1959-06-29

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor General, signed by his own hand, reading as follows:
Government House, Ottawa 23rd June, 1959
Members of the House of Commons:
I have received with great pleasure the address that you have voted in reply to my speech at the opening of parliament. I thank you sincerely for
this address.
Vincent Massey



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition the other morning asked me if I would bring together the statements which have been made on behalf of the corporation in connection with the matter which has been occupying the press over the last few days. The first statement was issued and read by my colleague the Minister of Justice the other day, but I think for continuity all the statements should be put together at this time. This is a statement by Mr. Bushnell, and if the house would agree it could appear in Hansard at this point, as it was read the other morning.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house to have this statement printed in Hansard rather than being read at this time?


Mr. Pickersgill:: I wonder whether, in view of the importance of this statement, and it is not a very long statement, the minister would read it so it will be fresh in our minds?
66968-9-330


George Clyde Nowlan: Very well. This is the statement issued by Mr. Bushnell to the press on Monday, June 22, as I am advised:
Some two weeks ago the corporation decided to replace the "Preview Commentary" from Ottawa, which followed the eight o'clock C.B.C. news, with a "Special Parliamentary Report" prepared by the C.B.C. news service. It was felt that this would improve the corporation's service of reporting the proceedings of the previous day in parliament.
This has been followed by resignations of several members of the corporation's talks and public affairs national office in Toronto, on the grounds that the substitution of the opinion broadcast "Preview Commentary" by the factual C.B.C. news report implied political interference with the C.B.C.'s broadcasting of controversial affairs. The corporation does not accept this implication.
The C.B.C. has the fullest confidence in the talks and public affairs department which over the years has contributed some of the C.B.C.'s most distinguished and responsible broadcasting.
Then I am advised that on June 24, following a series of meetings of the board of directors which had taken place in Toronto, the following statement was made at six o'clock in the evening:
Since the C.B.C. board of directors began its regular meetings in Toronto, assertions have been made that a directive of management which replaced the "Preview Commentary" by a factual report on the daily proceedings in parliament was prompted by considerations incompatible with the independence of the C.B.C. The board and management of the corporation are convinced that the intent of the directive has been misinterpreted by the public. Accordingly, and in order to remove any doubt as to the independence of the corporation, "Preview Commentary" will be resumed on Monday of next week.
The board of directors and management of C.B.C. at this time wish to reaffirm the established policy of freedom of expression in C.B.C. programs devoted to the discussion of public issues.
Following that Mr. Walker, of Toronto, issued this statement on June 24:
Mr. H. G. Walker, the director for Ontario and English networks division of the C.B.C., announced tonight that the resignations submitted by employees earlier this week have not been accepted by C.B.C. management. Mr. Walker hopes that all employees will find it possible to resume their normal duties.
And in connection with resignations, I am advised that none of the resignations have been accepted by the corporation and that all the employees have returned to work except Mr. Peers, supervisor of talks and public affairs, Mr. Hugh Gillis, his assistant and Mr. Bernard Trotter, who have said they did not want any action taken on their resignations until they have appeared before the House of Commons committee on broadcasting tomorrow.



That comprises the official record of the documents. I am told that Mr. Bushnell held a press conference, but I have not seen any notes of this and I believe no record was kept, except what subsequently appeared in the press, and I also understand that Mr. Bushnell made a statement over the C.B.C. in an interview, notes of which I have not in my possession.
While I am on my feet, so that the record may be complete, may I refer to the series of questions which the Leader of the Opposition asked me last week when I was away. I think perhaps these questions should be answered here now so as to make a continuous record. The Leader of the Opposition asked, as recorded on page 5086 of Hansard:
Were discussions held in the past ten days in Toronto or Ottawa between management of the C.B.C. and persons who have since resigned from their posts in the corporation?
The answer is yes.
I was also asked:
If so, who were present at these discussions for C.B.C. management and for talks and public affairs personnel.
The answer is, Mr. E. L. Bushnell for management and Mr. Frank Peers for the talks and public affairs department. The last part of the question was:
How many such meetings were held, and on what dates?
The answer is that one meeting was held, on Sunday, June 21. That is the full answer to the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Essex East also asked questions with respect to the resignations, but as I have already stated all the persons concerned except the three I have named have returned to work, and I am not in a position to give more detailed answers to those questions than those I have just given.
When I referred to this matter on Thursday morning, I think it was, when I returned from St. Catharines, I said I would make a statement to the House on Monday. I think that was an unfortunate phrase. I was not thinking at that time that these gentlemen were appearing before the committee or that this was a continuing matter, and I think it would be improper for me, as this matter is sub judice, to comment on the broader implications of this matter until the committee has considered whatever evidence may be brought before it and taken whatever action it may wish to take as far as examining witnesses is concerned. For that reason I do not propose to say anything on that particular issue until it has been clarified and dealt with by our committee of the House of Commons.
[Mr. Nowlan.l
However, with the permission of the house I would like to say a word about Mr. Bushnell, whose name has appeared in the press in the last few days in various reports and rumours of impending resignations and so on. Mr. Bushnell was appointed assistant general manager of this corporation when it was reorganized last fall. Mr. Ouimet was made general manager. Mr. Ouimet was appointed president and Mr. Bushnell vicepresident respectively.
In December the corporation was faced with the strike of Radio Canada. Mr. Ouimet had been away. He returned and tried to deal with that strike. As a result he collapsed, and as we all know has been seriously ill since that time. I am glad to say that his doctors report that they think he can return to work within a matter of two or three weeks, although not to assume full responsibility initially. As a result of that illness Mr. Bushnell carried on not only as assistant general manager but as general manager, as president and vice-president. In other words, he was doing the work of two men.
Those of us in this house who have been close to the situation in the last few months -and I see this was mentioned in the Canadian Press dispatch in this morning's papers-are aware that the last six months have been probably the most hectic in the history of the corporation. I can say of my personal knowledge that during this period Mr. Bushnell has worked tirelessly and given himself wholeheartedly and solely to the corporation. I know that on many occasions he worked 17 or 18 hours a day throughout the strike. Although I am not a doctor I can tell hon. members-and I have had advice to this effect as well-that Mr. Bushnell is completely and totally exhausted after having carried this heavy burden during this period of time. In fact I have been afraid that we would have more than one man in hospital with a heart attack and I still fear this possibility.
Mr. Bushnell is carrying on and intends to carry on despite reports to the contrary. There has never been any thought of his not being here until this committee has finished its investigation into this particular phase in the matter of interference with the corporation. I hope when this has been concluded Mr. Bushnell will be able to get away for a few weeks rest-and I say "few weeks" advisedly-because I am told that the answers concerning other matters to be examined into by the committee can be supplied by other officials of the corporation, and it will not be necessary for Mr. Bushnell to be present.

Mr. Bushnell inherited the situation and did not create it. He was recommended to me by the former general manager and chairman of the board and by all the senior officials of the corporation, I was told, I believed, and I still believe that the morale of the corporation might have been prejudiced if Mr. Bushnell and Mr. Ouimet had not been appointed as president and vice president.
During the last few days I have personally received many telephone calls from officers and employees of the corporation not only from Ottawa but elsewhere across the country telling me of their confidence in Mr. Bushnell and their resentment at the charges of weakness and incompetence and so on and so forth which have been made against him.
I can only say that I have been closely associated with him, as I was with Mr. Ouimet prior to his illness, since the day they became president and vice president of the corporation. I must say I have heard from Mr. Bushnell some "Bushnellisms" because our discussions have been frank and free in dealing with all aspects of the corporation. I have seen no sign of weakness or incompetence. I personally believe that Mr. Bushnell deserves the confidence of the country and the corporation for the way he has given to it of his strength and his whole being during these very difficult months.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of National Revenue is right and wise in not seeking to prejudge the question that is going to be considered by a committee of this house tomorrow. I am sure I will be expressing his views as well as my own when I say I hope that investigation will be carried on in a calm, judicial and non-partisan spirit, and that there will be no attempt made to prevent the committee from finding out the truth.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group feel it is very important that there shall be at the head of the C.B.C. a strong management; that the C.B.C. shall maintain its independence at all times, and perform the function of promoting public discussion on controversial issues without any interference whatsoever. We have been disturbed, naturally, by recent events. We hope the inquiry that is about to take place will result in the strengthening of the C.B.C. and maintaining it for the purpose given to it by parliament when it was first set up. We think in a country like Canada with a bicultural nature and two official languages a strong C.B.C. is essential to the preservation of the very integrity and independence of this country. For these reasons, which are 66968-9-330i
Motion -for Papers
very strong ones, we trust that the difficulties will be resolved and that in the future there will be no question but that the independence of the C.B.C. is being maintained.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-25 (from the Senate) to confirm an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Nova Scotia respecting Indian reserves.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RESEARCH


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee later this day to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That in order to mark the occasion of Her Majesty's visit to Canada and Her personal interest in the well-being of children, it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of the Queen Elizabeth II Canadian fund to aid in research on the diseases of children, for the purpose of assisting individuals or organizations to undertake or carry on research into the diseases of children and the causes, prevention and treatment of such diseases, and for the payment into the said fund of the sum of $1 million out of the consolidated revenue fund; to make provision for administrative and technical services and facilities required for the purposes of the act; and generally to make such other provisions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 125-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the federal government and the province of Ontario, the state of Minnesota, the government of the United States of America and any other authorities or persons, regarding a bridge at Fort Frances, Ontario, since January 1, 1956.
Hon. Henri Courtemanche (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to this motion passing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the premier of Quebec has announced his intention of attending the conference which opens next week between the provincial treasurers and the Minister of Finance, the government has made any arrangements to invite the premiers of other provinces to attend this conference who are not themselves provincial treasurers?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge that such an invitation has been sent. The Minister of Finance is unavoidably absent today in Toronto in connection with the visit of Her Majesty the Queen. He will be back tomorrow I think. I would suggest that the question might be taken as notice to be answered by him.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to do something to lower the temperature in the house I want to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question about the Arctic. I did not send any notice because it has just come to mind. Has the minister received any complaints from people in Canada about teaching the Eskimos forms of art other than their native forms?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. lady, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, if she has any statement she can make to the house about the two Latvian refugees, in view of the press reports.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I think the press reports have pretty well covered the situation. By now it is known

that the two Latvian seamen have made a formal request to remain in Canada. They have been given a minister's permit of one year's duration, and it is my understanding that they are at present in the care of friends in the city of Toronto.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the
minister is now in a position to answer the general question about deportations behind the iron curtain.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is not a case of being in a position to answer it. Personally I do not think this should be a subject for open discussion. Each case is handled on its own merits and carefully considered, and I think that is about as far as I care to go.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. C. Henderson (Cariboo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister inform me what steps are being taken to halt the strike of steelworkers on the Peace river bridge in order to recommence work at the earliest possible moment? I have received telegrams from the Dawson Creek chamber of commerce and the mayor and city council of Dawson city requesting immediate action on the matter.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into the situation and I am informed that this matter is entirely under provincial jurisdiction.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if she is able to give the house any detailed information about the disastrous Are which took place at Skidegate, Queen Charlotte islands, over the week end.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker,
the fire took place, as the hon. member has said, at the end of last week. There was a preliminary investigation on Saturday afternoon but the cause of the fire was not established. The fire marshal is there now investigating the situation, and an inquest will be held on July 1. It was a most hearttouching tragedy because it took the lives of five children, three of them Indian and two non-Indian, and an adult Indian man. Until

such time as the inquest is held I do not think we will have anything further to report other than that I expect to have the fire marshal's report as soon as it is completed.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister care to comment on a report in the press that the minister made a statement to the national house builders association that beginning this year loans will be made directly to builders by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in order to prevent a drastic reduction in housing construction? Can the minister say whether this announcement is one that will be made firm in the near future?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I saw this dispatch myself. I made no statement to that effect to the officers of the national house builders association when I discussed the whole situation with them a week ago. I think the report is a case of jumping to conclusions. When a policy has been decided upon it will be announced in the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say whether consideration is now being given to this proposition?


Howard Charles Green: Consideration has been given to the whole housing problem not only in the last week but for many months.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made for the business of the house on Wednesday, July 1.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I hoped that the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Assiniboia might meet with me and that we might agree, subject to confirmation by the house, as to the course to be followed. I would think-and I merely make this by way of a suggestion-that the house might sit in the forenoon and adjourn for the afternoon when the proceedings take place on parliament hill, provided, of course, that this procedure meets with general approval.
Children's Diseases Research Fund ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY



REFERENCE TO CHAIRMAN OF SEAWAY AUTHORITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the fact that the chairman of the St. Lawrence seaway authority who presided at the opening ceremony of the St. Lawrence seaway on Friday was born in Twillingate and educated in Bonavista?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that fact. I am sure the house is very pleased to hear it.



RESEARCH


John George Diefenbaker: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That in order to mark the occasion of Her Majesty's visit to Canada and her personal interest in the well-being of children, it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of the Queen Elizabeth II Canadian fund to aid in research on the diseases of children, for the purpose of assisting individuals or organizations to undertake or carry on research into the diseases of children and the causes, prevention and treatment of such diseases, and for the payment into the said fund of the sum of $1 million out of the consolidated revenue fund; to make provision for administrative and technical services and facilities required for the purposes of the act; and generally to make such other provisions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Diefenbaker thereupon moved for a leave to introduce Bill No. C-65 to mark the occasion of Her Majesty's visit to Canada by providing for the establishment and administration of a fund to aid in research on the diseases of children.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent now.


John George Diefenbaker: the second reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any length. I appreciate the attitude of the house in agreeing that in respect of this measure immediate attention shall be

Children's Diseases Research Fund given to the several readings to the end, it it meets with the approval of the house, that the legislation might be passed today and be made available for consideration in the other place.
I would point out first that it was on June 11 that the decision of the government of Canada was announced that in place of the usual gifts that are made to Her Majesty on great state occasions such as a visitation by her, it was decided that course should not be followed and that Canadians as a whole would like to see something of a memorial of the visit which would be generally beneficial to Her Majesty's subjects in Canada. As reported at page 4559 of Hansard I set forth the proposal which is now represented by the bill before the house.
In the course of the discussion the Leader of the Opposition mentioned a matter that had already received the consideration of the government. He suggested that with respect to the fund to be set up, provision might be made to enable private citizens to make contributions. I would ask leave of the house to make some reference to the several sections of the bill, though normally this is not done on second reading. I should like to answer by way of anticipation the questions that I believe might arise. The first would naturally be the wording of the preamble. The preamble is somewhat different from the normal preamble in that it starts with these words:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
Whereas it has pleased Your Majesty to approve the suggestion that the occasion of your visit to Canada and your personal interest in the wellbeing of children should be marked by the establishment in your name of a fund to be devoted to the furthering of research into the diseases of children and the prevention and cure of such diseases, to which all who wish in this way to make a gift to Your Majesty may contribute-
The wording is somewhat similar to the wording of appropriation bills. Then follows the actual enacting section:
May it therefore please Your Majesty, that it may be enacted-
And so on. The purpose is to set up a fund to be known as the Queen Elizabeth II Canadian research fund to aid in research into the diseases of children. This is an objective that through the years has represented a particular interest on the part of Her Majesty. Her interest in children has been pre-eminent. On the occasion of her present visit one is more impressed than ever with the fact that while she occupies the position of Queen of Canada and in other parts of the commonwealth that of Queen of the several dominions and in still others that of head of the


commonwealth, her interest in children is apparent wherever she appears.
As I said a moment ago, this fund has been generally applauded and approved throughout the country. Indeed, it has been most interesting during the past few weeks to have noted that several provinces-such as the province of Ontario and the province of Alberta-have set up funds for educational purposes and the provision of scholarships, those matters being within the exclusive ambit and jurisdiction of provincial authority. In the province of Quebec a fund has been set up for heart disease research. In other words, this visit in general will be marked by provision being made in many parts of our country for beneficial steps to raise standards both of education and health, to the end that Her Majesty's subjects may enjoy ever increasing standards.
In no field has it been more apparent that action should be taken than in the field of children's diseases. Indeed, the tremendous changes which have taken place in the last 25 or 50 years in this and other fields have brought about an increase in life expectancy. There are those who today predict that in consequence of medical advance in research within this century, a man may well look forward, where the highest medical standards prevail, to an expectancy of close to 100 years.
In order to make this fund widely available for support on the part of Canadians as a whole and also of individuals who choose to make contributions, provision is made that gifts, bequests, appropriations and other contributions may be made not only now but throughout the years that follow while this fund is being administered. In the typewritten draft which was delivered to the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Assiniboia, section 5, subsection 2 provided that a chairman and six trustees be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen by commission under the great seal of Canada. The law officers have advised me today that there is no necessity to have that section included, and all contributions made will be subject to the usual rules respecting contributions to charitable organizations under the Income Tax Act. Therefore there will be no need to have that portion of section 5 included in the bill.
In so far as the purposes are concerned, those purposes are set forth in section 3. That section provides that the fund is to assist individuals or organizations to carry on research into the diseases of children and the causes, prevention and treatment of such diseases. There is also provision for an audit

and a report to parliament so that parliament, having contributed on behalf of the Canadian people $1 million, will exercise that degree of parliamentary control which is essential in expenditures made by parliament and on behalf of the Canadian people.
I think there is nothing further that I need add. The general acceptance of the principle was made clear by members representing the official opposition and the C.C.F. group when the matter first came before the house. I believe this is a major step forward in achieving that relationship between the Queen and her subjects which represents something mystical and yet real, which was so apparent two days ago at the opening of the St. Lawrence waterway when she represented the people of Canada, and in co-operation with the President of the United States gave an exemplification of cooperation which might well be the hope of other parts of the world. In her person she represents the unity of our nation within the commonwealth, and in the personification of her position through funds such as this she typifies the essence of democracy, which is co-operation for the benefit of all her subjects.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is not of course, normal procedure to put a bill through all stages, as we are doing today with this bill, in such a short period of time before, indeed, we have had an opportunity in advance to study the bill. But, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, the circumstances are not normal. Even in respect of the language of the bill we are impressed by the fact that the circumstances are not normal. Not only are they abnormal; they are very happy indeed, and are circumstances which make it desirable to put this bill through the house in one day so it can be passed by the time the Queen reaches her capital tomorrow.
The objective of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is one which will appeal, I am sure, to all Canadians, designed as it is to facilitate research into children's diseases; and we are sure that objective will be aided by this particular act. We know the need. We know also there is great need of research in other related fields, such as heart disease and cancer. This particular bill will make a contribution to this need. I am glad the Prime Minister and the government have seen fit to include in the bill a provision by which individuals may make contributions to the fund. It will associate individuals with the government in pursuit of a worthy objective.
Mr. Speaker, I am reminded that in the celebration of King George V's jubilee some years ago a fund was set up for cancer research to which contributions came from
29, 1959
Children's Diseases Research Fund individual Canadians to an amount, I think, of something over half a million dollars. It was a fund which did much at that time to facilitate research into this dread disease, as also I am sure this fund will do at this time. I recall that that particular fund was put under the trusteeship of the prime minister, the chief justice, and I think also the leader of the opposition, and I believe it was an effectively administered fund, as I know this will be. I would merely express the hope that the Department of National Health and Welfare may be closely associated with the administration of this particular fund.
So, Mr. Speaker, we on this side give our warm and hearty support to this legislation. We know that as a result the children who have been welcoming Her Majesty the Queen with such unrestrained enthusiasm and who have shown no trace of indifference to her visit will in the future, because of the passing of this legislation, have even greater cause to welcome that visit.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of this group to express our complete support for this humanitarian measure, and I am sure this measure, as the leader of the official opposition has said, will receive the support of the whole nation.
This bill to provide a gift of $1 million to Her Majesty will form the foundation of a fund which will grow as the years go by to establish and carry on research into the diseases of children.
Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty is the symbol of the past, present and future of the commonwealth and all it stands for. This gift, this fund, will provide for research to remedy some of our neglect in the past; it will provide the financial resources so badly needed in the present for the benefit and for the welfare of the children of today and of the future. We in this group trust that from this token of affection for Her Majesty, this happy thought, this common sense measure, which has our unanimous approval, and from this mutual expression of our common humanity will flow an ever-increasing stream of benefits for children of today and generations yet unborn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
Clauses 1-4 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 5-Board of trustees.
John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps I might say a word with regard to clause 5. The printed form of the bill contains just subclause 1, to establish the board of trustees, and subclause 2-"the head office of the board shall be at the city of Ottawa." It does not contain

Children's Diseases Research Fund the words to which I made reference in my earlier remarks. Those words appear exclusively in the typewritten form, but if the printed form is accepted there would be no need of another amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6-15 inclusive agreed to.
On the preamble.
Mr. Marlin (Essex East):: I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of this bill, but I do hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will become very closely associated with this measure. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, there is no reference to the department of health and welfare in the bill, but it would seem to me because of the national health program the Minister of National Health and Welfare must be very intimately associated with this measure.


John George Diefenbaker: The suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition, now repeated by the hon. member for Essex East, is one which will receive the fullest consideration. As a matter of fact, no other department will be more intimately concerned with the objectives which this legislation has in mind. For that reason I know the minister of health and welfare and his department will have wide responsibilities under this legislation.


Mr. McMillan:: Is it intended to appoint pediatricians to the board of trustees? I am very much in favour of this measure. I think Canadians in the past have done wonderful work in the field of research, for instance in the investigation and treatment of diabetes. Children were very vulnerable to diabetes and often died from its effects until Dr. Banting discovered insulin. I am just wondering whether the government intends to appoint pediatricians to the board of trustees, or whether such medical groups are to function apart from the board.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not speaking with
finality on the subject. The suggestion made by the hon. member is worthy of consideration. I think in the administration of this act representation should be fairly widespread, covering not only pediatricians and a representative of the national research council but also the department of health and welfare and possibly one or more representatives from provincial departments of health, to the end that in the administration the objective of the measure will be attained to the fullest possible degree.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I realize that I am somewhat out of order, but I should like to ask
a question of the Prime Minister with regard


to clause 5. I did not hear the clause passed. I am referring to the Prime Minister's explanation that there was no necessity for this clause to contain the words "the board will be a charitable organization in Canada". Because I am interested in doing everything possible to promote gifts to the fund, would the Prime Minister mind explaining to the house why that phrase should not be necessary, and what other legislation protects persons who might wish to make donations to this fund?


John George Diefenbaker: As I pointed out-and
possibly my remarks did not have the clarity they should have possessed-in the typewritten copy the words referred to by the hon. gentleman appear, namely "the board shall be a charitable organization in Canada". In the printed copy those words do not appear, and the reason for that change was that in the light of fuller consideration by the law officers of the crown, and in order to keep the bill as simple as possible, the words "charitable organization in Canada" were thought to be unnecessary in order to achieve the objectives and purposes of the measure and were, accordingly, omitted.
The hon. gentleman will note that clause 12 reads:
A gift or bequest to the fund or to the board for the purposes of the fund shall be deemed to be a gift to Her Majesty.
If we had left in the earlier words in clause 5 there would have been redundancy or, at least, duplication. The meaning of clause 12 is simply this; that any person, individual, corporation or the like who chooses to make a contribution to the fund will be entitled under the Income Tax Act to those credits which are allowed with regard to contributions to charitable organizations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was puzzled by that
language. As the Prime Minister knows, I am not a lawyer, but is a gift to Her Majesty a charitable donation under the Income Tax Act?


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact the
credit is given when the wording is "a gift to Her Majesty in the right of Canada" but it was felt that there was no necessity, in the opinion of the law officers of the crown, to include those words "in the right of Canada".


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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-57, an act respecting the superannuation of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Mr. Fulton-Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
Mr. Denis:: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance explained that the purpose of this bill was to revise the old Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and make it less confusing, but after reading this bill I have reached the conclusion that far from being less confusing it is more confusing and incomprehensible. It would have been better to change the former act and leave just one piece of legislation on the statute books instead of creating several acts referring one to the other. For instance, the former act used to bear the name Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act which is precisely the short title of Bill C-34. The former act has been amended and bears the name Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act. It was formerly chapter 241 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1953.
An examination of the new bill indicates that most sections of the former act have been repealed with the exception of four or five sections. While the former act is repealed we see that the new bill makes many references to the former act, which still applies to some members of the force who get benefits under the new bill. It is difficult to understand how we can determine what section of the act will apply to one particular member of the force if we have to consult anywhere from three to six acts in order to learn what a member is entitled to. The new bill refers many times to the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian forces superannuation act and the former act which has been repealed. The minister has made the law much more confused than it was previously.
Another criticism of the new bill arises from the fact that interpretations or definitions of words are scattered throughout the bill. Clause 2 gives definitions of a few words, but others are defined in other clauses. Clause 6 subclause 2 defines "interests", clause 8 subclause 1 defines "annuity", "immediate annuity", "deferred annuity", "cash termination allowance" and "return of contributions". Clause 14 defines "widow" and "widower", clause 15 defines "recipient", clause 17 defines "elective contributor" and clause 29 defines "former act". Does the minister not agree that there should be one definition clause or interpretation section?
66968-9-331
R.C.M.P. Act
Another weakness of the new bill is that some clauses contain sentences ranging from 37 to 42 lines in length without a period. Clause 5 contains a sentence of over 104 lines. When you reach the end of it and encounter the verb you have forgotten the subject to which it applies. I know it will be answered that these are excerpts from old acts, but my main criticism is that instead of one comprehensive act we now have five or more.
Bill No. C-57 is called the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. We have also recently passed Bill No. C-34, which bears the name Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. This was the name of the former act now amended by Bill No. C-57, which will hereafter be referred to as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act. Sometimes the bill refers to the former act which applies to some members of the force. Therefore reference is made to a former act which has been repealed. I understand that the word "repealed" means the act is no longer in effect. When the next revised statutes of Canada are printed I am sure they will not contain former acts which have been repealed, and in order to get information in respect to certain cases we will have to refer back to previous revised statutes in orders to obtain the information we seek.
Surely it would have been less confusing if we could have had one act to cover every circumstance and case. I have observed that words such as "pension" "benefit" and "contribution" are interpreted in the same way and repeated in all these bills or acts. The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act are based on the same principle, so there could be one piece of legislation dealing with all the categories of people mentioned who take advantage of these various clauses. My good friend will deal with this in more detail when we come to the different sections.
I regret that the Minister of Justice, in introducing new bills to clarify the matter or make it less confusing, has missed the point. I ask him to see next year or two years from now whether he cannot take advantage of these suggestions and instead of having four, five or six bills which are intermingled, introduce one clear bill which will apply to every category of the R.C.M. Police, the Canadian forces and the civil service. If he will look into all the acts covering these people he will find that the ways of calculating the service one has given to the government come to about the same thing. Sometimes there may be a difference of one or

R.C.M.P. Act
two years, as we said when we discussed Bill No. C-37. Sometimes one category has a greater advantage than the other but still some of these bills are much more confused than they were before.
It is very difficult to interpret this new bill which refers to the former act, which is being repealed in respect of some of its contents but still bears another name. I ask the Minister of Justice and his officials to introduce a new superannuation bill next year so that anyone who wishes to look into it in order to find his own category will not have to refer to four or five other acts, or to a law which is repealed except for a few sections.


Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise at this point a question which I was not aware of when the Canadian forces superannuation act was discussed either in principle on second reading or in committee of the whole. I was informed that there is some difference with respect to the Canadian forces, the civil service and the R.C.M.P. retirement leave or rehabilitation leave. A member of the Canadian army or of the Canadian navy with 20 years' service is granted before retirement four months' rehabilitation leave plus 30 days annual leave. I am told that is done according to the regulations of those services. In the civil service a man with 20 years' service is granted three months' rehabilitation leave plus one month annual leave, as he is entitled to under the regulations.
I am told that in the R.C.M.P. it is quite different. A man with 20 years' service actually is granted two months' rehabilitation leave and in some cases is granted annual leave only because I am told, the annual leave in the R.C.M.P. cannot be taken unless the person actually worked in that particular fiscal year. Therefore it would seem to me there is a difference of appreciation of service of some kind, or a difference in the chance that a member of either of those forces has as opposed to those in civil life.
As I said before, retirement leave is known in all the services. The Canadian forces, the civil service and the R.C.M.P. have rehabilitation leave. This is given on the grounds that those persons are subject to transfer during the last period of service, and to provide those persons with a chance to decide where they will establish their domicile at retirement on pension. It may be that a person who enlisted in the R.C.M.P. while he was domiciled in Nova Scotia may reach the retirement stage of his career in Alberta. This leave is given to him in order to give him a chance, as I said, to decide where to go on retirement.

As I said earlier, in the civil service an individual receives three months' rehabilitation leave, and in the Canadian forces he receives four months. Why is it not possible for all these public servants, the Canadian forces personnel, the R.C.M.P. personnel, to be given the same period of rehabilitation or retirement leave?
This is a point I was not aware of earlier. If I had been I would have raised it on the bill presented by the Minister of National Defence. I want to raise it now so the Minister of Justice will be able to consult with the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State to try to iron out those differences and give the R.C.M.P. personnel the same chance that the members of the Canadian forces have, and so that at the same time the members of the public service will have the same chance as the Canadian forces personnel, namely the four months' rehabilitation leave and the 30 days annual leave.
I raise this point now because I was unable to see where in the act I could raise it.


Mr. Fulion:: Mr. Chairman, to deal first with the point raised by the hon. member for Megantic, I should explain that retirement leave does not form part of the provisions regarding superannuation. It is, therefore, not covered in any way in the superannuation bill. Retirement leave in the police is taken care of by the regulations under the main act which we recently passed in this house.
I am informed that with respect to both the armed forces and the public service generally the same scheme is followed, that the question of retirement leave is covered by regulations under the National Defence Act or under the Civil Service Act, as the case may be. So in no case are the provisions for retirement leave set or even regulated under the superannuation act. They are covered by regulations under the main acts in each case.
It is true that there are variations in the amounts of retirement leave made available as between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other branches of the public service, but we have prepared and have ready now for submission to treasury board new draft regulations under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act when it shall have become law, and those regulations will introduce uniform standards, in so far as uniform standards are possible, as between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other branches of the public service.


Gabriel Roberge: Would the minister permit a question at this time? It is based on information passed to me by one of my colleagues. I am informed that the regulations

were more or less drafted with the aid of those people who deal with superannuation in the civil service.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct. These regulations, in so far as they have any financial implications, are always discussed with treasury board first and in that way-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I presume the minister means the staff of treasury board.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Treasury board staff, treasury board officials-and in that way there is assurance that they will be co-ordinated and in so far as possible differences as between various branches of the public service will be eliminated.
With respect to the remarks of the hon. member for St. Denis, I have to confess that the R.C.M.P. superannuation bill is a complicated measure. It may not be a completely adequate defence but I can defend it in part at least on the ground that that is true of other superannuation measures, the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Canadian forces superannuation bill which was approved by the house just recently. But I can assure him that, again in so far as it is possible to do so, the three measures will now proceed on exactly the same basis and there will be uniformity in the superannuation provisions applicable to the public service generally, the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of Canada. This bill then is of a uniform pattern with the other superannuation measures passed by parliament.
I also agree with him that it is perhaps unfortunate that there must be a reference back to other measures, but unless we made reference back to other measures under which pensions have been payable to members of the force in the past I can assure my hon. friend that this bill, as my officials suggest, might be at least twice as complicated as it is at the moment and certainly would be twice as long.
I am interested in the suggestion that there should be one general superannuation act covering all branches of the public service, that is, the civil service, the armed forces and the R.C.M.P. I would have thought it more efficient and clearer to have three separate bills, because inevitably there are certain differences in the conditions of service and thus in the superannuation benefits as between the three services. I would think that if you had one general act you would have to introduce so many detailed provisions making variations and exceptions that you would not in fact accomplish the object of clarity.
It is a matter in which other ministers are just as concerned as I am; therefore it is
66968-9-3314
R.C.M.P. Act
not one on which I can act unilaterally. However, the suggestion is worth looking at, and I am quite sure that the officials before me will take note of it. Indeed, I will see that it is discussed with treasury board officials, but I would not care to go beyond that because, as I say, it seems to me there would be more difficulties and complications created than there would be saved by following such a course.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, may I mention one point with respect to the definition of the word "pay". We have two different definitions in two sections of our law because section 2 of the former act is not repealed. In Bill C-57 we have another definition of the word "pay" in clause 2 (j). Which one is to apply? We have a third definition in section 93 of the old act. Which one applies when we want to know the meaning of the word "pay"? The minister was supposed to eradicate such confusion from the legislation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The definition of "pay" as given in the new clause 2 will be the definition of application to Bill C-57 itself and all pensions and superannuation benefits which are to be determined in accordance with this bill. But in part III the bill provides for a continuation act; therefore the definition of "pay" in section 2 of the old act, which as my hon. friend says is not repealed, will be the definition which has application for the purpose of the continuation pensions or continuation superannuation.


Azellus Denis: What about section 93 in part V of the old act, subsection (h) ? This part is repealed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, that disappears entirely because part V of the pension provisions of the former Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act is being replaced by the bill now before us, so there is no need to continue any part of part V of the old Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.


Mr. Crestohl:: Mr. Chairman, while we were considering the previous measure having to do with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police I asked the minister a question and made some reference to the superannuation for the retiring commissioner. At that time the minister pointed out to me that the appropriate time to deal with that matter would be when the measure now before us came up for consideration. I am having a little difficulty in trying to locate the clause which might deal with that phase of superannuation. May I also say to the minister that I hold no brief from the retiring commissioner to speak about the matter, but my interest is more than just academic. My interest stems

R.C.M.P. Act
from the fact that a very formidable editorial appeared in the Montreal Star which raised the question, and it is quite possible that similar situations might arise in the future.
I do not have to discuss at this time the merits of the retiring commissioner, and I know the minister has recognized the great service he has rendered to the country. But there seems to be a feeling, as expressed in the Montreal Star, that here is a man who retired almost at the point when he would have reached his maximum superannuation, and he did not retire for any of the causes mentioned in the act which would in some way disqualify him. I am raising this point now on clause 1 because I do not know on what clause I can discuss the matter. I do not know whether it would be clause 17 dealing with special cases, clause 20 dealing with the establishment of a pension board or clause 21 which sets up regulations for the pension board.
I am hopeful that somewhere within these sections there is a provision that could enable the pension board or parliament or the governor in council to say, or would give them the authority to say, either dealing with this case or any similar case in the future, that here is a public servant who has given Canada very satisfactory and excellent service but who through circumstances of a disagreement felt it was not consistent to hold his job-whatever the circumstances, he retires; and he retires, I do not say with the blessing of the minister or of the house but certainly without any hostility-and it is felt that after 20 some years of service he should not be prejudiced.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Thirty-four years.


Leon David Crestohl: The minister says 34 years. That makes my case still stronger. I am not arguing Mr. Nicholson's case. I am arguing the case generally of a man who has had that record and who has actually been prejudiced by his retirement through no fault of his own, and am asking whether a provision should not be created, if one does not exist, by which the country can say to a man like that, "You are on the point of retiring; you have another year or two years to go. We will grant you two years' leave of absence and allow you to retire on your full pension". I believe it would be a popular measure throughout the country, and I believe it would be well received.
While we cannot decorate a man for public service of this kind, we can recognize it to some extent by seeing that he is not prejudiced. I do not care what the amount involved is. He should be permitted to retire on full pension and a fortiori if he has only one more year to go in order to achieve it.

What provision is there in the act that would enable parliament, the pension board or the governor in council to deal with a case of that kind?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no provision in the act or in the bill before us which would enable parliament or the governor in council to deal, of its own motion as it were under the act, with a case of that kind. A special case of the type which this retirement certainly represents would, in my opinion, not be a proper one to cover in an act of general application.
The scheme of a retirement or superannuation act such as this one or the old parts of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act which it replaces is, especially in the case of officers, to require a period of minimum service which must be fulfilled before full pension will be payable to an officer who retires voluntarily. I think this is a sound provision because, it will be appreciated, the organization of the force would be difficult to maintain if there were any encouragement or, indeed, if there were any lack of discouragement of officers, particularly those in key positions, retiring before they have served the length of time which it is agreed it is reasonable to ask for.
Second, there is a substantial investment__
to put the matter on economic terms alone_____
in the training and careers of officers and it is therefore a matter of policy to discourage them from retiring voluntarily before they have completed the minimum length of service. In the case of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the minimum length of service for officers is 35 years. That is the minimum length of service before full pension will be paid on voluntary retirement. After he has completed 35 years of service an officer may retire voluntarily and he will get the full pension which he has earned by his length of service. But in order to carry out the policy to which I have referred, namely to discourage voluntary retirement while an officer is still able to serve efficiently, there is in the present act, in section 45, a provision that an officer who retires voluntarily after 25 years of service but with less than 35 years of service is entitled to a pension for life of 20 per cent less than he would have been entitled to if he were retired compulsorily.
That provision is in there for this purpose. As will be appreciated, if an officer is retired compulsorily before he completes his full term of service-either because, let us say, he incurs some medical or physical disability which makes him unable efficiently to serve or if for any other reason it becomes desirable to discharge him from the force or to remove

him from the force-it should be possible to retire him compulsorily without his incurring any penalty with respect to his pension. That is why the section to which I have referred, namely section 45, is framed in that way; that an officer retiring voluntarily after 25 years' service is entitled to a pension for life 20 per cent less than he would be entitled to if he were retired compulsorily. But the effect of that provision-and it is a principle with which I agree-is to deprive an officer who retires voluntarily before he has completed the full length of service of a portion of his pension. It is a penalty with respect to which the act leaves no option. As I have said, I think it is a sound position for the reasons I have given.
With respect to the individual case of Commissioner Nicholson, however, I am reasonably convinced that parliament did not intend that type of case to be covered or be dealt with in this way, or that parliament would not have intended that case to be dealt with in this way if it had been before parliament at the time the act was being drafted. Here you have a case, as the hon. gentleman says, of an officer within one year or, I think it was, one year and some three days, of the maximum length of service, namely 35 years, after which he would have been able to retire voluntarily on full pension and who felt in his conscience that he was unable to continue to serve for reasons which were given and which we do not need to go into here. He therefore felt called upon to retire.
This is not the ordinary case of an officer just deciding after a certain period, "I want to get out. I can go out on full pension and therefore I will go." This was an exceptional case. I do not know that there has ever been a case like this one previously. However, as I have said, the act left no option but to impose -if I may put it that way-a 20 per cent penalty. As I have already said, I am quite certain that parliament would not have intended this particular case to be dealt with in this way. However, I was and I am still unable to deal with it in any other way in view of the provisions of the act as enacted by parliament. I do not think we should change the provision of the new bill to provide exceptions of general application, because I think cases such as this are so exceptional that it would be unsound to introduce them into the bill.
However, what I should like to say is that I have been concerned over the fact that the former commissioner, following what he regarded to be an honourable course, a course which he felt he had no option but to follow, should have been penalized in this way. While, as I say, I had some disagreement with him as to whether he was right in following that
R.C.M.P. Act
course, and I made it clear that I did not think he was right, nevertheless I respected his motives and his sincerity. However, only parliament can adjust the situation. My hands and those of the governor in council are tied by the provision of the pension act.
In order to bring this matter to a head I am prepared to say this. If there is any indication from parliament, as constituted here in committee of the whole of the House of Commons, that they agree with what my hon. friend opposite has said and with what I have just said as to the undesirability of penalizing an officer with this record, and if I have any general indication that parliament would like to see the matter rectified or ad-adjusted in this individual case, I would be perfectly prepared and indeed happy to recommend to my colleagues that an appropriate provision be inserted in the estimates of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for next year. It would be a provision having legislative effect. It would be a provision the effect of which would be to restore to this particular person the pension he would have got had he completed his full 35 years of service.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the minister in his analysis that it would be unwise to make such a provision in this act. I certainly agree with his reasoning in not including it. But if the minister will remember, I said that if I had possessed the authority to introduce a bill when I was on my feet speaking on the matter I would not have hesitated to do so. I was very happy to hear the minister's approach and his desire to deal with this matter. I feel that would certainly gratify the entire country and certainly would recognize a loyal civil servant who stepped out in a manner which was symbolic of the force itself in the way Mr. Nicholson did retire.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have spoken to the Leader of the Opposition-not the "official" opposition for the benefit of the hon. member for Kootenay West, who is not in his seat-and as far as we are concerned the suggestion made by the minister we think is very good. I hope if there are any further supplementary estimates in this parliament the minister might-


Edmund Davie Fulton: In this session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -in this session, the minister might consider the matter a little earlier.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCleave):: The
Chair will call the definition clause in whole instead of in part, unless the committee wishes otherwise.

R.C.M.P. Act


Gabriel Roberge: I want to address myself particularly to paragraph (d).


Robert Jardine McCleave: Then we will go one by one.
On clause 2, subclause (1), paragraph (d) -Disabled.


Gabriel Roberge: On paragraph (d), I note there is a difference from section 2 of the Public Service Superannuation Act, and I want to have reference to the latter part of the subclause. In the bill as proposed the word "ordinarily" is used in line 5, and in the Public Service Superannuation Act the word "regularly" is employed. Is there any reason for that, or any difference in the meaning; and why was the change made?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am told by the draftsmen that they think "ordinarily" is a slight improvement on "regularly", and I would therefore suggest that if there has to be a change our act should be taken as the model and not the former one, because ours is the newer one. I am told there is no substantial difference. When I said "because ours is the newer one" I recognize, of course, that that is not a good reason. We think "ordinarily" is better, but I am told there is no substantial difference. However, if there is to be a change perhaps it should be by changing "regularly" to read "ordinarily", rather than by changing "ordinarily" to read "regularly".


Azellus Denis: Does the minister also take credit for the added confusion in the law?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I see no confusion in the use of the word "ordinarily".


Gabriel Roberge: Would the minister indicate what is the difference, or the amelioration?


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I say, I do not think there is any substantial difference. I would think that "ordinarily" is a little more in favour of the member than the word "regularly" would be.


Gabriel Roberge: Is the Chair intending to call them clause by clause?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the committee has agreed the Chair shall call them by a breakdown.


Gabriel Roberge: I suggest the entire clause be called.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Contributions.
Gabriel Roberge: I would like to ask the minister if there are any members of the force now receiving less than $1,500 a year in salary.
[The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCleave).]


Edmund Davie Fulton: Less than $1,500 salary?


Gabriel Roberge: Pay and allowances.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A few special constables may be receiving less. I am told the minimum there is $1,420 per annum.


Gabriel Roberge: On that question, under the old Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, a man who was receiving $1,200 a year or less was paying 5 per cent as contribution; a man who was receiving $1,200 and less than $1,500 would be paying 5J per cent; and those who were receiving $1,500 or more were paying 6 per cent. Under this act as proposed I note that for the male members of the force it is an even 6 per cent for all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I can clear this up; I have probably created a wrong impression. I was asked whether there were persons receiving less than $1,500 in pay and allowances, and I am afraid I gave the answer with respect to pay only. The lowest paid special constable receives $1,420, but these special constables, I am told, receive a double ration allowance, and that would put them over $1,500. Therefore we feel 6 per cent on uniform application is fair.


Gabriel Roberge: Well, if everyone is receiving pay and allowances of over $1,500, it is all right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Pensionable service.
Azellus Denis: I wish to point out to the Minister of Justice that clause 5 is 104 lines long. Moreover, within this same clause reference is made to part V of the former act. It refers to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, and I would like to ask if it relates to the bill passed last week, or does it refer to the former act which bears the same name? Is it the former act which bears that name, or is it-


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is the new act.


Azellus Denis: C-37?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does that not raise a dangerous point, which I think came up before in the course of other legislation? Is this not rather a presumption that hon. gentlemen in the other place are simply going to rubber stamp something that came from this place?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not at all, because both these bills, the superannuation bill and the police bill, are to come into force on proclamation, and if the other place were to refuse to pass

one or other of them we would have to consider an amendment to the one they refused to pass. But we do not anticipate anything like that, and we feel that, since both are made subject to proclamation-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is a somewhat dubious proceeding, but I do not think I will go beyond that.


Azellus Denis: I did not finish the references to the 104 lines of this section. In order to try to comprehend this clause you still have to read the National Defence Act. On page 6 you have to read the Public Service Superannuation Act and then at line 33 you have to read the Civil Service Superannuation Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian forces superannuation act and the Canadian Forces Act, 1950, as amended by the Canadian Forces Act of 1954. You have to read all those acts in order to understand, if you can, this clause 5 which has about 104 lines with no period except the last.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The reason for that is simple. We do have persons transferring to the force from the armed services. They have accumulated certain superannuation benefits under the provisions of the act applicable in that regard, so we have to refer to those acts when we are providing for the carrying into force of those pensions. Similarly those transferring from other branches of the public service have accumulated certain rights applicable to them, and we have to refer back to those acts when defining the extent of the benefits which they are entitled to bring forward into the force on transfer.


Azellus Denis: I do not object to these references being put into this clause. What I am trying to tell the Minister of Justice is that in trying to make the law less confused he did not succeed to the extent that he could put it into the newspapers and make publicity out of it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps we never succeed to the extent we should like, but I think any member of the force who comes in on transfer will understand what these provisions mean, and if he does not we will be glad to see that the proper officers of the force or of treasury board explain exactly what they mean.


Azellus Denis: I believe in the R.C.M.P.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-Kinds of benefits.
Gabriel Roberge: On clause 8, I have read the record of Hansard for the year 1952 and
R.C.M.P. Act
I have failed to find any reference to section 8 of the Public Service Superannuation Act. I wonder why. I should like the minister to refer to this bill, especially in line 32. I should like to know why, when there is a return of contributions, that return is made without interest; but when a member of the force has to pay arrears he is called on to pay with interest at 4 per cent per annum.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am informed that the main reason is to preserve the actuarial soundness of the superannuation fund on the basis of contributions at the rate of 6 per cent, and that if contributors when they became entitled to withdraw contributions also became entitled to withdraw them with interest it would be necessary to increase the rate of contributions to keep the fund on an actuarially sound basis.


Mr. Aiken:: There were some increases in pensions allowed in 1958. I should like to ask the minister if the new method of calculating benefits will lead to any increase in the over-all picture, or if they will receive approximately the same benefits as were then allowed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The provisions to which my hon. friend has just referred related to pensions which were already in effect, benefits received by persons who had gone on retirement some time ago, and as he will recall, it was felt that those pensions were too small. Therefore the Minister of Finance introduced first by order in council and then asked the house-and the house agreed-to ratify it by legislation, a scale of increases in those pensions. That, however, will have no effect on the method of computing benefits under this bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the minister does not mean to suggest that the Minister of Finance paid out additional money to pensioners or anyone else by order in council.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I have been a little careless in my terminology. The provision was first made by an item in the estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Appropriation Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was then incorporated in the Appropriation Act. I should have said "by estimate" and not "by order in council". It was done by an estimate on the first occasion and then by statute.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-Computation of annuities.
Gabriel Roberge: On clause 9 I have one more observation. On the bill we passed the other

R.C.M.P. Act
day to amend the Canadian forces superannuation act the method of computing was six years, and in this bill it is also six years. Under the Public Service Superannuation Act passed in 1952-53 it was ten years. I should like to ask the reason if there is any reason for this and, if not, to suggest that next year the Public Service Superannuation Act be placed on the same basis.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am informed that there is an actuarial study now under way to see if that is feasible.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10-Benefits payable on retirement.
Gabriel Roberge: On clause 10, I do not remember if the Minister of Justice was in this committee on June 23 when I raised a question with the Minister of National Defence on the other bill. I would refer the minister to page 5046 of Hansard of June 23. I would not like to repeat the entire argument I made then, but I should like to summarize, otherwise I would not be logical with myself. I am taking the clause as a whole. Under 10(1), a member who has less than 10 years' service is entitled to a return of contributions or to a cash termination allowance, or if he has served in the forces for 10 or more years he is entitled to an annuity. Under subclause 2, that is the case of a member retiring on account of a disability after less than 10 years, he is entitled to a return of contributions or a cash allowance, but if he has 10 or more years' service he is entitled to an annuity. It seems to me that these two subsections referring to a member who has reached the retirement age or to a member who is disabled are alike, and that the member is entitled to exactly the same benefit.
However subclause 3 provides an immediate annuity after more than 20 years' service. It seems to me there is a certain degree of discrimination there. If a man is retired before reaching retirement age he is entitled to benefits. If he is disabled he is entitled to exactly the same. If he is retired from the force for reasons of economy or efficiency it is not his fault, and it seems to me that he is penalized. If he reaches retirement age it is not the fault of the force. Under subclause 3 he seems to have less choice or option than other members under subclauses 1 and 2.
I have prepared an informal amendment to subclause 3. I am afraid that if I move it I will be declared out of order because perhaps it would add a burden to the treasury. I should like to read the amendment

as I have prepared it and submit it to the minister for his consideration. Perhaps he will get in touch with the Minister of National Defence, who has the same problem, and then ask the members of the other place to study the amendment and perhaps move it in the other place.
My proposed informal amendment reads:
That subclause 3 of clause 10 be amended by deleting subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) thereof and by substituting therefor the following subparagraphs :
(a)	If he has served in the force for less than ten years, he is entitled to
(i)	a return of contributions, or
(ii)	a cash termination alowance, whichever is the greater, and
(b)	If he has served in the force for ten or more years, he is entitled to an immediate annuity.
As I say, I am not moving this as a formal amendment because it would be out of order coming from a member of the opposition rather than a member of the government. However, I should like to submit it to the minister so he could consider it in the meantime before the bill goes to the other place. On the other hand, if he wishes to consider it now I should be happy to have him do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
the care with which the hon. gentleman has studied this matter and prepared his suggested amendment, but without making a final decision as to whether or not I could accept it at the moment I must say to the hon. gentleman that it does run counter to the principle upon which clause 10 has been prepared. That principle very definitely is to treat more generously those who are retired by reason of disability than those who are retired compulsorily for any other reason such as to promote efficiency or economy. We feel that those who have to retire because they have incurred some disability while they have been serving members are entitled to more generous treatment than those who have to be retired without having incurred disability for such reasons as to promote economy or efficiency, because in the former case the member would have continued to be a useful and valuable member of the force but he has been disabled through no fault of his own. In the latter case the member would not continue to be a useful and valuable member of the force and that is why he is retired compulsorily.
It has been felt as a matter of general principle that the former member should be treated more generously than the latter. I would not care to be taken as giving any commitment that we would depart from that principle, but I will study the proposed amendment. If I can see my way clear to accepting it I shall do so, but it must be understood that I am not to be taken now

to be giving a commitment to accept it. If that is understood I am prepared to leave it there.


Gabriel Roberge: I would be glad if the minister would take it into consideration if it does not offend any actuarial principle.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 19-Service that may be counted.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I realize that
I am in the hands of the committee here and the committee is being very generous, but I have an amendment to propose myself to clause 19. I do not know whether or not it is fair to ask the committee to continue its generosity.


Gabriel Roberge: We would agree to go beyond one o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The amendment is fairly long and the committee may want to take time to consider it before deciding upon it. I would ask my colleague to read the amendment in order that the committee may have an opportunity to study it.


Mr. Comlois:: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill No. C-57, a act respecting the superannuation of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 9 and 10 on page 21 thereof and substituting therefor the following: 'any period of service in the force or any period of service described in section 5, that,'; and
(b)	by striking out lines 41 to 51 on page 22 thereof and substituting therefor the following: 'of any service of that person described in subsection (1), and the person so electing shall be subject to the provisions of subsection (1) in all respects as though he had not become entitled to an annuity, annual allowance or pension under that act but had elected under subsection (1) to pay for the whole of that service.'


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that I give the explanation so it will be on the record. Perhaps then we can let this clause stand and deal with the others. When hon. members have had an opportunity of considering the reasons for the amendment we could deal with the amendment and the clause later.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, may I inquire if the purpose of this amendment is the same as that of the amendment to the Canadian forces pension act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Exactly the same.


Gabriel Roberge: We are prepared to agree to it.
Seeds Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: We could deal with it right away.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 45 inclusive agreed to.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, before we carry the title I should like to express appreciation to hon. members of the committee for their generosity in allowing me to get the bill through this stage at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time; now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave.


Edmund Davie Fulton: third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-24, respecting the testing, inspection and sale of seeds.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory note attached to this bill, which is now in the hands of hon. members, states:
The purpose of this bill is to revise the Seeds Act to meet recent trends and developments In the production, processing and merchandising of seeds. The bill contemplates no substantive changes in policy and is in a form similar to other agricultural statutes enacted in recent years.
The Seeds Act is the instrument which ensures the reliability of seeds sold to Canadian farmers. The first legislation in this field was introduced in 1905 and the present act has been on the statute books since 1923, which is the reason that a revision is necessary at this time.
The act and the regulations under it establish quality standards for seeds for such factors as germination and purity; require imported seed to meet minimum quality standards; and provide for the licensing of new varieties of certain crops and for the grading of registered seed produced under crop pedigree certificates of the Canadian Seed

Seeds Act
Growers' Association. It is in connection with this act that seed testing laboratories are maintained by the department.
The bill to revise the act in no way changes the basic requirements of the present statute. The act now, however, contains certain provisions of detail of a nature which require amendment from time to time to conform to changing conditions of seed production and distribution. These have to do with such matters as markings on seed containers, the specific grades which are to be used for seeds, the types of inspection certificates which are to be issued, and the crops to which variety licensing is to apply. Several of these detailed provisions are in need of revision, and representations to that effect have been made by the Canadian Seed Growers' Association and the Canadian Seed Trade Association, the two bodies chiefly concerned with this act and regulations under it.
These detailed requirements are deleted from the bill revising the act and authority is provided to prescribe them by regulation of the governor in council. The bill in this respect is in a form similar to other agricultural statutes enacted in recent years.
I might mention one matter which will be familiar to any hon. members associated with seed production and which constituted one reason for revising the act. The act now establishes two classes of pedigreed seed, namely registered and certified. Registered seed is based on the registration of crops by the Canadian Seed Growers' Association, while certified seed is based on the certification of crops by the department. These two services are, under present conditions, a duplication of each other, since both serve the purpose of guaranteeing the purchaser seed which is of a pure variety. The seed growers' association and other agricultural interests have urged that this duplication be removed.
The bill to revise the act, unlike the present act, does not establish classes and grades for seeds directly. It requires that seed must conform to prescribed standards and provides for grades to be established by regulation and for the use of the standards of the Canadian Seed Growers' Association. The present duplication between registered and certified seed can therefore be removed in the grades to be established by regulation under the act, and crop registration by the Canadian Seed Growers' Association can be recognized for grades of pedigreed seed.
I am pleased to be able to inform the house that the bill was approved both by the Canadian Seed Growers' Association and the Canadian Seed Trade Association at their recent annual convention in western Canada.
[Mr. Harkness.l


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, having lived in the province of Manitoba longer than in any other province in this country, and knowing the province of Manitoba probably has a greater number of members of the Canadian Seed Growers' Association than any other province, I should like to say a few words with respect to the bill. The minister did read the innocent sounding explanatory note, and I imagine that the bill in its intentions is entirely along the lines of the explanation he has given.
This bill, of course, was introduced in the Senate by the government leader there, and he used a similar phrase. He said, as reported at page 766 of Senate Hansard:
Certain details of the present act are deleted, and provision is made to establish them by regulations.
While I have no doubt that this is probably an efficient way to go about the operation of this act, I do find it a bit amusing, having heard for so many years criticism and abuse from members opposite to the extension of authority under order in council, but this was indicated as the main purpose of the bill before us. I think this was a frank cat out of the bag statement that was given by the government leader in the Senate. In other words, henceforth with respect to seed administration we are going to have a greater amount of government by order in council.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members will be gratified to know that while last year the actual sales of the products of specialists in seed growing to other farmers were lower and rather disappointing, their membership has actually increased very substantially, I think some 31 per cent more pedigree seed was grown when one compares 1957 with 1958; although, as I say, at the recent meeting of the Canadian Seed Producers' Association it was admitted that their actual sales of these very worth-while pedigreed crops, which were in abundance, had not sold as freely last year as one would have expected in this age when there is every desire to have the utmost efficiency.
While I know it is in slight breach of the rules to refer to a section of the bill, but inasmuch as I do not propose to speak on clause 1 of the bill I might just indicate that the co-operation between the association of specialized farmers who grow certified and registered seed is recognized by the government and has been for a great number of years, as set out in clause 4 (l)(a) where it says that the Canadian Seed Growers' Association will play a very prominent part in the establishing of the regulations to which the minister referred.
I think most members of the house are well aware that there is a very high degree of

western interest in this measure, in that last year about 80 per cent of the growers who were issued certificates by the association were farmers of western Canada. With the exception of oats, practically all the registered and certified seed grains were produced in western Canada, and they also produced a very high percentage of the oil-bearing crops such as flax, rapeseed and the like, in addition to a great number of grasses and clovers. I think my own district of Kenora-Rainy River can be said to be a prominent area with respect to the growing of pedigree clover seed. At the recent annual meeting in Saskatoon the president of this association, Professor E. A. Lods, had this to say:
The main change involved-
He was referring to the new legislation, which is the result of co-operation between the association and the government over quite a number of years.
-is that the recording of certified stocks is added to what we have done in the past. Probably there will be changes as to details and possibly changes as to grades, names of grade and of classes of seed. However, the basic principles of pedigree seed production remain as before. Our objective is that of producing and making available seed, genuine as to kind and variety, and seed having a really high degree of purety as to variety. These are the essentials. The regulations were adopted so as to facilitate attaining our objective. They are not a sort of parade ground drill, they are not for us to follow simply as formalities; they are to help us avoid pitfalls when trying to produce good seed.
I have indicated that the membership of the seed growers association has increased very notably in the last year or two, now numbering some 7,000. I hope that the plant products division of the Department of Agriculture, in co-operation with this association and others who are interested in the matter, will be able to provide to more farmers with greater rapidity the types of improved seeds which will result in improvement of our crop quality.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of this legislation does something to stir my memories of years ago. We have come a long way in the past 25 or 30 years with respect to the registration and certification of seed. A classmate of mine at the Ontario Agricultural College, who graduated in 1913, went to British Columbia and became an official of the Department of Agriculture. It was his responsibility, under the Conservative government of the day, to visit the various farms on which seed was grown and to inspect potato crops for certification. On one occasion he went to the farm of a very prominent grower on Vancouver island who had, I think, 20 acres of potatoes which he wished to have inspected as certified seed
Seeds Act
potatoes, and he refused to do so because the crop had a certain percentage of mosaic.
He reported to the deputy minister of agriculture, who was quite concerned and said, "Now, look here; do you not realize that this man is a very influential Conservative on Vancouver island, and that it makes a very great difference to him so far as price is concerned whether or not this seed is certified? I suggest that you go back and have another look." So he went back and had another look to make certain, but he did not change his mind. He came back again and turned in a similar report. The result of the faithfulness, shall I say, of that civil servant to the law and to the high standards that were set was that he was promptly discharged. Later he went to work as senior agriculturist for the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company.
I am not saying that this practice, which was quite prevalent in those days, was peculiar to one party more than the other, but I know from personal experience that there were certain political overtones with regard to the inspection of crops or seeds for registration or certification.
As I said before, we have come a long way since then, and I am very glad to know that the government has introduced this bill after receiving representations from the Canadian Seed Growers' Association and the Canadian Seed Trade Association, and that both these associations have endorsed the terms of the legislation. Why has there been this great improvement? I think, using the words of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, it is because of the influence of farm organizations, seed growers associations and the seed trade association.
Finally I wish to say that as long as any government pays attention to what the farm organizations have to say with respect to legislation affecting them or the seed growers or the seed trade association or other organizations they will be receiving very sound advice for the development of legislation such as this. With these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to wait until the bill is in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. McCleave in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the minister explain why the bill does not seem to have the usual indications of what sections are being amended, what sections in the act are to be continued and so on? Looking at the bill in its present form it is very difficult to ascertain with respect to this legislation

Seeds Act
which has been on the statute books at least so far as the last amendment is concerned since 1923, I think, just exactly what sections are being amended although of course, as the minister has pointed out, the amendments are not of a substantive character.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The explanation is that this is not an amending bill. This is a complete revision, and I think it is generally the custom in a complete revision to bring in a bill in this form as compared with the situation where a bill is introduced merely to amend an act, in which case you have references throughout the bill to the sections which are being amended. In this instance it is a new bill, and in effect it is a complete revision.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister explain to the house what are the recent trends and developments in the production, processing and merchandising of seeds that have required the introduction of this bill? I am simply seeking information.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I said in the brief speech I made on second reading, the first thing is the matter of bringing together registration and certification and doing away with that duplication which actually caused an increase in the price of seeds. The second is doing away with a considerable number of what are now antiquated provisions with regard to marking and so on in the old act.


William Moore Benidickson: I made some broad remarks. I wonder whether at this more informal stage of the debate the minister would make some comment. I indicated that while the area producing seed grains, according to my information, had increased very noticeably-for instance in one year- the use of registered or certified seed in Canada is not noticeably increasing. Has the minister any comment to make on that matter? I was impressed by the fact that this section of his department employing some 80 inspectors made 31,640 seed inspection visits and that 5,520 samples were taken in addition to the visits. That record is very impressive statistically, but if we are increasing the number of farmers who are growing these pedigree grains, why is it that the use of these grains is not apparently progressing in a similar fashion?


Douglas Scott Harkness: All I can say about that matter is this. The use of certified seed or pedigree seed, as it was in the past has depended to a considerable extent, I think, on what farmers thought was the possibility of selling this grain at an increased price or at a price considerably higher than the average price of grain of that particular kind.

The opportunities along those lines naturally vary up and down. I do not think I could be more specific than that. I know of no particular reason other than that for the fact that the number of certified seed growers or registered seed growers has not increased more rapidly than it has in the past. I know that in my own area just south of Calgary the number of people engaged in growing registered seed has varied up and down quite markedly over the last 15 years. There have been a considerable number of people in it when they were making a good deal of money out of it, and as soon as the spread between the ordinary price of grain and the seed narrowed down, many of them would go out of it.


William Moore Benidickson: Would I be right in thinking that about 95 per cent of the devotion to this cause is in the cereal grains such as wheat and barley, flax and oats?


Mr. Lennard:: In connection with what the hon. member has just asked I think I could perhaps throw some light on that subject. I am interested in a farm, and while we have never bought registered seed we buy seed that is one crop removed from registered seed. We buy from someone in our own neighbourhood who has grown from registered seed the year before. In a great many cases I think you will find that what is happening is that people are using better seed but they are not necessarily buying it as registered seed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have the figures as to the number of acres inspected. In the last 30 years there has been a marked increase. In 1928 there were 27,445 acres inspected with an estimated yield of just over 1 million bushels. In 1938, ten years later, the figure was 178,000 acres with a little more than 2J million bushels of cereal. In 1948, ten years later, it was 612,000 acres-these are round figures, of course; I am not giving the hundreds-with over 15 million bushels. In 1958-that was last year-


William Moore Benidickson: About 20 million?


Douglas Scott Harkness: -it was 814,000 acres with a total yield of 25 million bushels. Hence there has been in the 30 years a marked and rapid increase.


Mr. Cardiff:: I should like to ask the minister a question as to these inspectors. Do they inspect the standing crop before it is harvested?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My own experience with this matter when I was growing some registered wheat was that the inspector came out twice. On the second occasion he told me there were a limited

number of weeds in one corner of this field and I had better get them out or he would not be able to pass it.


Mr. Forbes:: 
Douglas Scott Harkness: In reply to the hon. member for Dauphin, may I say that the association will issue the certificates. We will inspect, however, and put on the grade and so on.


Mr. McBain:: As to the hon. member for Dauphin who has just spoken, I know he is one of the top producers of registered seed. I also happen to be a registered seed grower. I along with other members in this chamber welcome the revision of the seed act.
In connection with the Ontario soil and crop improvement association, may I say that we have sponsored several resolutions over the past few years asking for several changes to be made in the Canada Seeds Act. I wish to compliment the minister this afternoon on the changes that are going to be made, especially on the elimination of certified seed. At times when you have too many grades of seeds the situation comes a bit confusing, as the average purchaser sometimes does not distinguish between certified and registered
Seeds Act
seed. I am sure that seed growers and the Canadian seed trade will welcome the changes in the Canada Seeds Act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Regulations.
William Moore Benidickson: I suppose there would be no point in adding in clause 4 (1) (a) the other association to which the minister made reference in his speech. You would deal only with the Canadian Seed Growers' Association?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The seed sellers' association so far has nothing to do with standards.


William Moore Benidickson: I did not remember the name.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Canadian Seed Trade Association.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I should like, if the minister does not mind, to comment on the point made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River with regard to the governor in council having power to make regulations, thereby removing some of the substantive provisions which were previously in existence. It would be interesting to have an explanation about that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, I would be glad to comment on that. Under the previous act, power to make these regulations was vested in the minister. Now it requires an order in council, so I would think rather than hon. gentlemen opposite looking upon this as a backward move it would be looked upon as a forward one.


Murdo William Martin: Oh, no; we are
not saying that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: With respect to clause 4, which seems to be quite well drafted, I look upon it as a forward move in the application of this bill. But there is one point I want to raise. While these orders in council will be published in the Gazette, how do you get this information to the growers themselves within a reasonable time? What channels do you use?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, we consult with the seed growers' association before the regulations are sent forward to be passed by order in council. Of course after they are passed we send copies of the order in council to the association, and they are responsible for circulating the information to their own members.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Seeds Act
On clause 5-Administration. Inspectors and analysts.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister explain what subclause 2 means? This is seemingly a very wide power. The inspectors and analysts appointed under clause 5 (1) are to be regarded as being appointed under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, but the minister is empowered in subclause 2 to designate any person as an inspector or analyst for the purpose of the act. Is this appointment for an ad hoc situation, or is the minister at liberty to appoint an inspector for a definite period?


Douglas Scott Harkness: First of all, as far as inspectors are concerned, it sometimes happens that more inspectors are required for a short period than we have on our regular inspection staff. This gives the minister power to appoint an inspector for a short temporary period. As far as the analysts are concerned, most of the analysts' work is done in our own laboratories, but sometimes it is necessary or desirable to have some of this work done in the laboratory of a commercial analyst, and this gives the minister authority to appoint a commercial analyst to do a particular job.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Could the minister tell the house what percentage of these inspectors or analysts are graduate agriculturists or agronomists, and what are the minimum qualifications required of a person appointed ad hoc to either of these positions?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is a distinction here. The inspectors are all graduates in agriculture. These are the regular inspectors on our plant products division staff. The analysts are not, and what the proportion is I do not know.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would a temporary inspector be appointed who was not a graduate agronomist or agriculturist?


Douglas Scott Harkness: He might be. We would attempt, of course, to get qualified agriculturists. If we could not get one we might have to appoint someone who was not a graduate agriculturist. These appointments we are now talking about are all purely temporary.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I had the bill marked for a question on this section similar to that advanced by the hon. member for Essex East. If one looks at the interpretation clause, subclause (c) it indicates that an inspector means a person appointed or designated as an inspector under section 5. That is understandable, but we have two kinds of inspectors. The minister indicates

that there would be a necessity to engage a commercial inspector for a short period under certain circumstances. I think the minister should be free in that respect and not be subject to subclause (1) of clause 5, but should that not still be restricted to a temporary hiring? Would the minister not ask one of his colleagues to make that clear in the clause by amendment?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As the hon. member knows, I am not a lawyer and have to depend for the legal interpretation of these things on the law officers of the crown. My understanding was that this was sufficient as it was without having to spell out the fact that they were purely temporary appointments, because subclause 1 says that the inspectors and analysts necessary for the administration, and so forth, shall be appointed under the provisions of the Civil Service Act. In other words, they are regular civil servants. Then subclause 2 says that the minister may designate-not appoint, just designate-a person as an inspector or analyst; in other words, for a purely temporary job. But if a man is a regular inspector or analyst he has to be appointed under the Civil Service Act.


William Moore Benidickson: So the minister's impression is that the civil service, even for temporary work, will actually do the engaging?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I beg your pardon?


William Moore Benidickson: The civil service commission under clause 5 (1) will actually do the hiring for temporary work, but the minister may designate that temporary person and give him the privileges and authority contained in succeeding clauses of the bill, such as clause 6?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is correct. I might point out that this clause is contained in the act to establish a national standard of agricultural products passed on June 28, 1955. Section 7 of that act, subsections 1 and 2, is exactly the same as these provisions. It says that the minister may designate any person as an inspector or grader for the purpose of that act. In other words, it is standard drafting.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Seizure.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, a moment ago the minister said he was not a lawyer, and he may not be in a position to answer this question. As the minister knows, agriculture is a matter that extends to both the federal and provincial governments under the co-ordinated jurisdiction provided in that

field by the British North America Act, sections 91 and 92. But as I look at clause 7, and as I also looked at clause 6, I wonder if the law officers of the crown have given the minister any advice about the extent of the powers which the government, apart altogether from legal limitations, should take.
The inspectors here are given pretty wide powers, to enter property, to make seizures, and do things which normally would be regarded by the courts as coming under the property and civil rights section, which is section 92. Is the minister satisfied from the advice he has been given by the law officers that there could be no doubt about the competence of the federal parliament to take power in connection with a matter which arises out of a section of the British North America Act which gives to both senior levels of jurisdiction the co-ordinated authority but nevertheless touches a restrictive aspect, namely the property and civil rights clause?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The legal officers' advice is that we have this power, and as a matter of fact this is in exactly the same terms as the act to which I have just referred, the Agricultural Products Standards Act, and also the Fertilizers Act, both of which were passed under the government of which the hon. member was a member.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question, but before doing so I must congratulate the hon. member for Essex East for demonstrating a marvellous and excellent co-operation between the Liberal labour and Liberal farm leanings of the Liberal party. Can the minister tell us the number of violations under the old act last year?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am informed that there were no prosecutions last year or the year before. During the period between 1930 and 1959 there were 81 prosecutions under the Seeds Act, and in the period from 1949-50 to 1958-59 there were 426 detentions of samples of seeds of various sorts under the act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That seems an indication of the basic honesty of Canadian seed growers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It also seems to have
improved.


Walter Clarence Henderson: I want some information about selling seeds. In the country I come from, seed salesmen came in from Saskatchewan. They were all over the country, cleaning up $25,000 to $30,000 and they did not deliver the seed. I have been getting letters, and in fact I gave one to the minister to read. One fellow has written me and says he never got redress or his money back. He bought northern grass seed, I think he calls it, and gave a fabulous price for it; now
Seeds Act
he threatens to go down to Regina and kick the fellow's office to pieces. During the winter this fellow apparently went to Florida. Many farmers have threatened to take action. I wrote to the attorney general but he never answered the letter. Has a prosecution to be carried out by the government there, or do the federal people have anything to do with it?


Mr. Woolliams:: I think I can throw some light on that subject. I represent 55,000 farmers in Alberta who are interested in the same thing. This is not a case of any violation under the act. This is a case of breach of contract. The seed was purchased from a legitimate seller but the seller did not fulfil the terms of the contract, and that particular case is now before the Alberta supreme court.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This act deals, of course, with standards of seeds and the registration of seeds, and has nothing to do with ensuring that a farmer who pays money for seed gets the seed. That, of course, is a matter of civil law and comes under the jurisdiction of the province within which the offence, if there is an offence, takes place. I may add that in Alberta there is a seed dealers' act under which matters of this kind could be handled. Whether or not there is one in British Columbia I do not know.


William Moore Benidickson: I am not satisfied with clause 6, but if it has been carried, I will not ask to go back to it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 8-Obstruction of Inspector- False Statement.
Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to bring the minister's attention to the case of farmers who could not have their fields inspected because, due to a shortage of inspectors, the plant products division could not carry out the inspections. Because of this shortage of inspectors farmers in my area have had to swat their registered crops, suffering heavy losses in consequence. Would it not be possible to have arrangements made under the amended act so that an inspector could always be available when farmers apply for one? Action along these lines would prevent considerable financial losses to the farmers concerned.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Without knowing the exact circumstances of the case I could not say anything definite with regard to that matter, but there is sometimes a delay in western Canada, in that we must have a cut-off date and if people do not ask for the inspection of their crops in sufficient time it is sometimes impossible to inspect the crop before

Seeds Act
that date. We run into a certain amount of trouble every year because people delay requesting the inspection until too late.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-Offence.
William Hector McMillan: Suppose somebody was
importing seed from the United States but did not have a label. Would he be subject to prosecution under this clause?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I understand it, the seed would not be cleared at customs for entry into Canada unless it were labelled.


An hon. Member:: I did not catch that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Unless the seed were properly labelled it would not be cleared through customs. It would not be allowed into the country.


William Hector McMillan: A number of people at the border, for instance, import grass seed, and I have not seen any government label of any kind on this particular grass seed.


Frank Exton Lennard: Have you ever seen the seed, even? I don't suppose you have even seen the seed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The seed allowed in has to meet the seed import standards, which are the same as the standards within this country, and it has to be tested to ensure that it does meet those standards. Otherwise it would not be allowed in.


William Moore Benidickson: Inasmuch as this is a bill in substitution for the existing Seeds Act I wish to ask the minister how the penalties under this section compare with the penalties under the Seeds Act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Perhaps I should read the old section 21 which lays down the penalties under the old act. These are for a first offence, a fine of not less than $5 and not more than $25, and for subsequent offences a fine of not less than $25 and not more than $250. The maximum is now doubled.


Mr. Baldwin:: Clause 9 says:
Every person who, or whose employee or agent, has violated any provision of this act or any regulation made under subsection 4 of section 7 is guilty of an offence-[DOT]
I was wondering about the case of an employee or agent who had violated any one of the sections without the knowledge of the principal. Would the legal advice given to the minister be to the effect that in such an instance the employer would be liable to be prosecuted and found guilty whether or not he had any knowledge of the violation by his employee or agent?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The situation normally is that an employer is responsible for the

actions of his agents or employees in a matter of this kind, but the determination of whether or not he is liable to a penalty would depend upon the judgment of a court in each particular case.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Peace River has raised an important point. This is punitive legislation, and I am not so sure that it is not criminal legislation. I suppose it is. There is no doubt that a man who is prosecuted under this act, is brought within the mischief of the act, but the mere fact that he is an employee of a "Mr. X" who does not know this, does not mean that this clause is intended to have "Mr. X" found guilty when he knows nothing about it and is not before the court. The hon. member for Peace River is a lawyer and I am sure his legal training has caused him to be concerned about the implications of subclause 2. Has the minister been able to ascertain the implications of this from the law officers of the crown? Certainly on the face of it this looks like a very doubtful provision.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that once again this follows the same pattern as the previous legislation, the acts I have mentioned and so forth. Of course the legal training of the hon. member for Essex East will tell him immediately that if the employer can establish the fact that he was innocent he will naturally not be subject to punishment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But that is not the way subclause 2 reads; that is the point. I was trying to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Peace River. Does the minister think that subclause 2, on rereading, is still open to the interpretation to which reference has been made?


Gerald William Baldwin: Unless this subclause is construed to be sufficiently positive as to exclude the principle of mens rea, I think if any employer who is charged could establish that his agent or employee committed the act without his knowledge he would have a good defence. I would think on reflection this would have to be a little more stringent than it is to create that result.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
On clause 11-Certificate of analyst.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, subclause 2 of clause 11 reads:
(2) In a prosecution for a violation of this act, a document purporting to be the certificate of an analyst shall be received in evidence, without

proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed and without proof of his official position.
Can the minister explain why proof is not required in both those cases for the protection of the seed grower who would be charged under this bill? It seems rather unusual to me.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I must confess I find myself a little at sea with regard to these legal questions. I am certainly in no position to give the hon. member legal advice, as he is well aware. I am informed that the certificate is intended to present a prima facie case and then the case has to be met.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It can always be rebutted.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Chairman; as the hon. member for Essex East points out, it can always be rebutted. The production of the certificate constitutes a prima facie case and the accused has to rebut that if he can.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time; now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


Douglas Scott Harkness: third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CROP INSURANCE


Douglas Scott Harkness: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment of contributions and the making of loans by the Minister of Finance out of the consolidated revenue fund, in respect of the operation of provincial schemes for crop insurance.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. McCleave in the chair.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I propose at this stage to speak rather briefly on the crop insurance proposal, and I shall go into the matter in considerably more detail on second reading, at which time copies of the bill will be in the hands of hon. members and they will thus be in a better position to understand completely what I am talking about.
The demand for all-risk crop insurance, as I am sure all hon. members of the committee are aware, has been quite strong for many
Crop Insurance
years. There has been a great deal of talk about an all-risk crop insurance scheme being put into effect. Many bodies of various kinds and many individuals have examined into the matter both here and in other countries, and various schemes have been put into operation in other countries including the United States.
During the past two years during which I have been in charge of the Department of Agriculture, officials of the department have been studying and assessing the schemes in operation, particularly those in operation immediately to the south of us in the western United States. The officials have also studied the reports which have been made by Canadian commissions, boards, individuals and others who have studied crop insurance and made recommendations in connection therewith. There is a considerable mass of material in connection with this matter. Unfortunately, however, when one comes to examine it there are very few what you might call definite recommendations which have been made by the various bodies that have investigated crop insurance.
I should like to point out that our constitutional set-up places property and civil rights under the provinces and that this would constitute a bar to a wholly federal crop insurance scheme. Of course that problem might be overcome by getting the consent of the provinces to such a scheme. However, without that consent-and we have no means of knowing whether or not it could be obtained-a wholly federal crop insurance scheme could not be put into operation. In addition, the studies carried on in connection with crop insurance indicate that conditions vary so greatly from province to province that a scheme which would work well and be practical in one province would not work at all in another province.
We have come to the conclusion that the only practical means of dealing with crop insurance is to employ the same principle that has been used in making construction grants for hospitals and in the hospital insurance scheme. In other words, it would be necessary for the dominion government to lay down certain minimum requirements. If these minimum requirements were met by a scheme set up by the provincial authorities the federal government could then make certain grants and loans.
I shall briefly outline what these grants and loans are proposed to be. The crop insurance bill which will be brought in following this resolution will authorize the Minister of Agriculture, with the approval of the governor in council, to enter into agreements with the provinces to provide for the payment by Canada to the provinces in respect

Crop Insurance
of costs incurred by the provinces in the operation of crop insurance schemes. It will also provide for making loans to provinces for the operation of such insurance schemes. The contributions and loans are:
(1)	Payment by Canada of 50 per cent of the administration costs of any scheme set up by a province.
(2)	Payment by Canada of 20 per cent of the premiums charged.
(3)	Loans to provinces in the amount of 75 per cent of the amount required to meet indemnity commitments less $200,000. In other words, if the indemnity commitment-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would you mind repeating that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will repeat it in this way. If the indemnity commitment in the first year that the insurance scheme was in operation was greater than the amount of the premiums which had been collected-which could very readily be the case, as the hon. member who is familiar with insurance matters knows-then, if that shortage in the insurance fund was not more than $200,000 the province would not be entitled to a loan, because it was considered that any province is in a position without endangering its financial situation to meet demands of $200,000. But if the shortage is in excess of $200,000, then the province is entitled to secure a loan from the dominion government up to 75 per cent of the amount of the shortage. The purpose of this provision is to place provinces in the situation where, if they happen to meet a very bad crop year, particularly in the first two years of operation of the scheme before the fund had been built up, they would not be financially embarrassed as a result.
One of the chief objections which has been raised in some of the provinces to a crop insurance scheme is this very matter, that if they did meet a bad year, or particularly two bad years, in the early years in which the scheme was in operation it would cripple the provinces financially and make their entire financing very difficult if not impossible. That is the reason for this loan provision.


William Hector McMillan: Would that be $200,000 for each province?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


William Hector McMillan: You said "for a province".


Douglas Scott Harkness: The scheme which is entered into with each province really would be a separate scheme. We will make an agreement with each province in regard to the scheme of insurance which they set up and if they have a loss which is more than $200,000 more than the amount that they have in the kitty,

we will say, then they are entitled to secure a loan of 75 per cent of that amount from the dominion government.


William Hector McMillan: That is for each province?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, certainly.
The financial assistance which it is proposed to provide will be available on condition that the crop insurance schemes are actuarially sound. In other words, this is designed to be an insurance scheme and not any type of what you might call a relief scheme such as we have had under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
Many people have looked upon prairie farm assistance as an insurance scheme. It was distinctly stated at the time it was brought in that it was not an insurance scheme and that point has been made constantly ever since. It was really a drought relief scheme and it continues basically to be that. This scheme is to set up an actual insurance scheme and one which will be actuarially sound but one to which of course the dominion government will assist in the cost and financing through paying 50 per cent of the administration costs and 20 per cent of the premium costs.
I was saying that this assistance will be available on condition that the crop insurance scheme is actuarially sound; that is, that it is a scheme which on statistical information or evidence would mean that sufficient money would be collected over a long period of years to pay the indemnities which would have to be met; and next, that a minimum number or proportion of farmers come into the scheme. In other words, you cannot put in an insurance scheme in which you take in only the very poor risks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no compulsion.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No; so far as our proposal is concerned there is no compulsion. The purpose here is to make this scheme as flexible as possible so that each province will be in as favourable a position as possible to set up a scheme which will be adapted to its own conditions. Owing to the fact that I mentioned earlier, namely that conditions do vary so much in Canada, it is impossible to lay down hard and fast conditions covering every crop which is grown in every part of Canada. Therefore, you must leave it up to the provinces to determine what crops they wish to cover and what the contributions are going to be in connection with those particular crops.
But as far as we are concerned, we will not pay the grant to the provinces unless, as I said, first, it is an actuarially sound scheme; and, second, that the minimum number or

proportionate number of farmers come under the scheme. What we have in mind at the present time is 25 per cent of the farmers or of the acreage in whatever the insurance unit is. In some cases the insurance unit may well be a township; in other cases it may be a municipality. That will be up to the province but it must be a sufficiently small unit so that the long term average yield in that unit is much the same throughout. In other words, it would be inequitable for the farmers and the governments concerned to try to have the same premium rate, for example, in all parts of western Canada in a scheme of that sort. It would not work; it would not be practicable. Therefore, we have to have some area which will be called an insurance unit, as I say, it may be a township, it may be a municipality, in which the rate will be the same. In that unit one of the requirements will be that 25 per cent of the farmers or 25 per cent of the acreage must be covered before we will contribute in order to prevent the scheme being put in a position which is not actuarially sound.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say whether in any given province there must be a minimum number of units that come under the act?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. As far as the act is drawn a province could have one unit.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder whether I might just finish these things because we seem to be going down various tracks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just want to understand what the minister said. He said that 25 per cent of the farmers within a unit must subscribe to the scheme and the premium must be the same. Does that mean the premium in the unit or the premium in the whole province?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is one of the reasons that you must have these insurance units, you might say, so that you could have a difference in premium from one part of the province to another.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what I wanted to know.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have covered two of these conditions which must be met for financial assistance to be available. The third is that they be insured up to but not exceeding 60 per cent of the long term average yield in the area. In other words, our 20 per cent of the premiums will cover only 20 per cent of the cost of insuring the crop up to 60 per cent of the long term average yield.
Crop Insurance


William Moore Benidickson: Is it 60 per cent the cash investment of the crop loss that my hon. friend has in mind?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Now the hon. member is getting into the details which I think we should deal with in committee of the whole after second reading. There are an infinite number of details really which could be brought up and dealt with. At this stage I think it is desirable really just for the committee to consider the general principles of the scheme which I have just attempted to outline and not get into these very numerous details which could be brought up and which could be discussed, and many of which I expect will be. I do not want to give the hon. member and the committee the idea that I am trying to avoid any questions, but at this stage I do not think it is desirable to go into this because we could keep on actually for days on these numerous small points.
There is one other point that I should like to make, namely that farmers will not be eligible for both crop insurance and prairie farm assistance.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh!


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Prairie Farm Assistance Act will continue in effect but a farmer who is insured will not be eligible for the insurance and for prairie farm assistance both. In other words, we would consider that the contribution made by the federal taxpayer toward the cost of crop insurance is one thing and the contribution made by the federal taxpayer for the cost of prairie farm assistance is another thing, and that the same farmers should not be eligible to receive both of these at the same time.


Hazen Robert Argue: You borrowed that from the
Minister of Finance's budget.


Douglas Scott Harkness: At the same time, the
farmer who comes in under the crop insurance scheme will not be required to pay the 1 per cent levy for Prairie Farm Assistance Act payments. In other words, he will neither pay into the Prairie Farm Assistance Act fund or will he be eligible to take money out.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture indicated that we had before us a very complex subject which has had the attention of several royal commissions certainly in the western prairie provinces and perhaps elsewhere. As the minister indicated, we now have some experience to guide us because since approximately 1939 there has been a federal crop insurance scheme in the United States which has been revised on at least two occasions since then.

Crop Insurance
I believed, after reading the resolution in the broad general terms as it appeared on the order paper, that this would be the position we would be in. We had here the barest bones without any indication of the meat that might be provided in the bill. But having listened to the minister I am convinced we will find that there is going to be a great deal of vagueness and inadequacy in the bill because from the few remarks he has made it would appear there are so many provisos that I rather question whether very many of the provinces are likely to co-operate with the minister on something as nebulous as he has outlined to the committee at this time.
The minister indicated today that he had had a certain number of representations urging crop insurance, as many of us have, but from which provinces has the minister had anything officially in the nature of an enthusiastic indication of interest in connection with the kind of scheme he has outlined in the barest form to the committee this afternoon? We will reserve our detailed examination and comment until we see the bill, but our fear, enforced by what the minister has said, is that this measure really is window dressing and that we are likely to be faced with something which will be just an empty dummy shell. The bill may prove otherwise but no encouragement in that direction comes from the remarks just made by the minister.
One of the strongest supports for that assertion on my part is the statement of the minister that no farmer will be eligible for both P.F.A.A. and the new scheme of federal-provincial crop insurance. This seems to be entirely inconsistent with the minister's earlier assertion in his short speech that P.F.A.A., as the royal commissions also indicated, is not and was not intended to be crop insurance. The minister will be well aware that the recent commissions in 1955 and 1956 under the authority of the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan both felt that a proper crop insurance scheme should at least be complementary to P.F.A.A. What we fear, and we will retain our fears until we see some reason in the substance of the bill for changing them, is that the minister is really asking the house for a blank cheque with regard to something that was talked about in the recent election campaigns.
The minister has been in office for two years and has had at least an annual conference with the ministers of agriculture of the provinces. Which provinces have indicated that they would be interested in a scheme with the backdoor provisos such as he has enunciated? Was it the expectation of the government in introducing this resolution that it would likely

have some national application in the near future? I find that the only reported reference to crop insurance made by the Prime Minister in the 1957 election campaign which I have been able to discover was in a speech he made at Brantford on May 9, 1957. He enunciated his agricultural policy at that meeting and is reported by the Brantford Expositor as having said that he would develop "a more realistic crop insurance plan for drought, flood and hail in co-operation with the prairie provinces". I note that the resolution does not contemplate any restriction so far as the provinces are concerned, but from what provinces other than the prairie provinces, has there been any indication as a result of the two annual federal-provincial conferences held under the minister's regime that what he indicates will be offered in the bill is likely to obtain very early acceptance?
He indicated that there must be a minimum number of participants. I believe that was a recommendation of the Saskatchewan commission which made its report in December, 1956. They felt that they could criticize the undue voluntary content of the United States plan. The Manitoba commission pointed out that actually only 7.6 per cent of farmers in the United States are carrying some kind of crop insurance under the voluntary scheme and that in 1955 only 2.66 per cent, in terms of dollar value of crops, were insured under, as the commission reported, the excessively voluntary scheme there.
This seems to be a very far cry from the type of thing we heard from the minister last year and, indeed, from the Prime Minister. I recall that on August 30 last year the Prime Minister uttered ringing words about the possibilities there might be in this kind of scheme. He referred to providing a comprehensive crop insurance plan. In his remarks this afternoon the minister referred to an all-risk insurance plan but he indicated definitely that it might not apply in certain provinces in a general way and might apply only to one particular crop.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is entirely up to the province.


William Moore Benidickson: In addition, the evidence before both the Manitoba and Saskatchewan commissions was such that neither was prepared to recommend to their governments that something of this kind be undertaken without federal participation in much more than half of the cost of administration, or greater participation on the part of the federal government than the Minister of Agriculture has indicated that he is prepared to recommend. In other words, the catastrophic losses that the commissions indicated were possible and which both commissions

said were beyond the financial capabilities of a provincial government would be met under the minister's scheme simply by loans, not by contributions. That I do not think is likely, having regard to the commission reports, to commend itself for early acceptance by the provincial administrations unless the bill has in it something different from what the minister has outlined.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should be greatly interested to learn from the minister to what extent provincial governments have shown interest in the type of legislation he has presented to the House of Commons this afternoon. I have taken a great deal of interest in the subject of crop insurance and the subject of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in the past and I have always said that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act should be expanded and extended to specific crop areas outside the prairies in order to provide for agriculture, where crops face serious hazards, the same kind of protection as the people on the prairies have enjoyed under this scheme now for twenty years.
I have no knowledge of whether the Minister of Agriculture has consulted with all or a majority of the provinces but I would consider that this would be an essential requirement before bringing in such a bill. The minister has said that the federal government has not the jurisdiction to go into a scheme of crop insurance as has been presented here or as has been forecast here this afternoon. But the federal government undoubtedly has had sufficient jurisdiction to provide a scheme like the Prairie Farm Assistance Act which covers farming within a certain area. In other words, the federal government has had ample jurisdiction over a period of twenty years to have established and implemented a system of payments for crop failure to producers in time of loss. The announcement in this legislation, even though it may be extended to other provinces, shows that it is a restricted type of insurance. In addition to that, it will require substantial contributions from the provincial governments themselves. In other words, this is really a retreat in jurisdiction. Yet the minister says that in this retreat the government could bring in a proposition which would contribute only to provincial schemes.
In bringing in legislation such as that which the minister has forecast, I would think he would have had many conferences with the provinces, that he would have consulted each and every one of the ten provinces, and that before he would bring in a scheme such as this one he would have substantial support from the provincial governments that must embark on this scheme and
Crop Insurance
must provide for premiums to be paid into the plan. Other than that, unless this kind of consultation has been held, this would appear to me on the surface to be something of an invasion of provincial jurisdiction, although in a subtle way. By this legislation the government is saying that it will pay into provincial schemes if they are proceeded with. By providing exactly the same conditions, so the minister says, for each province, it means that those provinces requiring the assistance most-those provinces and those producers-will be obliged to pay the highest premiums.
In bringing in this legislation the minister has had the advantage of the various royal commissions and the various studies that have been made in the past on this proposition. The Saskatchewan royal commission has made far different recommendations from the ones contained in this bill. As a matter of fact, it merely advocated that an experimental and restricted type of crop insurance might be undertaken with the federal government meeting almost all of the costs and with the provincial government being restricted to certain administration costs and acting in an advisory capacity.
One of the earliest studies in the field of crop insurance was made by Mr. R. E. Motherwell, who was a grandson of a former minister of agriculture, a graduate of the Saskatchewan university and executive assist-tant for some time to Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner, a former minister of agriculture. In the past I have paid many tributes in the House of Commons to Mr. Motherwell's work, particularly with regard to the study of crop insurance that he made back in 1944. I say again today, as I have said on many occasions in the past, that this was an excellent study, that it was a comprehensive study and that in general I agree with his conclusions, namely that the type of crop insurance scheme that had prevailed in the United States was not one which could be made applicable to western Canada with full benefits to all producers but rather in Canada- and I speak particularly with regard to the prairies-we should endeavour to expand and improve the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
In the province of Manitoba a royal commission was set up to study crop insurance and among other conclusions they had this to say:
(1)	That the 1 per cent levy now paid by Manitoba farmers to P.F.A.A. would be "quite inadequate to provide any form of all-risk crop insurance"; that, indeed, it was probably insufficient to cover P.F.A.A. payments over the long run.
The reason for that reference is the fact that in Manitoba the producers by their 1 per

Crop Insurance
cent paid in slightly more than they have received under the act, since the act became effective in 1939.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And they said also that it would be inadequate to provide any kind of risk insurance.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes. They said further:
(2)	That the yearly potential risk of loss in a crop insurance scheme, unless distributed over a wide geographic area, could be enormous even in period of relatively good yields.
(3)	That, although it may have appeared reasonable at the time, the earlier recommendation for crop insurance in Manitoba "cannot be successfully applied . . . under today's farming conditions."


Douglas Scott Harkness: What date was that?


Hazen Robert Argue: September, 1955. As I said
earlier, Mr. Chairman, I do not know, of course, whether the minister has consulted with the provinces about this legislation. If provinces other than the prairie provinces believe that this type of legislation will meet their needs, I think the legislation will be helpful to that extent. But as I see the situation, as an alternative to the type of insurance or the type of protection that we may have under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and particularly under an expanded and improved Prairie Farm Assistance Act, this legislation is most inadequate.
We have had the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in operation now for almost twenty years and it has a great many things to recommend it. One of the most important things to recommend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in the three prairie provinces which it covers and in the section of British Columbia which it also covers is that within this area every single producer is protected. It covers everyone in the grain-producing area. Everyone who is covered in that area and who sells grain pays a small levy of 1 per cent. This means that not only is everybody covered but that, to make a general statement, there may be a few exceptions, such as people who raise livestock only and feed all their grain- everybody contributes by a 1 per cent levy on the grain that is marketed.
This, I think, has a tremendous advantage over a scheme that will not cover everyone within the provinces, and I do not think the Minister of Agriculture himself, who is introducing this legislation, is going to make any such claim. The United States has had a scheme in operation for some time. The administration costs of their scheme are borne by the United States government. The administration costs of the Canadian Prairie Farm Assistance Act are borne by the Canadian government. The administration costs of a United States crop insurance plan is equal to 25 per cent of the indemnities which

are paid out. The cost of administration, compared with the cost of administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, is excessive and shows that from an administrative point of view crop insurance is much less efficient than the prairie farm assistance. I think the administration costs of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act run to half a million dollars a year, or a little more, depending, of course, on the benefits which are paid out. The minister can give us the correct percentage, but I would estimate that our administrative costs are less than one-quarter of the administrative costs of the United States under a crop insurance plan.
In comparing, of course, the benefits which are paid out one would not expect that the Canadian benefits paid out under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act would anywhere near equal the indemnities which are paid out under the United States crop insurance plan applied, as it can be, to the whole of the United States. One would not expect either that these payments would be anywhere near comparable to payments in the United States because their coverage does equal 60 per cent of the yields, and because, of course, their wheat acreage, while it varies as ours varies, is in the neighbourhood of 70 million acres, whereas our wheat acreage is more in the neighbourhood of 20 million acres.
After the United States had changed the type of scheme they were using to some extent, between the years 1948 and 1954, the indemnities paid to producers in the United States amounted to $136 million. Canada, with a scheme not paying benefits at the same high rate, and restricted to a smaller agricultural area and a much smaller acreage, nevertheless paid benefits, which I think are rather startling in comparison with the $136 million of the United States, of some $90 million. We have had a long experience under prairie farm assistance. I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that it has been a good act and today it is a good act, and I see nothing in the legislation which is presented to the house today which would influence me to substitute the kind of legislation that is being forecast for the kind of legislation that we have had, more particularly if that legislation is improved as it needs to be from time to time.


William Moore Benidickson: You cannot have both.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister said we cannot have both. There is sad news in the announcement that he makes, because it means for the farmers in the high risk areas, the farmers whose crops are subject to crop failure most often, that they will be able to get very little benefit from the general type of legislation that the minister has introduced. They

will be very hesitant to insure, and 1 am sure very resentful, to be told that in order to insure their crops under one act they must withdraw from another act. It would be just as ridiculous to tell the farmers on the prairies, "If you take out hail insurance and there is a widespread crop failure because of hail, we will not pay you prairie farm assistance."
That used to be the thinking, but after some criticism and some changes in the act the government discarded what was at that time a very bad feature. Coverage on the prairies under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in general is 100 per cent. At one time farmers could not be covered if they had another business or another occupation. The present Minister of Agriculture introduced amendments which allowed farmers who have some other income to qualify for prairie farm assistance; so in general there is full coverage. In the United States the coverage under their scheme is not nearly as great as it is in our country. As a matter of fact, under their scheme the percentage of participation in 1948 was 37 per cent; in 1949, 21 per cent; in 1950, 21 per cent; in 1951, 23 per cent; in 1952, and the most recent figure, 29 per cent in 1953.


William Moore Benidickson: Grain only.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is wheat only.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, wheat only.


Hazen Robert Argue: For multiple crops, in general the percentage premium is relatively the same, if anything slightly less. Even in the state of Montana and the state of North Dakota, in any high risk area of those states coverage is as little as one-third. The premiums of course of the crop insurance plan in the United States vary. The premiums under this plan will vary; but the premiums in the United States in the general grain growing areas vary to a large extent, from around 8 per cent up to 16 per cent in the higher risk areas. We have a system of crop failure protection now under the prairie farm assistance scheme which gives to a farmer who has an ordinary sized farm in times of total crop failure payments of $4 an acre up to a maximum of 200 acres.
The farmer gets these payments for having paid a 1 per cent levy. To qualify for a levy under crop insurance in the state of Montana or the state of North Dakota, states which come up to the borders of our prairie provinces, the farmer has to pay rates of 8 per cent, 10 per cent, on up to 16 per cent. So no matter how one looks at the proposal which is put before us it is a very expensive proposal as far as the producers are concerned.
Crop Insurance
If the government intends that the provinces themselves from their own treasuries should supplement payments which are made, then this will be very expensive legislation for the provinces. If this government has in mind asking provincial governments to subsidize this scheme, then they would need to have long prior consultations and go into detail as to the administration of the legislation which is forecast, and they would have to endeavour to seek approval from the governments concerned.
The Prairie Farm Assistance Act has provided payments to producers since 1939 up to the end of 1957 to a total of $204 million. The federal contribution to this scheme has been about half of that amount. Of course, as far as the provinces are concerned, they have paid in different amounts and have received varying benefits. The province of Manitoba in the history of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has paid in approximately $16 million and has received in benefits approximately $14 million. So Manitoba is the one province which has paid in slightly more than her producers have received by a way of benefit. Saskatchewan has received benefits amounting to $139 million in round figures and Saskatchewan producers have paid in $69 million, so we have received from this plan $1 from the federal treasury for each dollar paid by the producers. The province of Alberta has done approximately the same, having received benefits from the act of $50 million and having paid in about $30 million. Of course, the reason why Saskatchewan and Alberta, have received more by way of benefits than has been collected by the 1 per cent levy is because these are high risk areas, because these are the provinces which have experienced widespread crop failures and emergencies in past years, situations which have been considered to be national emergencies and in which the federal government has come to the assistance of the provinces.
In advancing reasons why the Prairie Farm Assistance Act was enacted in the first place and why it has been maintained ever since, and giving reasons why the amendments which were introduced from time to time were designed in general to extend the scope of the act, the former minister of agriculture used to explain that the federal government had a national responsibility since within the Palliser triangle, the high risk area of the prairie provinces, it was national policy which led to that area being settled in the first place. It is true that in consequence of this policy great wealth was produced in that area but it was also in consequence of that policy, and because this is a high risk area, that people within that region suffer great

hardship from time to time. The former minister of agriculture advanced the action taken by the federal government and by federal governments in the past as the reason why it must now accept responsibility in times of widespread crop failure.
As far as the prairie provinces are concerned, particularly in the light of the clause in the bill which says that if a producer wishes to obtain benefits under this measure he can no longer obtain benefits under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, this bill beyond question is a retrograde step. I am concerned about whether or not this legislation has been brought in after consultation with the provinces and, in particular, whether it has been brought into this house after consultation and approval with and by the prairie provinces where the Prairie Farm Assistance Act now applies.
Inasmuch as this legislation may be valuable to the provinces generally, we are, of course, glad to see it introduced, but in so far as it may place additional financial burdens either on producers or provincial treasuries while the federal government at the same time is prepared to withdraw the benefits of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, we think it is a retrograde step.
I make one further suggestion, and I do so in the hope that the government and the minister will accept it, namely that this legislation should be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. Let us have before that committee spokesmen for the leading farm organizations of this country to speak for the producers. Let us have before that committee representatives of the provincial governments and provincial departments of agriculture to tell us how this proposed legislation may apply within their provinces. This, undoubtedly, is a step which should only be taken after there has been the greatest degree of consultation, and I suggest that since there are features in this bill to which I am certain provincial governments will object and to which I am certain producers will object, I feel that the government is bound, if it wishes the best possible legislation, to accept my suggestion and have this bill referred to the committee on agriculture for further study.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, a crop insurance act has been in force in the United States for about twenty years. It has been and still is of great service to farmers. In my opinion, crop insurance legislation will help, in the first place to stabilize farm economy; in the second place it will en-

Crop Insurance
courage farmers and their sons to stay on the land and, third, it will promote agricultural prosperity.
And while this legislation will be of benefit to all farmers, it will be particularly so to growers of special crops.
As everyone knows, the federal constituency of Joliette-TAssomption-Montcalm is the heart of pipe, cigar and cigarette tobacco production. In the past, many tobacco growers have faced disaster and lost much money because all of a sudden frost, hail or drought completely destroyed their work and ambitions.
Tobacco growers can of course insure with private insurance companies, but rates are so high that it is practically impossible for a grower to buy coverage for his entire crop. That is why I hope this bill will include protection against various risks such as hail, drought and frost, as well as many others.
In the past, many farmers, not only in Quebec but in Ontario and in other provinces, have had their whole crops ruined by calamities such as hail, drought and frost. Crop insurance legislation will therefore mean increased prosperity for agriculture and will give better protection for special crops.
For my part, I am in favour of this bill. (Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I should take this immediate opportunity of replying to some of the questions which were raised by the hon. members representing Kenora-Rainy River and Assiniboia and also of clearing up some of the misconceptions which have been disseminated as a result of the statements made.
First, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River wanted to know what provinces had shown an interest in this matter. I have now, I think, had four meetings with the ministers and deputy ministers of agriculture of the various provinces since I became minister for the dominion, and this question of crop insurance was brought up at each of those meetings as far as I recall, and there was some discussion on it. As one would expect, the provinces which displayed most interest in it were the three prairies provinces which were all interested in a system of crop insurance and in instituting such a system at the earliest possible time. There was also some interest on the part of British Columbia, particularly as far as the fruit growing areas of that province are concerned. In Ontario there was also some interest as far as fruit, tobacco and certain other crops are concerned. The same

thing applies in Quebec. In the maritimes there was little interest in a system of crop insurance. The ministers from those areas pointed out that they are not subject to crop failure very frequently. Because crop failures are infrequent in the maritime provinces they did not think the provincial governments or the farmers in those areas would be interested in a system of crop insurance. However, they were quite prepared to look at whatever scheme was produced before going any further than to say that this would probably be the reaction in those provinces.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River also made the statement that this measure was mere window dressing. This is anything but window dressing. This system of crop insurance is actually a generous scheme, considerably more generous than the schemes in effect in the United States. It is a scheme which carries with it very heavy contingent liabilities so far as the dominion government is concerned.


William Moore Benidickson: The federal government in the United States pays the whole administration costs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There have been several
different schemes in the United States and there are several in existence now. As I understand it in some cases the administration cost is paid by the farmers' co-operative which runs the scheme, collects the premiums and so forth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not believe they have P.F.A.A.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Any particular scheme in operation there at any particular time would have to be compared with this in order to achieve a valid comparison. However, the main point I am making is that this is a very generous scheme. We are offering to pay 50 per cent of the cost of the administration of this scheme set up in any province and 20 per cent of the premium cost. The total of these two would mean we would be paying somewhere between 25 and 30 per cent of the cost of the insurance scheme in any particular province. Therefore it is roughly equivalent to the cost to the federal treasury of engaging in the unemployment insurance scheme where we have contributions made by the employer, the employee and the dominion government with the dominion government in that case paying all of the administration costs. If you take the total cost of the scheme you see that the dominion government would be paying somewhere between 25 and 30 per cent of the cost of insurance in any province. I believe that is correct, but my colleague the Minister of Labour can correct me if I am wrong.
66968-9-332
Crop Insurance


Michael Starr: When you consider the administration costs it is more than that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think it runs somewhere in that neighbourhood. As far as the cost of this scheme is concerned I believe it will be roughly parallel as far as the contribution of the dominion government and the Canadian taxpayer is concerned. We will be paying an amount in excess of 25 per cent of the cost of this scheme. As I say, it will involve really heavy contingent liability so far as the dominion treasury is concerned.
For example, if all the wheat in western Canada were insured the annual cost for administration and premiums would be in the neighbourhood of $11 million on the basis of the premium rates which the Saskatchewan royal commission spoke about. Our contribution, of course, would depend on the premium rates because we propose to pay 20 per cent of the premium.


Hazen Robert Argue: You will never get farmers
generally into this one.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Any estimates made in this connection would of necessity be rough estimates because we have no actual experience to go on except the experience of the various schemes in the United States. That is the only country where we can find anything approaching comparable conditions and where the experience is likely to be at all comparable. In any event, as I say, the contingent cost to the dominion treasury will be considerable. Rather than the scheme being mere window dressing as was suggested by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River it will mean a commitment on the part of the dominion government to make very substantial payments.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River also asked why the Prairie Farm Assistance Act should be ruled out. If a man has his crop insured under this scheme he will be getting a considerable return if he loses his crop and therefore he does not need P.F.A.A. payments. Hon. members must bear in mind that P.F.A.A. payments are a form of drought relief. This has been extended to loss of crops from other causes but it is not an insurance scheme. It is essentially a relief scheme. If a farmer receives payment under the crop insurance scheme to which the dominion government has made a very considerable contribution there seems to be no good reason why he should also receive a form of relief under P.F.A.A. to which the federal government also makes a substantial contribution.
The hon. member for Assiniboia throughout the course of his speech appeared to be saying, "I am opposed to crop insurance."


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not true.

Crop Insurance


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. gentleman does not want a crop insurance scheme at all. What he wants is an expanded relief scheme. Every argument he advanced was an argument against crop insurance. Everyone knows that if an insurance scheme is to be worthy of that name it has to be on an actuarial basis. The hon. member does not want an insurance scheme on an actuarial basis. He wants an expanded relief scheme. That is what his whole argument amounted to, in effect. Most of his speech was devoted to a discussion of P.F.A.A. It is perfectly all right for the hon. member to talk about that if he wishes but it must be borne in mind that we are discussing a crop insurance scheme and not P.F.A.A. which is essentially a form of drought relief.


Hazen Robert Argue: This scheme is designed to get rid of P.F.A.A.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is an insurance scheme and P.F.A.A. is not. The hon. member did not talk about crop insurance at all but spoke about P.F.A.A. and the need for increasing payments under it and expanding its provisions.
Whether or not he deliberately sought to do so the hon. member also conveyed the impression that P.F.A.A. was being abolished. In my opening remarks I made it very clear that P.F.A.A. is not being done away with and that any farmer in western Canada who does not come under the crop insurance scheme will still be eligible for P.F.A.A. He will pay the 1 per cent levy on the grain he delivers whereas if he comes under the insurance scheme he will not be required to pay that levy but he will also not be eligible to collect P.F.A.A. benefits.
It is well known, of course, that the hon. member for Assiniboia always wants everything both ways. He wants greatly expanded schemes of pushing out federal government money whether or not it is required, whether or not it is asked for and whether or not it is desirable. His position is always one in which he says, "You should have done more." It does not matter what government has been in power in Ottawa or in any of the provinces with the exception of Saskatchewan, the position taken by the hon. member for Assiniboia is always that the government has not done one-half enough, one-tenth enough, and so on. Nothing that is done by any government is ever enough in the view of that hon. gentleman.


Hazen Robert Argue: Boy, how you have changed. You have been reading Jimmy Gardiners' speeches.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. gentleman likes to make these rude, loud-voiced interruptions which mean nothing.


Hazen Robert Argue: Read on.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. gentleman went on to say that this is a restricted type of insurance. There is nothing restricted about it. Any province can insure any type of crop at all. There is no limit or restriction placed on what a province does in regard to the crops it desires to insure under its insurance scheme. He went on to say that this scheme will require substantial payments by the provinces. I made it clear that the proposed act was designed to be as flexible as possible. Nothing in the legislation will require a province to pay one nickel toward a crop insurance scheme if it does not wish to do so. The province can charge the entire 50 per cent of the administration costs or the entire 80 per cent of the premium costs, neither of which the dominion government pays, to the farmer and the province does not have to spend a nickel on this scheme if it does not wish to do so. On the other hand if the province does wish to do so it can put in what it likes. There is no requirement for the provinces to spend substantial sums of money on this scheme as the hon. member suggested and on the contrary there is complete flexibility in that regard.
After making a peculiar argument to the effect that if we tried to put into effect a federal crop insurance scheme which was entirely under federal administration and control we would not really be in any conflict with the provinces' control over property rights and so forth-


Hazen Robert Argue: It has already been done.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -the hon. member went on to argue against himself and said that this scheme was an invasion of provincial jurisdiction. He said putting into effect a scheme of this kind would represent an invasion of provincial jurisdiction. This is no more an invasion of provincial jurisdiction than any grants made to a province which it can take or not as it wishes or earn or not as it wishes. As I indicated in speaking before, in the hospital grants, the contributions for hospital construction and so forth, the principle is exactly the same as in this proposed legislation.
The hon. member also went on to compare the administration costs of the United States crop insurance with prairie farm assistance. He said that the administration costs of prairie farm assistance were much less than in the United States crop insurance scheme. Certainly, they are much less because in that crop insurance scheme and in this crop insurance scheme the thing is going to be done on an individual farm basis.

The hon. member for Assiniboia has been standing up in this house to my knowledge for the last 10 years saying that prairie farm assistance should be paid on an individual farm basis. If it were paid on an individual farm basis, then the administration costs of it would be very greatly increased also.
I think these are the main complaints that were made and I hope, Mr. Chairman, I have been able to demonstrate that they have no validity. I think the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River who expressed some doubts as to the provinces' acceptance of this scheme will find that the scheme will be quite well accepted, particularly after it has been in operation for a year or so and the provinces have had an opportunity to see how it works.


William Moore Benidickson: How can it be accepted after operation for a year or so?
(Translation):


Mr. Racine:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments to make in connection with this resolution respecting crop insurance. However, I have no intention of dealing with the resolution in all its details and my remarks will be brief.
When my colleague from Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) took part in the debate on the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, he asked that the legislation be extended to eastern farmers. All the more so should this new supplementary legislation on crop insurance.
In January 1958, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) made a statement before the Canadian Agricultural Federation in Montreal -it is true that the minister was speaking on the P.F.A.A. at the time; but he nevertheless explained how difficult it would be to collect contributions if ever such assistance scheme were established in Quebec. To that effect, I shall refer to an article published in a Quebec paper, i.e. L'Action Catholique of July 23, 1958, which contains the following paragraph:
In this regard Minister Harkness answered that a crop insurance system was still being considered, but that considerable difficulties were involved in the scheme. -"Ever since I have been a minister," Mr. Harkness said, "I have repeated that the greatest single step toward improved farming conditions in Canada, would be the introduction of a crop insurance system. Studies are going on and I hope to be able to introduce such legislation before long."
And a little further on, the minister added:
"I may say that the result of this meeting has been to complicate matters even more, because a certain number of provinces did not show any interest in a crop insurance scheme. Some were interested, others less so and still others not at all." 66968-9-3321
Crop Insurance
I cannot disagree with the minister's statement, and I recognize that the situation is rather complicated. But since he has decided to introduce this legislation, I hope it has been thoroughly considered and that it will prove practicable with regard to all parts of this country, bar none.
As evidenced by the article I have just referred to, and following his meeting with the provincial ministers of Agriculture, the minister stated that some provinces were interested, others less so and still others not a bit.
It seems to me that the bill about to be introduced should be worded so that all provinces might benefit from it, according to climate and crop hazards, in the best interest of farmers. The fact has often been mentioned in Quebec at farmers meetings grouped under the U.C.C.; but, to my knowledge, no detailed study of the matter has been undertaken until now by the U.C.C.
The reasons behind this seeming lack of interest are said to be, first of all, that the P.F.A.A. was a very particular kind of crop insurance plan to which the federal and provincial governments were contributing. Then, the province of Quebec, with its mixed farming and its great variety of vegetable and animal production, was complicating the matter with regard to the administration of an act which benefits western Canada.
According to the U.C.C., tobacco and apple growers in our province made certain experiments. Insurance was provided by private enterprise and, of course, at the option of farmers themselves.
With regard to tobacco, and more particularly to cigarette tobacco, experience seems to have shown that it is possible, as the hon. member for Joliette-l'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) indicated; but even in those cases the rates were often prohibitive.
With regard to insurance for apple growers, since it is established on a voluntary basis, producers in the areas most likely to suffer from drastic changes in temperature were the ones to avail themselves of this protection, which proved fairly expensive and more or less practical.
Not only would it be important to consider the possibility of putting crop insurance at the disposal of farmers engaged in special farming, but it would also be important to put it at the disposal of those who are engaged in mixed farming and in a variety of vegetable and animal production.

Crop Insurance
In my opinion, this crop insurance legislation should include sections providing for a special credit policy in favour of farmers who are victims of damages caused by nature, such as floods, hail, tornadoes, etc. By such a policy a certain category of farmers, or even a whole agricultural area could be protected against localized damage.
In those specific cases, the legislation providing for such government credit facilities to agriculture would make it possible to grant the necessary credit with no interest charges to farmers affected, except, of course, to those who defaulted in their payments.
It seems to me that a clause to that effect would afford a measure of protection to a certain number of eastern farmers. Furthermore, such legislation could at the same time provide for the repayment of the capital, over a period of 3 to 10 years, according to the extent of the damage suffered by the buildings, or the various types of crops of a group of farmers of a given locality or area.
In my opinion, it would be extremely important that such a provision be added to the crop insurance bill which will be submitted to us shortly, because it often happens that excessive damages are caused in some areas through the vagaries of nature.
For my part, I am in favour of the crop insurance legislation principle, provided that such legislation be made applicable to all areas of Canada without exception.
However, in his brief remarks, the Minister of Agriculture indicated that this crop insurance bill which had been promised us requires some study in so far as its application in various areas is concerned. In my opinion, that legislation is actually a federal subsidy to the provinces, since the provinces themselves will have to determine what crops may be insured. However, we are in favour of this bill, although, as the minister stated, it seems most complicated.
Although the minister spent several hours preparing this bill, I would ask him whether he would not be prepared to put in a few more hours on it and, in that case, whether he could perhaps use that time in devising some way of getting the premier of Quebec to accept this legislation which would be of benefit to Quebec farmers.
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Never.


An hon. Member:: Not applicable. (Translation):


Jean-Paul Racine: In order to help the minister, may I suggest that he read over section 95 of the British North America Act, which

provides that the federal government has concurrent powers in so far as agriculture is concerned.
I hope the minister will agree to my request and that eastern farmers, particularly those in the province of Quebec, will also benefit from this legislation.
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, coming from the province of Saskatchewan and having listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia I rise to make a few observations, mostly corrections, so that the record will be accurate. In the first place, the crop insurance legislation now before us in resolution form is part of the national agricultural policy laid down in the house on August 31, 1958.


Paul Joseph James Martin: August 30.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: August 30.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Dates are very important.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This was one of seven points. I would recommend to all members of the committee that they realize the significance of the remarks of the Prime Minister on that day. As I see it, the key remark he made was that agriculture is not a local but a national problem and must be looked upon as something that is the responsibility of the House of Commons within its jurisdiction with respect to very part of Canada. This crop insurance bill makes it possible for every province in Canada, if it so desires, to make an agreement with the federal government to enter into a scheme that will relieve some of the risks brought about by the ups and downs of the weather. This is part of a national agricultural program because the whole problem of agriculture is a basic one and can be described very briefly as follows.
Traditionally in some parts of Canada agriculture has been bothered with the ups and downs of prices. The government has attempted to meet that situation with agricultural prices stabilization legislation. The second risk, and it is greater in some parts of Canada than in others is that due to the uncertainties of the weather and therefore the crop insurance legislation now before the committee is a vital part of our over-all national agricultural policy. In turn, when the farm credit legislation comes before us it too

will be evidence of another promise made to the people of Canada and another promise kept.
In the past I have twitted the hon. member for Assiniboia for never quoting in the house or throughout the country the report of the royal commission on agriculture and rural life in Saskatchewan. At long last he has shown evidence that he has looked at the report. He brought it into the house today and, going rapidly through it, he read some selections. The first selection he read was from R. E. Motherwell's report which was pessimistic or negative with regard to the feasibility of crop insurance on the prairies. He read this portion of the Motherwell report into Hansard today. The Minister of Agriculture asked the hon. member for Assiniboia for the date of the report and, after looking around quickly, the hon. member said "September, 1955."


Hazen Robert Argue: I rise on a point of order. I do not think the minister is trying to be unfair, but at that time I was not quoting from the Motherwell report at all. I have it on my desk but I have not marked any references to it in the report of the Saskatchewan royal commission. I was quoting the conclusions on page 15 of the report referring to Manitoba crop insurance commission. If I left the impression that I was quoting from the Motherwell report I am sorry because I left the wrong impression. I think the minister wants to be fair. I was not quoting from the Motherwell report.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am very glad to have that correction because most members in the house will recall that the late Mr. Motherwell died before 1955. I sent out for my copies of the reports and, incidentally, the Motherwell report was made in 1944.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have it in my hand. I know the report well.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have accepted the hon. member's question of privilege. I wish I could make my remarks in reasonable peace. The Motherwell report was a summary of the findings of the Saskatchewan committee on crop insurance which had been studying schemes all during the 30's. The report was made in 1944. I definitely got the impression, and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture did too or he would not have asked for the date of the report, that the hon. member read that pessimistic comment. So I am going to put on the record what the Saskatchewan royal commission on agriculture and rural life had to say about the Motherwell report. This royal commission was established in 1952 and reported in 1956. One of their first observations in dealing
Crop Insurance
with the various reports they had before them, was to say this about the Motherwell report, as found on page 13:
Motherwell concluded his report on the feasibility of crop insurance in Saskatchewan with this rather pessimistic comment-
The royal commission recognized that he was reporting on the pessimism of crop insurance studies made during the 30's. If the hon. member had read the Saskatchewan royal commission report carefully he would have noticed the following statement on page 5 at the bottom of the righthand column:
Crop insurance and P.F.A.A. were discussed at 16 of the 57 community hearings. The majority of the people in attendance at these 16 hearings favoured the establishment of a crop insurance program.
All the way through this report you sense the great need of people living in a drought area for help in the form of an insurance scheme to guard against some of the risk due to weather. Those people who know something about farming in the dry land areas of the United States and Canada know the great hardships that were suffered by the people in the 30's when there was no such thing as a crop insurance program to provide some help. As a group of people in Canada we were forced to accept relief from the rest of the people of this country. That relief was given in a very generous and Christian fashion but it did something to many of our people that some of us will never forget. That is why there are many in the house today, not the least of whom is the Prime Minister, who led a group of us who said that if we ever had anything to do with running the affairs of the country we would make a tremendous effort to set up some scheme whereby the farmers of western Canada and any other area that needed help could have it on a self-supporting basis so that men's feelings and integrity would be left whole. Therefore this crop insurance legislation is to some of us the fulfilment of a dream long before us.
I am not going to bother the committee at this stage with a long recital of all the arguments and recommendations in the royal commission report but I would recommend the report to members of the committee who are seriously interested in trying to provide some form of insurance against the weather and to protect the growing of crops by the agricultural industry of Canada. If hon. members do not have time to read all of it I would suggest that they look at chapter eight and the recommendations. There is no sense of pessimism here. The pessimism of the Motherwell reports is dismissed by this royal commission

Crop Insurance
and this is what they say in the opening paragraph of their recommendations:
Nevertheless, this commission, after consideration of the evidence before it, is convinced that, in the long view, crop insurance is feasible for the Canadian prairies.
This is the report of a five-member royal commission composed of Mrs. Nancy Adams; professor W. B. Baker, the chairman; T. H. Bourassa; H. L. Fowler; Charles W. Gibbings and J. L. Phelps. I can say with some assurance to the members of this committee that no one can say that those people named as the royal commissioners in this report have never had the interest of agriculture at heart. When the hon. member for Assiniboia condemns the recommendation of those royal commissioners-


Hazen Robert Argue: X did not say that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -set up by the
C.C.F government in Saskatchewan, he condemns J. L. Phelps,-


Hazen Robert Argue: Nonsense.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -an ex-minister of the C.C.F. government. He condemns T. H. Bourassa from Lafleche and all his contributions to the co-operative movement in Saskatchewan.


Hazen Robert Argue: Nonsense.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: He condemns Charlie Gibbings, vice president of the wheat pool. He condemns H. L. Fowler, one of the leading men in the co-operative movement in Saskatchewan, and he condemns Mrs. Nancy Adams.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. I did not differ with this report when I was speaking. My question of privilege is this. I mentioned no people who were commissioners on the Saskatchewan royal commission. I condemned no one. The minister's statement in this regard is completely false.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the question of privilege raised by the hon. member as you, of course, recognize, is not a question of privilege at all. This was the same attitude that the hon. member took when the stabilization bill was brought into this house. I rose in my place and challenged him at that time and asked him why he does not rise and read the report of the royal commission. Despite all the name calling that went on at that session I said that we would go back to the people of the west and that we would let the people of Saskatchewan decide what they wanted and whether this was a condemnation or rebuttal of this kind. Saskatchewan spoke very strongly in March of 1959. I would suggest that when the hon.

member spoke here today he will have to explain to the people of western Canada, and particularly he will have to make clear to the people of western Canada, whether he was speaking for the C.C.F. party at all levels in Canada. Is this the attitude of the C.C.F. party in Saskatchewan toward crop insurance? Does he speak for the C.C.F. government on this occasion? Is this going to be the test before the people of Saskatchewan real soon?
I say to the hon. member that I shall be glad to stand up before the people of Saskatchewan on the record of a royal commission that looked into this matter very carefully and whose recommendation for crop insurance I support because I know the needs of the people. I know they do not want relief. All they want is a chance to help themselves and this gives it to them.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going into all the points raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia. The Minister of Agriculture did an extremely effective job of pointing out the fallacies of some of his statements. I think the hon. member suffers from his tendency to jump too quickly and to exaggerate. Then he pays a heavy penalty of regret. I should just like to remind him of some of the recommendations which I wish he would read:
Recommendation No. 2. That reserve requirements for the experimental program be provided by the federal government, and that the central administrative functions be undertaken either by P.F.A.A. or by a new agency which would incorporate the P.F.A.A. and crop insurance programs.
There is no separation. They can both work together or anything you like.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister is separating them.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Another recommendation is as follows:
Recommendation No. 20. That areas which qualify for crop insurance be excluded from P.F.A.A. coverage and levies.
After a long study a royal commission composed of once friends of the hon. member recommended that those areas benefiting from crop insurance be excluded from P.F.A.A. and those individual farmers who do not want crop insurance can have P.F.A.A. We have followed this recommendation to the letter. The hon. member who purports to speak for the C.C.F. party in the house now says that this is a terrible thing we have done. I could go through the whole report and decimate these various points that he has raised but since they have been well covered by the Minister of Agriculture I am just going to make this one point which I hope goes out to every farmer in the grain areas of the west.


Mr. Peters:: It will be your first one.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Under the
P.F.A.A. there is a $4 an acre relief contribution in the case of crop failure. This act which was so good according to the hon. member for Assiniboia had to be amended in many ways last year. We have supported this act and we have supported the amendments. But let hon. members who come from the grain areas do a little bit of arithmetic. This bill sets up a coverage of 60 per cent of average yield. If the average yield is 15 bushels, the coverage is for 9 bushels per acre. A coverage of 9 bushels an acre at $1.50 a bushel means $13.50 an acre coverage which you pay for partially yourself and partially by contributions of the federal government. The farmer of western Canada is not asking for handouts. He is not asking for relief. However, he will be glad that we are contributing half of the cost of administration and 20 per cent of the premiums because it is roughly the same as we give to the workingman of Canada. In the unemployment insurance arrangements for contributions they have had this since 1940. At long last, 19 years later, we give the same equal treatment to those in the agricultural industry.
I will just point that fact out to you, Mr. Chairman, in the hope that those who have the responsibility to carry the truth of what is happening here to the people of Canada will not let the type of comment made by the hon. member for Assiniboia get out across the country. If the truth be known, we then have no worry in our minds as to what the people will think of what we are doing here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the committee will recognize that this particular resolution, in principle,-I do not say in fact; and I do not deny that possibly the bill when introduced will have many features that will be highly desirable-is one of the most important matters to be put before this parliament at this particular session. I join with the hon. member for Assiniboia at once in expressing my regrets that this bill is being introduced at this late stage at a time when I am afraid the house will not be afforded the opportunity of giving the kind of consideration which this measure deserves. This is not the only important measure that is being introduced by the government at this late stage in the session. There is before us other legislation that should have been introduced earlier in the session.
This measure is one of the greatest importance. It is a bill that can provide the greatest benefit to the agricultural community of this country; but it is a measure that ought to be thought out carefully. It is a measure in connection with which we should invite the views not only of the provincial governments
Crop Insurance
but as well all the national farm organizations. This can only be done by having the bill sent to a parliamentary committee. Whether it be to the existing committee on agriculture or to a special committee, as was done in the case of unemployment insurance, I am not now arguing, but I do suggest, and in doing so I take advantage of the Prime Minister's presence at this time, that a measure of this importance ought to be examined from every point of view, and the only way that can be done is by carrying out the suggestion made by the hon. member for Assiniboia.
I do not propose to examine the historical features of the proposal because I do not pretend to have the knowledge that some other hon. members have on this subject. I have looked at the report to which the member for Qu'Appelle has just directed our attention, the 1952 Saskatchewan royal commission on agriculture and rural life. I have examined some of its conclusions in the fourteen reports which were presented in December, 1956. I have spent some time in studying the report made by the Saskatchewan section of the United Farmers of Canada when they submitted a plan for all-risk crop insurance applying to all grain crops. I have paid some attention to the study which was made by Mr. Motherwell in 1944, who reported I believe as a member of the Saskatchewan reconstruction council on crop insurance, and to the study in Alberta in 1935.
Since no reference has been made to that, so that the record might be more complete, I would just mention that in that province crop insurance received consideration, and in 1936 a government committee report was issued suggesting three courses of action: First, an all risk crop insurance plan which would guarantee a minimum return either in yield or in value to the farmer; second, crop income payments; and, third, farm storage, that is sealed farm storage for grain in good years which would be available on the farms in dry years. Then there is the study in the Department of Agriculture itself when Mr. W. J. Hansen of the economics branch of the Department of Agriculture made a complete exhaustive study of this problem in connection with P.F.A.A. in 1936. So there is a wealth of material on this subject.
Much comment has been offered about the crop-insurance scheme in the United States. We should understand how that scheme is written, and how it is sold, and that certain types of crop insurance cannot be carried out in a country like Canada or even in that country in areas of low crop production. It could only be carried out

Crop Insurance
in areas of high crop production and therefore does not attack the problem which prairie farm assistance attacks in this country; and it should not be forgotten that they do not have what we have in Canada, P.F.A.A. I think if the minister of agriculture in the St. Laurent government has the opportunity of reading today's Hansard and what the hon. member for Assiniboia said about that particular measure, and associates with that what the Prime Minister said in 1958, Mr. Gardiner will feel that he has indeed at long last received from his opponents, none of whom was more vigorous than the hon. member for Assiniboia, the kind of tribute and acknowledgement which I wish the hon. member for Assiniboia had given to Mr. Gardiner when he was a member of this house.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I could tell the hon. member for Essex East, who wants to be fair, that I have done that many times.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am very glad. So that the record will be complete on that score and Mr. Gardiner can enjoy his period of occupation at this time as a western farmer, I would recall the words of the present Prime Minister who, on February 20 of 1957, said as reported at page 1472 of Hansard:
The Prairie Farm Assistance Act had its inception through the vision of the Minister of Agriculture-*
Then Mr. Gardiner.
-and what has been done deserves the appreciation of those who live in drought areas.
When we are comparing the United States system of crop insurance, bearing in mind that they do not have P.F.A.A., I think that these words of tribute to Mr. Gardiner, who was really the greatest friend western Canada ever had in this parliament, will show that what he did constitutes a great record in the field of agriculture. I do not think there is any question that the present Minister of Agriculture must day to day be confronted with evidence which was not open to him before and which indicates what an outstanding minister of agriculture we had in the person of Mr. Gardiner.
When the minister introduced this measure today he referred to it as an all-risk crop insurance. I note that that phrase "all-risk crop insurance" is used in the Saskatchewan report of 1952, the one in Alberta in 1935, the one in Manitoba in 1954, and so on, but I wonder if that is an accurate description of what the minister really has in mind in the resolution he puts forward today. I suggest to him that this is not a proposal for allrisk crop insurance, and before I take my seat I hope to establish the validity of this statement.

The minister said that the government is confronted in the proposal that it has made with the hindrances and obstacles which are embedded in our constitution, and that the federal government cannot bring forward any other kind of scheme in principle than the one introduced today. I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that that is not the case. This may be the desirable thing to do, but if he wants to use the analogy of unemployment insurance he can follow the example taken by the government of Mr. Mackenzie King in 1940. The government of that day did not bring in unemployment insurance without consultation with the provinces. It had no power under our constitution to impose any kind of contributions for the purpose of unemployment insurance on the employers or workers of our country. It had to get that power from the provinces as the minister knows.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I pointed that out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, my hon. friend pointed it out, but he did it in such a subdued manner as not to indicate that he was fully aware that what had been done in that case he might well have done in this case. My hon. friends opposite are on record as having promised the people of Canada a comprehensive system of crop insurance; the words of the Prime Minister are there for everyone to read. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River referred to the statement made by the Prime Minister on August 30, 1958, whose words appearing on page 4346 and page 4347 of Hansard for that date clearly establish, as the hon. member pointed out, that what the Prime Minister had in mind was provision for a comprehensive crop insurance program. That is not what is before the house at the present time.
Then because this matter is important, I put on record the words of the Prime Minister uttered in this house on September 6, 1958, to be found at pages 4747 and 4748 of Hansard. Here is what the present Prime Minister said:
When the next session arrives we intend to introduce a measure for which the farmers have asked from the earliest days in western Canada, something which has also been requested by farmers in other parts of Canada, an insurance plan to bring about the assurance of at least a modicum of income, that degree of income which will not cost the farmer too much to assure himself of, and through which during the dark days of drought the farmer may be assured of at least a fair and reasonable rate of return. That is one of the things that came about under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. That met the situation in the western provinces to a degree. That legislation was placed on the statute books as a result of the initiative of the Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner. It has been expanded, it has served a successful purpose and has been beneficial. Farmers generally

are today asking for something further in that direction and it is because they are asking for that, we intend to provide the opportunity at the next session of parliament of taking this further step.
My submission to this committee is that what we now have before us is not the kind of measure which these general words of the Prime Minister indicated was in the mind of the government as legislation in the field of crop insurance to be introduced during the present session. The hon. gentleman need not feel inhibited by the constitution. If the minister wishes he can do what was done in 1940, when we embarked on unemployment insurance. He has the same course open to him as we had; he can have the provinces called together, he can ask for an amendment to the constitution and he can bring forward a comprehensive scheme of crop insurance.


William Moore Benidickson: The same thing was done in the field of old age security.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, as was done in the case of old age security. That was in 1951. We had no authority to propose any form of contributions to senior citizens of this country in 1951, but we wanted a comprehensive old age security scheme and we got one. The only way we could do that was by having the constitution amended, and the only way to get that done was by calling the provinces together and obtaining their consent. We got that consent. So let no one think that in this matter now before us the minister has brought forward a comprehensive scheme of crop insurance, because that is not the case.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is your opinion. It is not the opinion of a lot of people.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That may be so, but I am submitting this argument and I hope I will receive the same attention as I have paid to the hon. gentleman when he spoke. This is the contention I am making. All the minister is doing today is precisely what the government of 1925 did in the matter of old age pensions. He has resorted to the same pattern, and 1925 was a long time ago. What was done then was to pass an act in this parliament saying that the government of Canada was prepared to extend certain financial grants to provinces which were prepared to embark upon schemes having to do with the establishment in Canada of old age pensions. But that was not an immediately comprehensive measure and no one ever pretended it was. So the hon. gentleman is, I think, struck at once with one of the real obstacles in this matter, an obstacle which suggests that 66968-9-333
Crop Insurance
whatever advantage might lie in this particular resolution it is not, as was indicated we would have, a comprehensive crop insurance scheme. I suggest to the minister that it is not too late for him or for the government to take the kind of step which would present to the farmers of Canada a comprehensive national scheme of crop insurance.
If this is not done, may I point out that we have had from the minister no assurances whatsoever as to what the attitude of the provinces is going to be. We know that in 1958 there was a conference with the provinces. I think the minister mentioned that this afternoon, and the minister referred to this conference when he spoke in this house in 1958. But he intimated then that the discussions were of a general character and that no final conclusion was taken. The minister said, I find, on June 4, 1958 as reported in Hansard at page 829:
As a result of the recent conference with the provincial ministers of agriculture, Mr. Speaker, no particular consideration has been given to this matter. The whole matter, however, has been under very active consideration for many months past, and a considerable number of members of the Department of Agriculture have put a good deal of study and a good deal of work into the whole question of crop insurance and have prepared certain recommendations, which I am considering at the moment.
What provinces are going to enter this scheme? Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta? These provinces have, of course, studied this question. But what is the position of Ontario? I know what was said in the election of 1957 all over southwestern Ontario by those who now sit on the treasury benches. At that time, as very hon. member from western Ontario now sitting in this house knows, the farmers in that area had suffered very great economic losses as a result of crop damage by storm and we were told by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, among others, that if this government came into power, in co-operation with the province of Ontario under Mr. Frost, we would be presented with a plan for the compensation of our farmers either directly out of federal and provincial treasuries or by virtue of some legislation which would be passed. In fairness to the Minister of Agriculture I must say that I wired him after the election of June 1957 and reminded him of the promise made, particularly by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. I also spoke to the Minister of Agriculture on the telephone and he said: I am not commenting on that. I am simply saying that what you are now submitting is not the policy of the government of Canada at the present time. I do not know if the Minister of Agriculture remembers this. He pointed out what the constitutional position was; that it was up to the provinces, and

Crop Insurance
if they found it could not be done out of their own financial resources, if they found these resources did not enable them to take care of the situation, they had the right in that event to turn to the federal government. But there had been no such request made by any provincial government and consequently the Minister of Agriculture took the frank position that notwithstanding these promises I could expect, certainly for the farmers of Essex county, no such assistance as had been promised by hon. gentlemen opposite.
The minister has gone into some detail today. He has indicated that the federal government intends to pay 20 per cent of the cost of the premiums. The federal government has indicated-and I want to get this right-that where the revenue from the premiums is in excess of $200,000 the federal government will loan 75 per cent, make a loan to the province of 75 per cent of the excess.


William Moore Benidickson: No, the excess.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought I had said that. And the federal government is going to pay 50 per cent of the cost of the administration. That leaves 80 per cent of the premiums to be paid. An analogy has been suggested between this matter and unemployment insurance, but surely the fact that the federal government is going to pay 20 per cent of the premiums leaving 80 per cent still to be paid requires further explanation from the government before the analogy can be regarded as complete. Does the minister now know whether any particular province has determined (a) to come in and, (b) if it has, what percentage of the premium it is prepared to undertake. Is it going to accept 40 per cent to provide for an analogy as in the case of unemployment insurance where that percentage is borne by the employer and 40 per cent borne by the worker, or is it expected that the whole of the balance of the premium will be imposed on the farmer? If that is the case I am sure that we cannot expect that there will be many farmers who will come in under the scheme.
I know that the federal government has no legal authority-and if it had I know that certainly no government would want to take responsibility-for whatever policy a province arrives at as to the share to which it would commit itself with regard to a scheme of this sort but surely in the light of the statements made by the Prime Minister in 1958 and in the light of his own assurances about the studies that had been undertaken the minister is not in a position where he cannot tell this committee what provinces are going

to come in and, if they do come in, what will be the percentage of financial responsibility they will bear.
All hon. members of this committee no matter where we come from recognize that the farmers of Canada have very special problems and if this particular scheme or a scheme like it will assist them in the great losses which have occurred from time to time we will all be very pleased indeed. But I think it should be borne in mind that all the farmers in Canada do not live in western Canada and that the farmers in eastern Canada, as was mentioned by several hon. members who spoke previously, have problems and losses from time to time. Sometimes those losses are comparable to those suffered by any other group in our country. Take the loss which threatened right in my own county to which reference was made the other day by the hon. member for Kent, Ontario, in the matter of tomato contracts. Take the great loss that occurred in 1957 all throughout southwestern Ontario. These were very serious losses to the farmers of that area. I suggest that a crop insurance scheme can apply not only to wheat but to corn, soybeans, sugar beets and all of those things.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the purpose of this scheme; it will cover any crop.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In fairness to the minister I should state that he said that if a province decides to bring in any number of crops the federal government is prepared to the extent of its commitment in this legislation to be committed likewise. I suggest to the minister that if he wants to have a comprehensive scheme he has the opportunity of doing what the Liberal government did in 1940 and in 1951 with regard to unemployment insurance and old age security.
There is no question concerning where we in this group stand with regard to this subject. At the national Liberal convention which chose the present Leader of the Opposition as leader of the Liberal party it was affirmed that we support the extension of the principle of P.F.A.A. to all parts of Canada where it is desirable to provide emergency assistance and to provide adequate financial assistance to provinces which establish crop insurance plans. That resolution is an indication of our willingness to support a practical measure, one that will not prove too burdensome on the farming community and one which comes within the possibility of their acceptance having in mind what I think is the very desirable standard of measurement laid down by the minister, that the scheme ought to have sound actuarial principles.
It is significant that in the resolution before us we have nothing to indicate that this is a

comprehensive crop insurance scheme. On the contrary the resolution as presently drawn and the minister's observations in connection with it suggest not only that no proper system of crop insurance has yet been set up but also that no plan has yet been worked out in so far as co-operation with the provinces in the inauguration of a joint plan is concerned.
I suggest to the minister that he ought to give us an opportunity of giving this measure the most careful attention in the dying days of this session. This measure ought to be sent to a committee so that we can ascertain what are the wishes of the provinces, what are the possibilities of their acceptance and what are the attitudes of the farm organizations. If that is not done I can foresee what will happen. I do not say that the Minister of Agriculture will do this, but I am sure my genial, vigorous and highly imaginative hon. friend the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will go from one end of the country to the other telling the people of Canada that this government has an agricultural policy second to no other government in the world; not only has it got a vision for the north but it has a vision for the farmers of Canada, and he will call as his witness the crop insurance plan introduced by that distinguished hon. gentleman, the present Minister of Agriculture, which plan no province will have supported. Nevertheless he will have given the farmers of Qu'Appelle, the farmers of Essex East, and the farmers of Kent, New Brunswick, the impression that this, the most vigorous government we have had in Canada, has at long last brought forward a crop insurance plan. These men, the farmers of Canada, will not examine the bill in the way that we now have the opportunity of doing. Therefore, they will say, "At long last we have something that is going to provide for us when we have crop failures as a result of acts of God, and the like; at long last we have something that is going to give us the kind of security we require. We have been maintaining the urban workers through unemployment insurance and now we have something for ourselves." The real fact will be that all they will have is a bill passed by this parliament in the dying days of the session without consultation with the provinces or with farm organizations, a bill that has only some value in that it adopts a principle which if accepted by all the provinces might give it some substance.
I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture using in paraphrased language the kind of appeal he used to make when he sat in the third row back here on this side of the chamber when he in his insistent manner used to prod the minister of agriculture of the day 66968-9-333 J
Crop Insurance
and sometimes even the poor, helpless minister of national health and welfare of the day to take a particular course. I ask him now to consider this. This is an important bill. This is the kind of bill that could do a great deal for the farmers of our country. But let us make sure it is the kind of bill that will do that. Let us not bring forward a measure merely for the sake of gaining temporary political advantage, for the sake of being able to indicate, in form at any rate, that a promise has been kept. The real way to keep a promise or to gain political advantage, I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture-


An hon. Member:: You should know.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I should know. To return to my thought, the real way to keep a promise or to gain political advantage is by bringing forward substantial measures that really have something in them and not measures that merely give the impression of something being done. Someone said that I should know. Yes, I should know because I was a member of a government which brought down very substantial measures. P.F.A.A. was one of them. When I think of the criticisms against that legislation that were voiced in this house by so many members and when I hear the kind of tributes that are now paid to the former hon. member for Melville, the former minister of agriculture, who was the initiator of that measure, as the Prime Minister said, I realize that we did bring down useful measures and, as the hon. gentleman said, I should know about these things.
This is an important measure. This could be a most useful measure. Let us see what are the weaknesses in this bill. The way to do that is not by the kind of speech we have just had from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources telling us that this is another spoke in the wheel of achievement in the field of agriculture. Let us put this government policy to the test by confronting the members of an agricultural committee with this measure and by asking the president of the federation of agriculture, by asking the interprovincial farm union and the corn and sugar beet growers of Essex county and similar organizations to express their views on it. Let them be given the opportunity in this session of parliament of indicating whether or not they look upon this as a substantial measure or whether they look upon it simply as mere window dressing, as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River said. I am not saying it is window dressing, I do not know. I want an opportunity to examine this bill. It is because I have confidence in my persuasive

Crop Insurance
powers on the Minister of Agriculture that I ask him to accede to this very reasonable request.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, if the resolution before us is, as the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources pointed out, a resolution that is going to complete the plan for agriculture that was pointed out by the Prime Minister in August, 1958, then I think a great deal more information should be available in the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture than accompanied this particular resolution.
I should like to endorse the comment and support the argument made by the hon. member for Assiniboia and also the hon. member for Essex East that this legislation be referred to a committee so that some consultation could be had with those people who are qualified to give us the information. I am surprised, Mr. Chairman, that there has not been more consultation on a formal basis with the provinces before this particular resolution was brought before us. It is quite true that the people in my area could have received great advantages on a number of occasions in the past if this type of legislation had been in effect. But I think that much more consultation must take place before any indication can be given of what good this particular legislation is going to accomplish.
Crop insurance could cover a wide variety of natural phenomena. It could cover hail, flood, drought and many of the other natural phenomena, and each one of those could have disastrous effects in a particular area. In my particular area I can remember only one occasion in my lifetime when there was so much flooding that no crop was harvested. It was back in 1928. Since that time, although there have been partial crop failures in areas in particular grains, it has never reached the magnitude that it did in that particular year. It is quite true also that there are other small segments of the area which are affected by frost or by drought or by some other condition. I think this type of insurance could be very economical. It is the type of insurance which could cost the farmer very little.
I remember some of the arguments I heard when I was in western Canada on several occasions in the last few years. On each occasion when crop insurance was discussed during the provincial elections in Manitoba not long ago the farmer was more concerned with whether this was going to cost him more money than he could afford to put out for this type of insurance. I think it must be borne in mind by the Minister of Agriculture-and he may continue to forget this fact-that many of the farmers that I met that are receiving the benefits of the prairie

farm assistance had not the amount of money available, and they have not had it for some time, that would be required to cover the premiums under a provincial scheme. Many more considerations must be taken into account before this plan is implemented.
If the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources was correct-and I assume he was-that the Prime Minister is implementing an agricultural scheme to solve the problems of rural agriculture in all parts of Canada, then this must be part of that scheme and it must fit into the scheme on a national basis. If this is true, then why not refer this to a committee which will have the opportunity of calling before it witnesses from all parts of Canada who have the information. I think it is quite easily understood that there is a great deal of difference between covering, for instance, grain and potatoes in my part of the country and covering cherries, apples or other small fruits in the Niagara peninsula. There is no connection between these products. The amount of insurance that would be necessary to cover these two fields would vary greatly and in most cases they would not be suffering from the same problem. In one instance frost would affect the crop and in the other instance it would probably be a wet condition or not enough rain or some other condition.
I think the Minister of Agriculture must be aware of the fact that the great problem in agriculture today is not crop failure or overproduction but lack of markets and lack of returns for the produce the farmer is producing. If the farmer were given a fair and reasonable price for his product, if he were guaranteed this on a forward carrying basis, then I am quite sure we would have no reservation in accepting the fact that the farmer ought to be able to carry this type of crop insurance himself. But in the circumstances there are many farmers in my part of the country who are not going to be able to participate in any type of crop insurance unless it is paid for 100 per cent by people other than themselves because their income has been such in the last two years that they are not capable of carrying crop insurance at all. They will not be able to pay the premiums, or if they do their families will probably go hungry.
If the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is interested, as he appears to be, in this legislation for agriculture, then the major problem he is faced with today is not this piecemeal program of putting into effect all the Prime Minister wants to accomplish on a national basis for agriculture but it is the real problem of prices. If he is going to get himself involved in the

Department of Agriculture, then I think he cannot neglect also to use his influence to see that prices are maintained and established on a parity basis so that we shall know exactly what we are going to insure and how we are going to insure it.
There are many people who, if they want this type of scheme, will be paying on a crop that they have not the faintest notion what it will be worth by the time it reaches the market. I am quite sure that all hon. members have received letters from the fruit producers and the vegetable producers in the Niagara peninsula in particular where this problem is much more prevalent than it is in any other form of agriculture, where they are producing a high price commodity for a market which may not pay the cost of production when it is finally put on the market.
I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that it is going to be very difficult to insure this type of crop against crop failure if they are not even sure it is worth saving. In fact, it might be quite a saving to the producers if it disappeared before it reaches the market stage because the small amount that they will save will probably not be worth enough to make it worth while insuring the amount that they have lost.
It seems to me that if we are to consider this crop insurance program in terms of the much bigger scheme that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources implied had been envisioned by the Prime Minister and partly implemented by this particular legislation, then I think much more consideration will have to be given to it. My information arising from a superficial examination in Manitoba of part of this problem would indicate that in the main the farmers of that province are not going to give up prairie farm assistance for crop insurance. On the other hand, I know of no group in Ontario that has developed plans so far to implement crop insurance if it is brought into being under any scheme. I have talked to a large number of farmers and representatives of farm organizations and, having regard to the scheme now before us, I think they are going to be less interested in developing plans to put crop insurance into effect.
Therefore I think there is a great deal to be said for the request of the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Essex East that this matter be placed before the standing committee where we would have an opportunity to hear presentations by the various organizations concerned with the subject. If this does not come to pass, then I suggest that the government is not prepared to support this measure by argument before the various organizations and that members of the government, just as the hon. member for
Crop Insurance
Essex East has said, are going to travel throughout the country and say to the people that they have given them all they promised to give and that if they do not get any benefit from the scheme it is the fault of the province.
This argument can only be met if the Minister of Agriculture is willing to call a conference of the provincial ministers of agriculture in order to discuss this and other matters in a concrete way so that he and certainly the various oragnizations will have a much better idea of what is available so far as crop insurance is concerned. I think in Ontario we need crop insurance and have needed it for some time. It should be established on an actuarial basis having regard to the record over a number of years. It should also be based on the ability to pay of the farmers, the municipality or whatever unit is used because I think it has been generally accepted that those who are least able to pay are the ones who need help the most. I am quite sure that this will apply to crop insurance if and when it comes into effect in the province of Ontario. Those who need it are going to be least able to take advantage of it.
The problem of how to finance the scheme, how far it should be extended and the advantages that can be provided can only be solved by hearing representatives of the organizations and if the measure is passed in its present form it will probably not be satisfactory to the majority of organizations who would like assurance with regard to one thing or another. It will not solve their problems.


William Moore Benidickson: Does the hon. gentleman as a resident of Ontario think that the terms outlined by the Minister of Agriculture would likely be accepted by the province of Ontario as the basis for a partnership deal?


William Arnold Peters: I am only guessing but I am quite sure they will not be. As far as Ontario is concerned, I am quite sure that the legislation will not be used at all.


William Moore Benidickson: That is my view.


William Arnold Peters: From the superficial experience I have had in talking to a number of farmers in Manitoba I also suggest that the farmers of that province are not going to trade what they have for a crop insurance scheme. Many of them have said that to them crop insurance appeared to be too expensive for them to take advantage of it. In my own area in Ontario, for instance, there is a lot of dairy farming and I cannot see that the farmers would be willing to have hay and grain covered unless the premium were very small. Unless everybody engaged in farming in the province

Crop Insurance
is going to be covered, unless the scheme is on a very comprehensive scale, then the premiums will be so high that nobody will be able to take advantage of the plan.
Tha Acting Chairman (Mr. McCleave):
Order. The Chair is aware that the clocks have been stopped for some 15 minutes. We are proceeding on the basis of the time provided by the watch of the Clerk of the house.


Mr. Fraser:: Did the C.C.F. stop the clocks?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The
time is 12 minutes to six, table time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I have been interested in the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. When I spoke initially I said that I had hoped and had reason to expect, having in mind the importance of this legislation, that there had been some prior consultation with the provinces on the kind of proposal that has been presented. In reply I believe the Minister of Agriculture said that this matter had been discussed at four conferences.
I should like to know from the Minister of Agriculture whether the main proposals contained in the bill have been discussed with the provinces. I am not interested in knowing whether the question of crop insurance came up generally at one of these conferences. What I am interested in finding out is whether or not the Minister of Agriculture discussed the main proposals in the bill, the proposal that the federal government would pay a 20 per cent premium, the proposal applying to the prairie provinces that if a farmer there wishes to take out insurance under this legislation he forfeits the right to be covered by prairie farm assistance. I should like to know specifically with respect to that question whether the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan has agreed to this very far-reaching proposal contained in the legislation. I have grave doubts whether the provincial ministers of agriculture are aware of what is in the bill. As a matter of fact, I think that if the bill had been discussed with the provinces the minister would not have received general support for the type of legislation that is being introduced, certainly not from the prairie provinces.
I think this adds substance to the request already made by myself and the hon. member for Essex East that this very important legislation should be referred to the standing committee on agriculture. I think the provinces should be prepared, as I am certain they would be, to give their views on this legislation in public. I think we should have the benefit of the views of the various ministers

of agriculture from the different provinces in order to see whether their views concerning this proposal, which in the words of the Minister of Agriculture concerns something that is not a federal but a provincial responsibility, were taken into account before the measure was presented.
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has made a great to-do about the report of the Saskatchewan royal commission on agriculture and rural life. He seems to take the view that if one differs in any degree with anything contained in the report one is immediately condemning all the commissioners and everything they stand for. Is this not a strange attitude on the part of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources? Would he apply the same logic to the stand taken by one of the commissioners Charlie Gibbings on deficiency payments? Does he mean that the proposals respecting the deficiency payments presented by the Saskatchewan wheat pool and other farm organizations must be accepted and are accepted by the minister because Mr. Gibbings is in part the author of a report on deficency? If there is any logic to the minister's argument, then he stands for deficiency payments as proposed by the farm delegation, which we all know, of course, is far from the fact. They all know that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is very actively and very strongly opposed to deficiency payments as they have been presented. But what the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is attempting to do-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member is putting words into my mouth.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister can reply. He is an authority on putting words into peoples' mouths. We saw him doing it in this very house not so very long ago.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Pretty weak.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, no matter what government appoints a royal commission- whether it be a Conservative government, a Liberal government or a C.C.F. government -I reserve the right to look over the recommendations of the royal commission and on my own judgment to say whether or not I believe they are fully in the interests of the people covered by the report. I do not take the view which the minister of northern affairs would have us believe he takes-and which he does not take at all-namely that this is his bible, that he has taken it to his bosom and that he accepts everything that is in it. If he does so, there will be some rather strange things that he has accepted.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Will the hon. member name a better reference for information on crop insurance than a better
report?


Hazen Robert Argue: I would not go to the minister if I were looking for a better reference, I can tell him that. 1 can tell him what I will do. I will give him a copy of Hansard for today containing my speech which I think is more realistic than the conclusions, if you put them all together, of all the royal commissions on this subject, many of which have different points of view or outlook, and some of which arrived at different conclusions at different times. I would suggest that the conclusions that have been arrived at by this government are not conclusions that are supported in the royal commission on agriculture in Saskatchewan or any other royal commission or in their campaign promises; but most important of all, they are not supported by the farmers and the producers of western Canada.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Am I clear on this point, namely that the hon. member considers that he is a greater authority than the royal commission report? Is that the significance of his remarks?


Hazen Robert Argue: If the minister wants to ask me whether I think that some parts of the west should be taken out of crop insurance, I would say no. But of course the Minister of Agriculture pretends that he accepts this report-he pretends that-and then he does not quote all the parts of it that have to do with recommendations when he is quoting them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I have not quoted anything from this report.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I meant the minister of northern affairs. I will come to the Minister of Agriculture in a moment or two. The minister of northern affairs quoted certain things from page 99 of the report. I should like to quote some more things from it. These are found under the title "Administrative and Financial Responsibility":
In view of the interprovincial nature of the need for crop insurance, the limited financial resources of individual provinces, the necessity of spreading risks over as wide an area as possible; and in view of the federal government's accumulated experience in administering the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and its earlier acceptance of responsibility for crop insurance at the time P.F.A.A. was enacted,-
Listen to that, Mr. Chairman.
-the commission recommends:
Recommendation No. 2. That reserve requirements for the experimental program be provided by the federal government and that central administrative functions be undertaken either by P.F.A.A.
Crop Insurance
or by a new agency which would incorporate the P.FA.A. and crop insurance programs.


William Moore Benidickson: Read No. 40 on page 97.


Hazen Robert Argue: I had better stick to what I have been reading instead of going to what the hon. gentleman is reading. This is further spelled out, as has been suggested, in item 40 on page 97. From page 99 I read further:
Recommendation No. 3. That the participation of provincial governments in crop insurance include (a) assuming regional administrative costs and (b) acting in an advisory capacity to the program.
From the whole of this report I think it is clear that it was the intention of the royal commission that this scheme should be a federal plan administered by the federal government and, of course, as the report points out time and time again, should be in its initial stages an experimental crop insurance scheme confined to pilot areas and not be on a general province-wide basis.
The minister of northern affairs has referred to the P.F.A.A. as relief and he has said that farmers would surely prefer to be covered by a crop insurance scheme instead of relief under prairie farm assistance. I challenge the minister's interpretation of prairie farm assistance. I challenge the statement he has made that prairie farm assistance is relief in the ordinary sense of the word "relief", namely a handout or a present. I suggest that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is a national act in this country recognizing the federal responsibility, in the words of the former minister of agriculture, to provide certain benefits to western producers under certain conditions when there is a crop failure. These are benefits to which the producers are entitled by law and are in no sense a handout or relief.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Good Liberal legislation.


Hazen Robert Argue: It needed to be much better than it was. After fighting with the Liberals for eighteen years, I believe it was, we got some improvements in the legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who put it there in the first place?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I do not know why I get these shouts from the side.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was supporting the hon. gentleman.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Hazen Robert Argue: Before you call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I say to you that the farmers on the prairies will resent this aspersion by the minister of northern affairs that the benefits they receive under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act are in any way shape or form

Crop Insurance
relief or that they should be termed that, above all by a minister from the prairies. May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock I was saying that the farmers on the prairies will resent very much the reference by the minister of northern affairs to the present Prairie Farm Assistance Act as one by which the farmers are given relief. I think one of the most serious faults in the measure as forecast by the minister is that farmers who wish to come under the act must forgo the benefits of prairie farm assistance. Prairie farm assistance generally is a program that has been accepted by the farmers of western Canada. They feel that as far as it goes it is a good program, and they will resent very much having to forgo the benefits of this good program in order to qualify for crop insurance as defined by this legislation.
One of the questions which might be asked is whether or not this is a practical scheme; whether or not in most areas it can be expected that farmers will take advantage of the program as it is likely to be brought about. The Saskatchewan royal commission on agriculture and rural life in its ninth report, which is the crop insurance report to which reference was made earlier, has divided Saskatchewan by way of example into three general areas where the commission has examined into the feasibility of crop insurance and the premiums that would likely have to be paid under such a scheme in those areas.
First of all, I might say that in setting forth these examples the Saskatchewan rural commission has said that the following rules as to insurance will apply. The premium unit would be a group of delivery points so that at a certain group of delivery points all the producers within that area who wish to be covered by crop insurance would pay the same rate. The indemnity unit-I take it the unit on which payments will be made-in time of crop failure as defined in the legislation is also a group of delivery points. So, according to this analysis, farmers would not be paid on the yields from an individual farm but the indemnity unit would be a group of delivery points. That certainly would tend to reduce the size of the premium and some of the administrative costs. The coverage would be 60 per cent of the long term average yield group.

The Regina region is one of the three examples used, and the Regina region is used as an area of relatively low risk. This is the land that according to the Saskatchewan assessment commission, from the standpoint of production of wheat, is the most valuable land in Saskatchewan. It is relatively free from crop failure, has level topography, is near to markets and so on. In putting forth this example, the royal commission on page 139 of its report had this to say:
The average premium rate for the Regina region would be .735 bushels per acre for an average coverage of 9.4 bushels per acre. . . . The average amount of protection per farm would approximate $2,754.
The premium would be $215, making a ratio of premium to coverage of 7.8 per cent. The 7.8 per cent premium in this example in the Regina area-and this is an area relatively free from crop failure-is to be compared with the 1 per cent premium under the present Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
The next area of medium risk is called the Hanley-Davidson region, and in this area in order to be covered under the same formula the premium would be 13.8 per cent. I suggest that a premium of 13.8 per cent is a very high premium. It is a premium which very few farmers are likely to consider they are in a financial position to meet. The chances of them insuring with such a high premium is less today than it was a few years ago because the price of wheat, the main commodity in the area, is lower today relative to the cost of production than it was a few years ago. As the cost-price squeeze continues and the farm production costs continue to rise while prices for farm products remain at about the same level, and in some instances go down, farmers will be more and more reluctant to take advantage of such a scheme, and would find it much more difficult financially if they thought it to their economic advantage so to do.
Now I come to the third area, the Swift Current-Shaunavon region. In that region it is pointed out that with an average of 170 insurable acres per farm, the average premium cost per farm unit becomes $169, the maximum coverage about $1,035, and the ratio of premium to coverage becomes 16.3 per cent. Here is an area in Saskatchewan where crop failures are widespread. Here is an area which is more in need of crop failure protection than many areas; and here is an area where it will be absolutely impossible, if these figures are correct, to insure farms because farmers will find it impossible to produce a 16.3 per cent premium in order to provide in this average type of farm coverage amounting to $1,035 when such a

farm, according to the same example, would have coverage of just under $700 under prairie farm assistance for a rate of 1 per cent.
I say in all seriousness to hon. members from the prairies, particularly those hon. members who represent high risk areas, that there is nothing in this measure to recommend it to them. As a matter of fact, in the areas where crop failures are more persistent this measure does not provide any advantage. The government would have been far better advised as it affects the prairie provinces to have improved and expanded the Prairies Farm Assistance Act to provide greater coverage to the people who do in fact have crop failures, and to provide this greater coverage under the very important principles that apply to prairie farm assistance. This legislation can but cover a small minority of the farmers of western Canada. It will exclude the majority of the farmers. It places an obstacle before farmers who wish to come under the act, and it is an endeavour by the federal government to transfer the bulk of the financial responsibility for protection in time of crop failure on to the backs of the provinces and/or the producers.
The minister has not quarrelled with the statement I made that the administrative costs in the United States have worked out to about 25 per cent of the indemnity. If that is the case in Canada, then of course the 20 per cent of the premium which the federal government is paying together with half of the administrative costs is a very small proportion of the total costs which will be involved.


William Moore Benidickson: The federal government in the United States pays the 25 per cent anyway.


Hazen Robert Argue: Quite correct. In the United States the federal government pays the whole of the 25 per cent, and after that they ask their producers to pay the rest, and all the studies of the United States system of crop insurance state it is impracticable of implementation as far as Canada is concerned. Yet in spite of all this the government is endeavouring to transfer this responsibility at least to some extent to the provinces. The government hopes, of course, that by putting forward some kind of a scheme the demand for improvements in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act can be turned on to the provinces, thereby avoiding what is in my submission a federal responsibility. A great deal has been made of the position taken by the Saskatchewan royal commission, and as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River pointed out before the supper adjournment, paragraph 40 on page 97 is very clear. This is what it states:
Crop Insurance
Potential liabilities in crop insurance-even in a test program-are beyond the fiscal capacity of a single agricultural province. Federal participation is therefore essential. A federal program, moreover, would avoid the high concentration of risks which would inevitably occur in a provincial program. Administrative needs also make it highly desirable that the federal government assume the major role.
This is the key recommendation in this report, namely that even in a test program, and most certainly in a wider program, the federal government must assume a major role. This is where this legislation falls down, because it is endeavouring to transfer back to the provinces in 1959 a part of the responsibility which was accepted as a federal responsibility in 1930.
The minister of northern affairs in his speech this afternoon made an oblique reference to impending debates out in Saskatchewan. Probably he had in mind some reference to the Saskatchewan election, whenever that may be called. The minister of northern affairs seemed to suggest that he would like to debate agricultural issues with me. Nothing would please me more than to meet the minister of northern affairs on a public platform in Saskatchewan to debate the agricultural policy of this government, including this inadequate legislation which is now before us and to let the people who might come to such a debate at some convenient place decide whether or not this government has fulfilled its commitment to the people of western Canada and to the farmers of Canada generally, namely to give them a fair share of the national income. This legislation, instead of endeavouring to do that very thing, is a means of trying to transfer what must be essentially a federal responsibility back to the province.
Mr. Chairman, in the light of the fact that there has been very little discussion with the provinces I think that this legislation will be exceedingly disappointing as far as western Canada is concerned. I believe it will be considered entirely inadequate and that it will bar from effective participation the very producers who need protection most.


Mr. Michaud:: I should like to ask the minister if I understood him correctly this afternoon with regard to his comment about the position taken by the maritime provinces. Would the minister mind explaining again what is the attitude of the governments of the maritime provinces in this matter?


Douglas Scott Harkness: What I said this afternoon was that during the various conferences I have had with the ministers of agriculture, when the question of crop insurance was under discussion the ministers from the three maritime provinces indicated that they did

Crop Insurance
not think their provinces would be very interested because of the fact that they very seldom have serious crop failures. But they were quite prepared to study any program which came forward and decide then whether or not they were interested in coming in.


William Moore Benidickson: I have previously indicated a certain amount of skepticism, having heard from the minister in his major speech about various escape hatches he is preparing in this bill. I want to see this bill, because I think it will be full of such escape hatches as those about which the minister hinted.
The minister replied to the few remarks I made in this way-he attempted to show how much interest had been displayed by the various provinces in the course of the dominion-provincial conferences which have taken place during the time of his administration of the federal Department of Agriculture. That was not the question which I addressed to the hon. gentleman. I asked him about the probabilities and expectations as a result of these conversations over the past two years. How many provinces does the minister think, having in mind the terms which he knows are in this bill, are likely to accept a proposal of this sort?
This raises a point which is 18 months old. I think that on October 17, 1957, the minister was asked whether a request had been made by any of the provinces for the enactment of a national all-risk crop insurance program, and the minister's answer, as reported on page 59 of Hansard of the 1957-58 session was to the effect that there was no indication of any such request or any such pressure. I think before we conclude our debate at this stage the minister should not just debate the question as he did by saying that there was interest. Of course, interest would naturally be displayed at four meetings of federal-provincial representatives of departments of agriculture, but the question I raised, and the question which the minister avoided answering, was this:	how much
probability is there that the terms enunciated in this bill which the government has prepared are likely to be so attractive that several provinces, or a majority of the provinces out of ten, would probably accept them in the near future?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is asking me to engage in prophesy. I know of no more fruitless occupation and I do not intend to enter into it.


William Moore Benidickson: Another question was asked more directly by the hon. member for Assiniboia. He asked whether the minister had indicated to the provincial ministers of agriculture what was likely to be in this bill and whether there was any indication of

whether these terms are likely to be accepted by a fair number of the ten provinces. Or are we just to be left in the dark with regard to this proposition which the minister has put up.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to know from the minister whether these main proposals in this legislation have ever been discussed with a single provincial minister of agriculture. I ask this question because I think it is clear from what the minister has said that any discussions on crop insurance which have taken place with the provinces so far have been in the course of a general agricultural conference, and the subject has been discussed in a very general way. Since the provinces under this measure will be expected to bear more than 80 per cent of the total cost of such a scheme I should like to know whether or not the provinces have been made aware of the kind of legislation that is being proposed. I would be interested in knowing if the government had gone so far as to make them aware of the proposed legislation. I should have thought that in discussing legislation with the provinces the main principles involved in the legislation would have been discussed with them prior to the legislation being introduced. I am wondering if the minister will say that this is so.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows quite well that I would not have discussed the details of this measure with the provinces and had I done so he and others in his party would have been the very first to complain about my having made this informatian available to the provinces before revealing it in the House of Commons. The hon. member would have emitted bellows that you could hear back as far as the Confederation building that I was disregarding the rights of parliament and so on and so forth. He knows full well that that is the situation.


Hazen Robert Argue: In other words, the provinces have not been made aware of the main proposals of the government. In addition to that I take it-and the minister can correct me if I am wrong-that at no time did the government discuss with the provinces the program that might be put in practice dividing the costs of a crop insurance scheme. I would not expect the minister to take the detailed bill to the provinces for prior approval but when he is asking the provinces to bear more than 80 per cent of the cost I think in all fairness-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I really must protest at the hon. member stating something

that is completely incorrect. Under this proposed bill the provinces are not required to bear a nickel of cost as I pointed out this afternoon.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, not if they decide not to go into it. What a gun the minister is trying to hold to the heads of the provinces.


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Come off it.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister is introducing legislation which if it is to be of practical value requires the provinces to bear 80 per cent of the cost and he has not had the courtesy or decency to discuss the question with the provinces. I think this is a shameful attitude on the part of the government. It reveals that the government is not at all interested in having good federal-provincial relations in this country. If the government wished this scheme to win acceptance from the provinces it should have placed its proposals before a federal-provincial conference on agriculture.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: How
do you know there will not be acceptance? Get out your crystal ball.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is obvious from the statement of the Minister of Agriculture that there has been no consultation with provinces yet the minister has brought before parliament legislation which if it is to be effective requires the provinces to pay more than 80 per cent of the cost.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: That is not correct.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes it is. The federal government will pay 20 per cent of the premium. Of course the provinces can make the farmers pay the 80 per cent but it will be outside the payments of the federal government. That is what the minister has placed before us.


Mr. Pugh:: What is wrong with that?


Hazen Robert Argue: My hon. friend asks what is wrong with it. Apparently he thinks this is the way to achieve successful federal-provincial relations; not to consult with the provinces or discuss your proposals but introduce legislation in parliament which if it is to be effective requires the provinces to pay at least 80 per cent of the cost. This represents an undermining of federal-provincial relations.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Oh,
bosh.


Mr. Speakman:: Nonsense.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate all the attention my remarks are receiving as evidenced by
Crop Insurance
the innocuous interruptions of hon. members opposite. When a royal commision has stated that crop insurance is a national problem, it is not my concept of mature government action when the federal government introduces into parliament legislation under which the provinces will be required to make substantial payments and concerning which they have not been consulted. I think this is an insult to the provinces. This is the worst possible way to conduct public affairs in Canada in respect of issues and in fields where the federal government is asking the provinces to co-operate.
Why was there not a federal provincial conference on crop insurance? The provinces and the farmers within the provinces are to be asked to bear 80 per cent of the cost. In the prairie provinces it will be even worse because the farmers there will have to pay 80 per cent of the cost and forego legislation that is already on the statute book. A conference of this nature has been requested by at least some of the provinces, but such a conference did not take place.
Not only do I protest some of the provisions the minister has said will be in the bill but I most emphatically protest the arbitrary, high-handed and unilateral way the government has handled this legislation. There can be only one way in which the government should proceed from this point on and that is to call a meeting of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization or some other appropriate committee if the government so chooses and let us hear from the farm organizations and the provincial ministers of agriculture concerning their views of the proposals contained in this legislation. Let us have what would be in effect a federal-provincial conference on a delayed basis, a basis much inferior to that of a conference being held in advance of the introduction of the resolution.
After this arbitrary and high-handed attitude of the government and the arbitrary way in which this has been handled which represents a gratuitous insult to the provinces I suggest that the way to proceed from this point on is to have a meeting of the standing committee on agriculture before which the provinces would have a chance to express their views. Even more important than that, the farm organizations would have a chance to come before the committee and tell us how producers can be expected to come under the terms of this legislation and pay premiums of 10 or 15 per cent or more.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Assiniboia has again been busily engaged in setting up a strawman and tearing it to pieces in a loud voice. He is attempting
52S0

Crop Insurance
to introduce some difficulty as between the dominion and the provinces over this matter where no difficulty in the world exists. It is entirely a figment of his own imagination and is designed for no purpose other than to try and create disunity and difficulty in the country.
As I have said, I have discussed this matter on several occasions with the ministers of agriculture of the provincial governments and none expressed any opposition toward the general question of crop insurance.


Hazen Robert Argue: Against paying 80 per cent?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a matter of fact all were quite willing to have legislation brought in to implement a system of crop insurance and some were extremely anxious to have it brought in. A number of provincial ministers of agriculture who expressed views on this question thought that whatever scheme was brought in should be under provincial administration because the provinces would be in a better position than the dominion government to administer it, particularly in view of differences in crop conditions in various parts of Canada and things of that nature. I believe this is a self-evident fact. The real difficulty the hon. member for Assiniboia has is that he is against crop insurance. The speech he made this afternoon was a complete speech against crop insurance; the speech that he made this evening, in which he got into this other gambit of dominion-provincial relations, was against crop insurance. He does not want a crop insurance scheme. In trying to prevent a crop insurance scheme going into effect he is trying to throw every possible impediment that he can think of in the way of implementation of a crop insurance scheme, and then go out in the country and say that a Conservative government promised that you would have a crop insurance scheme, but you see they have not produced it. This is the type of tactics he pursues.
I should like to make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, that the statement which the hon. member for Assiniboia has made time after time that the provinces will be required to pay 80 per cent of the cost is absolutely false. The provinces are not required to pay one cent of the cost. It is up to them how much of the cost, if any, they pay, and the dominion government actually will be paying something over 25 per cent of the cost of a crop insurance scheme in any particular province, made up of 20 per cent of the premiums and 50 per cent of the administration costs.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into any argument between the minister and the hon. member for Assiniboia. I listened very carefully to what the Minister of Agriculture had to say and as I wrote them

down his words were "No difficulty exists with the provinces on discussion". Why should there be? Who is against crop insurance? People are not against it. You assert it. I am not getting into that. That is the thing I am not getting into. The minister said, and I wrote this down, "There is no sentiment against crop insurance". I agree with him. As has been put on the record, the Liberal party is in favour of crop insurance. But what I want to know is, are the provinces likely to accept crop insurance on the terms enunciated by the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon with all those escape hatches that I spoke about?
I do not want to prolong this debate on the resolution stage because I want to see the bill. There is nothing in the resolution to give us any indication of what might be provided, but I have a suspicion that the possibility of crop insurance in this country in the near future has been strangled by these kinds of provisos, back door provisos and, as I say, those escape hatches, which I do not think have been presented to the provinces and which I want to know about. I would be prepared to allow the resolution to pass at the present time and see the details of the bill and see whether or not I was right when I said I suspected it was an empty shell. I would like to see it, and I would like an undertaking from the minister that a certain time would elapse, not long, perhaps a week, and within that week we could then determine whether or not the minister, say on second reading, would be prepared to come forward and tell us that in this interval he had had any indication other than what he has announced so far that provincial governments are very interested-let me go back to my original question-and are likely to accept in the near future the proposition that he advances in this resolution.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, in spite of what the minister says, we are endeavouring to obtain a scheme that will be acceptable to the people of western Canada in particular and also to people in other provinces who may be interested in coming under this scheme.
The minister has said that I have put up a strawman; that what I said was a figment of my imagination, but he has not said, and he was careful not to say, that the accusation I have made was wrong, namely that there have been no consultations and discussions with the provinces on the basic proposals that were to be contained in legislation advanced by the government. There has just been a little discussion on crop insurance and, of course, provinces have said they were greatly interested in crop insurance. They would like to know the government's views on crop insurance. Saskatchewan wanted to

discuss with the minister the government's views on crop insurance. The government of Saskatchewan wished to consult with the federal government and with the governments of other provinces at a round table discussion at a general conference the kind of proposal that would make a most acceptable crop insurance plan, but this government has refused and there has been no discussion except in this very general way.
The Minister of Agriculture can define it as he likes but the fact remains that the federal government in this plan is accepting only 20 per cent of the responsibility, 20 per cent of the premium responsibility. Eighty per cent of the plan must be borne by the province and/or by the producers within the provinces.
He has said that some provinces wanted provincial administration because provincial administration would be more acceptable. I ask him what are the names of the provinces that have asked him to provide for provincial administration, or have suggested to him that they wanted to administer the act? I would ask him whether the thinks there is one province in Canada which is satisfied with the federal government bearing only 20 per cent of the responsibility as far as premiums are concerned and half of the responsibility as far as administration costs are concerned?
I cannot underline again too strongly the objectionable provision of this legislation which says that those producers who are in a high risk area, if they are to come into this legislation must forgo the benefits of prairie farm assistance. That in itself pledges the death knell of this legislation over very wide areas of western Canada. I see the hon. member for Swift-Current Maple Creek in his seat. I referred earlier to the statement of the Saskatchewan royal commission that in that particular part of Saskatchewan, an area which is in the hon. member's riding- I have many similar areas in my own-in order to qualify for the kind of crop insurance scheme set forth by the royal commission it would require premiums of 16 per cent or more. I suggest that such premiums are absolutely impossible to pay and that in large areas of western Canada this legislation will be of no benefit. It will be of no benefit because it has this impediment in the legislation, namely if a person wishes to insure under this legislation he must forgo the present Prairie Farm Assistance Act. This is not only a method of endeavouring to transfer a substantial responsibility the federal government now accepts back to the provinces, or back to the producers, or both, but it appears to be legislation calculated to undermine the present Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I suggest that rather than
Crop Insurance
undermine the Prairie Farm Assistance Act it is going to demonstrate the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has much wider application in western Canada than has this legislation under discussion.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, a great deal of smoke screen has been thrown up in regard to this resolution, particularly by the hon. member for Assiniboia. I should like to congratulate both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources on their clear outline of what is involved in this legislation. I consider it is essential that government bills be explained clearly by the ministers concerned, because it appears somehow that the criticisms of government bills apparently get more newspaper and radio coverage than the benefits of those bills.


Hazen Robert Argue: So you are going after the C.B.C., are you?


James Ernest Pascoe: No. I should like to take a few moments to outline again the main highlights of the legislation because, as I say, I think it is essential to have the facts before the people most concerned. I should like to take a moment to mention one or two of the main highlights. This is a voluntary crop insurance plan. It will not be forced on the farmers and it will be brought into effect only if each individual province agrees to play its part and is willing to help the farmers to the extent that the federal government is prepared to help them.
The federal government will pay 50 per cent of the administration costs and will also pay 20 per cent of the crop insurance premium. It is hoped to establish the plan on an actuarially sound basis which would set the crop payment loss at 60 per cent of the long term yield of a particular area. The federal government will also lend the provincial government concerned 75 per cent of any indemnity above $200,000.
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources referred several times to the report of the Saskatchewan royal commission on agriculture and rural life and the hon. member for Assiniboia has also referred to parts of that report. I had considerable to do with the report. I was on the secretarial staff, travelled all over the province with the commission, and should like to refer to two or three highlights to emphasize what the farmers themselves think of crop insurance.


Hazen Robert Argue: They never saw this bill.


James Ernest Pascoe: I should like to deal first with public opinion and that is the part I was mostly concerned with at the public meetings.

Crop Insurance
I refer to the condensed report of the royal commission, page 2, where I find the following:
Although a succession of high yields had temporarily lessened the urgency of crop insurance
... a substantial proportion of communities and organizations drew attention to the limitations of P.F.A.A. and to the need for crop insurance.
I was at these meetings when this matter was brought up and it was discussed very fully. The report goes on to say that P.F.A.A. was considered to be inadequate. I also paid a good deal of attention to this point which is dealt with in these words:
There was also a general feeling that, although farmers should pay their own way to the maximum degree possible, some government subsidy would be required.
That was discussed many times. The farmers were not asking for a straight handout. They wanted to try to stand on their own feet as best they could but they knew they could not handle the whole crop insurance plan themselves. I submit that the bill before us fits in with their ideas of what the federal government should do. On page 3 the summary of the report goes on to say about P.F.A.A., to which the hon. member for Assiniboia referred a great deal:
The act was also intended to provide a vehicle for distributing relief payments to farmers on the basis of need.
The farmers wanted to get away from the suggestion of relief. They wanted to have a system whereby they would pay part of the cost themselves and expect payments when they had crop losses. On page 14 the summary of the report goes on to say:
Potential liabilities in crop insurance, even in a test program-
They refer to starting a test program.
-are beyond the fiscal capacity of a single agricultural province. Federal participation is therefore essential.
I submit that federal participation is shown in this legislation.


William Moore Benidickson: In a small fraction.


James Ernest Pascoe: On page 20 of the report it is recommended that the participation of provincial governments in crop insurance include assuming regional administrative costs. Here the federal government is assuming half of the administrative costs. If I may refer again to P.F.A.A. and draw the attention of the hon. member for Assiniboia to it, I would point out that it is recommended in the report that areas which qualify for crop insurance be excluded from P.F.A.A. coverage and levies. These points are in the report of the commission and I just wanted to put them on record.


Hazen Robert Argue: Did you read recommendation 40?


James Ernest Pascoe: I read the recommendations that apply in this particular case.


Hazen Robert Argue: You omitted the main sentence.


James Ernest Pascoe: I was very surprised at the vehemence of the protest against the crop insurance plan by the hon. minister for Assiniboia-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Ernest Pascoe: The hon. member for Assiniboia.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are as wrong about that as you have been throughout your speech so far.


James Ernest Pascoe: I would have thought that the report of this commission, appointed by a C.C.F. government and reporting to a C.C.F. government, would have received the wholehearted endorsation of the C.C.F. members.


Hazen Robert Argue: It has not been followed. Why don't you read what it says?


James Ernest Pascoe: I should like to emphasize that, so far as my own province of Saskatchewan is concerned, the issue is entirely up to the provincial government. It is their decision whether the farmers of Saskatchewan are going to enter into this crop insurance plan, because if the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan throws up its hands as indicated by the hon. member for Assiniboia there will be no crop insurance plan for Saskatchewan farmers.
We have heard a great deal about escape hatches. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River referred to escape hatches several times tonight. I submit that the hon. member for Assiniboia set up an escape hatch whereby a provincial government that does not want to discharge its duty to the farmers certainly can make its escape.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to participate in the debate for I am no authority on farming or agricultural problems. However, after listening to the inane and perhaps at times insane remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia I felt compelled to get up and make two points clear so that the situation will be clear on the record. The friend of the farmer, there he sits, the hon. member for Assiniboia, the friend of the farmer today and perhaps the friend of labour tomorrow. Who knows?


Hazen Robert Argue: The friend of both today.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Let
us put these points on record. He is against crop insurance.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, nuts.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: He
stood up in the house and spoke against crop insurance. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River gets up on his feet and says that the Liberal party first thought of crop insurance. They had 22 years to put it into effect and they did not do it in that time. It took this government only two years to bring forward a resolution for crop insurance.


Hazen Robert Argue: They have given it to the provinces.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: And there sits the friend of the farmer voting and speaking against crop insurance.


Hazen Robert Argue: This resolution will not bring it into effect.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: There he sits laughing about crop insurance which is important to the farmers of western Canada. Let that be noted on the record. The hon. member for Assiniboia also says that it is his opinion that if and when this legislation goes through none of the western provinces will accept it. Put that on the record because I feel compelled to say that if and when the legislation goes through I am sure in my own mind that at least one, if not more, of the provinces of western Canada will take advantage of this forward step by the federal government to help the farmers not only of western Canada but throughout the whole country.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask the hon. member who has just resumed his seat whether he makes that assertion after having read the report of the Manitoba crop insurance commission, admittedly made to the previous government? But does he believe that the new government would run contrary in its decisions to a recommendation that this would not be desirable for one provincial legislature?


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: should like to answer that question. We now have in Manitoba a forward looking government, a government that is vitally interested in the interests and problems of the farmers. If crop insurance is introduced by this government and it is going to help the farmers, they will go along with it. They will do anything to help the farmers in Manitoba.


William Moore Benidickson: The hon. member is assured that Mr. Roblin will support this legislation. Is that so?


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: cannot speak for Mr. Roblin but I like to answer these questions. I can only say that the farmers in the province of Manitoba are
Crop Insurance
the first consideration of the Manitoba government, because they are citizens of the province of Manitoba, and they will receive their equal due along with every other citizen in the province of Manitoba.


Jean-Paul Racine: The minister has told us that he had some discussion with the provinces about this matter. If so, I should like to know what was the attitude of the province of Quebec.


Douglas Scott Harkness: All I can say about that question and similar questions that have been asked is that the discussions that have been held for many years past between the Minister of Agriculture and the provincial ministers of agriculture have always been on a confidential basis and I am not at liberty to say, and certainly would not think of saying, what each individual minister at that conference said in connection with this or any other matter.


William Moore Benidickson: Prior to the carrying of the resolution may I say this. I indicated that there was high feeling about the inadequacies, as mentioned in his speech, that were likely to be found in the bill. Would the minister give us an undertaking that a period of a week or ten days would go by from the time of first reading and presentation of this bill, and would he really say to this house something that he was not prepared to add to the comments he made in 1957 and 1958, about real agreement on the part of the provinces with respect to the proposition that was the basis for the bill?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member knows that I can give no assurance of that kind. As a matter of fact he is talking about ten days which I presume would be ten sitting days. We are hoping that the session will be over or practically over by that time.


An hon. Member:: What a hope.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the minister say whether he is prepared after second reading to recommend that the bill be sent to the standing committee on agriculture?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I think I indicated in answer to a question along that line some time ago, this is a matter which has not been decided and I am in no position to make any commitment with regard to it.


Hazen Robert Argue: On that point which we have been pressing for some time. The minister says he is not prepared to say now whether such action can be taken. That answer suggests to me that the minister still has the matter under advisement. I would hope that he would discuss this matter with the Prime Minister and that a question so

Mortgage Credit to Farmers important as crop insurance would be placed before the standing committee on agriculture. If this legislation does not go before that committee, then I think there will be even stronger criticism heard outside of this house than any of the criticism that has been heard here today.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Harkness thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-66, to provide for contributions and loans to the provinces in respect of crop insurance.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AGRICULTURE


Douglas Scott Harkness: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a system of long term mortgage credit to farmers, to incorporate therein the provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act, to add thereto a new type of supervised farm mortgage credit and to repeal the said Canadian Farm Loan Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. McCleave in the chair.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, from the point of view of the long term welfare of agriculture I believe this is one of the most important bills which has been considered by the Canadian parliament. The importance of credit used by farmers as a supplement to their own capital has increased almost continuously during the last 50 years.
The increased mechanization of agriculture and improved technology is tending continually to enlarge the size of farm operations and the capitalization per worker in the farming industry. In fact, the increase in capital used in agriculture and the productivity resulting from this use has been very substantial in the post-war period. This tendency toward increasing capital requirements, both for fixed capital in lands and buildings and for livestock and equipment, necessarily enlarges the role of credit, not only for the operation of the economic farm unit as such but for the transfer of the economic unit from owner to owner, or from generation to generation.
In 1958 the Canadian farmer had about $11 billion invested in land, buildings, livestock and equipment. About 60 per cent of this investment was in land and buildings. In 1921 close to 80 per cent of the investment was

in land and buildings and in 1941 it was a little over 70 per cent. In other words, the investment in equipment and livestock has been constantly increasing. The investment in land and buildings as a result has been constantly decreasing, although the actual amount, of course, has been increasing.
In addition, the average farm size in Canada, based on occupied farm land, has increased from 198 acres in 1921 to 304 acres in 1956. In the case of the prairie region the increase has been from 344 acres in 1921 to 546 acres in 1956. This change in composition as well as addition to the total investment has meant that a young farmer to get started today, not only has to consider ways and means of obtaining capital for lands and buildings but usually has to have chattels valued at only slightly less on the average than the capital to be invested in the land if he is to farm efficiently. In addition considerable experience in farming as well as the use of the many advisory services available are almost a must in the average situation if the farmer is to keep up with new production and marketing techniques.
During the past few years, in addition to the findings of several royal commissions, both provincial and federal, the government has received many representations regarding extensions and additions to the government's participation in the farm credit field. There have been many statements to the effect that the existing provisions for farm credit, private and public, federal and provincial, do not fully meet the changing needs of Canadian agriculture. Suggestions have been made that the total amount of governmental credit might usefully be enlarged, that existing loan limits should be extended, that farmers wishing to undertake larger and more economic operations should be given special assistance, that many non-veteran farmers-particularly young farmers-could benefit from the type of supervision and guidance available under the Veterans Land Act, that additional government incentives be provided to increase the supply of private capital, and that other changes be introduced into the present federal government system of farm credit.
With the passing of farm credit acts in a number of the provinces recently, most provinces now have some form of legislation to make credit available to farmers. At the last session of parliament an amendment to the Canadian Farm Loan Act was introduced which had the effect of increasing the amount available to the Canadian farm loan board for making loans from $80 million to $120 million.


William Moore Benidickson: There were no changes in the terms to the borrowers, of course.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. Oh, I understand what you mean. As you are aware, loans made by the Canadian farm loan board in the last fiscal year amount to close to $30 million compared to less than $10 million in all except one year before 1956. At the last session certain acts relating to cash advances and financing farm-stored grain were also introduced to aid the farmers' financial position.
Following a review of the over-all farm credit situation during the past several months the government has authorized the following developments in the federal farm credit system.
1.	The introduction of amendments to the Veterans Land Act which extends the lending authority of the director with respect to veterans established under that act.
2.	The introduction of amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act which provides for increasing the maximum guaranteed farm improvement loans.
3.	The introduction of a new farm credit act for which the resolution is now before you. As stated in the resolution, the proposed farm credit act provides for the establishment of a system of long term mortgage credit to Canadian farmers. It also provides for the establishment of a farm credit corporation with an advisory committee, the majority of such committee to be composed of farmers or representatives of farm organizations.
The proposed act authorizes the corporation to make loans on two basic types of long term mortgage. One type is for loans to farmers on a basis similar to that now being granted under the Canadian Farm Loan Act, except that there are extensions and additions to the lending authority granted to the corporation as well as making the farm credit corporation the successor to the Canadian farm loan board. Among these additions and extensions are included the raising of the maximum loan from $15,000 to $20,000, and the increase in the amount of loan authorized from 65 to 75 per cent of the appraised value of the farm lands and buildings.
The second type of farm mortgage credit makes provision for loans to farmers upon the security of farm lands, buildings, livestock and equipment provided the borrower is between the ages of 21 and 45, has at least five years' experience in farming, and the farming enterprise to be established with the aid of the loan is an economic farm unit. It also provides that supervision will be a requirement when the amount of such loans is above 65 per cent of the appraised value of lands and buildings. Supervision will be available to the applicant for a loan who submits an acceptable plan of operation for
Mortgage Credit to Farmers his farm. This plan will in effect become part of the agreement between the corporation and the owner and can be modified by mutual consent or abandoned when the loan is reduced to the agreed level.
The total amount of loan which may be made as a supervised loan to farmers between the ages of 21 and 45 may be as much as $27,500, or 75 per cent of the appraised value of lands and chattels on the security of which the loan is made, whichever is the lesser. Farmers operating under this part of the act will not be eligible to receive a farm improvement loan under the Farm Improvement Loans Act except when the principal amount of the supervised loan has been reduced to less than 65 per cent of the value of the farm lands on which the loan is secured or $20,000, whichever is the lesser. The act also authorizes the corporation to provide supervision for any loans which may be made, regardless of the amount of security, if the borrower so desires.
The proposed bill also makes provision for the transfer of present capital and operations of the Canadian farm loan board to the farm credit corporation and for the increase of the maximum limit of moneys that can be borrowed from the Minister of Finance for use in lending operations from $120 million to $200 million. Another extension proposed is the inclusion of a provision for the corporation to determine the method of repayment. This will allow the use of crop share repayment when applicable. The definition of "farmer" has been widened to include cooperative farm associations and family farming corporations. It also provides that where a person has two or more major occupations, one of which is farming, the corporation may determine which of these operations is his principal occupation for the purposes of this act.
You will note also that the proposed bill provides, as in the case of the Canadian Farm Loan Act, that there will be no subsidization of interest rates and that the corporation will be run on a self-sustaining business basis so that provincial and private schemes will still have their place, thus allowing farmers their choice of agency. I can assure you that it will be the intention of the government to keep the cost to a minimum so that the cost to the farmer for borrowed money may be as low as possible.
A survey by the director of the Veterans Land Act of potential earnings on a sample of farms based on average efficiency at the present time indicates that the provision of capital to enlarge and establish an economic farm unit is of major importance. If economic farm units such as this are established they

Mortgage Credit to Farmers can pay reasonable costs for money borrowed and leave the individual with an improved position in so far as his basis of net returns is concerned. It is hoped that no individual capable of operating a farm business on an economic basis may be denied an opportunity through lack of capital to develop such business to a stage which will provide a reasonable economic return. Such supervisory assistance as necessary will be provided on a cost basis for persons who indicate, through their own experience, initiative and planning that additional capital will make their future operation an economically sound farm business.
Before agriculture became so largely commercial the rural prejudice against debt was to a great extent justified. Now credit has become one of the most important elements in the management of the farm business. Its use increases very much the scale of operations and investment open to the family with ability and some assets. Within the rather restricted size of the economic farm unit for most types of farming, the keener ability and the greater the assets of the family the larger are the benefits they may derive from the use of credit. Like the physical equipment which the farmer uses, credit requires the exercise of much judgment in determining whether or not to use it, in selecting the source from which to obtain it and in manipulating it to secure the greatest returns.
With reference to the discussions in this house at the time of second reading of the amendments to the Veterans Land Act, I would indicate that provision is made for the use of the staff of the director of the Veterans Land Act to the greatest extent possible by the new corporation. It is also provided that the present staff of the Canadian Farm Loan Board will be transferred to the new corporation. In general, it is expected there will be the greatest co-ordination possible between the various federal, provincial and private agencies in the farm credit field on behalf of Canadian agriculture.
In conclusion I would say that at this stage it is felt that the proposed farm credit act, along with the other federal acts mentioned above, will provide the necessary federal participation in the farm credit field. If experience shows that more is necessary for the improvement of farm family living, farm operating and farm purchase, this government will be prepared to give further consideration and introduce further legislation as may be deemed advisable.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that in a general way the house and the country will welcome the statement which has been made by the Minister of Agriculture.

I think there is no question in anybody's mind but that agriculture is an industry which returns to those engaged in it a lesser percentage than perhaps any other industry. We also recognize that it is a basic industry and must remain in a country if that country is to prosper as we all hope Canada will continue to prosper.
I remember having made statements on several occasions in the last ten years with respect to amendments to the farm loan act. In order to show that some progress was made even at that time, and not only now, I recall that in 1952 the maximum loan permitted under the act was $5,000; when the present government took office in 1957 it was $15,000. The minister indicates that in certain categories the increase will be to $20,000 which will be parallel to a recent increase that we had under the Veterans Land Act. I think the minister indicated that in the second category of his new corporation proposal the young farmer of between 21 and 45 would have the possibility of a maximum loan of $27,500. I commend the minister for this because I think that in the light of the obligations incurred by the young farmer, even when he takes over from a relative, and certainly when one pays regard to the capitalization of agriculture at the present time, these are more realistic figures, but there are one or two factors which I will critize, as the minister would expect.
First of all, I want to say that this debate- probably to the great advantage of most hon. members sitting here in this extreme heat-will be reduced because so little information was given in the resolution itself. I compared it with the resolution of February 8, 1956 when other extensive changes were made in farm credit legislation. I draw that to the minister's attention not in a nasty way but just for his future guidance. This resolution, in contrast to what he has announced to this house, shows, I am not going to say contempt for parliament, but a disregard of the parliamentary obligation for debate. Great detail was given in 1956 when major changes were being made with respect to government agricultural mortgage possibilities, but it would hardly be possible to find a resolution which contains less detail in it than the resolution which is now before us. I say that that is not fair to parliament, and it is particularly offensive, as the minister himself would have been the first to say when he sat on this side of the house, when we read in the Ottawa Journal of June 16, after he had introduced this innocuous resolution, a disclosure by somebody in that vast empire over which he presides giving details about this bill, details which can be given to newspapers but not to parliament on a resolution

stage, as was done, however, in 1956 when full information was given as to the percentage of increase on appraisement, as to the increase in the maximum amount of the loan and other factors, all of which enabled members of parliament to speak at this stage of the debate. I must say that this is a wrong tendency and it is one to which I object to on the farm loan bill. The minister is not taking this too seriously. I think that the precedent was very clear and I hope that in future in presenting legislation to this house the hon. gentleman will endeavour to give as many particulars as possible at the resolution stage, and not to allow his staff to give this information to the newspapers as was done.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder if I might ask the hon. member what he means by "given to the newspapers"? There was no information given to the newspapers as far as I know, and I think no information appeared in the newspapers except a guess following the introduction of the amendment to the Veterans Land Act that the maximum loan would be around $20,000 which, as it happens, is incorrect.


William Moore Benidickson: No, I have here a copy of the Ottawa Journal of June 16 following the introduction of this resolution in the House of Commons and we find that much of the detail given there is accurate; much more information is given in that newspaper report than was given to the hon. gentleman's colleagues in this House of Commons and that, I think, is a bad feature.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Nothing was given to the
newspapers as far as I am aware. It was a guess.


William Moore Benidickson: I admit the minister has
introduced one new novel feature, the possibility of a maximum of $27,500 for the farmer between 21 and 45.
Both political parties when they appeared before the people in 1958 agreed that certain amendments should take place in this field. I have indicated that there had already been a great improvement in a relatively short period of time when the maximum permitted loan rose from $5,000 to $15,000 and the appraisal percentage went up from 50 per cent to 65 per cent. But I think we have all been impressed by the fact that the financial requirements of agriculture have increased in accord with requirements for credit in all lines of life.
It has also become a fact that when we have legislation authorizing government lending to a special class other people depart from that lending field. This process has been very evident in Canada in recent years and I think the minister would agree with me
Mortgage Credit to Farmers that this legislation is necessary partly because institutional lending to farmers has been diminishing as the opportunity to borrow from the government has increased. The minister indicated that he did not distinguish between the corporation class 1 loan and the corporation class 2 loan, but as I recall it he did make an emphatic statement that he felt that henceforth there would be every opportunity for private or non-governmental lending. I am not particularly concerned about that point, but the minister intimated that he proposed to offer for the first time supervised lending to a certain class of people on demand.
Perhaps we shall find in the bill details as to the extra expense to the borrower of this type of supervised borrowing to those who ask for it. I take it the minister meant that the borrower was a volunteer in this respect, and that this would not be something imposed upon him. And the minister also told us that he expected the total result of lending and borrowing under this new supervision would be, as in the past, a balance sheet showing neither a loss nor a substantial profit. I hope that when we get the details of the bill we will see more about this.
I heard nothing from the minister with respect to any lengthening of the possible term of the loan. Perhaps there is something in the bill about that. The minister will recall that two prominent farm organizations, the interprovincial farm union and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, both felt that this was a desirable change in the existing law. No reference was made to this by the minister.
I think all of us will be interested to know who will control the interest rate. Will it be the corporation based upon the cost of government money which it has to pay as a result of government borrowing in the usual course of events plus, perhaps, a service fee, or will this rate be set by order in council? That was not mentioned by the minister in his remarks this evening.
Because of the dark cloud surrounding the resolution as a result of information lacking in the resolution as presented to us- although I suggest this information was given to outside sources-we cannot properly debate the details of this legislation until we see the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman I wish to make a few remarks with respect to this resolution which is barren as far as the contents of the bill are concerned. This group considers it a justifiable criticism to say that the government should have brought in this legislation much earlier in the session. This is important legislation which has been waited for by many farmers all across
S258	HOUSE OF
Mortgage Credit to Farmers Canada and mention of which was contained in the speech from the throne but it is not until June 29 that we have the resolution before us and a glimpse at some of the contents of the forthcoming bill as a result of the statement made by the minister a few moments ago.
We all agree that the development of the machine age has caused an increasing necessity for more capital in the development of land, the acquisition of chattels, stock and equipment, and the erection of modern buildings. That is recognized from all quarters including farmers organizations and members in all parties in this chamber. We wish this legislation had been brought before the committee sooner so there would have been more opportunity to discuss the matter with various organizations, our constituents and other persons.
We were pleased to hear mention in the minister's statement of the fact that the present farm loan board will be replaced by the farm credit corporation. If I heard the minister correctly the board will be composed largely of farmers or their representatives, is that correct?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The advisory committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We are glad to hear that the advisory committee is to be composed of farmers or representatives of farm organizations. If the government listens to a committee of that sort it will get much sound advice in the administration of this legislation because it will be in closer touch with farmers and in touch with changing conditions than will be the government itself.
I cannot resist saying this to the chairman.
I want to congratulate you upon occupying the chair so well during the day. I am sure you will not allow anyone to use such unparliamentary language as to refer to this group as dedicated dough heads. I am sure you will stop accusations of that kind immediately.
We were pleased to see that the total loan is to be increased from $15,000 to $20,000 in the first instance. We all expected that because, as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River said, we read it in the newspapers some time ago. This increase corresponds with the increase in the loans under the Veterans Land Act amendments which we recently passed. Another advance is the increase from 65 per cent of the value of the property to 75 per cent as the basis on which a loan can be given. It is remarkable how that percentage has increased in recent years and it has increased because the farm organizations made representations to the former government and to this government as to the necessity for


this increase. We are pleased to see that this government has responded in this respect as did its predecessor.


William Moore Benidickson: The previous government's increase was bigger than this one.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It took the former government much longer to put it in effect, though.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will not enter that argument because there are arguments on both sides. We are interested in knowing that there will be supervision when the loan is about 65 per cent of the value of the farm and we think this is a step in the right direction. No doubt this was included on the basis of the successful experience of the Veterans Land Act administration. If the new farm credit organization is as successful in the administration of land as the administration of the Veterans Land Act has been there will be many thousands of young Canadian nonveteran farmers who will benefit from this legislation.
We were pleased to note that the total value will be increased to $27,500 including land, chattels, livestock and, I presume, buildings.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is right. It is a package deal.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is a very acceptable proposal in this legislation. I understood the minister to say that the bill will provide for an increase in the capital of the corporation from $120 million to $200 million. I think that is a wise provision because I expect in the near future there will be considerable advantage taken of this legislation.
My colleagues are inclined to mutter when speeches are being made. They forget that I am an old man who is deaf in his left ear. Some mention was made of repayment of loans on a crop-sharing basis and no doubt we will be hearing more about that later.
The minister made some reference to the farmer with two or more occupations and said that the board would decide the major occupation the farmer would be considered to have, if I heard him correctly.
Reference was made to the co-ordination of all agencies, the farm credit corporation and the supervision of the Veterans Land Act administration and co-ordination with provincial credit agencies and, I suppose, to some extent with private credit agencies to get a sort of total application of the credit principle to the needs of Canadian farmers.
Mention was made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River of the fact that the interest rate was not mentioned-


William Moore Benidickson: I asked the minister to tell us who would control the rate.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, and what the rate will be in actual fact. I understand that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has suggested 3J per cent. Anyone who has read the history of agricultural credit in Europe, Great Britain and other countries will realize it has been proven from experience that agriculture cannot sensibly pay a rate throughout the years of more than 3J per cent net for loans under these circumstances.
We hope that when the bill comes before us the wishes of the federation of agriculture, the interprovincial farm union council and other agricultural groups will be considered in that respect.
Our major criticisms are: first, that this legislation should have been brought before the house this session much sooner than it has; second, we believe that the bill should be sent to the banking and commerce committee so that the various agricultural groups, organizations and representatives could express their views on the legislation and their criticisms to the committee and make their suggestions. I think that is very essential indeed, and this is one of the reasons we would have liked to see this legislation introduced much sooner in the session. We also want to hear their views on the interest rate and as to what amount they think agriculture could stand on a sound basis so far as interest is concerned.
If I remember correctly, I did not hear any reference on the minister's part to the length of the term of the loan, which is a very important matter when it comes to agricultural credit, and particularly in certain circumstances where you are developing a certain type of farm and a certain type of agriculture. That is a matter which should receive the attention of the committee. First, there is the interest rate and, second, the length of the term of the loan and any other surrounding factors that the persons representing farmers can bring to the attention of a committee of the House of Commons in consideration and study of this legislation.
We think this is a step in the right direction. There are many things in this legislation we approve of. We are concerned mainly with the interest rate and the length of the term of the loan that is proposed in the legislation.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the government cannot be too highly commended for improving this legislation with regard to our farmers.
To my mind, the bill would be of great service to the farmers, as farm loans will now be more readily available to eastern farmers. In the province of Quebec, for in-
Mortgage Credit to Farmers stance, the Canadian Farm Loan Board had the reputation of never lending anything. As a matter of fact, the number of loans granted in Quebec since the creation of the board has been very small compared to those awarded by the Quebec provincial farm loan authority.
The creation of an advisory committee composed of Canada's leading agriculturalists has also been a wise move on the part of the government. I urge the administration, as well as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), to appoint to this advisory committee, with regard to the province of Quebec, a representative of the U.C.C. and a representative of the federated co-operatives.
From now on, the Canadian government will lend up to 75 per cent of the estimated value of the farm, instead of 65 per cent as in the past. Moreover, the amount of credit available to farmers will be raised. Eastern farmers will be able to meet competition by offering better quality products which will sell easily on our markets. Farmers continually have to acquire better machinery in order to keep pace with labour problems. I believe that this legislation will be of great benefit to them.
Henceforth, farmers in the eastern provinces will benefit from a form of credit which, I think, was not available to them in the province of Quebec or in Ontario.
I, for my part, commend the government for taking this action. I consider this from the farmer's point of view the best piece of legislation introduced in the last 20 years.
(Text):


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, there is just one brief observation I should like to make on this resolution. This resolution proposes to abolish the old Canadian Farm Loan Act and to replace it with a better system of long term mortgage credit to farmers. It proposes also to extend to those farmers the benefit of supervised mortgage credit which has proved so successful in connection with the Veterans Land Act.


William Moore Benidickson: The borrowers are going to pay for it.


Chesley William Carter: This is a move in the right direction and I think one to be commended. The real reason I asked for the floor, Mr. Chairman, is to point out to the government that there is no comparable legislation of this kind extending benefits of this kind to fishermen whose problems and needs are very similar to those of farmers, and to direct the attention of the government to that deficiency. I express the hope that it will be remedied before too long.

Mortgage Credit to Farmers


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, seeing that I too feel that this act should be extended to include fishermen. I am very pleased at any time to see improvements in legislation affecting farmers and I would like that legislation to apply to fishermen. When I see fishermen getting the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act then, of course, I would like those benefits extended also to farmers; but I think fishermen are in the position where they require long term loans at reasonable rates of interest just as do the farmers in this country.
I do not think the minister has yet said whether it is his intention to refer this legislation to the banking and commerce committee, which has been the general practice in the past with similar legislation.


William Moore Benidickson: No, agriculture.


Hazen Robert Argue: No; this legislation in the past has been referred to the banking and commerce committee or to the committee on agriculture. A reference to that committee will be quite satisfactory.
In 1956, when the legislation referred to by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River had received second reading in this house it was referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce. I can remember so well that the beginning of those meetings of the banking and commerce committee dealing with amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act was held before Easter, the initial meetings, which is a good deal earlier than the discussion of this legislation which is taking place toward the end of the session. When we asked for a full discussion of that matter in the banking and commerce committee, at that time it was said by government spokesmen that the benefits were so important and the farmers were so greatly in need of them that the members should hurry up and pass the legislation. We found on further inquiry that the date of the coming into effect of the benefits would not be affected by our passing the measure in one session or a number of sittings. The result was that the banking and commerce committee dealt with farm loan legislation following that Easter recess in a rather comprehensive manner. We had placed before the committee at that time rather exhaustive studies that had been made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I want to acknowledge and to compliment the minister on having included in the legislation today a number of the recommendations that were placed before the committee at that time. There were recommendations that the maximum amount of first mortgages should be increased to $20,000. The committee was

asked to give consideration to the provision of credit that would be supervised for the benefit of the farmers. There were a great many other recommendations.


William Moore Benidickson: The committee did not
recommend that that should be at the borrower's cost.


Hazen Robert Argue: 
William Moore Benidickson: Not quite-as the board decides.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Canadian Farm Loan Board has been lending money at a rate of 5 per cent. Unless there is a substantial change in the interest rates prevailing in the country today I do not think the time will be long coming when there will be an increase from the current interest rate of 5 per cent charged to farmers. I tell the minister that no matter what other advantages are being built into this legislation, and there are advantages, they will be largely annulled if the rate of interest that producers have to pay goes much above 5 per cent. I see that the hon. member for Rosthern is agreeing with me by displaying a wide smile of affirmation. I take it that it is because he knows as well as I do that if the farmer has to pay an interest rate of 6, 6J or 7 per cent the result will be, in the light of that situation and the other policy of the Minister of Agriculture of pulling the rug out from under the price support legislation, that the Canadian farm loan corporation to be set up under the bill-


William Moore Benidickson: And no deficiency payments.


Hazen Robert Argue: -may own more than mortgages if that situation comes about. I say to the Minister of Agriculture that the farmers cannot afford to pay an interest rate in excess of 5 per cent. I ask him to give serious consideration to placing such a limit in the legislation when it is brought before parliament. Indeed, farm organizations have pointed out in the past that if one allows the farmer a reasonable return for his labour the farmers' investment in his agricultural plant over the years has paid a return of just better than 2 per cent. In the submissions presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in 1956 they calculated that an acceptable interest rate would be 3J per cent.
I would ask the Minister of Agriculture, as an influential member of the government and as a member from western Canada who, I would hope, has the ear of the Prime Minister, to make very strong representations to his colleagues in the cabinet to reverse the high interest policy that is now being followed and to stop increases in interest rates one after the other so that the beneficial effects that can flow from this legislation will not be taken away. I see that the hon. member for Greenwood is in his seat. I always like to listen to him when he makes a statement in the house. He will agree with me, I am sure, that the farmers are not in the position of the great corporations in this country who can say that their interest charges on their indebtedness have increased from 5 to 6 per cent and that there has been an increase in the cost of doing business this year of another $500,000 and therefore they will increase the price of their product and recover the increase in interest charges.
The farmer can pay increased interest charges only from one source, only from money that he would otherwise use for living expenses. He can pay a higher interest charge only by tightening his belt. 1 say to the Minister of Agriculture that the farmers of this country cannot afford to pay an interest rate of more than 5 per cent and I ask for immediate action on his part to place a ceiling of 5 per cent in the legislation in order to make certain that the high interest policy of the Minister of Finance-


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no high interest policy.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, no? The rates just go through the ceiling. On one-year bonds we are paying the highest rate in Canadian history.


William Moore Benidickson: The highest ever.
Mortgage Credit to Farmers


Hazen Robert Argue: But when the former administration was paying lower interest rates what strong statements were made by the Conservative party. How the government of the day was condemned and damned for high interest rates, for tight money. But today we have a government paying the highest interest rates in the history of this country. 1 ask the Minister of Agriculture to suggest to his colleagues that there should be a 5 per cent ceiling, which is a high interest rate, on the interest that can be charged under this legislation in order to protect the legislation from the wrong and misguided policy now being followed by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance, if he is allowed to run wild with these high interest rates, can ruin-


William Moore Benidickson: He just sits. He does not run.


Hazen Robert Argue: -much of the benefit that can come from this legislation. As I said earlier, if one examines the submissions of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in 1956 to the standing committee on banking and commerce he will find that many of its recommendations are being fulfilled in this legislation. I ask the minister to consider the other recommendations set forth at that time, particularly the request that the maximum period for repayment of a loan be made 40 years and also the request that the interest rate be lowered. Finally, I ask the minister to consider immediate action to place a ceiling of 5 per cent on the interest rates that can be charged by this corporation, and if the policy of the federal government results in higher interest rates generally and therefore a loss on the part of the corporation, then let that loss be paid from the treasury.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, after
speaking on the introduction of a resolution of this kind one always recalls one or two things that are overlooked. I think all members will be sympathetic in that respect although they will not want me to delay the progress of the committee unduly. But the minister did refer, without naming anybody, to the possibility of co-ordinating efforts of the V.L.A. administration and the new corporation in order to save expense. I think it was I who made this particular reference in the debate on second reading of the Veterans Land Act amendments.
It just happens that since that time I have heard indirectly that I could not have been serious in the remarks I made. I want to assure the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Veterans Affairs that I never was more serious. I was a member of the veterans affairs committee. I looked at the figures submitted and listened to the evidence very

Mortgage Credit to Farmers carefully. I am convinced that under the V.L.A administration we have a very fine appraising staff and a farm loan advisory staff that is underemployed. I was very glad to hear from the minister that he would use this staff to the greatest extent possible.
However, I want to tell him that I am going to watch this situation very carefully. I was not satisfied at simply hearing through another minister that he would do it to the greatest extent possible. I want to say that I have no doubt that he has read, as have I- and I read it actually after my remarks in the house last week-the submission of the interprovincial farm union council with respect to farm credit in Canada. I know the minister has also read it. In the 22 pages he will find that there is a recurrent emphasis upon co-ordination and centralization of farm credit policy in Canada.
I want to say to the minister that I have not the skill that one has after spending some time on treasury board. I sometimes attended treasury board as an observer or as an invitee. However, I want to say that as a member of parliament like himself I was completely convinced that we probably would in the near future lose this appraising and agricultural and guidance staff under the Veterans Land Act unless there was coordination of all departments of farm lending in government. I was never more serious, although I have been accused in the past of being very light in my comment that $5 million might have been saved.
May I say that $5 million is $50 million in ten years. The figure I gave last week was that perhaps the Canadian Farm Loan Board this year would lend about $90 million which was almost the figure on the books of the V.L.A. administration. I have been critical of the minister in some respects tonight but I want to say that I am highly pleased that he saw fit, before the introduction of this legislation, to make available to all of us-I think in some haste because the report is dated March 31, 1959-the last report of the Canadian Farm Loan Board.


Hervé J. Michaud: I should like to say only a word or two at this time. First of all, I want to say that I welcome the measure which is now before the committee. In the second place, I wish to express the hope that the farmers in the maritime provinces will make wider use of this measure than they have made in the past of the facilities of the Canadian Farm Loan Act. In the province of Prince Edward Island I would say satisactory use was made of the Canadian Farm Loan Act but I think it must be said that in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia the use made of the farm loan board was

only fractional as compared with the overall picture in the rest of the country.
I hope that the farmers in these provinces will, as I have said, make wider use of this new measure and that they will also use it particularly to enlarge their acreage. Therein, I think, lies the main problem in our maritime agriculture, namely that operations are too small. Under this legislation it might be possible for farmers to increase their acreage and thereby make their operations more profitable.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have just about three short remarks to make. It is intended to make full use of the Veterans Land Act supervisory staff. As far as the administration of this act is concerned I should like to assure the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that the length of term of the loan that is proposed will be thirty years. The maximum age for so-called young farmer loans is 45 years. That would mean that by the time the term was up the age would be 75 years and it is considered that is long enough. If the term were 40 years, it would make him 85 years of age and I think most people would consider that is too advanced an age to lay down in a mortgage contract on a package deal of this kind or of the kind that is proposed.
There is just one other point. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River made the statement that he had understood me to say that supervision will be provided only if it is asked for. That is not the case. As far as the package deal is concerned, for which the maximum loan on land and chattels is $27,500, supervision must be accepted in order for a young farmer, so-called, to get the loan. Once he has reduced his indebtedness until he owes just 65 per cent of the value of the land or $20,000, whichever is the lesser, then he can withdraw from supervision if he wishes to do so.


William Moore Benidickson: I take it that he applies for a supervised loan or knows that a supervised loan is going to be involved in the type of application that is made?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. As far as any farmers are concerned, whether they are under the ordinary provisions or under the supervised credit provisions, they can secure supervised credit if they wish to do so.


William Moore Benidickson: May I just ask this question. The minister made the broad statement, as I recall it, that there would be no change in objective, that the interest on borrowings under the new corporation, would be for expenses. Does that include these supervised loans?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The supervisory work will be carried on by the Veterans Land Act

administration and they propose to charge the farm credit corporation a small fee for this supervisory service, and that small fee will be charged to the farmer.


William Moore Benidickson: There will be a differentiation in interest rate between part I and part II borrowers?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. There will be no differentiation in interest rates. However, as I say, if supervision is provided there will be for that supervision a small fee which will be charged by the Veterans Land Act administration.


Hazen Robert Argue: In discussing the Canadian Farm Loan Board provisions a year ago the Minister of Finance at that time, if I remember correctly, said that as far as he knew there would be no increase in the interest rate under the legislation. I have asked the minister to consider whether a ceiling of 5 per cent could be placed on the interest rate under the act. He has not commented on that matter. I wish he would do so. I think that an interest rate of over 5 per cent would be a mistake. I think it would place on the agriculture industry a burden that would be difficult to bear. I wonder whether the minister could give the committee this much information. Can the minister say what he expects the starting rate of interest will be for loans by this corporation? The minister must have some idea when the corporation itself will start functioning. He knows the history of borrowings by the Canadian Farm Loan Board and the amount of the interest rate that will be paid on that indebtedness taken over by the board. Can he assure the committee that at least initially the new corporation will begin with interest rates that are not in excess of 5 per cent?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. It is provided in the act that the interest rate will be the cost of money to the dominion government plus, as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River stated, a small service charge, which is the normal thing in these loans which are made to a province, a crown corporation or anything else.


William Moore Benidickson: Last year we had evidence that the Minister of Finance had interfered with that procedure. Win there be an opportunity for the Minister of Finance to do that or will the corporation be the sole judge of that matter?


Hazen Robert Argue: I know the minister is well aware of the fact that the current cost of money to the federal government is in excess of 5 per cent. If you take the cost of money to the federal government at this time as in excess of 5 per cent, add to it a small 66968-9-334
Mortgage Credit to Farmers service charge and then to that add the cost of administration of the new corporation so that it does not lose money, you will get a very high rate of interest which, in my submission to the minister, will be impossible for the agriculture industry to bear. I hope that that does not happen, but everyone knows interest rates are going up so rapidly now. When we suggest in this house that a new high interest rate is a matter of urgency we are told, quite properly by Mr. Speaker, that this is something that happens practically every week.


William Moore Benidickson: Because there is no policy.


Hazen Robert Argue: We have had a succession of high interest rates. The government itself pays interest in excess of 5 per cent. Add to that a service fee plus the cost of doing business under this legislation, it is possible- I do not say it will happen because I sincerely hope it will not be allowed to happen-that you would get interest rates of 6 per cent or more and saddle farmers with the heavy loans which they need if they are going to have economical units. What you will do in effect is to destroy much of the value which would otherwise accrue by this kind of legislation. I will be speaking out, as will other hon. members I know in this house, most strongly if in the future interest rates under this legislation at any time should exceed the rate of 5 per cent, which in the words of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture back in 1956 is an excessive rate that agriculture cannot bear.


Mr. Badanai:: May I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to say a few words in connection with this resolution.
The minister in his statement indicated that under present conditions any young man who starts out farming requires stock and equipment involving a considerable amount of money. Therefore I am encouraged to believe that it means a liberalization of farm loans. If this means the adoption of a liberalized measure which will enable farmers in need of assistance to obtain loans where under the present farm loan act they were turned down, then I am happy to say that the change is indeed welcome and I congratulate the minister for introducing this new act.
My particular concern about this legislation is the actual availability of provisions to the small farmers of the Thunder bay district. I know the minister would say that there is no discrimination in the matter of approval of loans to any farmer large or

Mortgage Credit to Farmers small anywhere in Canada. The fact remains, however, that actual experience has shown that the small farmers in my constituency have encountered almost insurmountable difficulties in obtaining consideration for loans. This is not the first time I have had occasion to speak on behalf of the small farmers in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. There are several hundred families living on comparatively small farms, some of which are models of agricultural development; others are in the process of becoming fairly good and prosperous units. There are some, however, which are on the fringe of undeveloped areas and which require assistance; assistance in securing capital to improve their holdings, and loans for the purpose of improving their buildings and the purchase of modern farm equipment.
This bill if it is to perform what it is designed to achieve should be so administered to give consideration to the less prosperous farmers applying for loans. The present farm loan board activities are so restricted that unless an applicant for a loan has collateral assets to the extent that he does not need to borrow he is politely told that his holding does not appear to offer the prospects of being self-liquidating and therefore a loan on this particular property is not warranted.
The farm loan board should also be directed to consider loans to associations of farmers for the purpose of establishing cold storage facilities in addition to the federal grant that the establishment of such cold storage facilities entitle the farmers to, which is now set at not more than $50,000 for any establishment regardless of the total cost of the plant. Another aspect of the benefit which this bill could perform would be direct financial assistance to prospective farmers, people who are ready and willing to settle on the land and make farming their career and life work. This assistance, if extended to bona fide immigrant farmers desirous of acquiring a farm, could mean a new era in the development of our sparsely settled districts of northwestern Ontario. All we would need to bring about a movement toward the land is the active encouragement and assistance of the government which to my mind would rank higher than any other vision that I can think of.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the proposed new farm mortgage credit board should include a member from northwestern Ontario, someone familiar with farming operations in the region.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Harkness thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-67, to provide for
the extension of long term mortgage credit to farmers.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the leader of the house would tell us what the business is going to be for the rest of the week?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall commence with item No. 17 on today's order paper, the resolution preceding an amendment to the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act; then take item No. 6, second reading of an act to amend the Length and Mass Units Act. Then we will take item No. 7, second reading of an act to amend the Weights and Measures Act; then item No. 10, second reading of an act to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act. Then we will take item No. 8, second reading of an act to amend the Criminal Code; then item No. 9, second reading of an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act.
The Minister of Justice will be back at 2.30 p.m. and we will try to put his bills on at 2.30. If something is not finished at the time of the adjournment at 1.00 we will try to finish it before we go on to the Department of Justice bills. Therefore this order will probably mean that some of the trade and commerce bills will follow the Department of Justice bills. Probably on Wednesday we will try to complete these items of legislation and then go on to the defence estimates and those of the Department of Defence Production.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not proposed to take defence estimates until Thursday?


Howard Charles Green: Probably they would not be taken until Thursday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister think he has really given us enough on the menu for tomorrow morning?


Howard Charles Green: If we find that all that business is completed we could include item No. 18, the international wheat agreement and, probably, item No. 12, an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act. Also, there are some very small bills which could be taken at any time-item No. 3 and item No. 5-and there is a bill which appears today under first reading of Senate bills concerning the agreement with respect to Indian reservations in Nova Scotia.


[Stage Direction]
At thirteen minutes past ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 30, 1959