canadian Farm Loan Act which deal with the capital needs of farmers, namely the Canadian Farm Loan Act; the Farm Improvement Loans Act which deals with intermediate credit, particularly for financing the purchase of farm equipment; and the Veterans' Land Act administered by my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs. At the present time the government is engaged in a comprehensive study and review of all three acts with a view to determining where enlargement of scope, expansion in function or improvement in the methods of operation may be required.
I think I should say a word about the procedure that is proposed. I have stressed the fact that the resolution relates to this one feature, namely the total amount of permissible borrowing and with it re-lending. The bill to be founded upon the resolution has precisely that effect. If it meets with the approval of the house I propose, after the bill has been given second reading, to move that it be referred to the standing committee on agriculture, so that that committee will be in a position to undertake whatever review or study it wishes of the broader aspect of the subject. Indeed, because the bill is so very short and its provisions so clearly within the simple terms of the resolution, if it meets with the approval of the house I would ask the house, in order to expedite the measure and move it to the standing committee on agriculture as quickly as possible, to allow the bill to be introduced and be given second reading today, and then, presumably, the committee on agriculture can meet soon and the officials of the Canadian farm loan board, the commissioner, Mr. Chester, and other officials of the department or of other departments will be available to assist members of the committee in studying all questions that may arise out of the bill.
It is hoped by the government that in this way whatever ideas hon. members may have in relation to this subject may be put before the committee, and also that the Canadian farm loan board may have an opportunity of acquainting members with the very greatly extended operations of the board.
In my experience as Minister of Finance for the past year, I have found that much of the criticism that one has heard about the operations under the Canadian Farm Loan Act relates to the period antecedent to the 1956 amendments. During the 1956 session the act was substantially revised, enlarging the permissible loan in any individual case and also the percentage of value of the farm against which the farm loan board was authorized to make loans. I think I can say that the tone and attitude of the administration has undergone a good deal of
22S8

Canadian Farm Loan Act change in recent times and that the board takes a much more generous and benevolent view of its responsibilities in this regard than it used to prior to the 1956 amendments. I think this is a matter which brings pleasure to all hon. members of the house, and in the committee on agriculture there will be every opportunity hon. members may wish to inform themselves with respect to the operations of the board and to obtain whatever information they may require relevant to the subject matter of the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the statement of the Minister of Finance that there has been some change in the attitude of the Canadian Farm Loan Board since 1956 is certainly a correct one, and is borne out by the results of the applications made to the board for loans. I think that if anyone goes over the evidence of the committee of that day he will learn the value of having on that committee -and I am sure the Minister of Finance will appreciate this-members of all parties and members in the opposition of that day who took their duties very seriously and prevented a move by the government to hurry the thing through on such pretexts that unless it got through right away applications before the board could not be dealt with and the loans would not be provided. Because we were able to keep the board before the committee for a number of sessions and because we were able to get the opinion of highly qualified witnesses, particularly the late Dr. E. C. Hope of the Canadian federation of agriculture, we were able not only to get some improvement in the terms of the bill which was before the committee at that time but, and probably this was of even greater importance, to change the attitude of the board itself and perhaps of the government, too, because I imagine the board was reflecting the government's attitude towards applications placed before the board.
There is no field of government policy in which farm organizations have been more critical in recent years than the field of farm credit. Brief after brief has been presented to the previous government and to this government asking for an extension of farm credit and for improvements in this respect, and this government, in its election campaigns in both recent elections, made a very strong point with regard to the improvement of farm credit facilities. I express the hope that a study which is now being made in various fields of farm credit will result in a complete overhaul of the farm credit machinery.
Even if one attaches every importance to the change in attitude of the Canadian Farm Loan Board, the fact still remains that in this field the very terms under which farmers

have to obtain credit are most unsatisfactory, and this is from the standpoint of the farm organizations themselves, based upon their submissions over the years. The bill presented to the agriculture committee in 1956 provided an amendment to extend the terms of loans up to 25 years. We were able to get a subsequent amendment providing for a maximum period of 30 years. The farm organizations have now asked for an extension to 40 years, and they have not been merely taking whatever provision the government had placed in legislation and adding another five or ten year period to it so that the government could never catch up with their demands. Their attitude has been to relate that figure to conditions in agriculture and to state that in view of these conditions farmers need a period of 40 years in which to repay their loans. I think this very long period of time emphasizes very vividly the difficulties which farmers experience in making a living and repaying the loans they have borrowed. The history of farming in this country and in most countries of the world is that a young man acquires a farm, and acquires with it a sizeable debt-


Mr. Speakman:: May I rise on a point of order? Cannot the hon. member for Assini-boia discuss the resolution which is before us?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I think I am discussing this resolution. I think I am following the example set by the minister. It seems to me that some of these new members are far too sensitive, and far too impatient of any member who stands up in the house and suggests that there should be some improvement. I suggest to the hon. member that he contain himself and not be so impatient. If he desires to rise in his place and make whatever contribution he wishes to this debate, let him do so instead of interrupting by raising points of order.
There are other improvements which have been suggested. One is a change in the interest rate itself, and I think that is most important because at present interest rates it takes a farmer, very often, a whole lifetime-40 years-to repay his obligation. Studies made by the federation of agriculture and the farmers union reveal that agriculture has not been able to pay over just 2 per cent on the capital employed in the industry, and so the interest rate of even 5 per cent being charged by the Canadian Farm Loan Board is a high rate of interest and is a very onerous burden upon agriculture.
We in this group would suggest with the farm organizations that there should be a substantial lowering of the interest rate to at least 3 per cent. We further suggest that the maximum loan that could be obtained

under the act should be increased. The maximum that can be obtained is $15,000. We suggest that the maximum should be increased to $20,000. Sixty-five per cent is the maximum of the assessed value that can be obtained by way of loans at this time. The farm organizations have not complained about that figure itself in some aspects and particularly with regard to the larger loans but they have requested a change in the act so that loans of up to at least 80 per cent of the assessed value could be made, with a maximum loan of $10,000.
I am pleased that a study is being made in this field and I hope that every consideration is being given to the provision of what one might term managed credit or supervised credit in the field of agriculture. A great deal of useful information, as the minister well knows, can be obtained from examining the experience in the United States. The farm credit administration in that country makes loans on a production basis. Canada has had some experience in this field as well with regard to the Veterans' Land Act under which legislation loans are supervised. I think every one will agree that the experience in regard to loans under that act has been excellent and there is much that could be learned about this method of providing loans from examining the experience under the Veterans' Land Act.
I express the hope to the minister that his major announcement the other day as to issues of long term government bonds at higher rates of interest will not so affect the cost of money being made available to the Canadian farm loan board as to necessitate any increase in the interest rate that the board presently charges.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not expect
that to happen at all.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am very pleased to have that assurance from the minister. I remember that we discussed this question in the committee a couple of years ago and at that time we were not able to pin down the minister of that day to a definite assurance in this respect. He merely expressed the hope that it would not happen. I thank the minister for his statement and his assurance that the interest rate will not go beyond 5 per cent.
I hope that we may be able to have witnesses appear before the committee on agriculture who are authorities in this field and that we may be able to make a study of the broader field of agricultural credit. In spite of all I have said about the importance of agricultural credit and the importance of making very substantial changes in this field, I would not want it assumed or deduced that I am of the view that agricultural credit of itself is in large part a solution of the
Canadian Farm Loan Act present agricultural problems. As far as grain producers are concerned today, I think you could give them any amount of credit, they could be farming the very best land they could locate, they could choose the size of farm and the type of machinery necessary to give them the most highly efficient unit, and I still believe it would not be possible for them to make sufficient money to pay depreciation, provide themselves and their families with an ordinary Canadian standard of living and have enough left over to restore or replace the equipment after it had worn out. In other words, regardless of the amount of credit or the kind of terms on which it was given, this would not solve the problems of those engaged in the production of grain.
I believe I heard some one in the Liberal group saying something about going to California.


Mr. Robichaud:: That is not correct.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will accept that as a correction of my interpretation of the rumblings I heard back there. I might remind the hon. member that it has already been said during this session by a very prominent and outstanding member of his party who is considered the agricultural spokesman that farmers on the prairies are in a much superior position to farmers in other parts of Canada.


An hon. Member:: It is true.


Hazen Robert Argue: Someone says it is true. To those who think that in the winter a farmer can move to town or go to California, I can reply that it "just ain't so". The farmers on the prairies as in any other part of this country are working very hard. They obtain very little for their efforts. If you think that a good farmer is able to take a holiday, much less go to California, I take pleasure in informing you-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that this resolution does not include reference to a trip to California. May I request that the hon. gentleman direct his remarks to the subject of the resolution.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate what you have said, Mr. Chairman. Your remarks are certainly well taken. Even in his most generous moments I do not think the Minister of Finance will be providing any loans for trips to California and if any farmers are taking loans under this act and subsequently making a trip to California, I suggest that their chances of repaying the loans will be greatly reduced.
When hon. members speak on a question 'like this they should agree first of all that farmers in all parts of Canada have very serious problems one of which is to obtain adequate credit on reasonable terms. It does

Canadian Farm Loan Act not assist the position of farmers in any one part of the country to make ill-founded remarks about agricultural producers in other parts of the country.
I conclude by expressing the hope to the minister that further legislation in this field will be forthcoming along the lines I have suggested and designed to meet the requests of the farm organizations.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, as I intend to make this my first English speech in this house, I beg the indulgence and consideration of all hon. members present. I listened with interest to the remarks made by the Minister of Finance and by the leader of the C.C.F. party. I do not know whether or not I should make any statement concerning what was said by the hon. member for Assiniboia concerning trips by farmers to California or to the southern part of the United States but I think I shall wait for another occasion to comment upon this.
I want to tell the Minister of Finance that I will vote for the resolution. However, I also wish to tell him that it falls far short of being the improvement to the Canadian Farm Loan Act that was promised by the Minister of Agriculture. The only advantage of this measure is that it provides additional funds to the board. This means that the borrower under this legislation will not enjoy any improvement over the conditions available to them today.
If we look at the statutes since this law was first passed in 1927 we note that several amendments have been made to it throughout the years. These changes have always been made in the sense of improving it and adapting it to new conditions. The last changes were those made in 1956, which increased the percentage evaluation of property from 60 per cent to 65 per cent of its value, increased the maximum loan from $12,000 to $15,000 and extended the repayment period from 25 years to 30 years.
This law, initiated and improved by the Liberal administrations over the years, has been of great service to our farmers but it has become somewhat outdated with the evolution of farming methods and the need for greater capital. The resolution that we are discussing today should include the amendments promised by our Conservative friends during the last election campaigns. Let me remind the committee of the promise made by the Minister of Agriculture at Mont Tremblant on September 18, 1957. He said:
A more generous farm credit policy and the diversification of production may improve Canada's depressed farm economy, Agriculture Minister Hark-ness said today. He suggested the type of credit policy similar to loans accorded under the Veterans' Land Act may be used to help farmers.

And on March 11 of this year the Prime Minister is quoted in the Hamilton Spectator as having said:
.. .long-term credit will be extended to help farmers plan for the future. I cannot bring about these changes unless the farmers across this nation get behind our candidates, he said. If we are not returned to power this legislation will not receive the benefit of favourable consideration.
In a Canadian Press dispatch, contained in the Winnipeg Free Press of May 15, the Minister of Agriculture is quoted as saying that he:
[DOT]-recognizes the need of providing farmers with a more flexible system of long-term loans including the possibility of lowering the present 5 per cent interest rate.
I ask the Prime Minister whether there were not enough of his candidates elected to carry out his promises and has the Minister of Agriculture not enough qualified persons to study the matters he wanted to look into?
The farmers of my constituency and all over Canada are waiting for action. The most important question that is being discussed in agricultural circles today is that of financing. The farmer, unlike the industrialist, cannot count on selling shares in order to finance his operations because he cannot pay the dividends. The period for repayment of capital is too long. That is why he must call on the state for assistance. That is what the Liberal party advocated through its distinguished leader during the last election campaign, an up-to-date agricultural credit policy. We realize that it is important to make available to the farmer the necessary capital to enable him to organize his farm well and to obtain the largest possible revenue in order to attain something like the same level of benefits as is enjoyed by the other classes of society.
In addition to the monetary advantage of a well organized system of farm credit, there is the other aspect of maintaining the family farm that is part of our tradition. The family farm, said the deputy minister of agriculture, S. J. Chagnon, in a press conference given to the members of the Canadian association of producers of chemical fertilizers, "assures the solidity and stability of our social and economic institutions, not only in Canada but in all North America. It is this family type of agriculture that is still best suited to a country that treasures its democratic ideals and institutions."
In recent years several agricultural organizations have submitted briefs to the government and they have all requested improvements in our agricultural legislation which, while differing in detail, agree in general principles. Thus, the interprovincial farm union council recommends the creation

Canadian Farm Loan Act
of a federal agency which would be responsible to the Department of Agriculture rather than to the Department of Finance. This agency would include a loan department similar to that authorized under the Veterans' Land Act. This is also one of the recommendations of the Canadian federation of agriculture. This would mean that the borrower would have the advice of specialists in agricultural questions until 25 per cent of his debt has been repaid. Only at that time will the inspections cease. Both of these organizations requested lower interest rates. The interprovincial farm union council maintains that the interest rates should be from 3 per cent to 3J per cent. The Canadian federation of agriculture asks that the rate of interest be reduced to the same level as the government borrowing rate, plus a small margin. But it recognizes that the administration of the loan system should be the responsibility of the government.
Another point on which there is general agreement is on the amount of the maximum loan and the percentage of valuation of property. They agree that the maximum loan should be $20,000 and the Canadian federation of agriculture recommends the percentage of evaluation of 80 per cent for loans up to $8,000, with a gradual reduction to 65 per cent for loans from $16,000 to $20,000. All loans between 70 per cent and 80 per cent should be subject to inspection of government specialists. Those are the general improvements that should be included in this resolution.
The Liberal party has some views on the organization of a modern farm loan policy. I do not intend to speak on these views at length during the discussion of this resolution since I have a motion on the order paper proposing that, in the opinion of this house, the government should give early consideration to the advisability of the establishment of an agriculture and fisheries development bank to consolidate and expand existing credit facilities for persons engaged in these primary industries and to provide sufficient capital to enable farmers and fishermen to make capital improvements. When that resolution comes forward for discussion I will have an opportunity to outline the Liberal party's views on this subject.
I should like to remind the minister that it is more important than ever for him to outline the agricultural policy of the government by which they propose to make it possible for farmers and fishermen to share in the riches of our country in the same manner and to the same extent as other groups in our society. During the last two election campaigns all Conservative candidates bewailed the conditions of the farmers and
even went as far in some cases as to sound their "last post". All this great misery, they claimed, was caused by the Liberal administration. Yet we do not see one single Conservative member of parliament, not even from the province of Quebec or the maritimes, insisting on the rights that they promised to defend a few brief months ago.
All that these members have done during this session, and all they will likely do after I have spoken, is to sing the praises of the minister for increasing the capital of the farm loan board from $4 million to $6 million. We intend to vote for this measure because it makes more credit available to the farmers but we feel that it is not the improvement the farmers were led to expect during the election campaign and we hope that the government will bring in legislation to help our farmers and other working classes.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that Canadian farmers will welcome the action envisaged in the resolution and will also welcome the improved attitude on the part of the officials of the Canadian farm loan board. As we will have a further opportunity to discuss the details at a later date I will not say anything further in that regard until that time.
Something has been said about farmers going to California, Miami or other places in the winter. I want to tell the house something about that because there are a number of farmers in the prairie grain growing areas who do that. They do so to save money because taking into account the cost of fuel over the winter the amount of money involved will pay their fare there and back and it does not cost any more to live there than it does to live in Canada. Most of the farmers who do that have been at the job for 30, 40 or 50 years. I know one farmer 84 years old who has gone to California on a number of occasions.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I would ask the hon. member to take his seat while the chairman is standing. I want to remind him, as I said before, that we are not discussing trips to California. We are dealing with the resolution before us increasing the authorized capital of the Canadian farm loan board and I will have to ask the hon. member to confine his remarks strictly to the resolution before us.


Edward Nasserden: I am very glad to comply, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure that all hon. members will realize that those who do go to California have a good, sound reason for doing so.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, there are three brief points I should like to make on the resolution. In the first place, I should like
2302	HOUSE OF
Canadian Farm Loan Act to indicate my support for the measure which will make available an additional $2 million to the Canadian farm loan board for loans to farmers.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, $40 million.


Chesley William Carter: Yes. $2 million additional capital will provide $40 million for loans. In the second place, I should like to ask the minister, if it would not be too inconvenient to do so, to provide the house with information indicating the extent to which Newfoundland farmers have been able to benefit from this legislation. I should like the figure for the last fiscal year and if figures can be provided for previous years that will be so much the better. It is true that Newfoundland is not primarily an agricultural province but we have considerable farm land and there are good possibilities for the development of the farm industry. Hon. members may not realize it but the prices we pay for milk, so essential for the health of children, and other local farm products are perhaps higher than in any other part of Canada. It is necessary to assist the farmers to modernize their farms so that wherever possible the cost of local farm products may be reduced.
In the third place, I should like to ask the minister if it is possible for fishermen to benefit under this legislation. I ask that because there is a sentence on page 4 of the report of the Canadian farm loan board for the year ending March 31, 1957, which reads as follows:
The amendment also made provision for the winding up of financial arrangements between the board and the Minister of Finance respecting the assets, capital and loans of the board outstanding under the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act.
I should be grateful if the minister would explain what these arrangements were and what is the present relationship between the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act and the Canadian Farm Loan Act. If Newfoundland farmers have not availed themselves to any degree of this legislation and if Newfoundland fishermen have not availed themselves of the benefits under the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act it is not because the need does not exist. There must be some other reason for it and it is quite possible that the reason has to do with the conditions under which these loans are made available. I can understand that this legislation would have been drafted perhaps long before Newfoundland became a province, and it would be drafted with conditions in mind which would not obtain in our province.
However, there is a great need for loans of this type to be made available to both fishermen and farmers, particularly the fishermen of the Atlantic provinces. There is a great


similarity between the farming and fishing industries. Both these industries are important to the national economy; both produce primary wealth which provides a basis for secondary industries; both produce food which is essential to the maintenance of human life and for the health and wellbeing of mankind. These fishermen and farmers wage a continuous struggle with nature and receive a very meagre return for their efforts and for their investment, as well as the long hours of work, the hardships and risks which they undertake. This is particularly true in comparison with the returns from other industries.
In addition, both have to face problems resulting from factors over which they have no control, factors such as wind, storms, drought, hail and in the case of fishermen the scarcity of bait. Of course, marketing conditions apply to both, but perhaps to an even greater degree to fishermen. There is, therefore, a great need for this kind of legislation for the fishermen as well as the farmers. If the Canadian Fishermen's Loan Act has been wound up, then I should like to suggest that the scope of this act be enlarged to include loans to fishermen. Perhaps the provisions might be amended so as to make it easier for both farmers and fishermen to obtain credit under this legislation.


Mr. MacEwan:: My remarks on this matter will be very brief. I congratulate the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska upon his speech in English. I must say that it will be necessary for me to disappoint him because I am going to say that we greatly appreciate the increase in funds made available through this resolution but there are also one or two other matters which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister, and I hope I shall not be guilty of repetition. I did mention this matter during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, but I believe it will bear repetition.
The province of Nova Scotia established a royal commission to study agriculture. One of the recommendations of this commission was to the effect that the Canadian Farm Loan Act should be changed. According to the submission of the Nova Scotia federation of agriculture to this royal commission, this act provided more or less for the larger farms and for the farmers in other parts of Canada, but was not framed in such a way as to be of much help in extending credit to young farmers in Nova Scotia. As was stated by this royal commission on agriculture, many loans were obtained from the Nova Scotia land settlement board, many more, I might say, than through the Canadian farm loan board. I would urge the minister that this matter be

looked into with a view to drafting further amendments in order to give young farmers in Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces a chance to make application for loans under the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
Another matter which was dealt with by the commission was the suggestion that a joint federal-provincial board could be established which would be a combination of the Canadian farm loan board and the Nova Scotia board. Perhaps this suggestion could be borne in mind by the minister so that the proper amendments in that connection could be made. I believe that at the moment we have a very forward looking and very sympathetic federation of agriculture in Nova Scotia.
If I am not straying too far from the subject matter, I should like to point out that arrangements have been made between the federation, private citizens and the province of Nova Scotia to set up an abattoir in the province in order to help our farmers, especially the cattle raisers. I believe this is going ahead.
It is necessary today, because of the type of farming that is conducted, for our younger farmers to have credit available. The number of vacant farms in my own area, and in the maritimes generally, is a most important matter. I do not know too much about the practical aspects of farming because my experience has been limited to helping put in the hay on my grandfather's farm or taking the horses to water. However, I do know something about the Canadian Farm Loan Act and its operations. Another thing which I might submit to the minister is that since farmers are not living near the capital cities of the provinces and it is sometimes difficult for them to obtain information about the Canadian Farm Loan Act, more publicity should be given to the regulations and application forms should be more readily available. The farmer should be informed just what is available under this important legislation.
I believe that is all I have to say on the matter, Mr. Chairman. It is a most important subject in so far as Nova Scotia is concerned, especially having regard to the encouragement of agriculture in that province.


Mr. Peters:: I should like to thank the Minister of Finance for having increased by $2 million the amount available under the Canadian Farm Loan Act. However, if the farmers can go to California on the $4 million, I hope that there are more who will be able to go on the $6 million.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If my hon. friend will permit me to interrupt, let me clear up one thing. The amount he is talking about, in the sense of $4 million and $6 million, is
Canadian Farm Loan Act the authorized capital of the Canadian farm loan board. This is not its lending capacity. Its lending capacity is measured in terms of 20 times its capital. What we are talking about now is raising the limit on its borrowing or its lending capacity of $80 million, which this measure now proposes should be increased to $120 million.


William Arnold Peters: I thank the minister for his statement. I believe that more people will be able to travel now than were able to do with the small amount that was in the act before.
However, I believe the whole matter of farm credit should be given an overhauling. In agricultural areas we have found that the price of operating a farm has increased, just as everything else has. Credit is necessary now, not only to buy farm machinery necessary to operate the farm and the stock, but to take care of the buildings on the property. Many farmers are faced with problems because of the fact they cannot borrow to the limit of the total value of the lands to help them with the expansion that is necessary. As farm organizations have suggested, the amount a farmer can borrow should be increased from 65 per cent of the appraised value of the farm to 80 per cent of the value of his property.
One of the problems that faces the farmer is the knowledge that if he were to expand his operation, if he were to buy the farm next door or a couple of farms close by, if he were to go into a more diversified type of farming where the expenses will be much greater for machinery and for milking facilities, he is faced with a problem of being unable to obtain credit under the present legislation as we have it in effect.
It seems to me that one of the problems we are finding and the reason why so many farmers are leaving is the fact that they are now facing the proposition of borrowing mortgage money from trust companies which are very much opposed to lending the money, particularly in my area where an organization like the Canada Permanent Trust Company will not lend farm mortgage money at all. Where other types of farm credit are no longer available such as bank credit, they are faced with a proposition of either having to borrow the credit at a rate at which it is impossible for them to pay back or to leave the farm and in many cases that is what they are doing. They are leaving the farm every day.
Having regard to this problem of mortgage money in general and particularly mortgage money for those who are just starting in industry and want to increase their holdings and operations, we feel that they are faced with a problem where they should have supervised credit, credit which may even look

Canadian Farm Loan Act to them to be more than they are able to carry but which could be introduced in a much more satisfactory manner than is now taking place.
I think the government should take a close look at the situation with regard to agricultural credit. In order to do this they should examine the situation in the light of the experience the government has had with the Veterans Land Act. Under the Veterans Land Act the situation has been handled a little bit differently from that in which it has been handled in other government boards in so far as they are willing and deem it necessary to supervise credit. I know of cases where the veterans land agents have come to a farmer and said: If you increase your holdings, if you buy the farm across the road, if you go into this type of operation rather than the one you are in, if you will expand your buildings, we will give you this amount of money. They are willing to assist the farmer in a repayment program. They will supervise his purchases. They will supervise the type of crop that he grows. In the majority of cases they are successful. In fact, the record as to the number of failures under this supervised credit that is being extended by this branch of government has been more than satisfactory in the cases that I have known of. I understand that the loss is almost negligible.
While we are in agreement that this legislation is advantageous to the farmers, I personally know of many young farmers today who would go into farming if they were given some supervision in the operation of their farms. This is nothing revolutionary. It is the type of program that the banks have used for many years where they have said: You show us your receipts; we give you the money on a graduated scale and you bring your receipts into us and pay your expenses out of that, and the rest of the money that is left over goes into paying off the loan. In many cases the farmer is faced with the proposition of having on his own to make a decision that he is not too sure is going to be a successful one. I think the government should offer him a much more comprehensive type of supervision than has been offered by the Canadian farm loan board.
We agree with the Canadian federation of agriculture also in the expansion of this credit. We think that 30 years is not long enough. We think that farm stability is such that 40 years would be a satisfactory period of time. Because these loans are so stable and because these loans in the past have had such a high repayment rate and there have been so few cases of inability to pay, we think that the interest rate on agricultural

loans must be not more than 3 per cent and possibly, if the matter is under supervision, it could be lower than that.
Also in my own area-and I think this is true in general-while you could start farming on a farm that you could purchase, that would carry an average family; you could purchase that property equipped for $10,000, ten, fifteen or twenty years ago. It is no longer possible to do that. I think many of the members must realize just what proposition is faced by a young farmer if he wants to go on a farm. In my own area on an average farm that will maintain a family, the land will cost $8,000 to $10,000; the buildings will run upwards of $15,000. This includes a home that would be comparable to the homes that they would have if they were living in the city and working in an industry. The machinery to operate a farm in Timiskaming- and I refer to a mixed farm-would cost $5,000. To operate that farm in order to return to the family a standard of living to which they should be entitled, the stock will cost another $10,000. Hence we have an outlay of $45,000.
I think that even a limit of $20,000 for a mortgage is an unreasonable amount of money because in Timiskaming if you bought a farm for $20,000, equipped and ready to operate, the contracts that you would have even in the milk producing industry would not be sufficient to pay for that farm in 30 years and keep the family. It is all right if the wife is going to run it and the man is going to go out and work. But I do not think that is the method of agriculture that the minister contemplates when he suggests raising these loans.
So that while we are in agreement and appreciate on behalf of the farmers in Ontario these increases in the capitalization of the Canadian farm loan board, we think that a great deal of consideration in committee must be given to a much more satisfactory way of supervising credit than we are going to be extending to agricultural people and the agricultural communities of Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As a member who loves hogs, Mr. Chairman, and as one who has raised a good many of them and who represents a large number of small farmers and fruit growers may I say that to date I have never seen any of them down south of the line on winter holidays. They do not go to Florida or California. However, I am under the impression that the member from the prairie constituency who mentioned that matter represented a small minority of prairie farmers with possibly large acreages and under very favourable conditions. I do not think for a moment those are typical conditions. In any event, I just rose to express

my support of the proposals put forward by previous speakers in this group with respect to the limitations of the present Canada Farm Loan Act, and the possibility for the improvement of this legislation. However, in order to facilitate the passage of this bill this afternoon so that it can be referred to the committee on agriculture for study and recommendations, I am going to leave my further remarks on this legislation to an appropriate time during a later debate.


Mr. McIntosh:: I should like to ask the minister a question. I wonder whether he could elaborate on the method of the proposal and up to what percentage is money lent on loans? I understand that the appraisal value is different in different districts. For the information of the members of the house I think I should say a few words on this trip to California. I would suggest that no more farmers take trips to California than those from any other industry in Canada and maybe not as many.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-38, to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Now, by leave. I move the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. C-37, respecting the taxation of estates.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I made some remarks on the resolution stage concerning the new principles involved in the taxation of estates, and I do not propose to repeat them on this occasion.
I realize that the bill will be given very careful study by the banking and commerce committee. It is a very long bill-almost 50 pages-and it only came into our hands yesterday. Hon. members will also be aware that the minister tabled a return to the house giving us copies of the briefs which were
Estate Tax Act
submitted from national organizations concerning this bill in response to the invitation that he made when he introduced an initial bill last session-Bill No. 248 of the 1957-58 session.
I regret to find that many of the administrative features which I felt were somewhat exorbitant so far as administrative powers are concerned continue in the new bill. I notice that this aspect has received criticism in a number of the briefs which have been presented to the minister. I have no doubt that members of the banking and commerce committee will hear from many of these national associations, and I hope that some of these more exorbitant administrative and collection powers will be somewhat reduced as a result of the discussions.


Mr. F. C. Stinson (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate for just a few moments in this debate, may I offer to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) my congratulations on the introduction of this bill which, as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) and the minister himself have pointed out, introduces a new principle of taxation with respect to taxation of estates, that is, the principle of taxing the aggregate estate instead of levying taxation on the interests taken by successors.
While I am speaking of the Minister of Finance, may I also say a word of congratulation to him on the excellent work he has done both in respect to the recent budget presentation and in respect of the addresses he has recently made in this house and elsewhere with respect to the borrowings to be carried out by the government over the next few months.
It is proposed that this bill should go to the banking and commerce committee for detailed consideration, and I do not propose at this stage to make comments which might be more appropriately made in that committee. However, I think I should say, as I indicated earlier, that a new basis for taxation is proposed in this bill, a basis on which the tax levied relates to the size of the estate without reference to the relationship of the beneficiary to the deceased or the size of a gift made to a beneficiary. However, the previous concessions made under the present act to close relatives have been preserved by increasing the exemptions in favour of such relatives.
It seems to me that the administration of the proposed statute will be much simpler than the administration of the act which it will probably replace, and with this greater simplicity it is likely to be less costly to administer.

Estate Tax Act
Another advantage would appear to be that it should be much easier under this legislation than under the previous act to calculate within a reasonable length of time after the death of the deceased the precise tax to be paid in respect of the estate. For instance, under the present legislation, if a man dies leaving a life interest in his estate to his widow, with the executor having power to encroach on the capital for the benefit of the widow during her lifetime and the remainder of the estate to be divided among the children, it is most difficult for the revenue authorities to establish precisely, at an early date after the death of the deceased, what the tax should be with respect to the life interest to be enjoyed by the widow, having regard to the fact that it is extremely difficult to calculate to what extent the executor may encroach on the capital of the estate for the widow's benefit. Then, of course, another difficulty arises in that one cannot calculate with any certainty in a case such as I have described the size of the interest to be taken by the children.
Under the proposed estate tax it will be possible within a very short time after the passing of the deceased to determine the tax which is payable, and advantages will accrue to the Department of National Revenue, to the executors and trustees charged with the administration of the estate and, of course, most important of all, to those people who will be liable to pay the tax.
I do not think it would be proper to go into the clauses of this proposed statute in detail at this time but perhaps one or two further comments would be appropriate. It would seem to me that under the old Succession Duty Act the proceeds of policies of life insurance were subject to tax only in proportion to the premiums paid by the deceased or his personal corporation. In the new legislation this concept of contribution has been eliminated and I believe there will be advantages gained as a result of that change. No longer will it be necessary, as I understand it, for exhaustive searches to be made into the files and financial records of individual taxpayers with a view to ascertaining where in fact the money came from which was used for the purchase of life insurance on the life of a deceased person. There are also substantial differences between those sections of this statute having to do with joint interests and the sections of the present Succession Duty Act which tax such an interest in a joint holding of a person on his death.
In my view this legislation is progressive. As I said earlier in my remarks, it will make for administrative simplicity. It will be a less difficult statute to administer. The

problems of executors and trustees in the matter of the settlement of death duties will be diminished and I believe we can look forward to other advantages also when this bill is finally approved by parliament.


Mr. Alan Macnaughion (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I had the advantage of making a few remarks on this subject and I will try not to make these subsequent remarks too long. There is no doubt in my mind that the basic simplicity of this bill is a recommendation of sorts and I understand that many of its provisions are similar to those provisions which we find in the internal revenue code of the United States. The proposed act, of course, taxes the net value of the estate after certain exemptions have been applied but it seems to me that these exemptions in Canada under the proposed act are vastly different from the exemptions which are allowed in the United States under the internal revenue code.
Because of this and for other reasons I find the present bill disappointing. For example, it does not recognize the husband and wife partnership in the building up of an estate nor are the exemptions which are allowed under the proposed act sufficiently large in extent. It is true that the smaller the estate, the greater the exemption, and that is only right; but in so far as the exemptions on larger estates are concerned they are almost negligible. To my way of thinking there are certain sections of this act which should be amended and perhaps they will be when we discuss the bill later on.
If I am right in my reference, I referred the other day to part I, section (b), paragraph 4 referring to certain other property and mentioned the fact that where a person-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if I may interrupt the hon. member, I would rise on a point of order. I think it is not proper and it has been ruled many times that in a debate on second reading of a bill one must not refer to particular provisions, sections or clauses of the bill. The debate on second reading is confined under the rules of the house to a discussion of the principle of the bill and any reference to provisions, sections or clauses of the bill is out of order. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. friend because he said he was going to be brief but I think the point must be adhered to on the part of all hon. members.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: I was about to refer to the tax on insurance that a controlled company might pay but that can be discussed later.
There is one suggestion I should like to make to the minister at this time under the section relating to appeals. Under this

bill appeals are referred to the income tax appeal board. It seems to me that a great majority of the cases under the proposed act will be estate tax cases, of course, requiring to a large degree the use of experts on a question of valuation of the estate. I suggest to the minister that the income tax appeal board may be swamped with a tremendous number of cases and that he should consider the setting up of a separate estate tax appeal board for the hearing of these estate tax cases. If we do not do that the present income tax appeal board may be simply swamped with hearings and we will incur long delays. That is all I have to say at the present time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, this very interesting-and I am sure all hon. members will agree somewhat complicated-measure now before the house for second reading is one that requires considerable study. We in this group were very pleased when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) during the last parliament brought the bill forward for first reading in order that people throughout the country could give it that study. It is not a problem that could be studied satisfactorily in a short time. Without a doubt this bill is one of those that should go to a committee in order that the committee can hear representations, study the measure in the light of those representations and report to this house.
There is an extremely interesting feature to this bill. Although it is one of those dry as dust matters that are related to finance -a subject on which I am most incompetent to speak beyond the necessity of totalling up figures to about 500 and things of that sort-there has been a great deal of interest taken in it by women's organizations throughout the country. I am sure all hon. members have received representations from various national women's groups. I have received representations even from small women's institutes, women's clubs and local organizations. They have not simply forwarded to me a draft made by the national organization of which they are a part but have given some local flavour to their representations as a result of their experience and so on.
Before taking my seat I want to mention one of the excellent briefs which I received and which I understand has been forwarded to the Minister of Finance. I refer to the brief prepared by the Canadian committee on the status of women whose chairman is Mrs. G. D. Finlayson of Ottawa. I have read this through several times and I feel it reveals a careful analysis of the problems connected with this bill from their point of view. Looking back not many years I think
Income Tax Convention it is interesting to note that this house seldom received representations from national women's organizations and received particularly few with respect to measures of this type. I think it does indicate that the women of Canada are beginning to take a greater interest in the governing of this country and in the legislation that comes before this house and its affect on Canadians and particularly on women themselves.
As usual, Mr. Speaker, I am quite brief and that is all I am going to say at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. C-28, to implement a convention between Canada and Belgium for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Does the minister intend to make a statement?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think an extended statement is required. As my hon. friend knows, the bill is in the same form and the convention which it supports to ratify is in the same form as many which have been before the house in recent years. The purpose of the bill is to implement a convention between Canada and Belgium for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, and the establishment of rules for reciprocal fiscal assistance in the matter of income taxes.
The agreement or convention follows the pattern established in recent income tax agreements which Canada has made with the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, South Africa, the Netherlands and Australia.
Double taxation is avoided chiefly by a reciprocal system of tax credits in which the country of residence gives credit for the taxes imposed by the country where the income has its source.
The agreement contains the usual provisions limiting the taxing of trading profits to the permanent establishment rule. In addition, there are some specific provisions which are like those which have appeared in the other agreements to which I have made reference.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that any agreement which will help us avoid double taxation will
2308	HOUSE OF
Income Tax Convention certainly receive sympathetic consideration from this side of the house. I wonder whether at this stage the minister will tell us, either now or later, why the subject of succession duties was not included in this general bill. It has been included in previous bills in the past, as the minister well knows, and it seems to have been left out of this particular bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps I can
endeavour now to answer the question of the hon. member for Mount Royal. With respect, I do not think it is relevant to the present measure, but I might give my hon. friend what information I have. I think he will recall that in most cases where succession duty has been dealt with it has been dealt with in a separate convention from that relating to income tax. In the present case my information is that when the negotiations were embarked upon first in 1955, the indication on the part of the representatives of Belgium was that they wished to negotiate a convention in respect of income tax.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Can the minister tell us also if the list of taxes which are mentioned here is comparable as between those taxes in Canada and those taxes in Belgium? Is the basis more or less similar?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The basis of what?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Is it a comparable list of taxes?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, they were considered comparable by those who were negotiating and those who had responsibility for instructing the negotiators. There is no precise identification in almost all of these cases between the taxes of the one country and the taxes of the other. Different countries do not always have exactly the same type of taxes with respect to income, but for this purpose it was considered that the taxes on the one hand with respect to Canada and the taxes on the other hand with respect to Belgium are comparable taxes in the income tax field.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Convention approved.
Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: May I suggest to the minister that we revert to the schedule now because clause 2, as the minister well knows, carries approval of the schedule. That has been the custom followed in previous years at the request of the Minister of Finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask my
friend whether he has questions about the schedule?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Yes.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall we revert to the schedule?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On the schedule.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Will the minister tell us why he has particularly mentioned "including surtaxes and the old age security tax on income"? Would he also refer to article 1, section (b) which mentions tax on real property. I understand that real property tax in Canada is provincial. I should like to know what he means by the word "surtaxes" in referring to Canada and why old age security tax on income was included?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have surtaxes in the sense of the surtax on investment income; in other words, a tax in addition to the ordinary income tax. As to 1(b), this happens to be the type of income tax that has been applied in Belgium.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Referring to article 1, paragraph 2, are there any other taxes of a substantially similar character? Will these words now cover the national contributory scheme to national health or even, as the Prime Minister mentioned some time ago, the national contributory retirement plan scheme? If we bring these schemes into force would they be included under the heading, "any other taxes of a substantially similar character"?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This provision is one which has appeared in a number of those agreements. It is by no means a new provision. I think my hon. friend, as all other hon. members, will realize that while one is glad to answer questions as he may be able to with respect to the convention, the convention itself does not admit of amendment. We are dealing with a bill which includes five clauses, one of which provides for ratification of the agreement as it stands.
My friend has, with respect to this clause which is quite standard in form, asked a specific question which I think is somewhat hypothetical at this moment. Therefore I would not wish to be invited to attempt a positive answer to a question which is largely hypothetical. At the moment I do not see how the imposition of a premium with respect to a form of hospital insurance would be regarded as an income tax but I would not wish to say that in no case could such an impost be an income tax. It will depend entirely upon the form, I should think, in which the impost is levied.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall the schedule carry?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: There are a few more short questions. With respect to article III of the schedule. In the tax agreement with Ireland only the word "profits" was used. In the agreement with Denmark the words "industrial profits and commercial profits" were used. I presume the word "profits" is wide enough to cover investment profits too.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The provision the article makes that Belgian enterprises will be taxed in Canada only with respect to industrial or commercial profits applies to the extent that they are attributable to their permanent establishment in Canada. I may say that the same rule applies reciprocally with respect to the industrial and commercial profits of Canadian enterprises in Belgium.
This point was raised with regard to another of these international conventions a couple of years ago and the answer which
1	was given at the time and which I take to be correct now was that the expression "industrial or commercial profits" is wide enough to include profits from investment if they are yielded in the course of the ordinary commercial activities of the company.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Under article VI I believe that the rate of tax on a Belgian receiving dividends, etc. from Canada is 15 per cent. If you look at article VI, paragraph 3, it speaks of the Belgian tax on royalties. Can the minister give us any indication as to what the rate of tax is?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The rate of tax to which Belgium binds itself in paragraph 3 of this article is 18 per cent of the net royalties which will in most cases be less than the 15 per cent of the gross royalties imposed under our law.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: In article IX, paragraph
2	(b) the sum of $3,000 is mentioned. I notice that is a reduction from the amount of $5,000 in the agreements we have with Germany and Ireland. Is there any reason for the reduction from $5,000 to $3,000?


Donald Methuen Fleming: My understanding is that was the amount that both parties desired.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: With regard to paragraph 4 of the same article, I understand that an artist or athlete performing in Belgium pays no tax if he is there on a temporary basis.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is my hon. friend speaking about the Belgian tax?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Yes.
Income Tax Convention


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would not wish to speak positively on that point.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: With regard to article XVII I note that when the minister was on this side of the house he had certain objections to the provision that the two contracting states may prescribe regulations. He wanted the regulations spelled out. Has he now changed his mind?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am afraid that the minister has been obliged to accept a practice that has become largely standardized and has been approved by parliament before. The minister, being always obedient and respectful towards parliament, has accepted the practice that parliament has well established now.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Article XIV speaks of the exchange of information between the contracting states. Would the minister care to give a short explanation of that? It seems to me that we should limit it to a certain degree.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Quite so. Article XIV provides that the exchange of information is restricted to that which is necessary for the carrying out of the convention or for the prevention of fraud or avoidance of taxation. No information is to be exchanged which will disclose any trade secrets or trade process or which is deemed to be against public policy.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: The words "professional secret" are used in the same article. What would that refer to?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think my friend and I would have no difficulty in determining what are professional secrets with respect to professions. There are so many things that are professional secrets.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: I understand that this would not necessarily refer to legal professional secrets but in effect to trade secrets.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the explanation I gave I said that the information to be exchanged would not include trade secrets or trade processes.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: With regard to article XX, if the instruments of ratification are exchanged this year will deductions at the source start on January 1 next year and in the case of any other taxes will they begin as soon as the agreement comes into force?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That would be my understanding.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
2310	HOUSE OF
Income Tax Convention
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Now, by leave.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND BELGIUM FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION IN BELGIAN CONGO AND RUANDA-URUNDI

Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. C-29, to implement a convention between Canada and Belgium for the purpose of extending to the Belgian Congo and the territory of Ruanda-Urundi under trusteeship the convention between Canada and Belgium for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income taxes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Would the minister care to make any further statement on this measure?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said, Mr. Chairman, that I thought any remarks which might be required on the other measure would be very short, and certainly any statement on this one should be very much shorter. This is a bill in the same form, and simply provides for the ratification of a convention that was signed at the same time as the one just now approved by the house. It applies to the Belgian Congo and to the Belgian trustee territory of Ruanda-Urundi, the provisions of a similar convention.
Indeed, the convention which is a schedule to the present bill is based upon the schedule of the former bill consisting of the convention between Canada and Belgium. This separate convention is required because the Belgian constitution requires a separate agreement with respect to these territories rather than an extension by means of an exchange of notes. As hon. members who have read the bill will realize, the schedule simply follows the form of the schedule in the former bill, namely the agreement with Belgium, and makes certain changes in some of the articles in order to provide specifically for the Belgian Congo and the trustee territory of Ruanda-Urundi.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: May I suggest that we consider the schedule and then revert to clause 2?
Clause 1 agreed to.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is it agreed that we now
consider the schedule?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On the schedule.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: In the schedule, article 1, paragraph 2, there is a slight variation in the wording from the previous bill. It says:
The present convention shall also apply to any other tax of a substantially analogous nature-
Is there anything to be read into the difference in wording between the two bills?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Chairman. Article 1 in this bill contains a definition of the taxes to which the convention applies. As my hon. friend has said, it makes provision that it shall also apply to any other tax of a substantially analogous nature which may be imposed in the Belgian Congo and Ruanda-Urundi or in Canada after the signing of the convention.
The article then contains a specific reference to the taxes to which the extended convention applies. In Canada it applies to income taxes, including surtaxes and the old age security tax on income. In the Belgian Congo and Ruanda-Urundi the convention applies to the tax on rental income, the movable capital tax, the professional tax, the complementary tax on profits realized by companies and other taxpayers, which are now imposed by the Belgian Congo and Ruanda-Urundi and are in the nature of income taxes.
The article also states that the extended convention will apply to any substantially analogous tax which may be imposed by either government during the time the convention is in force. I may say that the act of June 21, 1927, referred to in paragraph (b) of article I, deals with an act passed which affected corporations that have their head offices in Belgium and carry on their operations in the Belgian Congo. They are subject to special tax provisions.
I cannot, at the moment, refer to any existing tax which might offer a test of the meaning of the words "substantially analogous". Obviously, the intention of the parties in writing that provision into this act was to leave open the possibility that either of the parties by their lawfully constituted authorities might impose additional taxes which would be analogous or similar in nature to the existing taxes specifically embraced in the definition in article I.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Would the minister explain the second sentence in article XIII which reads:
The amount to be deducted may not exceed that portion of the Canadian tax which corresponds to the proportion between the income of Congolese origin subject to the Congolese tax and the total income subject to the Canadian tax.
Could he tell us what the tax is today?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The clause to which my friend is referring is the second part of the paragraph, and is actually paragraph 2 of article XIII?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: That is right, yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the meaning here is clear, Mr. Chairman. Article XIII takes us back to the other convention, the convention between Canada and Belgium, because article XIII applies in the case of the second convention, except so far as it is expressly varied by the terms of the convention between Canada on the one hand and the Congo and Ruanda-Urundi on the other. We have to have reference here to the first clause in article XIII of the main convention, and that is quite an extended clause because it has parts (a), (b) and (c) to it.
In the main convention with Belgium, we have a provision in the second clause which reads as follows:
Except in the case of a non-resident-owned investment corporation, Canada shall deduct from the Canadian tax on income from sources situated in Belgium the amount of Belgian tax payable on such income. The amount to be deducted may not exceed that portion of the Canadian tax which corresponds to the proportion between the income of Belgian origin subject to Belgian tax and the total income subject to Canadian tax.
In place of that, this second convention provides as follows:
Except in the case of a non-resident-owned investment corporation, Canada shall deduct from the Canadian tax on income derived from sources situated in the Belgian Congo or Ruanda-Urundi the amount of Congolese tax payable on such income. The amount to be deducted may not exceed that portion of the Canadian tax which corresponds to the proportion between the income of Congolese origin subject to the Congolese tax and the total income subject to the Canadian tax.
We have approved the convention with Belgium which contains the clause I have read. The only difference between this clause and the clause in the main convention is that this, when referring to the tax from the country opposite to Canada, has reference to the income derived from sources in the Congo or Ruanda-Urundi and the tax referred to is always the Congolese tax. The clause about which my friend is asking obviously has the same meaning as in the main convention just approved, but the reference here to the tax is to the Congolese tax rather than the
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act Belgian tax. There is no difference in principle or substance.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: In article XX it says:
This convention shall also be terminated outright should the convention referred to in the preamble between Canada and Belgium be terminated.
What would happen to the treaty in case the territory of Ruanda-Urundi becomes independent?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would depend entirely on the terms and on the nature of the change of status of the Congo or the territory. I do not believe one can anticipate every situation that might arise in that respect. If, for instance, the change that took place were to take the form of the incorporation of the Belgian Congo into the metropolitan territory of the kingdom of Belgium, then the convention applicable to the kingdom of Belgium would also apply in due course to any further territories that would be included within the metropolitan territory of the kingdom of Belgium.
But again that must yield to the terms of the legislation under which that transition in status would take place. In the,convention there is provision for extension by understanding of the parties by exchange of notes in that behalf. If a major change of that kind occurred, in order to remove any doubts and to clarify the situation I should think it is likely that resort would be had to an exchange of notes covering the point.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Now, by leave.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Now, by leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PRAIRIE GRAIN ADVANCE PAYMENTS ACT


Gordon Minto Churchill: the second reading of Bill No. C-31, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-31 is
introduced at this time to make certain amendments to the Prairie Grain Advance
2312	HOUSE OF
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act Payments Act which appear necessary in the light erf the experience gained during the last eight months.
In general the act has worked very well. Its purpose has been to provide for prairie farmers a cash advance on grain which, for reasons beyond the farmers' control, could not be delivered immediately to the elevators.
During the eight months in which the act has been in operation its value has been clearly demonstrated. Under this legislation 50,411 producers have secured cash advances. The total sum advanced is $35,203,217. As of July 11, producers have refunded $32,094,438 or 91.1 per cent of the money advanced. By provinces the figures are as follows. For Manitoba, 11,724 producers made application for loans; total amount advanced, $7,112,441, of which they have refunded $6,655,993 or 93.5 per cent. For Saskatchewan 28,792 producers made application for loans, total amount advanced, $21,822,114; paid back, $20,156,022 or 92.3 per cent. For Alberta, 9,895 producers made application for loans; total amount advanced $6,268,662; total amount refunded $5,282,423 or 84.2 per cent. As deliveries of grain continue during July the outstanding amount will be still further reduced and by July 31 it may be that all the advance will have been repaid.
That possibility has come about owing to increased exports and therefore increased marketings from the farms. Marketings are reflected in the quota position which is as follows: For Ontario there are two stations to which grain may be delivered; one is on the 7-bushel quota and one is closed. For Manitoba there are 376 stations; 202 are on the 7-bushel quota, 173 on the 6-bushel quota and one closed. In Saskatchewan, 1,101 stations; 277 on the 7-bushel quota, 774 on the
6-	bushel quota, 42 on the 5-bushel quota and 8 closed. For Alberta, there are 588 stations; 179 on the 7-bushel quota, 383 on the 6-bushel quota, 4 on the 5-bushel quota and 22 closed. For British Columbia there are four stations which are on the 6-bushel quota. For all provinces there are 2,071 stations; 659 are on the 7-bushel quota, 1,334 on the 6-bushel quota, 46 on the 5-bushel quota and 32 closed. By July 31, the end of the crop year, there will be very few farms not on the 6-bushel delivery quota and more will be on the
7-	bushel quota.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the minister a question at that point. Does the minister feel that any other type of policy adopted by the government might have resulted in an equalization of quotas rather than some points at the end of the crop year being on a higher quota than others? I appreciate the good deliveries that are being made. This is not a criticism of the deliveries or the movement of grain.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. The matter was considered. Once you advance to a 7-bushel quota, then this question of equalization comes into the picture. But under the circumstances we thought that it would be wise to extend the quota position in order that those who could do so might benefit from it, particularly in view of the fact that the disparity is not very great. The number of stations still on the 5-bushel quota is only 46. Within the next few days they will either be on the 6-bushel or 7-bushel quota right across the prairies.
I have a few more statements to make, Mr. Speaker, which would take several minutes. Perhaps I should now move the adjournment of the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Six o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Churchill the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the government leader what the business is for tomorrow? Perhaps he would also tell the house what we will do on Friday and Saturday.


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall take
estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, followed by estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what we will do on Friday and Saturday?


Howard Charles Green: I hardly expect to get both those departments through tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. However, during the evening I will think of something else to keep us busy on Friday and Saturday.


Lionel Chevrier: You have a good deal of legislation there that you might get through.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Fisher: 1.	How many orders in council were passed from the 1st of July, 1956 to the 1st of July, 1957; and from the 1st of July, 1957 to the 1st of June, 1958?
2.	Are any of the orders in council passed from July 1, 1957 to June 1, 1958 secret?
3.	Do any of them vary, alter, suspend or abrogate any existing legislation?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker
(Prime Minister):
1.	Orders of the governor in council passed from 1st of July 1956 to 1st of July, 1957 totalled 3,758 of which 1,912 were minutes of the treasury board approved by the governor in council; and from the 1st of July, 1957 to the 1st of June, 1958 totalled 3,165 of which 1,559 were minutes of the treasury board approved by the governor in council.
2.	No, they are not secret.
3.	Only when under certain legislation passed by parliament provision is made therefor in the statutes.


CANADIAN AND U.S. RAILWAYS  BOX CAR DISTRIBUTION
Mr. Chevrier: 1. How many box cars belonging to (a) the Canadian National Railways; (b) the Canadian Pacific Railway, were in the United States on (i) July 31, 1957; (ii) August 31, 1957; (iii) September
Questions
30, 1957; (iv) October 31, 1957; (v) November 30, 1957; (vi) December 31, 1957?
2. How many box cars belonging to United States railways were in Canada on the above dates?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The following statistics have been prepared from the summary of freight car locations received in the Department of Transport from the Railway Association of Canada:
1.	(a) (i) 10,633; (ii) 11,550; (iii) 11,058; (iv) 10,188; (v) 9,888; (vi) 8,602.
(b) (i) 9,012; (ii) 9,781; (iii) 9,990; (iv) 9,800; (v) 9,315; (vi) 8,010.
2.	(i) 6,599; (ii) 7,221; (iii) 6,653; (iv) 6,658; (v) 6,332; (vi) 5,556.
The answer to part 2 does not include box cars belonging to United States railways on other than Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway lines in Canada.


LOANS TO FISHERMEN, NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY, N.B.
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	How many loans, and in what amount, were granted to fishermen of Northumberland county, (Miramichi) New Brunswick, under the fishermen's improvement loan act, each year, since this act became operative?
2.	Of these loans, how many were granted by chartered banks and how many by credit unions or co-operative societies?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1.	None.
2.	Answered by No. 1.

Thursday, July 17, 1958


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McCleave.
Second report of standing committee on veterans affairs.-Mr. Dinsdale.
Second report of sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and controlled by the government.-Mr. Rowe.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South) presented the fourth report of the standing committee on estimates, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.