1961-06-13

NEW MEMBER

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the house has received from the chief electoral officer the certificate of election and return of Edgar E. Fournier, Esquire, for the electoral district of Restigouche-Madawaska.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might rise on a question of privilege. I shall be very brief about it. My question is based upon an editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail of June 12, 1961 wherein it states:
Twenty-four Canadian parliamentarians attending an interparliamentary meeting in Washington last week agreed with their United States colleagues that nuclear weapons should be used if necessary to defend West Berlin.
While I feel it would be unwise and unethical to refer to the position taken by any other member of the interparliamentary group, each of whom will have to speak for himself if he so desires, I would point out that the editorial incorrectly reflects my opinions on this question. This is understandable because of the wording of the press release issued by the interparliamentary group and subsequent changes thereto.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Alan Macnaughion (Mount Royal) presented the third report of the standing committee on public accounts, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: In accordance with the regular practice I wish to announce the appointment of the deputy postmaster general, effective
June 20. Mr. William Hugh Wilson is to fill the vacancy resulting from the forthcoming retirement of Mr. George A. Boyle, who has served for 45 years.
I should like to express appreciation on behalf of the government for the service Mr. Boyle has rendered. He has made many outstanding contributions to the development of Canada's postal service, particularly in the field of international postal affairs where he has represented Canada as vice-president of the executive and liaison committee of the universal postal union.
Mr. Wilson has been director of operations in the head office of the department since April, 1959. He entered the post office in 1929 as a temporary postal helper in Vancouver. He became postmaster in Vancouver in 1955, and in 1958 was named regional director of postal service for the Pacific region.
Mr. Wilson brings to the position of deputy postmaster general outstanding administrative skill and unusual ability to achieve results while maintaining the support of those who work for him. He has been responsible for numerous major innovations in postal techniques. As director of operations he has been responsible for all the aspects of the day to day operation of the postal service except matters of transportation.


Mr. Herridge:: I simply wish to say-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Laurier.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I apologize to the hon. gentleman, but I was speaking to my deskmate the hon. member for Essex East.
I simply want to add a word to what the Prime Minister has said. We on this side of the house would like to commend the retiring deputy postmaster general, Mr. Boyle, for the long service he has rendered to Canada. It has been outstanding service over the many years he has served our country. We should also like to join the Prime Minister in wishing his successor, Mr. Wilson, a long and successful career.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was
interrupted by the hon. member for Laurier. We are very pleased to hear of the appointment of an experienced and competent member of the civil service from British Columbia to this post of deputy minister.

Inquiries of the Ministry RAILWAYS, AIR LINES AND SHIPPING



REFERENCE OF ANNUAL REPORTS AND BUDGETS TO STANDING COMMITTEE

Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: By leave of the house I move:
That the annual reports for 1960 of the Canadian National Railways and of the Canadian National Railways securities trust, the auditor's report to parliament in respect of the Canadian National Railways for the year ended December 31, 1960, tabled on March 28, 1961; the budget for 1961 of the Canadian National Railways tabled on April 19, 1961; the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for 1960 tabled on March 14, 1961, the auditor's report to parliament in respect of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ended December 31, 1960, tabled on March 28, 1961, and the budget for 1961 of Trans-Canada Air Lines, tabled on January 16, 1961, be referred to the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he has anything to report in regard to the success he has had in organizing a meeting of the commonwealth prime ministers to discuss Britain's entry into the common market.
Righf Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, if the house will allow me I should like to add to the remarks I made on June 9, 1961. At that time I stated that the government was convinced of the necessity for a proper balance being observed as between bilateral and collective consultation on this matter. I said at that time that I envisaged bilateral consultation both at the official and the ministerial levels, but that because of the potential consequences of United Kingdom membership in the common market I believed that the fullest consideration should be given to collective ministerial discussion and also, if necessary, to a meeting of prime ministers.
In the light of that statement there have been further exchanges with the United Kingdom government. As a result, arrangements are now being made for bilateral talks on a ministerial level to take place in Ottawa at a time to be arranged, probably in the second week of July, between the secretary of state for commonwealth relations, Right Hon. Duncan Sandys, and the Canadian ministers concerned-the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I also hope on that occasion to see Mr. Sandys.
[Mr. Herridge.l
In agreeing to these arrangements it has been made clear that the Canadian government will regard talks with Mr. Sandys as exploratory in nature and as not constituting the basis for any binding decision or understanding as to Canada's attitude in this matter. I say this because, while I acknowledge the value of preparatory exploration of the issues between the United Kingdom and Canadian governments, I am equally convinced of the necessity for these matters to be discussed by representatives of the commonwealth association meeting together.
Collective discussions were held in London some three weeks ago among senior officials of commonwealth countries, and I should hope that following the conversations which Mr. Sandys will have here, and other United Kingdom ministers in other countries of the commonwealth, it will then be thought appropriate and advisable for collective ministerial discussions to take place. There will be occasion for this in the regular way when the economic ministers of the commonwealth assemble for their fall meeting.
There has been comment in the United Kingdom and Canadian press about my reference last Friday to the need for a meeting of commonwealth prime ministers in respect of this general subject. Some newspapers and commentators have assumed that what I called for was an immediate meeting of prime ministers. The reading of what I stated makes clear otherwise. I did not call for an immediate meeting of prime ministers; and also, in speaking of such a meeting, I said it should be held if necessary. What I wished to convey at that time, and I reiterate it now, is that I can envisage circumstances in which a meeting of prime ministers would be desirable and indeed necessary. It is not possible at this time to decide with certainty whether or not a meeting at prime ministerial level should take place. This is a matter which can only be decided in the light of developments and, in particular, on the outcome of the various bilateral and collective discussions and consultations which will take place.
I want once more, in answer to the question put by the hon. member, which is indicative of his interest in this matter, to emphasize the great importance to Canada, and indeed to the commonwealth association as a whole, of the United Kingdom's future relationship with the European economic community. The political and economic implications are so vast and complex that they deserve the most searching examination on the part of all countries concerned. It is this consideration, and of course in particular a concern for Canadian political and economic interests, which underlies the government's insistence on thorough and effective consultation.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I presume that I should be allowed some latitude in view of the statement the Prime Minister has made.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the house will permit the hon. member to comment, in view of the fact that the statement goes beyond the question of the hon. member.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members of the house for this consideration.
The statement the Prime Minister has made prompts one to ask himself immediately what has become of the principle of consultation in so far as the commonwealth is concerned, because I am sure the Prime Minister will agree at once that in former conferences it was clearly laid down that there should be consultation among the commonwealth prime ministers. This question comes to mind at once.
Then there is the other question of whether or not-and I say this without wanting to be contentious in any way whatsoever-the Prime Minister has been repudiated by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the suggestion he made for a collective conference of the various commonwealth prime ministers. As the Prime Minister knows, the prime ministers of Australia, New Zealand and also India have given indications that they would not be prepared to meet at this time on the basis mentioned by the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a long way from repudiation.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry; I did not catch that.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a long way from repudiation.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps. I said I did not want to be contentious. If the Prime Minister does not like the word "repudiation" perhaps I could use the word "disagreement".
In view of what the Prime Minister said there comes to mind at once the whole question of what effect the common market will have upon our trade. In the face of tariff reductions in those countries what is Canada doing to protect its trade? What can we do to stop widening the gulf between the rich, prosperous and dynamic common market countries-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member for Laurier would agree with me that it would not be proper to extend the scope of his comment into matters not initially raised by this question nor dealt with by the Prime Minister in his answer. The hon. member for Laurier has raised one or two other questions which it would be appropriate to
Inquiries of the Ministry answer, and I would suggest that he allow the answers to be given rather than open up new subjects.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to complete my remarks, if I may. I will discontinue the line which I had intended to pursue, but I go back to the statement made by the Prime Minister in which he said that "the government will regard the talks with Mr. Sandys as exploratory in nature" and that "collective discussions were held in London" and he felt that the same thing might well take place again. Well, of course, the matter that raises is this. What are the alternatives being proposed by the Canadian government? What alternatives are being advanced? Are we to be face to face again with another 15 per cent diversion of trade?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member should not get into the substance of what may be before the conference or before the ministers in bilateral discussions. What his question related to were the mechanics of dealing with the problem of possible adherence by the United Kingdom to the common market.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, the Prime Minister said he did not call for an immediate meeting. Of course the house must accept what the Prime Minister has said, but certainly that is not what the United Kingdom government understood the situation to be. From the comments that have appeared in the United Kingdom press, and Canadian press as well, the indication seems to be to the contrary.
However, in order to complete what I have to say I want to make this brief statement. Our view is that instead of trying to be obstructive the Canadian government would be better employed in seeking to associate Canada with the common market through the establishment of an Atlantic trading area rather than in preventing Britain from joining-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is opening up a very broad subject which cannot be debated on routine proceedings. If the Prime Minister wishes to reply to any of the questions asked I think he might have the floor for that purpose.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister, reverting to the statement he made earlier on the commonwealth prime ministers' conference. May I ask the Prime Minister what alternatives Canada would advance at such a conference of commonwealth prime ministers?
6246	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall that over the years questions ol this nature have been regarded as improper.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if it is a fact that Mr. Jean Rey, a member of the economic European community commission, is to be in Ottawa tomorrow or this week for the purpose of carrying on talks with regard to the relationship between Canada and the common market? If that is a fact, will the Prime Minister relate that fact to the statement he made this morning?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is no relationship whatever between that fact and the statement I made this morning. The gentleman in question is coming and he will naturally discuss with appropriate ministers of the government the viewpoint of that commission.



STATEMENT ON EXCHANGE OF LEAD FOR SURPLUS U.S. GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last, June 9, I undertook to take as notice the question raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia as to whether the reported transaction between the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada and the United States authorities, involving the barter of Canadian lead for United States grain, would have any effect on Canada's own grain marketing policy.
I have now been informed that this transaction has been concluded and that it does not depart from the pattern of previous barter transactions entered into by the United States authorities in obtaining primary or strategic commodities under public law 480. From the government's standpoint this is a private business transaction concluded by a private Canadian firm and, as the hon. member is aware, the government does not interfere in private business transactions. Our only concern is that the sale of surplus grain thus acquired through barter will not displace normal commercial sales of grain. On this point we have been assured that this barter transaction will be subject to the same safeguards as those already established and agreed upon, and which have been applied in the past for the protection of our commercial marketing areas.



URANIUM-INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to address a question to the Minister of


Trade and Commerce, and ask him whether he has a report to make to the house on the uranium contract negotiations.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker. A meeting was held yesterday and very useful discussions took place. Further meetings are taking place today on the technical level, and other meetings will be held later.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a question. Is it a fact, as now reported by the Canadian Press, that the Minister of Finance has asked for the resignation of the governor of the Bank of Canada?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): I have not seen the report, and I do not think I wish to make any comment on that matter until I have had an opportunity to examine the report.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a supplementary question based on a Canadian Press report dated Ottawa, June 13, in which it is stated that "Governor James E. Coyne of the Bank of Canada said today that finance minister Fleming had requested his immediate resignation". In view of this report, will the minister tell the house whether this is a fact, so the house can exercise its rights under the Bank of Canada Act with regard to the governor of the Bank of Canada?


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first intimation I have had of the report. I wish to examine the report, and I wish to be assured as to the accuracy of the reference to Mr. Coyne having made this statement before saying anything in the house. There will, of course, be something said in the house at the proper time, but I think that reference should be carefully checked first.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the importance of this matter I can well understand the minister's desire-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -to check the report, but I ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I fail to see how any supplementary can arise out of the minister having taken the matter as notice and declining to answer the question today.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I can well appreciate your concern, but in view of what the minister has said will you permit me to put my question so you can then determine whether or not it is in order? In view of what the minister has now said, is it a fact that he has asked for the resignation of the governor of the bank?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I refer the hon. member to the answer to the last question. It was quite clear.


Peter Francis Martin: A statement later today.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. I understand that the federal government has extended its assistance in the battle against grasshoppers and cutworms in Saskatchewan. Can the minister give the house further details regarding the R.C.A.F. airlift of insecticide?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Nalional Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I informed the house, following a request from the Saskatchewan minister of agriculture an airlift was undertaken by the R.C.A.F. over the week end to transport supplies of insecticide from Toronto to Regina. To begin with the amount was supposed to be approximately 30,000 pounds, but there were subsequent requests so that the operation has grown into a very considerable airlift.
In response to a further request from the Saskatchewan government two additional R.C.A.F. aircraft are leaving Toronto today with an additional 70,000 pounds of insecticide. This will bring the total airlift to over 330,000 pounds of insecticide and it involves 17 flights in all.
I think hon. members will be interested in a telegram which I received yesterday from Mr. Nollet, the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan, which reads as follows:
We very greatly appreciate the R.C.A.F. airlift authorized by you. This has been a real life saver in our unforeseen emergency shortage of chemical control supplies during a critical period of our grasshopper and cutworm campaigns. The timely response of the R.C.A.F. was outstanding. The good spirit and co-operation of the air crews was wonderful. The farmers of Saskatchewan will greatly appreciate the emergency assistance given. Would you kindly convey our appreciation to the personnel involved and my sincere thanks to you for the help given.
Inquiries oj the Ministry GRAIN



INQUIRY AS TO QUOTA POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister bring members of the house up to date on the status of the Canadian wheat board quotas as they now apply to Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I think the house is aware of the tremendous urgency, so far as farmers of the west are concerned, with regard to the marketing of grain at this time. I have answered several similar questions in recent days, but for comparison purposes I can give the hon. member the figures for two weeks ago, May 29, and for yesterday, June 12. They are as follows:
Quota Distribution
Number of Number of
				stations,		stations,
					May 29,	June 12,
					1961	1961
Manitoba						
3	bushels	per	specified	acre	121	04	bushels	per	specified	acre	188	1325	bushels	per	specified	acre	34	1626	bushels	per	specified	acre	21	70364	Saskatchewan	3	bushels	per	specified	acre	190	-4	bushels	per	specified	acre	635	4505	bushels	per	specified	acre	197	4986	bushels	per	specified	acre	54	1281,076	The pace of moving grain is	still being
maintained this week, as last week, at 1,600 cars per day.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 8 I was asked the following questions by the hon. member for Assiniboia as reported at page 6017 of Hansard:
I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Defence Production. Would the minister care to make any comment on the report in this morning's Globe and Mail that a United States firm has in its possession 15 Mustang fighter aircraft which it purchased for $500 and which it hopes to sell for between $6,000 and $50,000?
Were tenders called in this case, and were the planes in flying condition when they were sold?
I have received the following information from Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. In reply to the first question, ten Mustang

Inquiries of the Ministry fighter aircraft with engines and five Mustang fighter airframes without engines, located at Carberry, Manitoba, were sold by Crown Assets Disposal Coporation to James H. De-Furia and Fred J. Ritts, of Syracuse, N.Y. in November, 1956. The ten aircraft with engines were short of carburetors and other navigational instruments; all 15 aircraft and airframes were sold in an unserviceable condition. The ten Mustang aircraft with engines were sold at $3,000 each, and the five airframes less engines were sold for $1,000 each.
In reply to the second question, I am advised that tenders were solicited from 101 firms or dealers.



LAKEHEAD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Fort William asked whether I had received a letter from the Canadian lakehead exhibition to the effect that they would welcome the establishment of an artillery unit within the grounds of the exhibition. I did receive such a letter yesterday afternoon. Mr. Walker, the secretary manager of the Canadian lakehead exhibition has written to me with regard to the construction of a building on the exhibition grounds and has suggested that this building might be used to accommodate a militia unit. His recommendations are being considered.
With reference to a supplementary question asked by the hon. member as to whether an artillery unit would be established at the lakehead, I might say that there is already an artillery unit at the lakehead, the 118th medium battery, stationed at Port Arthur.



CANADA-UNITED STATES  ADDITIONAL EXPENDI- TURE BY CANADA ON PINE TREE LINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of the statement he made in the house yesterday concerning the triangular deal between the United States and Canada, I should like to know what will be the additional expenditure imposed on the federal treasury as a result of Canada assuming full responsibility for the Pine Tree line?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer this question. The annual costs of civilian
staff, operation and maintenance are estimated at $5 million in 1961-62; $9.6 million in 1962-63; $15.1 million in 1963-64 and $16.1 million when the stations are fully taken over.

As far as the duration of the NORAD agreement is concerned, which is to rim to 1968 and will be reviewed at that time, the total estimated cost during that period is $94.1 million.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Triniiy):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister said that was the cost of the civilian staff and maintenance. Would the minister say how many armed forces personnel will be employed in this work, and what the cost and maintenance of these personnel will amount to?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The military personnel, of course, will be provided from within existing R.C.A.F. staffs. The total number which will be required to man these stations will be in the neighbourhood of 1,700 to 1,800-1 am speaking from memory now, but I know it is in that area-and some 800 to 900 civilian staff.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to prepare a comprehensive answer to this question so we will know the total cost involved both for civilian and service personnel.


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The estimated cost of the 1,700 to 1,800 military personnel who will be involved in manning these stations when the take-over is complete is around $9 million a year.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Kon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingaie): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday last I directed a question first to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and then to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance asking in what fashion or by what method the government intended to ask for parliamentary approval for the $1J million special vote announced some time ago to provide for additional employment in Cape Breton. I was wondering whether the Minister of Finance could answer that question.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on June 10, as reported at page 6135 of Hansard, was brought to my attention. The answer is that the manner in which this particular matter is dealt with in the estimates will depend on how far particular projects are developed while the house is in session.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Various departments of the government which did not make. It was one that the hon. gentle-have possible projects in the area which will man hoped I would make, because he had his provide employment are studying those now little set speech prepared in advance and he with a view to advancing them. That is the proceeded to argue his case as though I had way the matter stands at the moment. So far made the statement that he hoped I would as provision is to be made, if those advance make.
sufficiently while the house is sitting then Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not been con-there will be an item to deal with them as vinced that there is a question of privilege such.	there.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Does that mean that the minister is contemplating another set of supplementary estimates?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there will have to be one further set of supplementary estimates before the house rises. It will not contain many items, I may say. But this particular matter could be dealt with as it stands now, in the absence of a particular approved project, out of a vote in the Department of Finance. If the projects are approved and come within various departments, thought will then be given to an item in one particular department to cover the various projects which will come from other departments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. Are these additional supplementary estimates for the purpose of putting in things like this vote that the minister forgot in others?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of course, Mr. Speaker, this was not forgotten, and the observation implicit in the question is utterly stupid and uncalled for.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But true.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have given the reason why, when the supplementary estimates were tabled, it was not proper at that stage to put in an item because of the fact that the particular projects had not been selected. I have given a sufficient explanation of the matter this morning, Mr. Speaker, I am sure, to clarify it to the satisfaction of all hon. members except the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting every hon. member of this house. The minister has said that if a further supplementary estimate for this purpose is not introduced into this house, this money could be paid out of a vote in the Department of Finance. The minister knows that vote is entitled "Unforeseen", and he also knows that this matter was foreseen and announced in this house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see no question of privilege in what the hon. member is saying.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, because the hon. member has attributed to me a statement I



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I apologize for not sending him notice but it came to mind only a few moments ago. I am rather sluggish this morning. In view of the fact that July 1 falls on a Saturday, would the government consider giving all civil servants the opportunity of enjoying Monday, July 3 as a holiday, on that account?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that matter was considered, and it was decided that it was impossible to accede to the suggestion contained in the hon. member's question.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the tragedy in the upper Niagara river the day before yesterday, which resulted in the death of four people, has the minister considered barring pleasure craft from the water of the upper Niagara river below Navy island to the falls?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I think everybody was extremely grieved by this terrible tragedy, and I can assure my hon. friend that we will investigate her proposal very closely.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I also inquire whether the minister has given any consideration to the provision of some coastguard facilities at this point in the Niagara river both for watching in order to prevent these tragedies occurring and for assisting if it appears that a tragedy is going to take place?


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Speaker, but we will
investigate this proposal also.
6250	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CENSUS



INQUIRY AS TO CENSUS COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS ENUMERATORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister say whether census commissioners can appoint themselves as enumerators, and thus draw two salaries?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for an interpretation of a statute and regulations?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not customary to ask for legal opinions. If the hon. member has a specific matter to inquire about, it would be in order, but a request for a legal interpretation of statutes and regulations is not in order.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I bring to your attention the fact that this is a matter which is of importance at the moment because the census is being carried on. It is not a matter in which an opinion is being sought with regard to interpretation of the law. Therefore I submit to Your Honour, with deference, that the question is one which is well put and should receive an answer under the circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as phrased is purely one of opinion. I do not want to prevent the hon. member from inquiring into any factual circumstances in relation to the census.


John Richard Garland: If I may say so with respect, Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of interpretation; it is an inquiry concerning the regulations.


An hon. Member:: It is a matter of fact.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has some factual situation to inquire into, that is quite proper. However, as has been pointed out quite frequently, the regulations are open to all hon. members of the house, as is the statute under which the census is taken. To ask the opinion of the minister for their interpretation is asking about something which is open to any hon. member to interpret for himself.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, you mentioned that my question would be in order if I made reference to a specific case. Perhaps the minister could tell me if Mrs. Priest, of 147 Riverdale avenue, has her husband, her son and herself out enumerating?


An hon. Member:: Where; what town?


Another hon. Member: Montana?


John Richard Garland: In the electoral district of Broadview.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of this particular case, but I will be glad to look into it.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on June 10 the hon. member for Assiniboia asked for my comments in connection with a recent incident in Toronto in which children were in contact with some powder containing radium, which they discovered in a warehouse.
I should like to pay tribute to the prompt and efficient manner in which the local authorities acted, which seems to have averted the danger of any serious results. On the basis of all the information received there seems to be no reason to expect that any of the persons involved will suffer any ill effects. The last stages of the clean-up and accounting process are now going on under the immediate direction of officers of the Ontario department of health.
During world war II large amounts of radium powder were used to paint luminous dials in aircraft and other equipment. It seems clear that the supplies in this case came from that source and were obtained before 1947, when the regulations of the atomic energy control board came into effect. Such material cannot now be acquired except under licence from the board, and licences are not granted unless the board is satisfied, on the advice of its health advisers, that the recipient has adequate knowledge and facilities to ensure that no health hazard will result.
It may be that some of the radium powder obtained prior to 1947 is still stored in industrial establishments, warehouses and similar places. After so many years the material will have lost its usefulness for the painting of luminous dials, but it will remain a potential danger to health because of its radioactivity. I wish, therefore, to advise all organizations to make quite sure that they do not have in storage any old stocks of radium luminous compound. My colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, whose department advises the atomic energy control board on matters relating to health and safety, suggests that the radiation protection division of his department be notified if any such material is found. That division

can then make arrangements for proper disposal, which should not be attempted by other parties.
Meanwhile, every effort is being made to locate any other supplies that may still be in existence under similar circumstances.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

Léon Balcer: the third reading of Bill No. C-98 to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
(Translation):


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent yesterday afternoon when the bill was considered on second reading and in committee.
I should like now to give the reasons that would have prompted me to take exception, not to the bill itself, but to section 15 in particular.
On account of that section, numerous representations were submitted to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, when the latter examined the bill, by the St. Lawrence pilots' federation and other organizations.
It now seems obvious that since 1959, that is, since Bill S-3 was introduced, the government has never given up the idea of eventually abolishing pilotage on the St. Lawrence.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if hon. members would take their seats and maintain reasonable silence so that we may hear the hon. member for Levis.
(Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, in 1959, following representations made by various pilots' associations and several members of parliament, the then minister of transport withdrew Bill S-3 to exempt any ship designated by the governor in council from the obligation of paying pilotage dues.
The government undoubtedly realized that their action was too drastic and they decided to proceed by steps but, I repeat, always with a view to abolishing pilotage all along the St. Lawrence.
That, in my opinion, is why section 15 was inserted in the bill we now have before us.
Indeed, section 15 stipulates that American lakers will be exempt from the obligation of paying pilotage dues in the St. Regis district down to Montreal, that is in an exclusively Canadian zone.
The scheme is clever. The exemption is only for that section for the time being but, in a few years from now, it will be extended to the whole length of the river.
Canada Shipping Act
The minister may tell us, as he did before the committee, that it will not be so. I am quite willing to take his word for it but, on the other hand, he will agree with me that his statement binds neither his successor nor the government.
The assurance he has given to the committee is no guarantee for the pilots as far as the future is concerned.
When this bill was examined in committee, we had the opportunity of hearing the legal adviser of the St. Lawrence pilots' federation and the representative of the Canadian merchant service guild.
These two representatives indicated before the committee that they took particular exception to clause 15 first on grounds of national sovereignty and then on grounds of safety in navigation.
The matter of sovereignty and of treaties was clearly dealt with yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). I will not therefore take it up again.
As for the question of safety, it must first be recognized that with the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway, the traffic is bound to increase considerably in the coming years. Moreover, as the ships plying those waters will be bigger and speedier, the danger will be greater. The logical thing to do then, Mr. Speaker, is to render more stringent the safety measures, not to relax them. As a matter of fact, that is what we have been doing for several years now in the case of highways. In order to insure the greatest safety on our highways, the traffic laws have been tightened each year.
When asked by the members of the committee to comment upon the conditions of navigation in the district concerned, Mr. Guy Chartier, president of the Cornwall district pilot association, stated that the channel was quite narrow and difficult. He added that in his opinion no one should be allowed to pilot a ship in those waters unless he had been plying them for six or seven years. He also remarked that on the Canadian side, before getting a pilot licence, one had to have a master licence and two years of navigation in this area after apprenticeship while, on the American side, licence is granted after 12 trips only, which gave him reason to conclude unhesitatingly that such persons could not be qualified to navigate in that district.


Léon Balcer: Would my hon. friend allow me a question?

Canada Shipping Act


Maurice Bourget: Surely.


Léon Balcer: Is he not aware that it is absolutely forbidden to any American pilot to pilot a ship in Canadian waters, between St. Regis and Montreal?


Maurice Bourget: Yes, but is the minister not aware also that, under the amendment to section 15, captains of United States ships shall not be required to take a pilot on board and that, according to the statement made in Montreal by the president of the federation or association of the St. Regis district pilots, after 12 trips masters or captains will to be able to obtain a certificate allowing them to pilot their ships from Cornwall to Montreal. Therefore, I base my assertion on the statement made by the president of the association of pilots.


Lionel Chevrier: This allows the Americans to pilot their ships without the help of a Canadian pilot.


Maurice Bourget: This is the argument of the hon. member for Laurier: under section 15, United States ships may now ply from Cornwall to Montreal without the help of a Canadian pilot.


Léon Balcer: They could do it before.


Maurice Bourget: I admit they could do it before, but circumstances were different, as the hon. member for Laurier mentioned when he discussed that point.
I wish to point out, that it is strange that the Department of Transport does not require the American masters-and I repeat the point the minister and I just mentioned-to pass tests before they are permitted to pilot their ships in exclusively Canadian waters. It seems to me that we should expect from the American masters the same qualifications and the same degree of experience as we expect from our own pilots.
Therefore, it seems clear to me according to the views of experienced men, that to exempt those ships of the payment of pilotage dues would endanger the safety of navigation in that area. Furthermore, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, the adoption of clause 15 would be a step toward the abolition of compulsory pilotage by Canadian pilots in the other districts of the St. Lawrence river.
The minister is aware that strong representations have been made in Washington- and there is no call to doubt their continuance in the future-to grant the American lakers the same privileges upon the whole length of the St. Lawrence river.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that it was for those reasons that I would have supported

yesterday the amendment of the hon. member for Laurier to the effect that clause 15 of the bill be deleted.
I regret very much that the minister refused to agree to that amendment.
( Text):


Mr. H. E. Smith (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, it was suggested during the committee stage of this bill that Canada had given up something but had not received in return a quid pro quo. I should like to deal with that point for just a moment or two.
I should like to refer to pages 1 and 2 of the treaty between Canada and the United States dated May 5, 1961. At page 1 it is provided that the President of the United States by proclamation may declare certain areas compulsory pilotage areas, and listed there are districts Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Without reading the detailed descriptions, district No. 1 is the St. Lawrence area between St. Regis and Kingston, district No. 2 is roughly the area of the St. Clair river, and, district No. 3 is the area of the St. Mary's river and Sault Ste. Marie.
I should like to read the paragraph following the description of those districts, which is as follows:
Registered vessels of the United States and foreign vessels navigating United States waters of the great lakes which are not designated by the president by proclamation-
That refers to the three preceding areas that have been designated. I continue:
-are required by the act to have on board a United States registered pilot or a Canadian registered pilot or other officer qualified for the waters concerned

To me, and I think to anyone who reads it, that is a clear indication that Canada does receive some rights in United States waters and the great lakes, particularly the waters of lake Michigan.
There was a question asked in the committee as to why this matter of having a pilot or not having a pilot betweeen St. Regis and Montreal was not covered by the treaty. One answer is that the waters are exclusively Canadian. I think perhaps an analogy can be made regarding the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway. In order to make a workable navigation seaway in Canada, certain work had to be done on the canals between St. Regis and Montreal. That work was done at a cost to and by the Canadian government because it is exclusively Canadian waters. Would the United States government have spent the $100 million odd it did spend without having the assurance from the Canadian government that it was going to improve the channel between St. Regis and Montreal?

I think the analogy is clear there. The United States government would not have given us a general pilotage agreement concerning the whole of the St. Lawrence system without having received an undertaking or understanding that certain provisions would be made for it in respect to that section of the St. Lawrence seaway from St. Regis to Montreal.
I am not sure that the argument of the hon. member for Levis is valid when he says this is only a first step. I cannot go as far as he does, because it seems to me quite clear that Montreal is the end of the seaway works built either by Canada or the United States, and there would be no validity in a United States request for pilotage rights beyond Montreal by reason of that fact. It is true, of course, that the traffic between the United States and Canada, in that section from Seven Islands to the Ohio steel ports on the United States side, is increasing and that possibly fewer ships than heretofore will now turn around at Montreal, although I think for some years Montreal will be essentially the eastern terminal of the seaway in regard to grain shipments.
Again I should like to emphasize the fact that there has not been any clear indication as to the matter of safety. Sometimes we tend to make open assumptions that when an accident happened at a time when there was no pilot on board, it happened because there was no pilot on board. I do not think our pilots would be happy if we made the similar assumption that because there was a pilot on board at the time an accident happened, it was his fault. As I pointed out in committee, I hope better statistics and records are kept so that more detailed statistics can be published. If this is done we will then have the opportunity of assessing that portion of responsibility for an accident which is attributable to the fact that a pilot was not on board.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise and join in the debate, but I am wondering whether on third reading the minister has the right to reply. Before I make my intervention I should like to point out that situation to Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister does not have the right to reply, and would only be speaking on the basis that he had not spoken in moving the motion but had deferred his remarks. That is sometimes permitted by the house, and I think is a reasonable practice. If the minister speaks now he will not close the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am not objecting to the minister replying, but I should not like to be cut off after his speech.
Canada Shipping Act


Mr. Speaker:: His reply will not close the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you.
(Translation):


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I do not seek to raise a new debate or continue the one we had yesterday, but just the same, the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) has raised some points that have to be considered and to which I must make some correction.
First of all, for the hon. member's information, I should tell him that the Department of Transport gives the St. Lawrence pilots a remarkably good treatment. In fact,
I think there are few Canadian corporations whose employees are so highly paid proportionately to their work. I realize that pilots have responsibilities, and my department has always seen to it that their salaries or dues be guaranteed and in line with their responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing we seem to forget sometimes about our pilots: our primary concern should be the safety of navigation on the St. Lawrence river. On the other hand, if we impose all sorts of charges and give rise to all sorts of difficulties, if, in a word, we enforce special procedures for vessels using the St. Lawrence river, there is a risk of less efficiency in the St. Lawrence shipping trade.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in our discussion with the United States, in order to come to some agreement with regard to piloting on the great lakes or any other waterway where both countries have a common interest, we must keep in mind that the safety of navigation must be the prime consideration. The same applies to the efficiency of seaway traffic. We do not wish ships to be hampered in their business; on the contrary, they should be able to go about their business in a logical way. That is why, in those discussions with the United States, we always have in mind not only the improvement of seaway traffic but also the protection of the Canadian pilots' position, their salaries and the part they play in the seaway traffic of this country.
That is why in this case, when we had to negotiate with the United States, we came to an agreement which, to my mind, is justified. As a matter of fact, as the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith) explained a

Canada Shipping Act
moment ago, the Americans also made some concessions, and I am convinced that the agreement which has been concluded is entirely reasonable, as not a single Canadian pilot will lose a cent because American vessels benefit from an exemption. Not a single Canadian pilot will lose his job following this arrangement, because we did insist that no American pilot be entitled to do any piloting on the St. Lawrence river, between St. Regis and Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Levis suggested a moment ago that the Department of Transport did not seem to care too much about the fate of our Canadian pilots, and that our officials seemed to want to please the Americans. Well, I must point out to him that the Department of Transport guarantees very attractive salaries to the pilots, and that there are not many Canadian corporations which pay their staff a salary of about $12,000 a year, not including an expense allowance of up to a couple of thousand dollars, and all that for eight or nine months of work.
I know Canadian pilots have responsibilities and that their services are most important to shipping and in many other ways. Just the same, they are paid very attractive salaries. Members of the Canadian corporation of pilots enjoy rights based on an ancient tradition which I respect as much as anyone else; however, in view of the fact that the Department of Transport guarantees jobs and fees to Canadian pilots, I feel they enjoy great benefits under our legislation.


Maurice Bourget: Would the minister allow me a question? What will happen to the pilots in the Cornwall-Montreal area?


Léon Balcer: I beg your pardon?


Maurice Bourget: What will happen to the pilots in the Cornwall-Montreal district if, within a few years, all American ships can be piloted by Americans?


Léon Balcer: I am very pleased that my hon. friend has asked this question because as Minister of Transport, I was asked by the pilots themselves to grant compulsory pilotage in that district. In fact, in November 1960,
I told them: Your request is a serious one, and we shall do our utmost to grant it. After studying the matter, we imposed compulsory pilotage on all foreign ships. At the time, I indicated to the pilots that I was not prepared to impose compulsory pilotage on

American ships because we were then discussing pilotage on the great lakes. However, I asked the pilots to grant voluntary exemptions to American ships until the Canada Shipping Act was amended. Well, that is what happened, and the pilots themselves exempted American ships.
My hon. friend has asked what will happen to the pilots in that district. Well, their position is better today than it was in November 1960. We have improved their position. Moreover, I would point out to those who feel inclined to raise cries of persecution in a case like this, that I think there is a tendency to make a bogey out of everything that is done by the Department of Transport in regard to pilotage.
These pilots are members of an old association with traditions going back many years. They are jealous of their rights, and you may be sure I respect those rights. However, representations are constantly being made as if we wanted to deprive them of their livelihood. There is always a hue and cry whenever a word is changed in any document dealing with pilotage.
Pilots are now organized in a federation, they have well defined districts, their working hours have been reduced, their salaries and expense allowances have gone up from year to year. Considering that they were granted compulsory pilotage on all foreign vessels under the sole condition that American vessels be exempted, I feel that the pilots should not raise any bogey in such a case, because their situation has improved in that district since last November. It should be kept in mind especially that those districts did not even exist before. There was only the Ottawa-St. Lawrence district where pilotage was not compulsory. Consequently, they were at a disadvantage as compared with the pilots downstream from Montreal. Their position is much better nowadays. Pilotage has become compulsory. Their association is recognized and so are their districts. I think they have made a great step forward.
I know they did not get everything they wanted, but they have made a great step forward.
I feel that our agreement with the United States concerning the great lakes is both reasonable and justifiable. We did not twist their arm. We ensured fair treatment for our pilots. The United States agreed to our request, namely that there should be equal treatment right from the first year. They made

Canada Shipping Act
that concession and, in return, we made concessions on other points.
Consequently, I feel that as far as pilotage on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence is concerned, the pilots' situation is better now than it has ever been.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in the discussion on the third reading of this bill but I rise again because of the intervention by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith) whom, I hope, will resume his seat. Incidentally, I also rise because of what the Minister of Transport just said.
First of all, with all respect, I say that the Minister of Transport added nothing to the debate a while ago. He only repeated what he had said yesterday. But he used a new phrase, that is, safety is the prime consideration.
The safety of the shipping traffic urges us to conclude an agreement with the United States. Very well. As a matter of fact, the pilots themselves have been saying that. That is why they asked the minister not to exempt from compulsory pilotage, as the minister says, from the payment of pilotage dues, United States ships. They claimed that if such an exemption is granted, what would surely happen, as the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) indicated, is that eventually there will be no more demand for Canadian pilots in that district. The United States ships will be handled through these dangerous waters by their own captains or masters, so that in five or ten years, there will be no need for Canadian pilots in that district.
Now the minister says that compulsory pilotage was granted the pilots. Prior to last November, no compulsory pilotage existed in that district.
Why was the pilotage made compulsory by the department in that district? For the same reason of course that brought the setting up of pilotage districts on the great lakes. It is on account of the increase in traffic in that area, because compared to the period which preceded the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway, the volume of traffic has more than doubled. Ships are bigger and longer, with a deeper draught and a carrying capacity of 20,000 to 25,000 tons, which explains the need to ensure the safety of American, Canadian and foreign vessels in those waters by making pilotage compulsory.
Now, after having agreed to that in November, exemption is intended for American ships. Well, pilots are objecting to that.
There is no question of raising cries of persecution or of making a bogey out of that. Neither the hon. member for Levis, nor I ever said any such thing. We made our argument here the same way as the pilots did before the committee where I think, they very calmly made very logical representations. They feel it is an invasion of their rights and of our sovereignty over Canadian waters. Furthermore, they feel that safety of navigation is threatened and they put their case to the minister.
The minister says they are well treated and that their remuneration is excellent. Remuneration or salaries are not involved in that legislation; only two things are involved: upholding of sovereignty and protection against accidents.
(Text):


Heber Edgar Smith: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Heber Edgar Smith: Is it not a fact that even before November, 1960, when there were no compulsory requirements either as to dues or pilotage, all vessels using the seaway at that time employed pilots; and does the hon. member not think that in the future as in the past the safety of these valuable ships will be a factor whether or not pilots are employed, regardless of the legislative requirements?


Lionel Chevrier: I think the answer to that question was given by the minister in committee, when he said that while it is true that most of the United States vessels are now using Canadian pilots because they are unfamiliar with the waters, there is no doubt that in due course the necessity of using Canadian pilots will gradually disappear and the day will come, which in our opinion is not far off, when the masters and mates on United States ships will be able, because of the experience they have gained, to take these ships right through to Montreal without using a Canadian pilot and therefore the pool of Canadian pilots will in due course disappear.
I wanted to say a word or two about some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Simcoe North. Since he understands so well what I am saying in French, perhaps I might continue in that language. However, it might not be courteous to do so. The hon. member concluded his remarks by asking whether the United States government would have spent upwards of $100 million without

Canada Shipping Act
having the assurance from Canada that they would obtain exemption from pilotage in this section of the river.


Heber Edgar Smith: I think the hon. member misunderstood me. I said it was related to the problem of getting the United States government to spend $105 million in that particular section, and that part of the implied agreement must have been that we would approve canal facilities between St. Regis and Montreal.


Lionel Chevrier: I took down the exact words that my hon. friend used, and I think they jibe very accurately with the argument he was trying to make. Why would the Americans spend over $100 million in the international section of the river if they did not expect to get the same treatment from Canada that the United States has given to Canada under the United States-Canada pilotage arrangement which he mentioned earlier?
The point is this, and it seems to have been forgotten entirely both by the hon. member and by the minister as well. We are dealing here with the international section and the international section alone. That is the point. It seems to have been forgotten both by the minister and the hon. member that in the international section, where the Americans have spent money for navigational facilities, they have all the protection that is required in so far as pilotage is concerned. They got it under the amendment to section VI of the pilotage act which was passed last year, and they also have it under their own legislation.
The point I am trying to make is that we are giving them in Canadian waters rights which they have not got today, rights which they have in United States waters under their own legislation and rights which they have in international waters by legislation which we passed last session. Now the hon. member comes forward and says we have received a quid pro quo, and that is why we have put this in the legislation. There may be a quid but I should like to know where the quo is. As the hon. member for Simcoe North has said, the quid is the exemption on lake Michigan. Canada gets rights for its Canadian pilots on that lake, which is wholly in United States territory. That is true. But why, and I have asked this question repeatedly, is that right of exemption on lake Michigan not placed in United States legislation in the same way that the right of exemption for United States ships is placed in Canadian legislation in this bill?
If it is a good thing to amend the Canada Shipping Act to give United States ships, because of certain commitments that have been made by Canada, the right to be exempt from pilotage in the Cornwall-Montreal
[Mr. Chevrier.l
district, why should the Americans not do the same thing in their legislation? The minister replied that their laws are not the same as ours. However, they have enacted certain laws so far as the great lakes pilotage area is concerned, and the question that comes to my mind is why should they not do it in this case?
The hon. member for Simcoe North attempted, and I say to him respectfully that he did not succeed, to argue away the treaty aspect of this matter. United States citizens were given rights in the international section of the river by treaties going back as far as 1783 and extending right up to the boundary waters treaty act of 1909. Those rights are clearly established in these treaties. It seems to me that if they are to have additional rights, particularly in the Canadian section of the river, it should be done by way of a treaty as well.
I know those who sit on the other side of the house challenge this argument, but it seems to me that there is a loss of sovereignty in these Canadian waters. It seems to me that the law so far as these Canadian waters from Montreal to Cornwall-St. Regis are concerned should remain as it was before, and I know the minister will reply at once that of course it does remain. It does not in this sense, that the pilots no longer have control in that section of the river, but they have in the section extending from Montreal to the sea. For that reason the pilots have come and protested against this legislation.
No one is challenging the statement that the pilots are well paid, but the pilots would not have been before the committee of the house as they were for two days protesting against this legislation unless they feared not only the international and safety aspects of it but also that it might represent a step toward taking from them certain rights in the river downstream. Furthermore, I am sure the pilots will continue their representations in that regard, which is indicative of the fact that they are not satisfied with this legislation.


Heber Edgar Smith: Would the hon. member permit another question? I think the hon. gentleman is perhaps being deliberately obtuse. Does the hon. member think the United States in constructing the seaway would have spent $105 million, or whatever amount was spent, in the international section of the St. Lawrence if there had not been an undertaking, either firm or implied, on the part of the Canadian government to improve and deepen the canal between St. Regis and Montreal?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to that question is "no", and I shall tell the house why. There is no doubt that the United States government

made an expenditure on the seaway long before there was any question of an agreement on pilotage.


Heber Edgar Smith: I was not talking about pilotage. My question related only to the question of the improvement and deepening of the canal. I was not attempting to relate it by analogy to pilotage. I was relating it to the deepening and improvement of the canal between St. Regis and Montreal. It strikes me that it would have been rather odd for the United States government to have spent $105 million and then encountered the question of a much shallower canal opposite Cornwall.


Lionel Chevrier: The point is that the
Americans made that expenditure without receiving that assurance. I am attempting to make that clear to the hon. gentleman but he will not let me reply. I wish to add this. Not only did the United States government make that expenditure, but the question was never raised before 1960. It was certainly never raised in 1959, and certainly not before the seaway-


Heber Edgar Smith: If I may interrupt, permit me to say we did not have to agree to deepen the canal between St. Regis and Montreal before the Americans would commit themselves to spend $105 million.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member is now changing his ground.


Heber Edgar Smith: I am not changing my ground. I am merely emphasizing the point I attempted to make earlier.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member is changing his ground. There is no doubt that if the United States government had not had from Canada the assurance that we were going to build 27 foot facilities downstream, they would not have been foolish enough to build facilities upstream in the international section. But that is not the point the hon. member was making. I took down the hon. member's words. The hon. gentleman said "Why should the United States government have spent this money without having the assurance that they would have an exemption from pilotage?" Those are the words the hon. member used, as I took them down.
Let me point out to the hon. gentleman that the expenditure was made by the United States government without receiving any assurance whatever from Canada with respect to pilotage. Furthermore, the directions to the United States authority that was building the seaway are set out in the United States legislation. In that legislation there is no reference whatever to pilotage. That was a
Division
matter which, I take it, was to have been ironed out eventually between the two governments.


Mr. Deschaieleis:: The hon. member for Simcoe North is all wet.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Unless the minister is rising to correct what he considers to be a misinterpretation, I must inform him that he cannot speak twice in the debate. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion is for
third reading of the	bill. Is it the pleasure
of the house to adopt the motion?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. the yeas and nays?	Speaker, will you call
The house divided	on the motion (Mr. Balcer) which was agreed to on the following division:	
YEAS	
Messrs:	
Aiken	Forbes
Aitken, Miss	Fortin
Allmark	Frechette
Balcer	Gillet
Baldwin	Grafftey
Barrington	Hales
Baskin	Hamilton (Notre Dame
Beech	de Grace)
Bell (Carleton)	Hamilton (Qu'Appelle)
Bell (Saint John-Albert)	Hanbidge
Belzile	Hees
Best	Henderson
Bigg	Herridge
Bissonnette	Hicks
Broome	Hodgson
Browne (Vancouver-	Horner (Acadia)
Kingsway)	Horner (Jasper-Edson)
Bruchesi	Horner (The Battlefords)
Brunsden	Howe
Cadieu	Jones
Campbell	Jung
(Lambton-Kent)	Kennedy
Campbell (Stormont)	Kindt
Cardiff	Knowles
Casselman, Mrs.	Kucherepa
Cathers	Lambert
Chambers	Legere
Charlton	Lennard
Churchill	Macdonnell
Clancy	MacEwan
Comtois	Maclnnis
Creaghan	MacLellan
Crouse	Macquarrie
Danforth	MacRae
Diefenbaker	McBain
Dinsdale	McCleave
Doucett	McFarlane
Drysdale	McGee
Dubois	McGrath
Fairclough, Mrs.	McIntosh
Fairfield	McLennan
Fane	McPhillips
Fleming (Eglinton)	Maloney
Fleming (Okanagan-	Martineau
Revelstoke)	Matthews
Flemming (Royal)	Monteith (Perth)

Committee on War Measures Act
More	Skoreyko
Morris	Small
Morton	Smallwood
Muir (Cape Breton	Smith (Lincoln)
North and Victoria)	Smith (Simcoe North)
Muir (Llsgar)	Southam
Murphy	Speakman
Nesbitt	Spencer
Noble	Starr
O'Hurley	Stearns
Pallett	Stefanson
Pascoe	Stinson
Paul	Tasse
Payne	Thomas
Peters	Thompson
Phillips	Thrasher
Pigeon	Villeneuve
Pitman	Webb
Rapp	Webster
Ricard	Weichel
Rynard	White
Se vigny	Winkler
Simpson	Wratten-133.
 NAYS Messrs:
Badanal	Hellyer
Batten	LaMarsh, Miss
Benidickson	Leduc
Boulanger	Macnaughton
Bourget	McMillan
Cardin	Martin (Essex East)
Chevrler	Meunler
Denis	Nixon
Deschatelets	Pickersgill
Eudes	Roberge
Garland	Robichaud
Habel	Tardif-24.
Motion agreed to and the 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.


John George Diefenbaker: That a special committee be appointed to consider and recommend changes that may be desirable in the War Measures Act;
That the committee consist of fifteen members to be designated by the house;
That the committee be empowered to sit during the sittings of the house;
That the committee have power to send for persons and papers;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as it may deem advisable and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation to the printing thereof; and
That the committee be empowered to report from time to time.
He said: Mr. Speaker, ever since 1914 there has been on the statute books of this country an act known as the War Measures Act, which

was passed immediately after the commencement of the first great war. Following that war there were discussions on various occasions both in the House of Commons and in the other place regarding this legislation, particularly as to whether or not it should continue in effect following the declaration of peace.
The act in question, and I shall make only a short reference to it, provides for the issue of a proclamation by Her Majesty, or under the authority of the governor in council, who may then "do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may by reason of the existence of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada"; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms-"the power to censor, control and suppress publications, writings, communications and means of communications, arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation, control of the harbours, ports and territorial waters, and the movement of vessels in Canada, and also the control of transportation by land, air or water, control of trade, exportation, importation, production and manufacture, as well as appropriation, control, forfeiture and disposition of property". In other words, under the general powers there is virtually nothing that the governor in council cannot do within the powers granted by the act.
Following the second world war the government of Right Hon. Mackenzie King and later the government of Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent brought in and had passed by parliament two acts which contained virtually the same powers as the War Measures Act, and enabled the governor in council to draft orders in council which, regardless of whether or not they were infringements on provincial jurisdiction, were none the less lawful.
In 1960 parliament passed the bill of rights and made certain provisions therein respecting some of the powers contained in the War Measures Act. Section 6 of the War Measures Act reads as follows:
The provisions of the three sections last preceding shall only be in force during war. invasion, or insurrection, real or apprehended.
Those are the sections giving the power, imposing penalties, and providing that anyone held for deportation under this act, or under arrest and detention as an alien enemy, or upon suspicion of being an alien enemy, or to prevent his departure from Canada, shall be released upon bail or otherwise discharged or tried, without the consent of the Minister of Justice.

The bill of rights provides that section 6 of the War Measures Act is repealed and substitutes therefor the following:
Sections 3, 4 and 5 shall come into force only upon the issue of a proclamation of the governor in council declaring that war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists.
For the protection of the rights of parliament there is this provision. The proclamation declaring that war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists shall be laid before parliament forthwith after its issue or, if parliament is not then sitting, within the first 15 days next thereafter. A further subsection provides that when the proclamation has been laid before parliament a notice of motion in either house signed by 10 members thereof, praying that the proclamation be revoked, shall be debated in that house at the first convenient opportunity within the four sitting days next after the motion in the house is made. This section further provides that if both houses of parliament resolve that the proclamation be revoked, it shall cease to have effect. In other words there was restored to parliament the right to assure that the executive power exercised by the governor in council shall be subject to the elected representatives of the people.
Various hon. gentlemen participated in the debate on the bill of rights. I am not going to refer to what they said, but I would point out that their views are dealt with at length in Hansard of August 3, 1960, at page 7503, when clause 6 of the War Measures Act, as part of the bill of rights, was before the house. Various suggestions were made for amendments to the War Measures Act. At that time I said, as reported at page 7506:
If a committee is set up and, of course, I am in the hands of the house as always-
To which the hon. member for Essex East with his customary suavity remarked as follows:
The right hon. gentleman has some influence.
I said:
I thank my hon. friend for those kind words. His geniality has brought about the recognition of a fact that he often denies.
This would be a most important contribution to the Canada of today and to the Canada of the future. At that time we would not deal as we are asked to now on a piecemeal basis with the rights under the War Measures Act. If there is a degree of unanimity, and I think there will be, that Canadian citizens should not be deported the committee might make that recommendation along with such other recommendations as will bring about a war measures act which on the one hand will maintain the solidarity and security of the state and on the other hand will have before it the paramount necessity of not needlessly sacrificing the rights of Canadians.
Committee on War Measures Act
That summarizes the general tenor of the views expressed by me and also by the Minister of Justice. Later at page 7511 of Hansard I said:
In so far as this is concerned-
I was referring to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition.
-no naturalized Canadian may be deprived of his citizenship and no naturalized British subject may be deprived of his status as a British subject under this act, and we accept that as a desirable objective when full and complete amendment of the War Measures Act or other acts is made.
There seemed to be general agreement at that time that there was the necessity for parliament to have the opportunity to deal with this matter. It is not a partisan matter. I am not going into anything which by the greatest exaggeration could be considered as bringing partisan considerations into this debate. I simply say there was agreement that something should be done to bring about amendments to the War Measures Act and to assure that the act, while maintaining the need of security at all times, should be so altered or changed as to provide that security, while at the same time preserving to the greatest degree possible the rights of the individual.
On January 27, 1961, at page 1475 of Hansard, the Leader of the Opposition asked me this question:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he could confirm or deny a report in the press this morning to the effect that during this session the government is going to amend the War Measures Act?
I replied:
I did not see that report. The government feels -and it expressed its feeling in this regard at the time discussions were taking place relative to the bill of rights-that some committee of the house might well consider the War Measures Act and, having considered it, make recommendations as to what revisions or amendments could be made to that act to render it a measure from which injustice would not follow.
A little later on I said:
I feel and I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree, that a full and complete review of the War Measures Act would be following a course in keeping with the desires of Canadians as a whole. In time of war the measure is necessary in the interests of maintaining security, but in the days of peace there cannot be too large a degree of justification for its maintenance in effect without giving parliament at least the opportunity, through a committee, of fully considering the representations that have been made from time to time with regard to this legislation.
Following that, the hon. member for Essex East indicated that a private member had a bill on the order paper showing the intention to introduce amendments to the War Measures Act. With customary modesty he did not refer to himself but simply said an hon. member had such a bill on the order paper. Later, on

Committee on War Measures Act May 29, the Leader of the Opposition asked this question as recorded at page 5504 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, having regard to the statements made by him during the debate last year on the bill of rights and similar statements on January 27 this year, whether the government intends to submit the War Measures Act to this session of parliament for consideration?
To which I replied:
I can only say at this time that depending on the progress that is made in the house, a decision in that regard will be announced to the house.
Again a supplementary question was asked by the hon. member for Essex East. All this indicates, I think, that there is a desire to bring about a close scrutiny and examination of this legislation. I had hoped to bring it before the house yesterday, but in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition and at the request of the hon. member for Laurier the motion was set over until today.


Mr. Benidickson:: It was introduced only on Saturday.


John George Diefenbaker: I hope the house will accept this motion. I realize that many hon. members will argue, as they have argued throughout the session, that committees are becoming too numerous. This committee is one on which I am sure all who are chosen will be most happy and honoured to serve. It is the kind of constructive work in which members who wish to devote themselves to the maintenance of our freedoms will naturally desire to take part.
The question might arise as to how long this committee would sit. I think a start should be made. Many representations were made in 1960 and prior thereto. Various groups of lawyers, constitutional law professors and professors of history made representations. Professor Lower, professor emeritus of Queen's, has given many years of study to this question. I think of others equally well in-tentioned and well equipped who would be most desirous of playing their parts in this investigation and examination, and also in making recommendations consonant with the purpose of the legislation, but at the same time assuring the preservation of those things that should not be denied to Canadians.
This is now the 13th of June. I have no idea how long the session will continue, but the progress that has been made would seem to lend support to the hope that by the end of this month we should be in a position to conclude. If, however, we are not, I want the house to make its own determination. In that regard I return to a view that I expressed earlier, that in the interests of hon. members, particularly those with families including


small children, they should not be denied the opportunity to be with their families during the months of July and August.
During the summer the committee might conceivably exchange ideas and views on this particular matter and have representations made while not necessarily having to convene. In that way the committee would perform its duty without inconvenience or interfering with the legitimate desires of members not only to do that to which I have already referred, but also to see their constituents. Therefore, without further argument, I place this motion before the house. It may be contended it should have been done earlier. That will always be an argument; but if it had been done there would have been one more committee in addition to the number already sitting, about which complaint has been made.
Is this a necessary work to be done? I think it is. I do not feel that recommendations for amendment of this legislation should be the prerogative of departmental officials or cabinet ministers. This legislation crosses all party lines, and members of the committee when chosen will be able to do something to meet the anomalous situation which has prevailed in two world wars and following, that while we fought for freedom we found it necessary to place in bond as security for their preservation, the freedoms for which we fought.
I hope the house will accept this motion so the committee may commence the discharge of its duties and make decisions as to such suggestion as I made earlier, so as to enable not only the exchange of ideas between members of the committee, but also the reception of ideas from those learned in the law and also those learned in the processes of freedom. Then, the committee may bring about recommendations which will maintain the essence of the War Measures Act as the instrument for the mobilization of our people should war ever come and at the same time preserve so far as possible those things which are dearer than life itself.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask a question arising out of the Prime Minister's motion to set up this committee? The Prime Minister indicated that there might be a new departure from past practice, in that the parliamentary committee might sit during the recess. I am sure he is aware that this has become a very common practice of the provincial legislature in Ontario. I wonder whether the rules committee could be considered as a committee that could do this kind of useful work so that its work would not come in conflict with other legislative duties when the House of Commons is in session.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member has asked a very challenging question. I did not, of course, say the committee should sit during the recess. I said it mignt exchange views. If it chose to sit, that would be its right.


William Moore Benidickson: It would require government approval.


John George Diefenbaker: I recall that during the war days I was on the committee on the defence of Canada regulations-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Defence expenditures.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, defence expenditures. We sat most of the summer, and found that we were able to do worth-while work. However, after the months that hon. members have been here I would not wish on them a continuance of their presence in Ottawa, though the hon. member may represent a large group who believe that committees should sit during the summer holidays as well.


William Moore Benidickson: Not I, but there may be others who want to do so, and it might save time later.


John George Diefenbaker: If there is that enthusiasm and such a desire-


William Moore Benidickson: I want to get back to Kenora.


John George Diefenbaker: -to apply the suggestion of the hon. member to the fullest extent every month in the year, I must say I would be the last to suggest a detour.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will be the last to suggest that we do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this motion, which provides among other things that a special committee be appointed to consider and recommend changes that may be desirable in the War Measures Act, the Prime Minister has pointed out that he believes there is a general desire to give consideration to amendments to the War Measures Act and, he might have added, to take steps to make sure that the War Measures Act be rendered consistent with the bill of rights passed by parliament in 1960.
I think the Prime Minister is right. There is a desire that the War Measures Act should be considered in the light of present and future conditions. In so far as we in the Liberal party are concerned, we are anxious, as the record demonstrates, that the War Measures Act should be consistent with the provisions of the bill of rights and the security of the state.
The Prime Minister has said there is nothing that the governor in council cannot
90205-6-395
13. 1961	6261
Committee on War Measures Act do under the War Measures Act subject only to the provisions of that act. That is a fact, of course, and the consequence is that the War Measures Act supercedes the bill of rights.


John George Diefenbaker: Only after proclamation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Only after proclamation.


John George Diefenbaker: Only to a limited extent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And to the extent indicated in the bill of rights itself, to which I will make reference in a moment. The Prime Minister has suggested that because of the importance of this measure and the common attitude that prevails about considering amendments, this is not in itself the kind of question that should divide the house. I readily agree that such is the case. The Prime Minister will not expect me, of course, to refrain from putting on the record with regard to this matter which seem desirable in the light of the position we took last session with regard to amendments to the War Measures Act. However, with his general statement I do not quarrel.
The Prime Minister will recall, as he himself has reminded us by his several references to Hansard, that questions were put to the government and in particular to the Prime Minister asking when steps would be taken to bring about amendments to the War Measures Act. The Prime Minister mentioned one of the replies he made in which he said by way of response, I think somewhat vaguely, that it would depend largely on the progress that was made during the course of the present session.
I take the position, of course, that this is not the view the Prime Minister took when we discussed this matter in 1960. I believe his words in that regard, to which I will refer later, were more definitive than was the indication given in reply to the questions put to him during the course of this session by the Leader of the Opposition.
The Prime Minister has referred to the fact that there is now on the order paper a bill standing in my name which embodies the proposed amendments to the War Measures Act which were submitted last session in this house by the Leader of the Opposition and later in the committee on the bill of rights, by me, supported by the hon. gentleman from Maisonneuve-Rosemont.
The practical consideration, however, is one that we must bear in mind. The government brings in, on the 13th day of June, a proposal that a committee should be established for the purpose of considering the War Measures Act and any amendments thereto. Under our procedures a bill introduced by the

Committee on War Measures Act government, of course, will likely have precedence over a bill proposed by a private member of this house. If it is a fact that my bill, which obviously encouraged the government at long last to take some action, is to be superseded by the action taken today by the government, then of course I can have no legitimate procedural complaint, nor would any such complaint get very far. I would be practical enough to recognize that situation at once.
That being the case, and if this is the government's final stand in the matter, as one who wants to see amendments to the War Measures Act and who wants to see the War Measures Act brought into a position consistent with the bill of rights I would under those conditions, of course, support the motion proposed today by the Prime Minister. However, I would do that not without some complaint on other grounds.
It is regrettable that this particular motion was not presented early in the session. We have complained from time to time that the government's mismanagement of the business of this house has been such as to crowd in, in the dying days of the session, not only much important legislation to be considered exclusively in this chamber, and other legislation to be considered by parliamentary committees, but as well the work of many of the standing and special committees of this house, with the result that not only are we sitting from 11 o'clock in the morning until 10.30 o'clock at night in the House of Commons but at the same time we have obligations in committees that are meeting simultaneously, some three times, some four times and on one occasion five times in a day, with one committee actually having had its sittings-I refer to the external affairs committee which is an extremely important one-during the luncheon recess from one o'clock until two thirty in the afternoon.
With the background of this heavy schedule for our committee and house work, the government now comes forward at this late moment to present this motion, which could well have been presented in the month of January. If it had been presented at that time, ample opportunity this session would have been provided for consultation with law experts and other competent people outside to assist in our deliberations of the amendments thought desirable in the War Measures Act.
The Prime Minister will therefore not be surprised if, seeking to be as conciliatory as possible at this time of the session, I lay before him with some justification our complaint for not having brought this measure forward early in the session. That was the time to bring forward something about which the government had been properly forewarned and

which indeed the Prime Minister himself, as he indicated in what he said today, had suggested to the house would be the action taken by the government during the course of the present session. I believe this matter is so important that we ought to begin the work of this committee at once, if that is to be the procedural situation in relation to the bill now standing in my name.
The Prime Minister has referred to some observations of Professor Lower. I am not surprised that he should do so, because Professor Lower obviously is a protagonist of the Prime Minister. He made that fact clear in the committee on the bill of rights when he spoke glowingly of the Prime Minister's efforts and generally of certain other points of view and positions taken by the Prime Minister.
I do not fail to recognize the merits of Professor Lower, although I would not be as enthusiastic, and the Prime Minister would not expect me to be-


John George Diefenbaker: Did not the hon. gentleman quote him?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to quote him. I would not be as enthusiastic nor would the Prime Minister expect me to be as enthusiastic about him as within this limited context Professor Lower has been of the Prime Minister. However, Professor Lower made this statement, and I refer to page 5650 of Hansard of July 1, 1960, and to words quoted by the Leader of the Opposition:
I submit that if we are going to have a bill of rights in Canada, and there will be a great deal of debate about it, we ought to have one that means something. I believe that in normal peacetime our liberties are not in very serious danger. But in wartime they are in very serious danger, the liberties of all of us. Hence, it is the duty of the government to find a method of enacting legislation which will give at least minimum guarantees. Suggestions could be made which would modify the War Measures Act. In the meantime, as long as it is on the books it is the duty of everybody who loves a free society, who loves liberty, to bend his best efforts to attack this act and try to get rid of this invidious liberty-destroying statute, the War Measures Act.
I do not agree, and I am sure the Prime Minister does not agree, with this full denunciation of the War Measures Act, because I think we feel that human liberty already recognizes that in wartime there are certain exigencies in the interests of the security of the state which must be borne in mind. Professor Lower has expressed his views in a number of other publications. In the Canadian Commentator of March, 1959, he wrote an article entitled "The Bill of Rights" in which he said:
The Canadian War Measures Act is the most iniquitous piece of legislation ever to disgrace a British statute book-at least since the celebrated legislation-by-proclamations act of Henry VIII, 400 years ago. Its parallel is to be found not in any

other English-speaking country, for none have disgraced themselves in this respect as has Canada done-*
Then he went on to say:
If Mr. Diefenbaker, in the fullness of his wisdom, decided tomorrow that a state of apprehended insurrection existed, and proclaimed the War Measures Act, he could call parliament and the immense liberty-loving Conservative majority behind him, shocked at his conduct, might then proceed by open vote in the commons, to require him to withdraw his proclamation. This provision (section 6, etc.) is fantastic in its futility. I cannot understand how serious-minded public men can have the effrontery to put such words on paper. And yet there they are. If Mr. Diefenbaker has any regard to his future reputation-
I suspect that the Prime Minister has, and that would be understandable:
- (especially among those who make or mar the reputations of public men, that is, the historians and the constitutionalists), he will withdraw this section of his bill.
So the Prime Minister is right-


John George Diefenbaker: One year later he supports it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. So the Prime Minister is right in saying that Professor Lower had strong views about the War Measures Act, particularly in relation to the bill of rights. It is a fact that in the committee on the bill of rights I asked Professor Lower whether in view of his strongly expressed views regarding the War Measures Act he did not think appropriate amendments should be made to that act in the bill of rights. He answered in the affirmative. I think I should point out, in fairness, that after I left the room the Minister of Justice -and this is a matter of record in Hansard; the minister was not taking advantage of my absence and it was a mere coincidence; I mean that sincerely-put questions to Professor Lower and as a result got from him replies in direct contradiction to the position he had taken earlier in the committee.
This does not in any way affect the merits of the proposal now before the house, but since Professor Lower's name was mentioned I thought I should let the Prime Minister know that I was not unaware that this great admirer of his had strong views on this matter, views which in principle if not in every detail coincide with those expressed by the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke in this house on the occasion of the second reading of the bill of rights. On that occasion the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that the only change made in the bill of rights regarding the War Measures Act was to make possible parliamentary debate on the proclamation of the War Measures Act, which of course brings that act into force, and on its revocation. The bill of 90205-6-395J
13. 1961
Committee on War Measures Act rights provides that after such debate parliament may take a particular course of action as to whether or not it wishes to withdraw the proclamation. The point is that there was reference in the bill of rights to the War Measures Act, but only within the limited terms I have just mentioned.
The Leader of the Opposition urged that there should be amendments to the War Measures Act, and that these amendments should be incorporated in the bill of rights. While he recognized that the mere reference to the War Measures Act in section 5 of the bill of rights represented an improvement, he argued that it did not go far enough. The Leader of the Opposition said that because of the way the bill of rights dealt with the War Measures Act we were giving to the latter a greater sanctity and a greater prestige than was necessary or desirable, and that we were giving it as well a pre-eminence by that kind of amendment, rather than dealing with it in its form.
The Leader of the Opposition also pointed out that notwithstanding this provision in the bill of rights the law would remain in such a position that whatever had been done before would continue to be possible, notwithstanding the passage of the bill of rights. But he did point out-I think this is important for us to note, and it is something that Professor Lower has not taken into consideration-that we have to take into account war emergencies and, while that is the case, he would be a bold man who would argue that war emergencies may not make it necessary in the future for persons to be detained in a manner that apart from the exigencies of war would seem undesirable, not because of any act they had done but because of the danger of what they might do with regard to certain acts which obviously would involve the security of the state.
The War Measures Act, as the Prime Minister said, was placed on the statute books in 1914. As the Prime Minister said, it gives to the governor in council, in time of war, virtually unlimited powers to restrain the freedom of the person of the Canadian citizen. The Prime Minister did not note, however, that since the passage of the act we have adopted in our own Canadian Citizenship Act legislation that now makes it impossible for the government in peacetime to deprive any Canadian citizen, resident in Canada, of his citizenship.
Notwithstanding that, the Leader of the Opposition urged that we should now go a step forward. He said that any bill of rights should contain a provision limiting the powers given to the governor in council under the War Measures Act by expressly excluding from those powers the power by order in

Committee on War Measures Act council to deprive any Canadian citizen of his citizenship. The Leader of the Opposition argued, and I believe we would all agree with this, that the governor in council should be expressly forbidden to act under the War Measures Act to banish or exile any citizen from our country. I think we would wish it were possible to agree that the governor in council should be expressly forbidden, even in wartime, to detain any citizen or resident of our country without providing for an early trial on charges specifically laid in accordance with the law of Canada.
However, I am sure careful reflection will suggest that this would not be a responsible thing for parliament to do, and we are not prepared to go that far. Certainly in the bill I have before this house we do not take that extreme position. Nevertheless we in this party do feel that there should be, in the light of all that has transpired, a limitation by law on the absolute and arbitrary power of the governor in council to detain persons, even in wartime. We believe that a provision should have been written into the bill of rights which would limit the power of the governor in council to detain any person for more than let us say three months, or the period might be less, without a hearing before a supreme court judge and satisfying that judge that there were serious grounds for believing that the detention of such person was essential to the security of the state.
This measure, in so far as the Prime Minister is concerned, admittedly has a long association. I remind the Prime Minister that it was on May 16, 1947, when he as a private member of this house recommended not only that there should be amendments to the War Measures Act but as well that the Official Secrets Act should be repealed. The latter act was objectionable, I suppose, on the ground that it presumed guilt on the part of an accused contrary to the common law tradition which has existed for a long time and contrary to section 3(f) of the bill of rights, which now guarantees by law that an accused person is presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise.
The Prime Minister said in 1960 when this matter was discussed, as may be found on page 5948 of Hansard for July 7 of that year:
I think the whole act-
He was referring, of course, to the War Measures Act.
-deserves to be considered... I think if we could get together the membership in the house and deal with the War Measures Act and ascertain the degree to which the rights of the individual may be maintained to the highest extent without detriment to the security of the nation as a whole, changes and amendments might be made to that act. If hon. members of the house so desire, I would be willing that at the next session a committee

be set up to consider this whole field, for the War Measures Act, like all measures passed for the purpose of ensuring the salvation and survival of the state, has been found in the light of experience not only here but in other countries to contain provisions that ought to be ameliorated or subdued in the interests of the individual while at the same time maintaining the security of the state.
The Prime Minister referred to some parts of this discussion, but I did not note that he read all that was relevant. I may be wrong in that particular. I formed the impression, listening to the recital of what he did say in 1960, that he did not give the full text as I find it before me now in volume 6 of Hansard for last session. I had been urging, as indeed, had the Leader of the Opposition, that we should incorporate into the bill of rights certain amendments which we proposed. By such incorporation, we would bring the War Measures Act, without depriving it of its desired strength, into a form consistent with the bill of rights.
To return to the Prime Minister's statement which I have just quoted, I took that as an undertaking by the government that at this session such a course would be followed. I agree, the Prime Minister could say consistently that he is taking that course and fulfilling his promise in so far as this present procedure represents a compliance with the letter of the assurance given. But, I repeat, the course taken by the Prime Minister at this late date in the session is not consistent with the spirit of that assurance. That course could have been taken early in the session, particularly when it was prompted by the two interrogations of the Leader of the Opposition and referred to by the Prime Minister a few moments ago. Not only did the Leader of the Opposition press this matter, but I myself asked a number of questions in connection with it. I cannot put my hands on the precise quotations at this moment, but I asked the Prime Minister two questions-


John George Diefenbaker: I think I have them here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, if I had all
the research facilities of the Prime Minister I can assure him I should not be wanting at this moment.


John George Diefenbaker: I did the research on this myself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime
Minister says he did the research on this himself, but the Prime Minister has more time than other people-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Peter Francis Martin: -because he has so many people to help him. Again, it must not be forgotten that on the estimates of the Minister of Justice I asked the minister only ten days ago, or thereabouts, when we were going to have the opportunity of considering amendments to the War Measures Act pursuant to the assurance given by the Prime Minister in 1960. I do not have the minister's reply here but he can look it up, because, he too has more time and more help than I. He will remember that his answer was very equivocal. He did not possess the same positive assurance that the Prime Minister displayed today. The Minister of Justice did not seem to know what would be done.
I can understand that, because after all this is a matter which primarily concerns the Prime Minister and perhaps there has not been time for the usual conversations to take place. However, the fact that the minister was not conversant with the thinking of the Prime Minister in this connection merely indicates how dilatory this government has been in putting the matter before the house.
Be this as it may, I asked the minister ten days ago whether the government would support Bill No. 62 introduced by a private member, the hon. member for Essex East. Again I got an equivocal reply. If the government had given careful consideration to this matter, it could easily have indicated what it thought of these amendments, and what it thought of the amendments introduced last year by the Leader of the Opposition; what it thought of incorporating these amendments in the bill of rights. These questions could easily have been answered by the Minister of Justice, who is an intelligent man, if there had been the same preoccupation with this matter then that seems to exist now, but which certainly did not exist during the early period of this session. So I hope the Prime Minister will not misunderstand me, if I suggest that it is this Bill No. C-62, to amend the War Measures Act, introduced by a private member, which has forced the government at long last into doing something which the Prime Minister spoke about doing in 1957.


An hon. Member:: Would you like to
think so?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I would like to think so. I would like to think that some of the things I do have some constructive influence as far as the government is concerned.


Mr. Aiken:: Would the hon. member permit another question? Does the humble member for Essex East take the stand that the bill he
Committee on War Measures Act has introduced, Bill No. C-62, contains all the necessary amendments to the War Measures Act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not intend to assert the doctrine of infallibility as far as I am concerned. It may be that many of the things I propose are inadequate or wrong. I do not assert that I am infallible, but if this bill is inadequate the government has had all this session in which to indicate that it is inadequate. It could have set up a committee to consider it, and it could have appointed the brilliant member for Parry Sound-Muskoka to that committee to assist us to determine whether this bill is adequate or not. I am simply saying that in the absence of evidence to the contrary-and no one has contradicted the substance of this bill-it does seem to put forward substantial and desirable amendments, particularly in relation to the bill of rights.


Mr. Martineau:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I suppose there is time.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would he indicate to the house whether when he sat on the treasury benches he also exercised the same persuasive powers that he is personally applying to the government while he is in opposition?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should think that the record of legislative achievement by the former minister of national health and welfare is sufficient answer to the enlightened question put by the hon. member.
But the record must be clearly observed. The Leader of the Opposition argued, as I said, that there should be further amendments to the bill of rights, and that the one amendment of the bill of rights dealing with the War Measures Act was insufficient because the character of that amendment gave to the War Measures Act a position in relation to the bill of rights that was undesirable. He further urged that there should be amendments to the War Measures Act, and that those amendments should be incorporated into the bill of rights so that we should have had in one legislative document something that would have been more compact to clearly indicate the full character of our desire to preserve fundamental freedoms and human liberties. Those amendments were not accepted in the house, but they were put forward by the Leader of the Opposition on August 1, 1960, and in the committee in respect of the bill of rights prior to that, on July 29, 1960.
As will be found in the reports of the committee, I moved, seconded by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Committee on War Measures Act Deschatelets), certain amendments to the War Measures Act which, in principle, are incorporated in Bill No. C-62. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), whose observations will be found at page 712 of that committee's report, without in any way deprecating the character or the form of the proposed amendments, replied that the government took the position that it would not want to deal with the War Measures Act in bits, piece by piece, without studying the whole problem of emergency powers in wartime. That was the position he took in a forthright manner. We pointed out to him that, as the War Measures Act did abridge human freedoms and fundamental rights, the government should have given consideration to that particular aspect of the problem, and incorporated the amendments in the bill of rights.
Following that we came back to this house where the amendments were put forward again-two of them moved by the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, and two of them by me-they were overwhelmingly defeated by hon. gentlemen opposite. The Minister of Justice, who piloted the measure at that time, gave as the reason for the government's position, substantially the answer he had given in committee.
I feel it is important that the provisions of Bill No. C-62 should be noted, because there has been no suggestion by the government, with regard to the substance of the amendments proposed in the house or in the committee last session, that these amendments were not satisfactory nor, as I recall, that they were alleged to be incorrect, inapplicable, or that they had gone too far, or not far enough.
The bill which I introduced in this house received first reading on January 31, 1961, so this is not a bill that was brought in during the dying days of the session. This was a bill brought in by the hon. member for Essex East on January 31.


John George Diefenbaker: Was it not January 27?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, the date of first reading was January 31.
That should have been ample warning to the government of its own assurance to set up a committee to deal with this matter early in the session. All this time has gone by, yet all we have received from the administration are vague replies which indicated no positive intention to proceed with the matter this session.


John George Diefenbaker: Are you disappointed now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister asks if I am disappointed now. Of course I am not disappointed, but we should have preferred that the government would

have dealt with this matter early in the session, and should have preferred it had the government to have accepted at once our amendments which were carefully considered, and which apparently the government considered satisfactory because there was no suggestion to the contrary.
Bill No. C-62 is not without its significance. It provides that subsection 5 of section 6 of the War Measures Act be repealed and-


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is now proceeding to discuss Bill No. C-62 which is not a matter before this house at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, surely I am entitled to point out the kind of amendments which we believe should be provided for in the War Measures Act. These amendments are now contained in a bill which is now before this house, and I know of no violation of our rule that precludes me from doing so. If I cannot refer to the act at all I shall simply give the substance of it and thereby satisfy my hon. friend, if there does seem to be a violation of the rule. However, I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and should like a ruling before I proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: It would not be in order to carry on now a debate on the principles of the hon. member's Bill, C-62, such as would be relevant when it comes up for second reading, but I see no objection to a reference to the fact that this committee would be able to deal with a matter which has already been raised before this house in another way. It is largely a question of extent, I should think.
For the guidance of this house I refer to May's comment about debate on a motion of this kind. In May's sixteenth edition at page 452 it is stated:
On a motion for the appointment of a select committee, or for determining the number of its members, the merits of the matters referred to the committee have not been allowed to be debated. Our practice in this house has varied from motion to motion, but in general terms the desirability of establishing a committee is the subject of debate, which necessarily involves a discussion in general terms of the matters which will come before it. I should think that if the hon. member wishes to refer to his bill in general terms as an argument in favour of establishing the committee, he can do so, but he should not debate the principles of his bill, which would be anticipating another matter on the order paper.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I should like to state that the reason I raised it is that, when I attempted to discuss a resolution which I had put on the order paper under similar circumstances, the hon. member for Essex East was very quick to rise on a point

of order and to suggest that I was discussing it at that time, following which I was ruled out of order.


Mr. Fulton:: That is the old principle of the rules applying equally to both sides.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I recall the incident, the hon. member did have a great deal to say about his resolution on the order paper. I do not intend to be too severe, but I do caution the hon. member that this is not a debate on his bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, and suggest that I was not debating the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I assure the hon. members, and particularly my young friend from Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), who seems to laugh louder than the others, that if the house decides that my bill does not have precedence, that is the end of it. All I am seeking to do now is to indicate the character of the amendments which I believe should be incorporated in the War Measures Act. I fully agree with the position taken by Your Honour.
We proposed that, subject to certain sections of the War Measures Act, any act or thing done or authorized or any order or regulation made under the authority of these amendments, should be deemed not to be an abrogation, abridgment, or infringement of any right or freedom recognized by the Canadian bill of rights.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the hon. member indicate what he is presently reading from?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am referring to the bill.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Which bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am referring to Bill No. C-62. I am not arguing the merits of the bill but simply pointing out the amendments which are proposed.
We also urged that a naturalized Canadian citizen should not be deprived of his citizenship and a naturalized British subject should not be deprived of his status as a British subject.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the point of order, I suggest the hon. member is even going further than the course he took which you just ruled to be out of order. Not only is he discussing the principles of Bill No. C-62, he is also discussing it clause by clause.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite wrong in that.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I suppose you are quite right?
13,	1961
Committee on War Measures Act


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course, I am quite right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I ruled that if the argument the hon. member is advancing is the subject matter of his bill it would be a proper subject matter for this committee to consider. However, I do think it is a simple matter to indicate that, without an extensive review of the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The bill is very short. We took the position that a Canadian citizen should not be deported from Canada under this act.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: He is also reading from the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We also took the position-well if hon. gentlemen are so vitally interested in human liberties as by their interruptions they indicate I shall let their interventions stand on the record and the public who read Hansard will judge their interest. We also propose, as the Leader of the Opposition proposed last year, that a Canadian citizen or a British subject-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Subclause 4.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -should not be detained under the act beyond a limited period unless the cause for the detention had been reviewed by an appropriate impartial tribunal, which would thereafter report to the minister who would have the sole authorization for detention.
Then it was finally proposed-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Subclause 5.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -in this bill that there should be an opportunity in this house to debate the provisions of the act and, finally, that there should be revocation of an order by resolution in this house. These are the amendments which are incorporated in the bill to which hon. gentlemen expressed such objection to having recited, although the Prime Minister has acknowledged that these were the liberties, and properly so, that should be carefully examined in order to bring the War Measures Act into conformity with the bill of rights. And yet hon. gentlemen in this non-controversial debate have sought to display that characteristic opposition to anything that comes from we who are vitally concerned, about the preservation of human liberties in this country.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The matter is not completed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Committee on War Measures Act Mr. Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I do not object Mr. Speaker: Order. If I understand the to references in general terms by the hon. hon. member correctly he is now raising a member for Essex East. I was one of those point of order which, it seems to me, should who interrupted him because in spite of your have been raised when the motion was made, ruling he read subclauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 of his The debate has continued on the motion to bill, Bill No. C-62, verbatim, as he went set up the committee and without protest through them. The only comment I made that it in any way interfered with other mat-was that he missed out subclause 5.	ters on the order paper.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, I had not intended to include the hon. gentleman in my indictment but since he has discredited his own witness himself I have to let that act stand by itself.
I am not aware that the mere recital of a bill is a contravention of the rules. However, I am so used to those interruptions from hon. gentlemen that I can only say it gives me a certain amount of exhilaration when they are present and are so persistent.
We have discussed the War Measures Act but at the same time we ought to consider all of the legislation which exists on our statute books which is inconsistent with the bill of rights. While the Minister of Justice did not give assurance that that would be done, he did indicate at the last session that it would be considered although on his estimates this year he modified his position. There are many acts of parliament in addition to the War Measures Act-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is going beyond the scope of the debate in referring to other matters. The motion is a specific one for the establishment of a committee to consider amendments to the War Measures Act and does not refer to other matters which might contravene the bill of rights.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, but I do not know of any rule that prevents one from making reference in passing to the inadequacy of the motion-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There again we have hon. gentlemen who respect the Chair so much as to not allow an hon. gentleman to make his speech without any difficulty. I say I do not know of any rule that precludes an hon. gentleman from saying that a particular proposal is inadequate in that it ought to include within the compass of its reaches certain other things. That is all I was seeking to do.
This is the position. We have on the order paper Bill No. C-62 which provides for amendments to the War Measures Act. The Speaker will have to rule which of these measures takes precedence. This bill has been on the order paper since January 31.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I thought one could always raise a point of order. Do I understand that Your Honour just now ruled that Bill No. C-62 must be superseded by the bill proposed by the Prime Minister?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: No. I just suggested that if the matter were to be raised it should have been raised when the motion was introduced. A point of order might have been taken then that something on the order paper impeded the progress of this particular bill but it has now been proceeded with and debated. The hon. member himself has debated it. I would think it is not in order now to raise the point.


John Ferguson Browne: On the
point of order raised, I believe it should be brought to the attention of the house that according to the rules Bill No. C-62 could not possibly come before the house for debate this session and the hon. member must have known it when he put it on the order paper. Parliament would have to sit for seven months for the hon. member's bill to be discussed, because of its position on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not hearing the point of order of the hon. gentleman. I trust the hon. member will proceed with the debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to argue the point because I do not believe it is necessary to argue it at this stage. The bill will take its position and if it is reached, then the point will have to be determined.
I did clearly indicate at the outset that if the position was that Bill No. C-62 would be superseded by the proposal of the Prime Minister, I would naturally welcome it under those conditions. That is what I said. I never took any other position. I think all that I shall do is to leave the situation as it is. It may be that in the course of the session an opportunity will be presented to consider whether or not Bill No. C-62 should be discussed. That being the case, I simply point out that this bill providing for amendments to the War Measures Act was given first reading on January 31, 1961. On June 13 the Prime Minister put forward the proposal that we should consider amendments to the

War Measures Act, with no indication given by the government, as I said before, whether or not the amendments incorporated in Bill No. C-62 were acceptable or undesirable. In the absence of a declaration by the government the presumption was that the bill was not unacceptable to them in principle. In any event, in the dying days of the session we are now faced with a proposal that might well have been brought forward by the government at the beginning of the session, particularly in the face of the assurance given by the Prime Minister last session. In my judgment, to have waited all this time demonstrates that the government was not as concerned about those amendments as it professes to be. It would not have been difficult for the government to come forward with this proposal early in the session when we could have given the matter the fullest consideration. However, it has chosen another course. It has chosen to increase our work in the dying days of the session in such a manner as to make it impossible for every member to give full consideration to the work of the house. There is not a member within sound of my voice who does not know that what I am saying is true. That is the situation. The country knows it. The country must know the kind of pressure that has been put upon us in the dying days of the session in the effort to discharge our duties.
However, the government has finally brought forward this measure. I hope the committee will be set up forthwith. I hope an opportunity will be given us to call the necessary persons to consider whether amendments should be made to the War Measures Act consistent with the security which I agree with the Prime Minister must ever be foremost in our minds in time of war which we all sincerely hope will never again eventuate. But I feel that the record deserves to have this statement of the events that have transpired since the introduction of the bill of rights, since the introduction of amendments to the War Measures Act similar to those in Bill C-62 introduced last session, similar to the amendments put forward in the bill of rights committee by Liberal members of the house to determine whether or not we can reconcile further with the bill of rights any act that is inconsistent or is a violation of our liberties and rights. These, it seems to me, are reasons that the government might well have expected us to express at this time.
I cannot explain why the government did not bring forward this measure earlier in the session other than the reasons I have given. They seem to be the only reasons in the light of all the facts that are apparent. 1 am sure that some hon. members, like the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and the 90205-6-396
13, 1961
Committee on War Measures Act hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), young members who seemingly have recognized in the Conservative party, although I am sure by now they realize their mistake, a hope for the preservation of liberty, must be wondering why after all these assurances, why after all this time the Prime Minister should only now come forward on the 13th day of June with amendments which were discussed in this house last session and with respect to which we were assured there would be a committee.
I can only conclude that the government is so overwhelmed by the many problems confronting it and finds itself in such a difficult situation with regard to the making of decisions that it has had to place certain problems in one basket and certain other problems in another basket. It thus happens that because they were slow in dealing with the problems in the basket on the right they have been so slow and so tardy in dealing with problems which they recognized as urgent a year ago but which have remained in the basket on the left. At long last the government has acted, but it must be clear to everyone, it must be clear even to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi that it was the Liberal party, that it was Bill C-62 that finally brought the government to the point of taking action and caused it to make a decision which it should have made over 14 months ago.


Mr. Fortin:: Will the hon. member permit a question?
(Translation):
The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) made quite a fuss over a suggestion he put forward on clause 4 of Bill No. C-62, to the effect that a citizen should not be held more than 60 days without a trial. Could he have been prompted by feelings of remorse he may have felt at the thought that a few years ago, the Liberal government of which he was a member held the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Camilien Houde, for several years without trial and without giving him a chance to defend himself?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious, in view of your decision, that I cannot reply to the hon. member, because I would be out of order in discussing this plan of which I spoke at such great length in my speech.


Louis Fortin: You are taking an easy way out. (Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak for this group I must first of all say that I regret that I was detained for 15 minutes by a delegation dealing with the principle of this particular measure or some personal aspects of it and

Committee on War Measures Act because of being detained I missed the usual demonstration of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Diefenbaker) laconism in introducing questions of this kind, his usual gems of language and his explanation of the legalities surrounding a problem of this nature. However, shortly after my arrival I was briefed by a fellow member as to what the Prime Minister had said so I think I have a very good idea of his remarks in introducing this motion.
I think everyone will realize that as a layman I suffer some disadvantage in following such legal luminaries as the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) who are well versed in legal problems and constitutional matters. However, regardless of that I wish to assure the house that although I am a sort of simple, naive layman I have always had a great interest in this question and I fully realize and appreciate the purpose and the importance of this motion. While I am not able to discourse on the legal aspects of the question with any degree of knowledge compared with the previous speakers, I can say that I am one who always has been easily aroused by injustices and any transgression of human rights and human dignity has always concerned me.
In fact, over the years and until recent years I felt almost frustrated and exasperated on occasions at the lack of understanding of other persons' rights and I felt at times that I was tilting against windmills. I will say that I feel the situation in Canada has changed quite rapidly in recent years. More and more people are realizing what the citizen's rights are in a democratic state.
Like the previous speaker, I regret that this very important motion has been introduced at this late date in the session. The question is an important and serious one that requires time for almost leisurely study, shall I say. It is not one of those technical questions where you can deal with the matter with exactitude after certain facts have been produced. There is an infinite variety of aspects to a problem of this nature. Plenty of time must be taken for the hearing of views of legal authorities by the committee, for hearing the views of representatives of various sections of the community throughout the land and even the views of individuals who have paid a great deal of attention to this subject and have studied it for many years. Following the hearing of these views, I am sure the committee will require some time before it arrives at its conclusion.
This is a subject that will arouse a great deal of interest. As I said before, even in the smaller places I find that in recent years there is more interest in this topic than there was years ago. Years ago it was considered too

abstract, not in the ordinary day's activities, shall I say, but there is greater concern and interest now and the committee will need plenty of time to give consideration to the evidence, facts, views, suggestions and recommendations presented to it. Members of the house as individuals will want time to read the evidence and proceedings of the committee and I believe plenty of time should be provided. Later when legislation is introduced the house will want ample time to discuss this very important question properly and at suitable length. On that account I say again that we in this group regret that this motion was not introduced earlier in the session.
I am not going into the legal aspects of the matter. I am only going to deal with it from a broad point of view. As I said before, I am not competent to deal with the niceties of such a problem but I can deal with its impact on the citizen and speak of it in general terms. I believe that several advantages can flow from the passage of this motion, the study of the problem by the committee, by members of the house generally and the consequent proposed amendments to the War Measures Act. First of all, I think that the primary advantage is that the legislation will make certain, as far as it is humanly possible to do so under the circumstances, that the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens are protected in periods of emergency. I think that is the primary advantage.
Then I think there are two or three others. I believe that the gathering of evidence, facts, opinions, suggestions and recommendations from all those sectors of the Canadian community should prove of value to the present generation and to future generations. The record itself should prove of great value. Then I believe that the hearings of the committee and the discussion of the problem generally in the house and in the country will provide general interest in the subject and I am sure, as the result of happenings in recent years-[DOT] I am talking of happenings within the last ten or fifteen years, particularly since the second world war-greater understanding will be brought about. If the committee fulfils its responsibility and if the government accepts those recommendations which will come from people in all groups of society with various political opinions, including persons who support the group for which I have the honour to speak at the present time. I believe this whole study and consequent legislation will do something more to strengthen the sinews of democracy.
The average citizen is not learned in the law and is not learned in parliamentary procedure but he is interested in the basic rights of the citizen in a democracy. When you find

that this average citizen has a greater understanding, democracy is strengthened to that extent. We must realize that. While we are complacent and while we have accepted without question our freedom and our rights throughout the years, when we view the world around us it is marvellous to note how, under certain circumstances and certain emergency conditions, those rights can crumble if they are not supported by an informed citizenry.
In conclusion I wish to say that this group will co-operate in the work of the committee and in making suggestions as to amendments to the War Measures Act and will do all it can to the end that the demands of freedom and the rights of Canadian citizens are better served by this resolution, the consequent legislation and the action of this parliament. (Translation):


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that all members agree that the establishment of this committee to examine the War Measures Act is in order, and we take no exception to the passage of this motion.
However, two things strike me for which the Prime Minister is responsible. First-and I come back to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin)-why wait until the end of the session to examine this measure, when a number of bills mentioned by the government in the speech from the throne have yet to appear on the order paper, many of which are contentious and will give rise to discussion?
In addition, we are being asked to serve on committees while the house is sitting. From the start, we have objected to any committee sitting at the same time as the house.
If we were to accept such an arrangement, I wonder how the Prime Minister could find time to operate such a committee.
I have here a list of the days on which committees sit at the same time as the house.
On May 1, the committee on agriculture sat at 3.30 p.m. and 8.00 p.m.
On May 3, the committee on external affairs met at 2.00 p.m. and the committee on Indian affairs, at 2.30 p.m.
On May 4, the committee on Indian affairs sat at 2.30 p.m.
On May 8, the committee on agriculture met at 2.30 p.m. and again at 7.30 that evening.
On May 9, the committee on Indian affairs sat at 3.30 and the committee on external affairs at 1.00 p.m. In this case, the members did not even have a chance to take a decent meal.
The committee on research met at 2 o'clock that same afternoon.
90205-6-396J
Committee on War Measures Act
On May 10, the committee on Indian affairs held a meeting at 2.30 p.m.
On May 11, the committee on Indian affairs and the one on research met at 2.30 p.m.
On May 12, the committee on agriculture met at 2.30 p.m.
On May 16, the committee on research sat at 2.30 p.m. and 8 p.m.
On May 18, you had Indian affairs at
2.30	p.m., research at 2.30 p.m. and at 8 p.m. and procedure at 3 p.m.
On May 19, the committee on agriculture met at 2.30 p.m.
On May 22, again agriculture at 2.30 p.m. and at 7.30 p.m.
On May 23, Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m., research at 2.30 p.m. and 8 p.m. and the committee on external affairs at 1 p.m.
That was another lunch cut short for the members.
On May 24, research sat at 2.30 p.m. and Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m. also.
On May 25, the committee on broadcasting sat at 3 p.m.; Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m., and research at 2.30 p.m. and 8 p.m.
On May 26, the committee on agriculture met at 2.30 p.m. and external affairs at
2.30	p.m.
On May 29, the committee on agriculture at 2.30 p.m. and 7.30 p.m., then the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee at 3 p.m.
On May 30, the committee on Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m. and that on procedure at 3 p.m.
On May 31, the committee on external affairs at 2.30 p.m., Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m. and research at 2.30 pm.
On June 1, the committee on broadcasting met at 3.00 p.m., Indian affairs at 2.30 pm. and research at 2.30 pm. and the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee at 3 p.m.
On June 2, the committee on agriculture at
2.30	p.m. and external affairs at 2.30 pm.
On June 5, the committee on agriculture at
2.30	p.m. and 7.30 p.m.
On June 6, the committee on Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m., research at 2.30 p.m. and 8.00 p.m.
On June 7, the committee on external affairs at 2.30 pm. and Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m.
On June 8, the committee on broadcasting at 3 p.m. and the committee on veterans affairs at 2.30 pm.

Committee on War Measures Act
On June 13, the committee on Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m. and the committee on research at 2.30 p.m. and again at 8 p.m.
On June 14, the committee on Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m. and the committee on external affairs at 2.30 p.m.
On June 15, the committee on broadcasting at 3 p.m. and the committee on Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m.
On June 16, the committee on agriculture at 2.30 p.m.


Mr. Ricard:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Certainly.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Did the hon. member make a survey on the attendance at those committees?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I noted that we did not always have a quorum and in view of the great number of Conservative appointments, I was quite amazed at that.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Can the hon. member say that he was never absent?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I may happen to miss a meeting of a committee, because I am attending another committee meeting. At any rate, I will continue to attend the committee meetings as I see fit.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Then if it is all right for you to take such a stand, it is undoubtedly right for others.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, those are facts that nobody can deny.
Members are overworked. They move from one committee to another or they attend the sittings of the house.
We are now trying to close this session as soon as possible and we are asked to hasten the business of committees.
The list of committee meetings I just read, Mr. Chairman, is merely an addition to a longer list relating to the business of the house.
Considering all those facts, I think the Prime Minister is showing evidence of gross inconsistency.
He wants an improvement of the War Measures Act. Yet, he knew right from the beginning of the session that this act had to be amended, as a result of the adoption of his bill of rights.
Why, then, did he not act with consistency?
We have thus been taking up the business on the order paper since the beginning of the session, so much so that yesterday at 10.15, the government had nothing left on

the order paper and we had to adjourn for lack of business.
Well, I submit that if the government had better planned its session, if it had placed its bills on the order paper in due time, we would have had time to do the work properly, instead of being pressed at this late date to rush through such important legislation. I think it ill becomes the Prime Minister to act in this way, particularly in view of all the time he has had at his disposal since the beginning of the session.


Mr. Pigeon:: May I ask a question to the hon. member?


Alexis Pierre Caron: As you wish.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Does the hon. member not feel it is never too late to introduce legislation to avoid such glaring injustices as in the case of Mr. Houde who was imprisoned without trial?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I agree that it is never too late to do good. I recognize that in the case of Mr. Houde, action was taken on the basis of the legislation then in force, but we must now look to the present. When it comes to such important legislation as this, the proposer should place it before the house earlier. In fact he has known since last year that this bill would be introduced, because he is the one who introduced the bill of rights.
(Text):


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take only a few minutes of the time of the house in speaking on this resolution. It is certainly the right of a free people to voluntarily surrender their rights in times of national emergency. It is certainly also the right of a free people to have this voluntary surrender supervised by their elected representatives to the end that these rights will be given up only when this is really required.
The bill of rights, in part II, section 6, sets out that the operative sections of the War Measures Act, when brought into effect by the governor in council, shall be laid before parliament and parliament itself shall agree that the government shall have these all-inclusive and overriding powers in connection with the lives, property and movements of citizens of the country.
When one reads the War Measures Act one discovers it is rather a frightening act in the degree to which free people voluntarily give into the hands of the government the right

to do whatever that government may wish to do. Section 3 (1) of the War Measures Act provides:
-it is hereby declared that the powers of the governor in council shall extend to all matters coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter enumerated, that is to say:
(a)	censorship and the control and suppression of publications, writings, maps, plans, photographs, communications and means of communication;
(b)	arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation;
(c)	control of the harbours, ports and territorial waters of Canada and the movements of vessels;
(d)	transportation by land, air, or water and the control of the transport of persons and things;
(e)	trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture;
(f)	appropriation, control, forfeiture and disposition of property and of the use thereof;
Then it says:
All orders and regulations made under this section shall have the force of law,-
This means that the government, by executive decree, can imprison or report people and seize property. In short, the government has all the powers of a dictator state. These powers are given by a free people; they are given voluntarily; they are surrendered in the national interest during a time of emergency.
Hon. members will notice that the wording of this act contains the phrase "real or apprehended". The bill of rights puts a limitation on this. The limitation is that these powers shall be confirmed by parliament and that parliament shall say whether it is a real emergency such as requires that these overriding powers be given to the executive whereby this free nation voluntarily surrenders to the government, of its own free will, all of the rights which have been won over hundreds of years in seeking a truly democratic status.
It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that the work of this committee will be most important in trying to marry two concepts and in trying to reconcile two points of view; one as expressed in the War Measures Act, that in times of emergency the state must come first; and the other as expressed in the bill of rights, that the rights of an individual must be protected against the state. These two viewpoints are not incompatible, but it does mean that perhaps the committee will have to spell out in more detail how they shall be reconciled.
I believe that in bringing forward this resolution the Prime Minister has married together the magnificent concept of the bill of rights and the very practical and utilitarian measures carried in our statutes by the War Measures Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss this motion of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister
13, 1361
Committee on War Measures Act (Mr. Diefenbaker), which is one more evidence of the right hon. gentleman's real interest and determination to protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens of this country. It is one more step in the steady progress which has been made since the right hon. gentleman assumed the office of Prime Minister to undo the steady erosion of our rights and liberties which had taken place over the previous 22 years.
In discussing matters of this sort it is generally desirable to be calm and not to introduce notes of criticism. Of course, when dealing with intemperate speeches such as that of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) one recognizes that the hon. member gets carried away with a sense of his oratory, if not importance, and makes allowance for this kind of speech on that account. However, the hon. member did say something which I think calls for comment, because if there were no comment it would stand unanswered on the record of Hansard.
The first thing I wish to say simply by way of reply to my hon. friend is that he shows now a refreshing change of attitude from that which he showed during the many years he was a member of the treasury benches. Indeed, the government of which he was a part had 22 years in office during which time they had ample opportunity to deal with the War Measures Act and to remove from it those features which constitute the possibility, if not the fact, of an undue interference with human rights and fundamental freedoms. It was conspicuous then, and it is more conspicuous now in view of the hon. member's present attitude, that the previous administration did nothing during that time to bring about the results which the hon. member now professes himself so anxious to achieve.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when we listened this afternoon to the strictures heaped upon the government for not getting on with this proposal sooner, I think we are able to put the hon. gentleman's strictures in their proper perspective by recalling that his conversion, although we may welcome it, is very late.
The hon. member cannot take refuge in the answer that this measure is only necessary now because we did not have a bill of rights before; therefore his party and his government were blameless, because they did not have a bill of rights and it is the bill of rights that makes this necessary. It will be recalled that in the discussion of the bill of rights itself last year during all that lengthy period when we had to listen to the strictures he heaped upon that measure, he persisted in saying it added nothing by way of rights but was a mere codification of existing rights. If that is the hon. member's view, then the

Committee on War Measures Act rights which are in the bill of rights now existed at the time the hon. gentleman held office and the War Measures Act was as much in conflict with those rights then as it is now.
The hon. gentleman is now so anxious to see something done that he professes to claim exclusive credit for everything that is being done, yet, as I say, in all those years he was unable to see the importance of the measure which the Prime Minister has now brought forward. It is well understood, of course, that there is no one so keen as a recent convert and we welcome the hon. member to the ranks of the converted, the ranks of those who are now prepared to align themselves in support of the liberty of the individual. In contrast to the sudden conversion and the over eagerness now displayed by the hon. gentleman, may I emphasize that this government has been proceeding steadily and surely to the restoration and protection of those rights which were so eroded in earlier years. A major step was the enactment of the biU of rights itself. At that time the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that he would look at the War Measures Act and invite parliament to consider in what ways it might be amended so as to bring it into harmony with the bill of rights, and do what could be done to protect the rights of citizens even in times of emergency without unduly prejudicing the interests of the state as a whole.
Pursuant to the bill of rights we have brought in two important amendments to statutes this year to bring them into line with the bill of rights, and now comes this further measure initiated by the Prime Minister in order to make amends for the 22 years of erosion of rights-the motion we are now debating to set up a committee to examine the War Measures Act. Indeed, when one considers the change of attitude of the hon. member for Essex East I cannot help, while listening to him, thinking that he displays all the frustrated inconsistency which would be displayed by the outcome of a cross between a leopard and a chameleon, because you know, Mr. Speaker, the leopard's trouble is that he cannot change his spots while the chameleon changes colour with every perch upon which he alights. We come now to consider this motion which the hon. member professed a desire to see carried because that would have the result of amendments being made to the War Measures Act, and yet the hon. member has invited you, Mr. Speaker, to rule this motion out of order. Of course, with your usual wisdom and perspicacity you refused to entertain the point of order which the hon. member sought to raise, but the extraordinary thing to contemplate is this measure of frustration felt


by the hon. member for Essex East. He is so frustrated because he cannot himself claim the exclusive credit for what is being done that he forgets he has told us he intends to support the measure and solemnly invites Your Honour to rule it out of order. I think all members will understand the situation and accept the speech made by the hon. gentleman with the caution and reserve which it deserves.
What, then, of the proposal of the Prime Minister which is now before us, a proposal consistent with the undertaking which he gave last year when we were considering the bill of rights? This proposal, I suggest, sets out the proper way of dealing with this problem. The opposition has consistently suggested that we should get the bill of rights and the War Measures Act all mixed up and confused. Indeed, this desire on their part to confuse things was brought to my mind by one of the comments made by the hon. member for Essex East when he said the government had the habit of putting certain problems into one basket and certain other problems in another basket. He seemed to think this was a matter for criticism. It seems to me that this orderly method of dealing with things is the proper method instead of getting them all mixed up until, like the hon. member for Essex East, they are hopelessly confused. We have persistently and consistently taken the position that these matters should be dealt with separately because that is the most effective method of dealing with them.
When the bill of rights was before the special committee of the house last year there was a lengthy discussion on the bill in context with the War Measures Act and, as has been pointed out, one of the chief witnesses in this regard was Professor Lower of Queen's University. Professor Lower certainly repeated then a stricture he had uttered earlier against the War Measures Act and urged strongly on the committee that parliament should repeal the War Measures Act. It is true that Professor Lower at one point in his evidence did comment on the fact that we had incorporated in the bill of rights itself the provision having the effect that if the government proclaimed the War Measures Act due to a state of emergency parliament would have the right to review that proclamation and if it felt that the state of emergency was imaginary rather than real it would have the right to overrule the proclamation. Professor Lower did at one stage say this was a meaningless provision, particularly when he was being prompted in that regard by the hon. member for Essex East. That seemed to be the position he took. But it is

also significant to note that Professor Lower admitted the necessity for some legislation conferring special powers on the government in time of war. I refer to his evidence at page 321 of the committee reports when he was being questioned by the hon. member for Essex East. The passage reads as follows:


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now. that does not seem to me to be completely what you said today. You recognize, I take it, from what you said today, that there is a need to preserve the War Measures Act.


Mr.   Lower@: Yes, you will find that in the statement. I made it very clear 1 would like to get rid of the War Measures Act. I think there could be a change.
Again, at page 322 he said:
There is an important point there where we might misunderstand each other-and I hope we will not, because I think we are in agreement.
I would like to get rid of the present War Measures Act completely. I agree you have to have special legislation in war, but I think it could be much more carefully framed than it is in this legislation.
Again, when he was being asked what he thought the War Measures Act should contain, he said, as reported at page 323 of the committee's proceedings:
I would agree with that, but I think you would want to make a provision there that the judge would have the right to have the hearing in camera, would you not?
The witness was being questioned at this point with regard as to whether there should be a right of hearing enjoyed by persons detained under the War Measures Act-a provision written into the act itself. He said:
I quite agree in wartime there are certain things that must not come out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You see a necessity that there should be the right to have this hearing in camera?


Mr.   Lower@: Yes, I think that would be pretty necessary.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. Well, that might run contrary to another section of this proposed bill of rights which provides for public hearings.


Mr.   Lower@: Which one are you referring to Mr. Martin?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is clause 3 (f).


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, 3 (f).


Mr.   Lower@: Yes. Well I would be just a bit nervous about that. We must not be sentimental over these things, must we?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Mr.   Lower@: I would be a bit nervous. I would agree that in wartime there are certain things that probably cannot come out in public, but we have got to have the next best thing.
I should like to refer the house also to the evidence of Professor Lower in connection with the value of the provision we did incorporate into the bill of rights providing that parliament shall have the opportunity and right to overrule any declaration
Committee on War Measures Act by which the War Measures Act is brought into effect. I was questioning Professor Lower in the committee and should like to read a certain portion of that evidence as it appears at pages 330 and 331 of the proceedings.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -I will only ask one or two questions on it. It did seem to me in one or two of the exchanges that a point might have been obscured which I thought was clear from your first remarks.
I might add that I thought Professor Lower's first remarks were obscured by the very extraordinary and involved questions asked by the hon. member for Essex East. I went on as follows:
I take it that you do not question in principle the desirability of a government having at its disposal a War Measures Act or something of that sort in times of war?


Mr.   Lower@: Special powers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, an act giving it special powers in wartime. What you question is the extent to which these powers should go?


Mr.   Lower@: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You would like to see written into the War Measures Act the maximum safeguards of the liberties of the individual consistent with the welfare of the state?


Mr.   Lower@: Yes. You express it very well, I think.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But you said you think it is better under the present circumstances to have a bill of rights now and then review or revise the War Measures Act as soon as possible?


Mr.   Lower@: Yes.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the course that we have been following. We enacted the bill of rights last year and the Prime Minister undertook to have the War Measures Act studied to see what revisions should be made to it, and to have the War Measures Act then amended at leisure but thoroughly so that it might be, to the maximum extent possible, brought into line with the spirit of the bill of rights. Professor Lower expressed unqualified agreement with that position.
I then went on to ask Professor Lower about other provisions that we had put into the bill of rights, and that appears as reported in that committee's proceedings as follows:


Edmund Davie Fulton: If it is possible then that a government might resort to such a declaration in circumstances in which such a resort was not justified, would you not think it is most desirable that parliament should have the right of veto over the invocation of the War Measures Act under that declaration?


Mr.   Lower@: Yes. That had not occurred to me before. That would give an important justification for this.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This would seem to give parliament the right to review the declaration made by the government, and examine whether the state of affairs really warranted the resort to emergency measures.


Mr.   Lower@: This makes me a lot happier about this clause. Of course I would like it to go further.

Committee on War Measures Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I would accept the point that if there was an actual war and war was declared the debate might be pretty much pro forma, but I was directing my attention particularly to a situation in which there was a fictitious declaration which was being used as a device for the government gaining power. If there was a question as to whether there really was this state of emergency, both government members as well as opposition members might well be strongly inclined to check the government.


Mr.   Lower@: Yes, indeed. That would be a very unlikely circumstance, but I can imagine a circumstance under which something of this sort might occur.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would you then agree with me that it is a sensible provision at the moment to put this safeguard in against abuses of the powers of invoking the War Measures Act, which will thus give you some protection against the abuse of the powers conferred by the act; and then say we will look next at the act to see whether improvements should be made in the statute itself.


Mr.   Lower@: Yes. I was under the impression, when I read this, that this is an attempt to make criticism of the War Measures Act. From what you say about it I can see you have something additional in mind. I would be very happy not only to have this retained but also to have the revision of the War Measures Act made subsequently. Of course, I do think it is too big a thing to be examined at this time of year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. It is a big thing whenever you examine it. When you get into the War Measures Act you are into a really difficult philosophical as well as legal problem.


Mr.   Lower@: Yes.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we can properly and with justification say we can call to witness, as supporting our present action, one of the foremost opponents or critics of the War Measures Act in its present form, who stated clearly before the special committee of the House of Commons last year that he thought the sensible thing to do, as we did by the bill of rights, was to enact a bill of rights standing on its own feet, putting in safeguards immediately against a fictitious declaration of emergency which would give the government an opportunity to abuse the emergency powers, and then to make a lengthy and full study of the War Measures Act itself to see what changes to the measure should be made to bring it into conformity with the spirit of the bill of rights.
It is in that spirit that we have been studying this problem in the interim. As I said in the committee, which comment is contained in the portion I just quoted, and with which Professor Lower agreed, when we get into the realm of the War Measures Act we are getting into the realm of very difficult philosophical as well as legal problems. That is the area and the extent to which it is justifiable to ask parliament itself to give to the government, in times of real emergency, powers which, under normal circumstances, the government should not only not use, but


should not even possess, because they are definitely contrary to the kind of situation which prevails in normal time of peace.
The extent to which the War Measures Act could go, and should go, is the problem which we have been considering during all this intervening period because, unlike the hon. member for Essex East, we have the responsibility of ensuring that the government will in time of war-which we hope to God will never come-have the ample powers which it needs to safeguard the interests of the state. Simultaneously we have the responsibility of ensuring that the powers given to the government do not go further than those which are necessary for that purpose.
One must be very careful, as I am sure every hon. member will realize, as to what one does, because two things must be remembered. The kind of war that would confront us in these days is such that events will move with such swiftness there will not be time to commence changing legislation then, nor to determine the limits of powers. If one gets oneself into that situation, it may well be, and indeed probably will be, too late to ask parliament to extend the powers. Therefore, one has to be conscious of the fact that too severe limitations on the powers of government in time of real emergency would be in the long run perhaps more dangerous than a rather restricted recognition of the rights and liberties of the individual.
It is hard to crystallize this matter in a few words, but this is the sort of problem that we have had in mind in approaching the War Measures Act in the context of the bill of rights. That is one of the reasons why we were not able, as readily and as rapidly as my hon. friend from Essex East thought desirable, to produce a concrete proposal to lay before this house. The hon. member for Essex East made the extraordinary and, indeed, absurd suggestion that it was his bill, introduced in January, which had the result of causing the Prime Minister to introduce this proposal now in June. If we were as frightened of the results of the hon. member's efforts as he seems to suggest, I hardly think that would be consistent with the position that he has taken, nor that we should have waited from January to June before proceeding as we now are. The fact of the matter is that the main reason this proposal comes forward at this time is because the government is now in the position to meet with members of parliament and to discuss with them the changes which should be made or considered to be appropriate in the War Measures Act.
The Prime Minister has outlined how this committee might proceed. I would ask the liberty of perhaps elaborating a little on what

he said, to the following effect. It is true that this motion comes in late in the session, on June 13, at a time when it may be difficult to arrange in the immediate future for an opportunity for the widespread hearing of members of the public which will undoubtedly be desired. I suggest that one useful method by which the committee itself might consider the matter-and of course the committee will be master of its own proceedings and will determine for itself how it should proceed-might be as follows. When the committee first meets the government might, through those persons who have the responsibility for advising in these matters, present an outline to the committee for the committee's information of the sort of problem that arises in times of emergency represented by war.
I think it will be helpful to the committee to have that outline as a sort of indication of the scope of the problem with which we are dealing. Then the government would be prepared to lay before the committee a draft bill for its consideration. That bill would not be in the form of a "take it or leave it" document, but in the form of a specific draft in order that the committee may have something concrete before it. Then the committee might consider that, after some preliminary study, the matter could stand over for a while, during which time the draft bill could be circulated to all those individuals and organizations who would be interested in commenting on it. It might well be, therefore, that during the summer months this process could be going on and whenever parliament comes together again the committee would be in a position to continue its study and to hear the views of those to whom in the meantime the draft would have been circulated.
I put this forward as one suggested method of procedure only which the committee might consider. It might prefer to consider others, or it may prefer others, but it does seem to me this could be a very logical method of proceeding, and it was with this in mind that the Prime Minister made his suggestion earlier today, and it was with this thought in mind that we felt that this would be an appropriate time to bring this resolution before the house. That is all there was to it, and we had not any of the evil motives in mind attributed to us by the hon. member for Essex East.
Perhaps I should just conclude with a reference to some of the things that it might be suggested should be accomplished by any amendments to the War Measures Act. Some of these may have crossed the minds of my hon. friends opposite or some of them. If so,
Committee on War Measures Act this is all to the good. This problem of amendments to the War Measures Act is not a problem of any one party or another in this house; it is a problem for the House of Commons, the parliament of Canada and the Canadian nation.
The War Measures Act is not the interest or the property of any one party. It is the means by which or through which in times of war a government will be entrusted with the necessary powers for the effective and successful prosecution of that war. And if, therefore, there are views held in common here as to the lengths to which we can go and the limits to be put on the lengths to which we should go in amending the War Measures Act, it is all to the good. It does seem to me these are some of the areas in which it might be thought appropriate to amend the War Measures Act.
First, amendments placing limits upon the rights of the governor in council to authorize the deportation of Canadian citizens. Second, it may well be considered whether or not we should amend the War Measures Act to take away the power to deprive Canadian citizens of their citizenship under the War Measures Act without in any way interfering with any other statute, the citizenship act itself, which confers those powers. Therefore we certainly may well consider whether it is not perfectly proper and indeed essential to limit the power to take away citizenship under an emergency measures act such as the War Measures Act.
Again, we might consider the question of whether persons detained under the emergency powers of the War Measures Act should have the right of hearing written into the act itself. I would think hon. members would feel that such a hearing should not be held in open court before the ordinary judicial tribunal. Professor Lower and I exchanged some views and the hon. member for Essex East and Professor Lower exchanged some views on this in the committee last year; but it certainly might be considered whether there might not be provided in the statute itself some right of review of the detentions under these emergency powers.
Then there are several sections of the War Measures Act, it seems to me, such as sections 5, 8 and 9, which could well be looked at to see whether they are really necessary at all. The committee could consider whether they should be repealed or amended so that if continued they are left over in substantially modified form. As I have indicated the government-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister permit a question?
6278	HOUSE OF
Committee on War Measures Act Mr. Fulton: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I put this forward for non-controversial purposes. Does the minister not recognize that practically all of these proposals are embodied in the bill which I introduced in the house on January 31?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend has seen the light after 22 years I am delighted. He and his party had 22 years to do these things. We are just delighted, as I said a moment ago. We welcome the speed with which the hon. member now seeks to move. We just hope he will not over-reach himself.
These are some of the areas in which we think the committee might consider amending the War Measures Act. As I said, the government will be prepared, if the committee desires, to lay before it a draft bill putting in concrete form these and some other ideas in order to assist the committee in its deliberations.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of following up the purely political comments made by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) with regard to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin).
The legislation before us today is very simple. The comments made by the hon. member for Essex East who spoke after were based on unchallengeable facts.
This legislation is to appoint a special committee responsible for examining the War Measures Act and recommending any amendment of this legislation considered appropriate in the perspective of 1961.
At one time, the hon. Minister of Justice quoted two names of animals in connection with the comments of the hon. member for Essex East. I do not propose to follow in the minister's footsteps in that respect.
Yet, I might tell him this. The government makes me think of a tortoise which has to be pulled by the ears to get the promised job done.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Have you ever seen a tortoise's ears?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I now want to refer to page 5949 of the English issue of Hansard, dated July 7, 1960, to recall a few words from the Prime Minister's statement in answer to a question by the hon. member for Essex East.
(Text):
I think the whole act deserves to be considered, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said.
I think if we would get together the membership in the house and deal with the War Measures Act 

and ascertain the degree to which the rights of the individual may be maintained to the highest extent without detriment to the security of the nation as a whole, changes and amendments might be made to that act. If hon. members of the house so desire, I would be willing that at the next session a committee be set up to consider this whole field, for the War Measures Act, like all measures passed for the purpose of ensuring the salvation and survival of the state, has been found in the light of experience not only here but in other countries to contain provisions that ought to be ameliorated or subdued in the interests of the individual while at the same time maintaining the security of the state.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister last year-I think it was on July 1-introduced his bill of rights, the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Pearson) suggested for the first time that while considering the bill on fundamental freedoms, we might at the same time take up the War Measures Act and make such improvements and amendments to it as were deemed necessary.
The Prime Minister then did not see fit to accept the suggestion of the leader of the official opposition.
When the bill of rights came up, we submitted amendments which were rejected by the Minister of Justice. When the matter came up again in committee of the whole, we again submitted the same amendments, which were again rejected.
These are facts which no one can deny.
The only measure submitted this year is Bill C-62, sponsored by the hon. member for Essex East, which proposes some very important amendments to the War Measures Act.
I can say to the hon. member for Essex East that the committee which is to be set up would be well advised to consider the amendments he suggested on January 31 last.
I feel sure that the legal experts who will be invited to the committee will also stress the importance of the recommendations made by the hon. member for Essex East.
Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a bill which has to be extensively scrutinized and which calls for considerable study, as the Minister of Justice said, because times have changed and the dangers that might result from a state of war are not all known yet. We shall have to take into consideration, the disaster which might follow a state of war, as well as security requirements and the safeguard of fundamental freedoms for individuals.
I am sure that those hon. members who will have the privilege of sitting on that very important committee will consider the bill very carefully in order to include in our statutes, without any partisanship, a War

Measures Act that would spare as much as possible the rights of our citizens even in time of war.
Mr. Speaker, before assuming my seat, I wish to read a few lines from an answer given by the Minister of Justice to a question put to him by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), and I quote from page 5463 of Hansard, the following question of the hon. member for Essex East:
(Text):
Before the minister leaves the subject of the bill of rights, may I be permitted to ask another question. My recollection is that the Prime Minister said, I think at this session, there would be amendments brought in to the War Measures Act. The government has not given any indication of its intention in that regard. I have pointed out that I have prepared amendments that are incorporated in a private bill that has not yet reached this house but notice of which exists. Is it the government's intention to proceed with the amendments to the War Measures Act during this session?
(Translation):
And here is the answer given by the Minister of Justice-let us not forget that this is on May 27, 1961, just a few days ago- and I quote:
(Text) :
My department has been working on amendments to the War Measures Act. We are not at the moment in a position to recommend legislation. I therefore regret that I am unable to assure the hon. member that an amending measure will be proceeded with at this session. It is also my recollection that the Prime Minister indicated that some action would be taken, but I am not quite sure whether the intended action referred to was legislation or a committee study. However, whichever it was, my recollection is that reference was made to action being taken at this session.
At the moment, so far as my responsibility goes, I am not in a position to state definitely that we will be in a position to take action at this session. If we should find ourselves in that position, and if there should be an immediate demand for action, we would then do our best to proceed; but I must say that in view of the stage the session has reached, and the state of the order paper, I think probably we all might wish to have another look at that situation.
(Translation):
Now at that time the Minister of Justice says:
(Text):
There was no immediate demand for action.
Private Bills
during this session, a bill amending the War Measures Act, but that such study of it that could be made would bear fruit next year.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder why efforts are being made to deprive the hon. member for Essex East of the credit to which he is entitled. What will come out of this? From time to time, measures of this nature, which transcend partisan considerations, are introduced, and I believe things would be so much easier if credit were given for it to a member, even if he happens to sit on the opposition side.
The hon. member for Essex East has been a member of this house for many years. He has been the very impersonation of due respect for the rights and freedoms of citizens, and I am of the opinion that the Prime Minister, and more particularly the Minister of Justice, would be much more deserving if-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker;: Order. I thought the hon. member was nearing the termination of his remarks.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I am just about finished, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks, I wish to assure the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice that we shall do everything possible so that the study of this measure will be most profitable in order that the bill to be submitted to us in due course will protect the rights of the citizens in peacetime as well as in wartime.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the house wish to dispose of the motion before I call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Diefenbaker) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
(Translation):	(Translation):
It must not be forgotten that while the Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull): Mr. Speaker, I Minister of Justice was stating:	"There rise on a question of privilege,
was no immediate demand for action", the Referring to today's order paper, and more hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) especially to the item "Order of Business", had put on the order paper, since January this is what I find'
21st last, a bill in which he suggested very From five to six O.clock p.ra._Private and publlc important amendments to the War Measures bills, the former having precedence. (De cinq Act.	heures a six heures du soir: bills prives et bills
I listened carefully to the remarks of the publlcs, ceux-ia ayant la priorite.)
Minister of Justice, and I understood I wonder what is the meaning of the term that the house would not be asked to study, "ceux-la"? Does it refer to private bills or

Private Bills
to public bills? Would it not be better to write "les premiers ayant pr^seance", because the term "ceux-la" as it is now used, could apply to public bills as well as to private bills.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's suggestion will be taken into account.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-15, respecting the construction of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river near the city of Trois-Rivieres-Mr. Paul-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Construction of bridge authorized.
Frank Howard: There is only one general question that I should like to pose dealing with the bridge itself and more particularly with a clause of the bill assented to by the legislative assembly of the province of Quebec. I appreciate the fact that we are not dealing with that bill except in so far as it is in the schedule. Before I proceed I wonder whether I may inquire whether my reference to these matters in the schedule could be considered under the schedule. You will be calling the schedule of the bill, will you not, Mr. Chairman, even though it is a copy of an act assented to by the legislature of the province of Quebec?


Jacques Flynn: Yes.
(Translation):


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Chairman, when this bill was drafted, the sponsors felt that they should include as a schedule to Bill S-15, a piece of legislation that was adopted by the provincial legislature in 1956, so that the members of the House of Commons would be familiar with the powers of this corporation which under this bill applies to the house for an authorization which in fact is nothing more than a requirement under section 11 of the Canada Shipping Act. Consequently, the hon. member should feel free to ask questions about the schedule any time he feels like it. On the other hand, I should like to point out to him that this parliament has no authority to make any change whatsoever concerning the "Corporation du Pont de Trois-Rivieres" which was incorporated under a statute of the Quebec legislature. (Text):


Frank Howard: I quite appreciate the fact that one cannot alter a provincial bill itself. In addition to that, I would say that I have no desire even to attempt to engage in such a practice. The only purpose is so far as the point of interest is concerned. By hon. mem-

bers raising this matter, as was done by my friend the hon. member for Vancouver East at the time the bill was given second reading, and perhaps by making reference to this particular thing, the result may be this. At some subsequent time the legislative assembly of the province of Quebec may be involved in amending this particular statute. If these matters are dealt with somewhat here, the question may be raised in the minds of the legislators in that province and they on their own initiative may desire to do something. However, my particular question has to do with what I will call section 22 or part 22 of the schedule, which I imagine is section 22 of the provincial act respecting the construction of this particular bridge. With some guidance from you, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could leave these particular remarks until we get to the schedule; or perhaps we could deal with them under clause 1 because the whole matter deals with the provisions contained in clause 1 of the bill and with the maintenance and operation of the bridge. However, whatever you think would be the better way in which to approach the matter, Mr. Chairman, will be all right with me.


Jacques Flynn: It seems to me that the discussion probably would be more appropriate when we come to the schedule because in clause 1 there is no special reference to the schedule. Usually the debate on clause 1 of a bill is more of a general nature. I think it might be better to wait until we reach the schedule.
Shall clause 1 carry?
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I have only one question to put to the hon. member.
In wonder if it would take too much time to give the names of the principal members of the corporation or of those who were the promoters of this bridge project.


Rémi Paul: This bill, as I have already said, was introduced in the provincial legislature in 1956, as a result of concerted action on the part of the chambers of commerce of the city of Three Rivers and the vicinity. Several municipalities, I should say, nearly all the municipalities of central Quebec passed resolutions supporting the project, which when implemented will favour the economic development of that part of the province.
The principal officers of the corporation are Mr. Frank Spenard as vice president, Mr. Francois Nobert, a barrister in Three Rivers, as secretary or treasurer. There is also a Mr. Wickadam who is president of the corporation. The bill also provides for the appointment of a representative of the city of Three Rivers so that the city will have someone to look after its interests when the time comes

to do away with the ferry-boat system now in operation between the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence river.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to ask only one other question. Has Mr. Frangois Nobert been elected to the post of secretary or was he imposed by-


Rémi Paul: I do not think that any change has occurred in the respective functions assigned to the persons whose names I have just given since the corporation has been in existence.
(Text):


Frank Howard: There is one additional
thought that I have here. In answer to the first question I understood the hon. member to give the names of three individuals and the reference to a fourth one to be appointed by the city of Trois Rivieres. In this regard I think I must make reference to the schedule and say that in the schedule which was assented to 2nd February, 1956, as found in the bill at page 3, there appear the names of two others who were members of the corporation, namely J. Henri Rene de Cotret and Maurice Langlois. I wonder whether these people are still members of the corporation.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, they are still members of the corporation. I did not give the names of all the directors of the corporation, but only those of the executive.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On the schedule.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I think the discussion will be relatively short in connection with the schedule and therefore perhaps it is not necessary to consider it point by point.
My remarks are concerned with paragraph 22 of the schedule. That paragraph gives to this corporation a monopoly in the operation of this bridge over any other bridge, tunnel or ferry service, save only the ferry operated at the present time by the city of Three Rivers, for a radius of 25 miles above and 25 miles below the site of the bridge.
I assume this means that within a total distance of 50 miles no other person can build or operate a bridge, tunnel or ferry over or under the St. Lawrence river during the period of eight years from the sanction of this bill. I do not know whether that means eight years from February 2, 1956, or eight years from the passage of the bill now before us. In any event, it is not only covered for a period of eight years, which I presume is the construction period, but it is also covered for the whole period of the utilization of the proposed bridge. So long as the bridge
Private Bills
is in use, no other person can build any bridge, ferry or tunnel within a 50 mile area of the site of the bridge; that is, an area of 25 miles each side of the bridge.
It seems to me this is a rather unusual degree of power and authority and an unusual amount of monopoly to give to a corporation.
I presume that initially it was done to cover the period of time until the indebtedness of the bridge was paid off by way of tolls collected. If this was the intention, I think it should be so stated in the bill. Perhaps one could accept that sort of proposal in the light of whatever circumstances might be applicable. However, I think it is an extremely unique power to give forever, to the corporation, or so long as the bridge is utilized. The corporation is in a monopoly position in this regard and no other person is allowed to build a bridge, ferry or tunnel in this area.
It may well be that the growth of this part of the province of Quebec which will be served by the bridge will make it inadequate in a few years' time to serve the traffic that uses it. This is quite apart from the discussion we had earlier about the width of the bridge and why it could not be built in such a way that would allow expansion for additional lanes of traffic. This monopoly provision is even more difficult to appreciate.
I certainly would not wish this committee to take this action and then within a period of ten or 15 years find the bridge totally inadequate to serve the area, in view of the traffic using it. We would not want to prevent the legislature of the province of Quebec from having additional bridges constructed as time goes on.
In the city of Vancouver in the late 1930's a three-lane bridge was built across Burrard inlet by a private company. Not too many years after the bridge was constructed it was found to be completely inadequate to handle the traffic using it. Within five or six years of this bridge being constructed by a private company it was purchased by the tolls, bridges and highway authority of the provincial government, and the provincial government subsequently built another bridge a few miles from the first one in order to deal with the volume of traffic travelling between the north Vancouver area and the lower mainland part of the city of Vancouver.
I think it would be most unwise for us to find ourselves in this position, especially in view of the importance of the area which the hon. member represents and the area that will be served by this bridge. It would be helpful to myself, and I think to all hon. members of the committee, if the hon. member would tell us the reason why there is this very unique, "forever" type of monopoly given to this corporation. Perhaps the hon.

Private Bills
member would also tell us what possibilities exist tor building an additional bridge, ferry or tunnel if within a relatively short period of time the volume of traffic using the bridge demands additional facilities.
(Translation):


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, in view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I wish to say that if we examine the preamble of the provincial bill, we note it has been introduced to serve the interests of a whole series of constituencies enumerated on page 3 of the bill, namely Three Rivers, Maskinonge, Champlain, St. Maurice-Lafleche, Nicolet, Lotbiniere and Drummond-Arthabaska.
That is to say that a whole industrial sector will benefit from the advantages of that bridge.
I beg to disagree here with the previous speaker who said this bill was actually setting up a monopoly.
It is too bad the hon. member has not yet had the opportunity of visiting that beautiful district of the province of Quebec. He would have discovered that topographically the site is not at all suited for the erection of another bridge, first of all because of the width of the river, and second, because of the difficulties of approach on the south and north shores in all other locations.
The nearest large commercial centre is located on the south shore of the St. Lawrence river at Sorel. A bridge construction in that location would raise difficulties which could be overcome only with a considerable capital outlay.
Furthermore, when the provincial legislature examined the request submitted by "La Corporation du Pont de Trois-Rivieres", it unanimously granted the request. Exclusive rights were granted the corporation, not to create a monopoly but to insure that the project would be seriously dealt with.
The amount of $35,000 has already been spent for the preparation of plans, and that amount was raised through voluntary contributions raised in the Three Rivers area.
The drive was conducted long before the passing of the bill incorporating "La Corporation du Pont de Trois-Rivieres" by the provincial legislature.
If we are today faced with the situation that the corporation has to submit its case to parliament, it is because the governor in council cannot on his own authority grant permission for the erection of a bridge over the St. Lawrence seaway.

The governor in council has the required authority when the construction of a bridge over any other navigable water is concerned, but not in this case.
Plans were submitted to the Departments of Transport and Public Works, and were not approved by government engineers. After some checking it was realized that they contained drawbacks or disadvantages for navigation on the St. Lawrence river.
The House of Commons adopted a similar bill in 1956. A three-year limit had then been set to have the plans approved by the governor in council. Unfortunately, they were not approved. I am now talking from memory and I wonder if the plans were ever submitted during that three-year period.
That is the reason why it was necessary to renew the rights granted under the 1956 bill.
The hon. member has referred to an eight-year limit. One has to be aware of the interest taken in the construction of a bridge at Three Rivers to realize how anxious the corporation is to carry out this project as soon as the required powers have been granted by this house.
First of all, a three-year period is necessary, that being the ultimate limit for the plans of the future Three Rivers bridge to be submitted to the governor in council for approval. Then, during the three-year period following the approval of the plans, the corporation will have to build the bridge; that is the reason why the provincial legislature has specified in the bill a possible eight-year limit for the project to be carried out.
However, it is hoped that the corporation will be able to build the bridge before the end of this period, to the satisfaction of all that industrial and promising area of the province of Quebec.


Mr. Denis:: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of opposing the building of a bridge at Three Rivers particularly on account of the fact that there was once another bridge, known as the Duplessis bridge which subsequently collapsed, probably because the guards who were supposed to watch its approaches against the communists were absent.
If I understand the bill correctly, a bridge is to be built which will not only be used by the citizens of the constituencies mentioned in schedule 3, but by all cars from every part of the province and of the whole country.
I fail to understand why we are being asked to pass a bill to entrust a corporation set up beforehand by a provincial legislature with

the building of a bridge which may or may not pay its own way. Why should we members of the federal parliament, vote an advance of funds, or actually guarantee that the promoters of that corporation should never lose any money, but on the contrary make some?
I am in favour of having a bridge at Three Rivers. It will be extremely useful. And to please my hon. friend, the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere, I even believe it might be preferable to build it from Berthier to Sorel as it would link together two very important municipalities.
I do not see why we should vote a bill to benefit a corporation comprising Conservatives, Liberals and even C.C.F. people-of course, there are no members from the New party in it, but such will eventually be the case because the C.C.F. people are in it, and they only changed their name to please the public and not because of new ideas.
At all events, Mr. Chairman, I object to allowing even public corporations to build a bridge with only profit sharing in mind, because a corporation becomes illegal the moment it shares in profits only. Consequently, if the government is kind enough to give us a bridge, it should not do so only for the benefit of a handful of citizens-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I must say I have tried most strenuously to connect the hon. member's remarks with the schedule but I fail to see any connection.
I realize that he is now dealing with section 1 which is already carried. The schedule is merely the statute under which the "Corporation du Pont de Trois-Rivieres" was incorporated and I fail to see the connection of the hon. member's remarks.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I was speaking on schedule 3 which follows section 3 we are considering at present. I could not deal with it while we were examining section 1.
If Your Honour will just take the trouble of looking, he will see that for himself. I do not know what that schedule is doing there but it seems obvious that if the federal government ever decides to adopt this bill, it is the Three Rivers corporation which will benefit from it while the federal government will foot the bill.
If profits are to be made, it seems to me that it is the government which should be making them since it is the government which will be lending or guaranteeing the necessary funds.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for St. Denis, I should like to point out that the person who drafted this
Private Bills
bill is a lawyer whose competence is highly recognized in the city of Three Rivers, since it is Mr. Frangois Nobert, who was the sponsor of this bill in the provincial legislature, and who then acted as counsel when the bill was examined by the senate committee in 1956.
Besides, when one refers to bridges-as did the hon. member for St. Denis-he recalled unfortunate events that took place in the city of Three Rivers when the Duplessis bridge collapsed-the hon. member seems to connect the collapse of this bridge-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Rémi Paul: -with certain communists who were blamed at the time for the collapse of the bridge-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Rémi Paul: -but I wonder whether the member for St. Denis could tell us who is responsible for the collapse of the Duplessis normal school in Three Rivers last April?


Jacques Flynn: Order. I think I need not indicate to the hon. member why I called him to order.
(Text):


Frank Howard: I should like to make one or two comments following the remarks of the hon. member who sponsored the bill. I must apologize not only for not having had the pleasure of visiting his fine part of the country but for not being able to pronounce the name of his riding. It is for that reason I refer to him as the hon. member who sponsored the bill.
I was interested in the comments of the hon. member for St. Denis when he spoke about profits and losses. I wondered if they represented a reversal of the stand taken with regard to the trans-Canada pipe lines project a few years ago when they wanted the Canadian taxpayers to lose everything provided certain individuals and companies could make a profit. I can see that there has obviously been a change in policy, besides a change in the position of the hon. member in the house. I notice that he has moved away from the front bench and I wonder whether he has gone to the back bench in order to get close to the New party about which he was speaking.
If the topography of the area around or alongside the river where this bridge is to be built makes it impossible for an additional bridge to be built there, then I wonder why this should have to be stated in a statute. That is the only thought I have on this. Perhaps it is not necessary to go once again into the whole question of whether or not this is a monopoly. I think

Private Bills
that has been well enough established. Besides, once we get into the profit and loss question we shall not get too far. Your agility, Mr. Chairman, would bring you immediately to your feet to slow us down and I do not want you to go through that exercise too often.


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

Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-16, to incorporate National Mortgage Corporation of Canada.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member intend to explain his bill?


Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps, because of the importance of this bill, I should make a few brief comments. I shall attempt to be brief because I realize some hon. members on the other side of the house intend to make some comments.
Bill No. S-16 proposes an act to incorporate a public company under the name of National Mortgage Corporation of Canada. This company is being formed because of an apparent need for secondary mortgage financing. This need was set out in an article entitled "An Investment Opportunity" written by J. L. Whitney, one of the incorporating directors, in the Financial Post on August 1, 1959. Shortly after that a group of interested individuals began to study all of the problems. As a result of this study and negotiation this company now requests incorporation.
The bill has a threefold purpose. One, that the company be allowed to deal in mortgages. Two, that the company be given the power to raise funds for investment in N.H.A. and conventional mortgages, through the sale of mortgage bonds to investors. Third, to give the company the power to carry on the business of managing and servicing mortgages, not only those which are owned by its policyholders, but also those which are owned by other individuals and corporations and which are left with the company for the purpose of being serviced.
It is the hope of the sponsors of this bill, through the medium of their mortgage bonds, to be able to induce institutional lenders, who have restricted their operations to relatively large urban centres throughout Canada, to make money available to them in order to
[Mr. Howard.l	i
make mortgages freely obtainable in remote communities. This will be done in the following way.
The company will set up two funds. The first fund will be used for the purchase of N.H.A. mortgages which are government backed. Those funds will be raised by the issuing of certificates to the lenders, either trust companies or large institutional companies or individuals who lend this money to the proposed companies, for which they will in return receive certificates which can be registered as to principal or as to interest and transferrable the same as bonds. The money received in this way will be invested in N.H.A. mortgages.
The second fund will be used for conventional mortgages and, of course, certificates will be issued in the same way but the interest rates on these certificates will be slightly higher than those received in respect of the ones backed by N.H.A. loans.
That is a brief outline, but I should just like to point out that the corporation will have a capital stock of $10 million, which may be increased to $15 million, and shall be divided into shares of $10 each. At least 60 per cent of any offering of stock be reserved for a period of 15 days from the time of such offering, for the purchase by corporate or natural persons ordinarily resident in Canada. It should also be noted that not less than 75 per cent of the directors of the corporation must be Canadian citizens, ordinarily resident in Canada. The head office of the company is to be in Toronto.
I can assure hon. members that when this bill is referred to the banking and commerce committee, representatives of this proposed company will be in attendance to explain in detail its proposals, and to discuss them with anyone who is interested at that time.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words concerning Bill No. S-16, an act to incorporate a company under the name of National Mortgage Corporation of Canada. My remarks will be brief, but I intend to pose a few questions which seem to me to require answers at this stage.
It should be noted that the petition was dated December 14, 1960 and was read on December 19, 1960. When this bill was given first reading, in the other place, on April 25, the purpose was outlined briefly. The purpose was that the company proposed to deal in mortgages of two types; those which are guaranteed by the government under C.M.H.C., and conventional mortgages. It was also stated that the company desired to raise funds for investment in N.H.A. mortgages and conventional mortgages. It is also proposed

that the company shall have the right to manage and service mortgages which are owned by its bondholders, as well as mortgages placed with the company.
Therefore, this bill provides, as the sponsor suggested this afternoon, for three main functions. One, that the proposed company be permitted to buy and sell mortgages. Two, that the company is to have the power to raise funds. Three, that the proposed company will be allowed to manage and service mortgages.
I think it will be agreed that this bill provides for a broad range of activity in the mortgage financing field in Canada. While the bill provides for activity in two separate and distinct mortgage financing fields, I cannot argue that the principle of the bill is contentious. In fact, for the past three years or more, I have urged the government to encourage the establishment of a secondary mortgage market in Canada, and on at least three occasions have set out in detail my version of an institution which could be publicly or privately owned, and would purchase N.H.A. mortgages guaranteed by the government to be used as collateral against the issuance of certificates in small denominations available to the small private investors, as well as to the large corporations. Many of these small investors, some with only a few hundred dollars, up to this point have not been able to conveniently invest in housing.
The interest rate paid on these certificates will vary with the N.H.A. fixed rate, probably one half of one per cent to three quarters of one par cent below the N.H.A. interest rate. Therefore, the series A bonds, being mortgage bonds backed by N.H.A. insured mortgages and by cash, should encourage new investors. It is my sincere hope that these mortgage bonds will be made available in small denominations, and that the greatest possible encouragement will be given the small investor to channel some of his savings in this way into the mortgage lending field. In my view it is only in this way that this corporation will be of any real benefit in bringing any new money into the mortgage lending system. Surely it cannot be argued that simply switching investment from one large corporation to another at a profit to both would contribute very much in this field. Now we have a new development and rather timely in respect of this corporation, of the government unloading C.M.H.C. mortgages at a discount which obviously will provide handsome additional profits for organizations such as the one envisaged in this bill.
A second mortgage fund to be known as mortgage fund B will be used in connection with the financing and sale of older houses,
Private Bills
we are told, and to provide funds for investment in the conventional mortgage field. It is also said that this fund will provide a suitable market for individuals, corporations and estates to sell or convert mortgages into cash. I am especially interested in the aspect of activity proposed in respect of the financing of houses already built. I would hope that we can have some clarification of what precisely is proposed in this field.
During second reading in the other place, at one point it was indicated that the fund would be used for this purpose and later that consideration would be given to ways and means of making financing available on existing houses. I would point out that there is some difference between the term "would be" and the matter of possibly giving consideration. I would hope that the hon. member who introduced this bill will be able to clear up this point. I would remind hon. members that this bill gives the corporation broad powers and once they have qualified as an approved lender under N.H.A. the company will be able to buy, sell, administer, deal in and service all mortgages coming under N.H.A. Provision is also made for investment in income-producing realty, and it will be governed by the provision of the Loan Companies Act.
As I mentioned earlier, the original petition was presented in the other place on December 19. It is of more than passing interest to note that on April 17 the Minister of Public Works made an announcement on government policy concerning the establishment of a secondary mortgage market and it is of equal interest that first reading was given to the bill in the other place on April 25, only eight days later, second reading the following day and the bill was then referred to the Senate standing committee on banking and commerce. This committee examined the bill on May 3 and third reading took place on May 10.
As a result of the careful scrutiny given this bill in the other place nine amendments of a rather technical nature were made. It is rather strange that this bill, which was so long in the drafting stage, and which had a model bill to work from, was so technically deficient when presented to the other place, unless the sponsors realized the need for haste with these new opportunities just around the corner, with the government's decision to unload $170 million worth of mortgages at a discount.
Although provisions exist in the 1954 National Housing Act for block sale of existing mortgages, there has been relatively little activity in this field up to this time. I simply pose the question that it seems a little more than coincidental that the initiative for the

Private Bills
formation of the corporation embodied in this bill has been timed so completely in accord with the government's announced policy of April 17 to unload a substantial quantity of mortgages at discounts.
My main objection to this bill arises from the proposed name, National Mortgage Corporation of Canada. The use of "National" and "of Canada" together clearly gives the impression of a government agency. I realize this matter was dealt with at some length in the other place, because I have carefully read the proceedings there. However, some very interesting evidence was presented on May 3 to the banking and commerce committee in this respect. Then later an amendment was moved on third reading in an effort by some hon. members in the other place to correct the confusion that will arise, and indeed has arisen already, as to the relationship of this corporation and the federal government. I would urge hon. members to read the objections presented to the banking and commerce committee by Mr. K. R. MacGregor, superintendent of insurance. His argument was sound and it is not my intention to delay the house by repeating or referring to his objections, nor am I going to raise the objections put forward by certain private companies such as the National Trust.
I would, however, draw hon. members' attention to the views of Dr. Stewart Bates, president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and as such perhaps the person most qualified to make a recommendation in this matter. I would like to quote, if I may, from a letter of Dr. Bates.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member proposing to quote on the question of the name of the corporation? Does the letter which the hon. member has in mind quoting refer to the name of the corporation?


John Richard Garland: Only, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that that matter is not one properly to be elaborated on second reading. The hon. member has indicated that there is objection to the name, and this is a matter which will come before the committee and before the committee of the whole house and is a matter of detailed discussion of the bill. It would be appropriate then to take exception to the name.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On the point of order, if the hon. member is speaking to the principle of the bill, namely the abuse of the word "National" in the name of any company, not particularly this company, then would it not be considered as part of the principle of the bill?


Mr. Speaker:: Well, if hon. members feel that a matter of principle is involved in the proposed name I do not want to be too technical about the discussion. I would think that one should not get into a detailed presentation of evidence on the point.


John Richard Garland: It was my intention to refer only to this one piece of evidence. It seems to me to be quite important because of the position occupied by Dr. Bates. I would quote from his letter, if I may:
Since Bill S-16 to incorporate National Mortgage Corporation of Canada was introduced in the Senate it has been brought to our attention that among approved lenders and others there is confusion as to whether this is a private corporation or a publicly owned one. In particular, we find many mortgage buyers believing this to be a government company, associated with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in connection with the recently announced government policy to develop a secondary mortgage market in Canada through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
The confusion appears to stem from the fact that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation administers the National Housing Act and insures National Housing Act loans and indeed, makes direct National Housing Act loans on its own behalf.
We believe that the confusion to which I refer is undesirable from the point of view of the sponsors of the proposed new corporation and as well, from the point of view of this corporation. We would deem it a favour if you would explore with your colleagues and the sponsors of the new corporation the necessity of having the new corporation renamed.
This is a serious request from the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and merits the serious consideration of all hon. members. As head of the corporation, Dr. Bates is possibly in the best position to assess the confusion which has arisen already and which is bound to arise in the future. Quite apart from Dr. Bate's concern about the immediate future I would also remind hon. members that governments of the future may find it necessary and desirable to set up a public corporation along these same lines. I would therefore urge that the words "National" and "of Canada" be not granted to this company to be used together in the title, one or the other would be O.K. but certainly not both together.
I do not think there is any doubt that this has caused considerable confusion. I have proof of that in the statement of the Minister of Public Works in this house on May 9 in dealing with his announcement of the first offering to the secondary mortgage market, in which he had this to say:
Prospective purchasers should therefore get in touch with one of the organizations I have just mentioned, and not with the corporation itself.
I should also like to know what the Secretary of State's department thinks about this matter. It has always been my understanding

that any words capable of giving the impression that the organization is a federal institution or a federal agency have been considered to be objectionable and have been frowned upon by the department.
I know that hon. members are aware of "Fanny May", the United States federal government company, the proper name of which is the federal national mortgage association. This, 1 suggest, is just another reason to recognize that the day may well come when we will want to form a government corporation in this particular field. What we are doing here today cannot or is not likely to be undone, and I appeal to hon. members not to grant to a private corporation a name that clearly marks it as an instrument of the federal government. Surely we are giving this corporation broad powers already and we should not be required to give it a name that would even suggest it to be an agency of our national government.
With these few general remarks, I should like to ask the sponsor a few questions. First, will this company be able to sell bonds to the banks which would yield 6 per cent and then distribute profits made on the operation of fund A, thus enabling the banks to earn more than the statutory 6 per cent allowed them under the Bank Act? Second, since the securities of this corporation, the A bonds, will be indirectly guaranteed by the government, is it not a fact that they will in effect be competing with debentures of school boards, municipalities and provinces on the one hand and at the same time getting the federal government off the hook with regard to some of its long term commitments? Normally I would not object to this form of competition but surely all hon. members are aware of the unfair treatment these junior levels of government have received as a result of the excessive borrowing of the federal government. In fact, this competition from the federal government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member does not propose to pursue that line because it is not raised at all by the bill.


John Richard Garland: Then I will refer to another matter. I had intended to establish this point with statements made at the recent conference of mayors and municipalities in Halifax but perhaps I can leave that for another opportunity. There is another question I should like to pose to the sponsor of the bill. If the government could unload a number of long term commitments on this new market, is it not possible that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) could hide a part of his deficit? Certainly he could avoid the necessity-
Private Bills


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is discussing public finance and not the incorporation of a company with certain restricted powers to invest in mortgages. I do not want to keep interrupting him but to my mind the bill does not raise any question of public finance.


Mr. Graffley:: He will have to throw away that page of his speech.


John Richard Garland: Surely if the corporation we are creating is to deal primarily in mortgages being sold by an agency of the government there has to be a relationship. However, I will proceed.
Finally, the market is only going to take existing mortgages if a profit can be made on them. If they yield less than the discounted value of current mortgages they are not going to move. On the other hand, if they are sold at a discount the taxpayer is going to have to pay.
While the need for mortgage funds at the moment is not creating any problem, increased demand is bound to develop in the foreseeable future as Canada's wartime babies hit the housing market and/or when our economy resumes its normal rate of development. Today's problem is a lack of demand for buyers willing to take on these heavy commitments of high cost housing and high cost financing of housing. However, to whatever extent the corporation envisaged in the bill will attract new investors to channel their savings into the financing of housing it will, of course, be welcomed by most hon. members. It is only to the degree that it attracts investors who have not yet invested in housing that the corporation will make an important contribution. I believe there is a place for this kind of institution in the mortgage financing field. I do, however, object vigorously to the use of the words "national" and "of Canada" together in the name of the proposed corporation.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate that the hour is nearing six o'clock. I have no desire to delay passage of the bill. I appreciate the remarks that have been made by the previous speaker and I am in agreement with them. A problem has been created in this regard mainly because the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) has used the same type of name in referring to this field. Therefore there is an implication that there will be a government crown corporation in the secondary mortgage field and its name would have some relationship to the name now being sought by this company.

Farm Credit Act
I should have liked to have the opportunity to refer to some of the good points in connection with this proposed company because in some respects it is better than most mortgage companies while on the other hand there are also some restrictions. I will not do so, however, because time is limited. There are many who will want to discuss this matter and we do not want to see the bill go to the bottom of the list because we will probably be recessing on the 28th of this month. The bill might possibly die because of its position on the order paper. I should like to see the bill go to the committee where there will be an opportunity to say something about it. I would request the chairman of the banking and commerce committee to have the proceedings respecting this measure published so that even those who are not members of that committee will have an opportunity to study them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 7.30 p.m.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Farm Credit Act
or vice versa. So generally speaking, at the working level of the provinces there has been very fine co-operation in the last year or so.
In addition to that we have occasional conferences of federal heads of the farm credit corporation and representatives of the various provincial governments. I think these consultations came about largely because of the fact that in the first few months of operation of the farm credit corporation it became very clear, and I noticed it particularly when I took over the department in October, that the loans going into the province of Quebec and the four eastern provinces did not show that startling growth rate that they showed in the province of Ontario and right through to the west coast.
Naturally it will be asked, "Why was this so?" In consultation with the agricultural ministers of these provinces we discovered that the terms of reference of our act do not lend themselves too readily to the type of farming done in the maritime areas. Then of course the very generous provisions of the Quebec act make it very difficult for us to get in there. In the maritimes the set-up we have was not right for their type of operation. In other words, the Farm Credit Act gives a tremendous emphasis to assets in land, and these assets are not available, in most cases, in the maritime provinces. I might make the same observation with regard to the province of British Columbia.
As a result of these consultations the farm credit corporation worked out with one province, first of all, very good co-ordination between the federal and provincial credit organization. As a result we took on as an experiment a new type of loan in the province of Nova Scotia.
First of all we looked at the possibility of marketing the production of the farms in that area. There was a deficiency in the hog production of Nova Scotia in relation to the demand for pork products in that province. It was estimated that some 300 to 400 farmers would be well advised to go into some form of hog production along with their other forms of production in order to meet this deficiency. The price for hogs, as hon. members know, is higher in the maritimes than it is in the central provinces.
A barn was designed, the best techniques of feeding were worked out, and our farm supervisors in these areas are now going out and making this market possibility known to farmers. They are encouraging farmers, in 300 to 400 cases, to take this on as one of the types of activities on their farms.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I have every desire to co-operate with the minister. However, would the minister indicate, in point
	.
of time, when these statistics were prepared in regard to Nova Scotia?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The figures I quoted for Nova Scotia were for the fiscal year 1960-61. What I am discussing now, of course, is the operation of the farm credit corporation in Nova Scotia in the last three or four months. This, to my mind, is a perfect example of what can be done by going into a certain area and considering the particular economic needs of that area in consultation with the local people. I hope that the setting up of these barns to handle 250 hogs a year will lead to a better living for the three or four hundred farmers who have received these loans at interest rates of 5 per cent.
I think that in other areas we shall need to take a searching look at the farm situation to make sure we are familiar with the situations prevailing locally. I am intrigued by the possibilities in the province of British Columbia, the maritime provinces and certain areas of Quebec and northern Ontario. I might include, also, the fringe areas of the prairies where the Farm Credit Act does not seem to be meeting the need as well as it does in the better established farm areas.
I forgot to mention one problem in Alberta. We realize there is a difficulty there. I refer to the question of lending money to ranchers and in the special areas.


William Moore Benidickson: What about the questions I asked yesterday?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have just finished answering them. Before the hon. member arrived I gave the figures for Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec where there is provincial loan legislation. 1 explained what the rates were, and how we co-operated with the provinces.
That completes the remarks I had to make in answer to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I should like to end by saying that the demand for this type of credit has been gratifying. It demonstrates that the need exists, and that if we operate in close contact with the farmer and work out plans under which they will not have undue difficulty in repaying the money, while demonstrating at the same time that the farmers concerned are going to enjoy an increased income, there will be a widespread acceptance of the idea of farm credit. Approximately 50 per cent of our farmers are farming land which could, potentially provide them with a good living. If we can provide them with the capital to develop that land into economic family farm units I think we shall have accomplished the main purpose we have in mind.
I should like to thank the staff of the farm credit corporation for the hard work they

have done in the last two years and I should like, also, to thank the staff of the Veterans Land Act administration who have worked in the same office and shown that men of two different organizations can work together under the same heads without too much friction. The results of the last year or so are, I think, a measure of their efforts on behalf of Canadian farmers.


William Moore Benidickson: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we had a discussion in this house on the resolution stage of this bill. At that time we indicated to the minister that we felt that in this field he and his department had made considerable progress. We were prompted to compliment him for that. I did, however, raise one or two questions which I do not think the minister has decided to answer. I referred yesterday to the interest rate which is payable by the farm credit board to the government. I indicated that we are amending the bill so as to provide capital which amounts to another $4 million but that in effect it involves 25 times that amount, namely, $100 million.
As far as the operation of the farm credit board is concerned I do not think the minister has, in accordance with my request yesterday, provided us with information as to the rate of interest which applies to borrowings by the farm credit corporation from the government. Under the amendments which were made in 1959, I think, the farm borrower pays 5 per cent. I indicated yesterday that there was some record that the corporation had borrowed from the government under the statute at a rate as high as 5| per cent. The minister does not appear to have dealt with this up to the present time.
The Farm Credit Act is a successor to the farm loan act. Under the latter act we had always operated on a non-subsidy basis. According to the report of the farm credit corporation for the year ended March 31, 1960, to which I referred yesterday, there had not been disclosed, in the financial statement, a financial loss. However, I urged the minister in our discussion yesterday to give us information which is up to date, or at least up to date to March 31, 1961, with respect to the operations in the second year of the new farm credit corporation. I do not think the minister has done that. I hope that before the debate is concluded, in view of the fact that this amendment involves $100 million of additional credit, to which we do not object, the minister will indicate the current rate of interest at which the farm credit corporation is borrowing money from the dominion government, relate that to the operating expenses of the corporation and relate it also to the section in the act which refers to the neces-
Farm Credit Act
sity for providing for a reserve fund.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Being absent last evening attending a function given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in tribute to the president of the general assembly of the United Nations I lost the opportunity to say a few words on the resolution preceding this bill, so I am now taking the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the bill.
We support the principles and purposes of this bill because it represents the type of farm credit legislation which members of this group have advocated for many years in this house and numerous legislatures throughout Canada. I remember being in the provincial house in company with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) just after the war began when we were advocating provincial legislation almost identical to this with respect to its interest rate and its terms of operation.
We are particularly interested in this type of legislation because we in this group are interested in the development and the welfare of the economic family farm, because we realize its place on the Canadian scene and its value to Canadian society.
The success of this legislation is clearly indicated by the fact that the minister found it necessary to introduce this bill to extend the capital available to the farm credit corporation. Its success is also indicated by its generous acceptance by the farmers and farm organizations. Because of that it is clearly indicated that it fills a long-time unfilled need in the credit sphere as far as agriculture is concerned. Personally I have been very interested for many years in long term low interest credit for farmers. In fact, I think my interest was first aroused about 1920 shortly after the first world war.
I have been on committees that studied the matter, and have been an officer of farm organizations and fruit growers' associations, during which time I have given this serious consideration. I, in association with other members, have urged the necessity for this type of legislation, at farmers' institute meetings, fruit growers' meetings, in the legislature of British Columbia, and in the House of Commons since I came here in 1945, on behalf of this group, as well as in the country since. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting this measure.
We believe that when the government introduces legislation which we consider advantageous to the Canadian people, we should say so and support it. When we disagree with government policy we criticize it just as harshly as we think necessary. So, after a long time, the government of Canada

Farm Credit Act
has begun to realize or accept the fact that there is a need for this type of legislation, and has done so in response to representations made by farmers' organizations in this country and by hon. members of various parties in this house over a number of years.
At the present time farm organizations and farmers generally need this type of assistance, and those who are interested in agriculture support this act and the administration. We have had a good piece of legislation in the form of this act. It is evident that it is sound because of the use that has been made of it during a very short period of time by those who have required it. Good legislation is not sufficient unless accompanied by sound administration.
Without any hesitation I wish to pay tribute to the very sound administration of this legislation by the officials of the farm credit corporation from the director to the most junior supervisor or appraiser in the field.
Why have they been able to give that good administration? I suggest first of all it is because the great majority have that "something" which is required to make this type of legislation a success. They have a feeling for agriculture, and the experience in this field which gives them the knowledge of the farmers' problems, which is required. I suggest therein lies the basis for sound judgment when it comes to the question of assisting to meet farmers' needs in respect to credit.
In addition to that, not only have they this feeling for agriculture, and experience, but the staff has had much imagination and many ideas, while at the same time they have kept their feet on the ground. This is very different from the administration of the Canadian Farm Loan Act. I am not blaming the board or personnel, but that act was administered under the Department of Finance. It is very peculiar that whenever this type of act is administered under the Department of Finance it is not as successful as it might otherwise be, because it is being administered by people who think in terms of money and interest rather than personal relationships, land development and so on. However, that situation is inevitable. The act was too restrictive in its application and it did not provide to those administering it the opportunity to exercise their imaginations, nor to put into operation their ideas, as this act does. There was too little contact with applicants after loans had been made and very little in the way of an advisory staff in partnership with the farmers in their day to day operations after they had become clients of the board. That situation has changed entirely.
Before going on, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make reference to what I thought was

rather a critical note. I may be mistaken but I thought the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) was somewhat critical of the slight element of subsidy that is associated with this act. I do not know if I am correct in assuming that-


William Moore Benidickson: No, I just wanted to make it clear that there was subsidy.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The only subsidy that would arise would be the difference in interest rates between the interest paid by the farmers at 5 per cent, and the interest paid by the corporation on its borrowings.


William Moore Benidickson: And the administrative costs.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And of course administrative costs, but we should exclude them because we have many other government services which are non-profit making in respect of which we do not consider administrative costs. I think it would be fair to the farmer, the people, and the government if we just considered that subsidy in relation to the difference between the interest paid for the funds received by the corporation, and the interest paid on the loans. There is no doubt that there is a slight element of subsidy.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not object to that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think we should realize the value of family farms in this country and the work that is being done under this act, in conjunction with a realization of the existence of subsidies being paid to other industries. For instance, we have heard about the $50 million being paid to railways and the $15 million paid to the gold mining industry-


William Moore Benidickson: And the subsidy to the coal mining industry.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not intend to criticize for one moment.


William Moore Benidickson: And tariffs.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The small element of subsidy under this legislation has not, in my opinion, gained enough in proportion, in relation to the value of the economic family farm in this country.
The personnel at staff headquarters are individuals of long experience, some with considerable experience under the Veterans' Land Act administration and some in other services. That experience is very valuable to the administration of this act.
To indicate the imagination of the progressive ideas which are put forward by the present headquarters administration of this legislation I should like to refer to the booklet entitled "Farm Credit Corporation Lending Policy". I do not intend to deal with it at length but I think anyone who reads the booklet through-I urge all hon. members to-will

realize that this administration is soundly based, and I suggest that the relationship of the corporation to the individual farmer and to the public of Canada is very well dealt with in this booklet, as far as lending policies are concerned. I suggest it is worth while for members to take the time to read about this lending policy as expressed in this booklet, if they wish to get some over-all idea of the thought, imagination, ideas and soundness of this administration.
In the field of local staffs, there are persons with experience in similar work, some with the Veterans' Land Act, and some with other organizations. That experience is not only in respect to legislation but in many cases has regard to circumstances and conditions which change so much across Canada. I can foresee that in the future this legislation will be increasingly complementary to the rural rehabilitation and development act. It will be one of the several acts which will dovetail into this scheme of rural improvement.
As far as the local administration is concerned, I have noticed a big difference in the administration of this act compared with that of the Canadian farm loan board, and I have had quite a long time experience with the Canadian farm loan board. I found them a somewhat impersonal body. They seemed to deal at arm's length with the poor farmer on many occasions. They have often been more impersonal than members of parliament. I have had much closer contact with farmers. The people in the field working under this act, go into a district and discuss the farmer's problems, taking the time necessary to make a thorough assessment of the situation to obtain the confidence of the farmer and determine whether or not in his judgment the amount of loan for which he makes application is in his favour.
Another interesting aspect is this continuing co-operation with the client, as it were, the farmer who has obtained a loan, in making regular visits and working with the farmer in the drafting of a satisfactory program for his soil, for his local circumstances and in relation to his markets.
I notice also that more younger farmers are interested in this legislation, and the staff itself is coming into contact with increasing numbers of young farmers as it becomes known and the terms of the legislation become known. I have a few suggestions to make. They are not made in a critical sense whatever. I make them as a result of pretty close association with the farmers in my district, a lifetime association with a very different type of farmer from those great 90205-6-397
Farm Credit Act
prairie farmers who ride on combines with a radio on the front seat and a television set on the rear.


Mr. Speaker:: Pardon my interruption but there are several very audible conversations going on which make it very difficult to hear the hon. member.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am by no means flattered by that suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I represent the dairy farmers, the beef farmers, the small general farmers, the fruit farmers, the poultry farmers, the muskrat farmers, and so on. I want to make a few suggestions in this connection but they are not particularly critical. I realize the difficulties at the present time with respect to the administrative load that is being placed on the headquarters staff.
I do suggest to the minister that within reason every opportunity be presented to the senior staff of headquarters, the director and his close associates, to make more frequent visits to different parts of Canada, to visit the local offices and become as acquainted as they can personally with the various regions of the various provinces and the areas within the provinces under their jurisdiction. I think it would be very worth while from their point of view and from the point of view of the farmers they are aiming to serve. I think this brings the administration close to the people and everything should be done toward that end. I particularly suggest that they do not overlook the Kootenays, because there they can do business and enjoy themselves at the same time. You can actually fish, troll or fly-fish in a boat as you go along from one farm to another around these beautiful lakes. It is a combination of business and recreation.
Then I suggest that senior officials and the provincial and district officials, where the opportunity occurs under suitable circumstances, attend farmers' meetings and the meetings of other organizations. As far as the farm organization meetings are concerned, I am thinking particularly of the local farm level, the local farmers' institute, the local federations of agriculture, the local fruit growers' association, and so forth. I urge them to attend those meetings and inform them fully of the purposes of the legislation and maintain that close contact and co-operation.
This type of legislation to serve the country to the best advantage also requires cooperation from the top right down to the individual farmers and through them the farmers' organizations because even skilled administrators and ministers can learn from people in very humble circumstances who have the capacity to observe, form judgments and pass on their information to others.

Farm Credit Act
I may say, Mr. Speaker, one of the main reasons why I utter so many, or give vent to so many, wise suggestions in this house and express so many good ideas is that I am fed continually by the people I represent in Kootenay West. They furnish me with these ideas and I simply rise in my place and act as their spokesman.
Then again I suggest also that the senior officials and the district officials, particularly the senior officials, should take the opportunity to visit on a spot basis certain typical farms in each of the areas they visit so that they will get a pretty close understanding of local circumstances.
I have one further suggestion. I can see possibilities in this direction. I presume there has not been a great deal of experience with this up to date. I understand it is quite possible for forest farmers to secure a loan under proper circumstances, as any other farmer can do, from the farm credit corporation. This is a thing I am very interested in and a good number of my constituents are interested in forest farms. I think you call them woodlots in Ontario. It is an area in our country of anything from say 100 acres up to 2,000, 3,000 or 5,000 acres of timber which a man is farming and cropping. Under the legislation I understand it is possible for a person with satisfactory security and knowledge of his business to obtain a loan if he satisfies the requirements of the act. I do suggest it would be a good idea if some of the senior officials would give some thought to this type of application. It takes a person with a little bit of experience, a man who is able to cruise timber and measure it. If a farmer says, "I have 5 million feet of timber on this property," he must be able to confirm that there are 5 million feet. It takes a man who understands species, who understands accessibility of timber, the markets, the cost of building roads and the possibilities for the development of, say, a local lumber market or other forest products market, or shipping to outside markets. In view of the possible future developments in that direction, I do suggest that it is a very worth while feature of farm technology and that more consideration be given to making certain that there are some of the officials of the farm credit corporation who have a knowledge of forest farming in all its aspects.
This is all I have to say at this time. I may have a word or two to say later on but I see nothing to criticize in the legislation, nothing to criticize so far as the administration is concerned to date and I think the best way to show my appreciation to the minister at this time is to conclude at this point.
[Mr. Herridge.l


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent, Onl.):: I should like for a few minutes to add my words of support for this measure. As one who represents a district where farming is perhaps a little different from that in most areas may I say I am sure hon. members will appreciate the difficulties that are found in an area where a family farm can consist of one acre covered with glass or maybe 1,500 acres used as a ranch. It could be land used for tobacco at $1,000 an acre in value or land that could be used for pasture purposes, heavy land, worth approximately $60 an acre.
Hon. members will appreciate that in administering a measure such as the farm credit corporation legislation the administrators are faced with immense problems. Under the previous administration there was not a great deal of desire on the part of the farmers, because of the high price of land, to use the implements at hand because it was felt that the money involved did not represent a large enough sum to help them obtain the necessary loan that would make such a venture profitable. When the act was amended to make it possible for young men to borrow up to $20,000 at 5 per cent from the farm credit corporation and to obtain additional funds for machinery and livestock under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, it was quite apparent that the young farmers in the riding of Kent felt that they at last had the tools necessary to help them obtain a farm loan.
One of the basic problems that faced these young, progressive, scientific farmers when they began to take advantage of these loans was the time lag. A great deal of time elapsed from the time they applied for a loan until it was processed and the money was actually placed at their disposal. There was considerable concern over this time lag and a desire to know where to place the blame. I too was very interested because of the many representations made to me and so I took the opportunity of going through the district to try to ascertain where the blame lay. Much to my amazement and to the amazement of other people concerned I found that the main reason for the delay was the tremendous number of applications being placed in the office by farmers wishing to take advantage of this legislation. It was absolutely impossible for the staff then available to process so many applications more rapidly. Let me assure you that these people were highly experienced and competent because of their association with the administration of the Veterans' Land Act. They simply had too many loans to process in too short a time.
However, when the thing began to roll the time lag became shorter and shorter, and I am very happy to report now that there are

very few instances indeed where the young man is held up to any extent on this account. One of the most amazing things that occurred when some of these young men made applications for loans was that they did not always get the amount for which they applied. Any man who has dealings with a bank will very often find that he does not get what he asks for; but in connection with these applications these people in some instances did not obtain what they asked for but rather much more than the amount for which they applied.
I should like to refer to one young farmer with whom I am acquainted. He made application for a loan of $9,000. The men who administer the act are very competent farm managers themselves. They were able to point out to this young farmer that he could put his farm in a much more stable position, thus making it possible for him to repay the loan much sooner, give his farm a better rating and provide his family with a better living if he would borrow more money than the amount for which he had applied. This farmer who had applied for a loan of $9,000 was actually granted a loan of $20,000 by the farm credit corporation, and today he is one of the most progressive young men in the area.
I should like to lend my support to this measure for one basic reason. For too long we have seen the best and most energetic young men leaving the farms and going to the cities to take positions in industry simply because they lacked the necessary funds to purchase their fathers' farms. These fathers had worked through the years to pay off their farms and in many instances there were still small mortgages left. These young men were unable to take over their fathers' farms and so they went into industry and the farms passed into the hands of strangers.
I am very happy to report that in my district the situation seems to have reversed. The young men feel that at last here is an opportunity to borrow a large amount of money at a reasonable rate of interest over a suitable period of time. Thus they are given a reasonable opportunity to pay back the loan with honour, and thanks to the farm credit corporation legislation they feel they can obtain the necessary amount to buy the family farm which means so much to them, land which they are accustomed to work and on which they can do the best job.
I think we have in my riding one of the finest examples in Canada today of young men at last being able to remain on the family farm because they feel that it will carry them and their families into the future with the same degree of security and satisfaction that was experienced by their parents.
90205-6-397J
Farm Credit Act
At last there is a source of credit that is of value to the young men in my area and enables them to attain a business of their own. They have the desire and the knowledge and now they have the funds. This measure makes it possible for them to achieve success in life.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, last night and again tonight the minister gave us a detailed summary of the operation of the Farm Credit Act which is the old farm loans act under a new name, and his summary was very useful indeed. However, I wish to submit a few suggestions which, if taken into consideration and acted upon, will help not only the farmers of my constituency but farmers on small holdings everywhere.
The actual effect of this legislation is to increase the amount available for lending from $200 million to $300 million. I am heartily in favour of the principle of the bill and therefore I am not going to criticize the principle but rather some aspects of the administration of the legislation. As I realize that the bill under discussion would mean the enactment of legislation which could be of assistance to the agricultural potential of the district of Thunder Bay in which my constituency is located, I desire to avail myself of the opportunity to participate briefly m the discussion in the hope that I may be able to impress upon the minister the importance of doing something more than is being done at present by the senior levels of government to bring the agricultural lands of the district, ^ which, as everyone knows, are not a prairie type of soil, into productive holdings from which our farmers can make a decent living.
I need not tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the district is not known as a prosperous agricultural area. It has within its confines a few very fine, well developed and productive farms. The great majority, however, are comparatively small holdings of anywhere from 100 to 300 acres.
One of the commendable aspects of this bill is to provide assistance to those on the land who would otherwise be unable to obtain loans in the ordinary way. This is a welcome measure, especially for those who will be able to qualify; but the farmers of my district have had very little success in obtaining loans to improve their farms in the past.
I have already indicated that the average farmer in my constituency cultivates a comparatively small parcel of land. The majority are of the dairy and truck garden variety. We have, however, large tracts of empty barren areas that could profitably be put

Farm Credit Act
to farm use if the prospective farmer had the means of acquiring stock and machinery.
From its inception the farm loan act the name of which was changed to the Farm Credit Act has provided the means for financing farm equipment to western farmers. But it has not been too prone to do so for the poor farmers of the east, notably those in my constituency, with the result that they have had to resort to finance companies for their purchases of machinery, paying a rate of interest considerably higher than they would have had to pay had they been able to borrow from the banks through the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
During the past decade we have witnessed a trend of movement from the rural to the urban centres, brought about by more attractive living conditions, which in no small measure, have been due to gainful employment which up to two or three years ago it was rather easy to obtain. Conditions are now somewhat reversed in many cases and therefore I believe that what we should be concerned with at present is stimulating an interest in a return to the land movement. That is something which, in my opinion, we must do sooner or later.
Speaking on the supply motion on agriculture in 1960, as reported at page 3427 of Hansard I made the following statement:
I have said previously and I say again that unless a farmer in our district has sufficient collateral to show it is next to impossible for him to secure a loan to enable him to develop efficiently and economically the agricultural potential of his holding.
The situation as described is just as true today as it was a year ago. I have been pleading with the government for easier credits for our farmers ever since my election to parliament in 1958, and I shall continue to do so until the tillers of the soil of my constituency receive the same consideration as do their more fortunate counterparts in the prairie provinces and in the lush eastern parts of Ontario. Social workers, clergymen and others agree that the farm and village are the ideal setting for family life, the best of all places in which to bring up a family. But, so long as a lack of opportunity for financial improvement exists, and so long as inability to borrow money from lending institutions continues, individual poverty and lack of community resources will drive farming people to the urban areas where, instead of milk and honey, only crowded conditions and often misery prevail.
Our efforts should be directed toward building a happy rural Canada instead of discouraging people from living on the farm, thus leading them to the misery of unemployment in the cities.

As a result of neglect on the part of both senior levels of government, both federal and provincial, during the past 20 years, the number of farmers in the Thunder Bay district decreased from approximately 2,500 to about half that number or 1,250, and a considerable portion of the land which they farmed is now deserted and looks as though a hurricane had passed through it leaving behind nothing but buildings which look like derelicts.
I think that the role in the economy of the farmer who operates a mixed holding of a few hundred acres or less has been overlooked by the government. Not sufficient emphasis has been forthcoming from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) in the way of promotion, especially in undeveloped areas such as the lakehead district which has a population of 125,000, of which only 5.3 per cent are farmers, whereas for the province of Ontario the percentage of farmers to the total population is about 12J per cent.
The advent of the seaway, now in its third year of operation, has increased the demand for fresh farm produce. Unlimited supply of livestock feed is available at lakehead terminals. The disadvantage appears to be small amounts of crop land. There are plenty of good prospective farmers as well as those who are now on the land who would wish to enlarge and improve their holdings in order to get the maximum return from their land, and the only thing that stops them is lack of capital. If this increase in the capital of the farm credit corporation is really going to be made available to needy farmers and prospective farmers, then I would certainly congratulate the minister on his too little but, I hope, not too late measure to rescue the type of farmer for whom I am speaking.
I am a staunch advocate of a liberal credit policy designed to encourage ownership and operation of farms, large and small, in every part of Canada. Among the small farmers of northwestern Ontario is the mixed farmer who keeps cows, grows vegetables and has a woodlot from which he derives the biggest part of his income by selling the pulpwood to the local pulp and paper companies. These farmers should be assisted in setting up projects of reforestation. I express the hope that the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming) will take under advisement the establishment of a policy to encourage reforestation on lands owned by these small woodlot farmers. This is the type of farmer that predominates in the agricultural areas of northwestern Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have been following the hon. member with some misgiving and wondering what he is saying has to do with

the bill in question. Actually, we are dealing with the Farm Credit Act as it stands. The question or the principle before the house is whether to increase the capital of that act. I concede that anything that comes under the act as it stands is in order. However, the hon. member is talking about farm woodlots and reforestation and a great many agricultural problems that surely have nothing to do with this bill.


Hubert Badanai: I am merely attempting to show that this legislation could help the farmers by helping them through a reforestation policy within their woodlots. I am speaking about small farmers who do mixed farming and who operate woodlots within their own holdings. That is the type of farmer about whom I am speaking and to whom this legislation will be helpful if the money is available to them and approved by the proper authority.
The largest group of small farmers are those engaged in the production of whole milk which is sold to city dairies. During the past two or three years the market for whole milk has declined because there is a lack of facilities for the production of cheese and powdered milk, which would absorb the portion not used by the lakehead milk distributors.
This is another way in which we could help these farmers to create for themselves an avenue which would be of assistance to them financially. It is here that a substantial government loan could assist in the establishment, for example, of a cheese factory. A few years ago a few farmers did band together and established a small plant-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are several members who wish to speak on this bill and I think I would not be doing my duty if I allowed the hon. member to discuss a great many unrelated matters. There is nothing in this bill relating to the establishment of a cheese factory.


Hubert Badanai: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to bring to the attention of the house ways in which I believe this legislation could help our farmers. It may be of interest to hon. members to know that in order to establish a 5 cans of milk quota an investment of from $30,000 to $40,000 is required. This would gross to the farmer the princely sum of only $20 per day. As everyone knows, the farmer must of necessity milk his cows 12 hours apart, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, notwithstanding the mechanization which has taken place in recent years.
One of the greatest problems of the farmer today is finding the money for the operation of his farm in the face of heavy payments on his capital expenditure for the mechanization
Farm Credit Act
of his operation, which mechanization has been forced upon him due to the difficulty of securing part-time farm help.
Farm loans have taken the place of the hired man. The farmer now hires money instead of men to carry on his farm operations. Of course, if he cannot borrow money his enterprise will suffer. It is for this reason the government has realized that more money is needed, and I am all for it.
I would feel much happier, of course, if those responsible for the approval of these loans took into consideration all factors, not least of which is the essential need of the individual applicant, regardless of geography. In the northern Ontario area there are a number of French speaking farmers, which would justify the appointment of a bilingual inspector of farm holdings whose job it is to approve loan applications. The point is that applications are often turned down because of a lack of understanding of the farmer's problems and because there is not a proper appreciation of the relative value of farms in these rugged parts of Ontario.
Local banks, while sympathetic, will loan money under the farm loan act. However, they will only loan amounts which are not necessarily based on needs, but rather on the bank's evaluation of the farmer as a financial risk. It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture should initiate a study of all the potentials of agriculture in every part of Canada, instead of confining most of his attention to the problems of the big western farmers. The farm credit corporation should be able to recommend applications for loans to any farmer or farm organization for the establishment of facilities which would help not only farmers but the economy of the area in which these facilities will be located.
Loans are required to assist farmers to acquire registered livestock. If they had the money, they would be in a position to buy a better class of cattle. This is just as important in agriculture as it is for a factory to have better machinery with which to improve its products. According to the annual report in connection with the Farm Improvement Loans Act for the year 1960, in the 15 years since the act was introduced, from 1945 to 1960, out of a total of $1,013,782,000 borrowed under the act there remains outstanding $177 million, represented by 170 loans. Practically all the money borrowed from 1945 to 1956 has been repaid. This is the point I wish to bring out. On the basis of this record no one can deny the wisdom of the government of the day in enacting this legislation, the results of which have been an outstanding success.
The submission of the national farmers' union made to the government on February

Farm Credit Act
15, 1961, rejected the widely held opinion that technology and efficiency demand the removal of the majority of farm families from the land. The brief included these words:
We do not subscribe to the theory that the activities and institutions ol men are determined solely by technology and economics regardless of human and social values, but hold that technological developments can and must be adjusted to serve the human, social and economic needs of men.
We believe that the family farm is the most efficient unit in terms not only of production, but also in terms of soil conservation and human and social values. We therefore believe that the preservation of the family farm is of importance to farm families as well as to the nation as a whole.
I for one certainly subscribe to these sentiments, which are opposed to the farm people of Canada becoming "factory in the field" instead of a happy family farm. Canada's best interests will be served in the end by a large number of mixed farms rather than by a few specialized farm units.
It seems to me that the flight from the farm to the city which has been going on over the past several years is a sad trend. This decline in our farm population and in the relative importance of agriculture to the national economy is to be regretted. Certainly it has its sad side, particularly for those whose roots are deep in the land.
Our farm population may continue to shrink. The farmer is unlikely to become extinct, however, because he has an important role to play in the Canadian economy for a long time to come; just as long, in fact, as human beings need to eat.
With modern aids life on the farm is undoubtedly easier than it has ever been. The advent of the automobile, telephone, radio, television, the differences between rural and urban living have been narrowed to the point that a "back to the land" campaign would not be a bad idea. I commend this to the minister. If this bill will do anything to encourage people to stay on the farm and encourage some to settle on the land, then I say it will have accomplished a great deal for Canada.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, if the sentiments expressed by the last speaker truly represent the views of the official opposition, I am very happy to learn that the Liberal party has at long last discovered the value and virtues of the family farmer.
In considering whether or not support should be given to legislation of this kind which, in effect, will have the result of increasing by $100 million the amount of money available for lending under this legislation, I think one is driven to consider what were the simple principles which encouraged the government to pass the legislation in the

first place. In order to recapitulate these I can do no better than read briefly from a statement made by Mr. George Owen, chief of the loans division of the corporation to the banker's summer school in Guelph. I am paraphrasing and summarizing the statement but I think it is constructive and I should like to put a few paragraphs on the record. These are simple principles but there is a tendency for us to stray away from them. When legislation has been passed we are inclined to look only at the means of applying the legislation and sometimes we forget the principles which led to its introduction. I am quoting now:
The farmer, looking for ways and means of increasing his net income, has little hope of increasing prices for his product. There seems to be even less possibility that the cost of the items he must buy, in order to produce, will be less. His only real hope appears to lie in producing a greater volume of high-quality, readily-marketable product, thus spreading overhead costs over a larger number of units, and in careful planning and organization to reduce operating costs.
Higher wages in industry have made it almost impossible to hire farm labour at a price the farmer can afford, and a shortage of labour in the production season adds to the risk of depending on hired labour. Farm labour which could be paid for by the day, week or month has, therefore, been largely replaced by machinery, which must be paid for in cash or with credit.
Fortunately, with modern machinery and laboursaving methods, farmers may now handle much larger units. The cost of setting up a minimum economic family farm unit has thus greatly increased over the years. What is equally important is the fact that the capital structure of the individual farm has changed, with a higher percentage of total assets being represented by livestock, equipment and working capital, and a lesser percentage by real property, which has been the traditional security for long term credit. As a result, the credit arrangements which could be made under the former Canadian Farm Loan Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act, either separately or together, although fairly adequate for the well-established farmer, became entirely inadequate to meet the needs of the capable farmer on a farm of limited size who wishes to expand his unit, or of a young and capable farmer desirous of setting up an economic farm unit.
I think it was for the purpose which those last few sentences have defined that this legislation was passed. It has proved a most valuable asset to the farmers, as I know from my personal knowledge, and for this reason I have no hesitation at all in adding my support to this particular bill.
Dealing with the measure from a narrower angle, let me say that I have made it my business as I go home to talk to the people who have made applications, who have been granted loans or whose applications are being processed. I would estimate that I have seen or visited or written letters to approximately 25 per cent of those farmers in my constituency who have been in contact with the officials of the farm credit corporation with respect to this legislation and there is not

the slightest doubt that the benefits which have been brought to these farmers are invaluable. As I say, I am speaking from my own experience. I am not going to deal with this subject statistically because I do not think dealing with it on a statistical basis would lend colour to our reasons for supporting this legislation. These are living people we are dealing with, working farmers, many of whom I have met.
In my area particularly under the old administration-I do not place any particular blame upon them, but it did happen-some of the officials of the farm loans board responsible for policy completely refused to acknowledge that farmers could be successful if they carried on their operations some miles from rail head. In what is called the Battle river district, some 60 miles north of the Grimshaw area through which the new railway will go, a splendid farming community has been built up, but only within the last two or three years has it been possible for the people of that district to have the benefit of this farm credit legislation made available to them. These benefits will, I hope, in due course be extended even further up into the Fort Vermilion area between 200 and 250 miles from the railroad.
Another aspect of this legislation I should like to praise is the time spent by the officials in preliminary assessment and appraisal. In the old days people would make applications for loans and send in their forms. Then there would usually be an attempt to cut down the amount of the loan to some extent without too much regard for the purpose for which the loan has been made. I think that was entirely wrong. It is a fault which has certainly been cured by the present legislation and the machinery for administering it. I know from my experience that the officials spend a great deal of time counselling and assisting the farmers and making recommendations concerning the type of loan they should have, the amount they should ask for and the purpose for which it should be granted, not in an arbitrary or authoritarian way but as helpers and advisers. I think this has paid off and that it will continue to pay off in the future.
My colleague who spoke before me mentioned the flexibility of the machinery of legislation and the willingness of the officials, should the circumstances justify it, to increase the amount of a loan which had been made in order to meet the exigencies of a particular situation; their willingness to take into account the human factor. I can recall last summer receiving a telephone call and, later, a visit from a middle aged farmer who had made an application for a loan which had been rejected. He did not come to me in
Farm Credit Act
order to complain, but he wanted to know whether anything further could be done. This was obviously a borderline case and in certain conditions he might well have been eligible. From what I knew of him I was satisfied that he was a suitable person to receive a loan. I telephoned the head office and within 24 hours another official came out, there was a reappraisal of the land in the light of certain conditions which I knew, and, as a result, in less than three days this application had been accepted. This is an illustration that knowledge of the human beings concerned in these transactions can, in itself, be enough to justify placing an application in a category where it can be accepted.
Another thing which appeals to me in connection with this legislation and its administration is the provision made for decentralization. I mentioned this before in connection with the A.R.D.A. bill which the Minister of Agriculture brought in. Undoubtedly it is necessary for governments to take unto themselves a large degree of power and authority. They have to do so in the complex world in which we live. But it is my conviction that wherever possible the use of such power should be decentralized and the right to make decisions should be left as far as possible with the officials in the field who are calculated to have a more precise knowledge of what the real facts are. All too often, by the time applications had been processed by a system of intellectual osmosis from the perimeter to Ottawa and back again weeks had elapsed, the tenor of the application had been destroyed and its urgency entirely dissipated. I know for a fact that a large amount of control and authority is left with the officials who are in the field. So far in my experience, they have made good and adequate use of it. That is another reason which I advance for supporting the legislation.
I could mention a number of cases, perhaps 25 per cent or 30 per cent in my constituency, where this program has been effective, but I shall not take up the time of this house to do so.
I know that while there are no figures or information available as to the exact aomunt of loans which have been made, they are quite substantial. I am satisfied for the reasons I have advanced that many of the people who were entitled to loans found that their rights to a loan have been restricted by the regulations of the old farm loan board, which considered the applications from this area, and I should think that because of this, under the new act we have probably had as large a number of applications from that area as from any other constituency in Canada, and I think that will continue for some time.

Farm Credit Act
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but put on the record my feeling that the family farm, with the individual farmer, is probably one of the important remaining strongholds of the principles of human freedom, enterprise and liberty. I am not suggesting that it is the only stronghold, but the man and family who have to contend with nature with their own resources, represent an institution which, in our struggle with the other half of the world, we must strengthen and perpetuate.
I read just the other day in a news item that a large quantity of land in Russia has been turned over to collective farming, where because of the fact that there had not been that care and regard which the individual farmer has for his own land, machinery and stock, that land, which probably should never have been put under the plough, had seriously deteriorated. As a result, the estimates of the U.S.S.R., in anticipation of their food requirements, were much higher than could be produced, and they were sadly disappointed. I suggest that illustrates the absolute necessity for strengthening and maintaining, as an underpinning of our economy and way of life, the family farm of our country, because from there will be fed those qualities of industry, initiative and enterprise which have injected into the bloodstream of the nation those things which will perpetually keep us strong and maintain us in our present economy.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, having been in this house for many years I can assure hon. members that because this farm loan corporation comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) and because I am his parliamentary secretary, I feel it my duty to say a few words to strengthen his hand.
This is the best farm loan corporation that has ever existed in the Dominion of Canada during my lifetime. It has been brought forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker), the leader of this government, to assist farmers to assist themselves. We are now in a position where any farmer who has the qualifications can secure this type of loan without any difficulty.
I have been farming all my life and have paid for a farm the hard way, by borrowing the money from the bank at too high a rate of interest. I suggest 5 per cent interest is the highest rate that farmers can afford to pay, if thew are to be able to pay back the loan. The farmers must certainly pay back the loans because when they borrow from the farm loan corporation it is made abundantly clear to them that unless they prove 
that they are able to pay back the loan with interest within a certain number of years the loans will be refused.
We have the advantage now that many farmers who previously were unable to obtain a loan find they can do so through the farm loan corporation at 5 per cent interest, and thereby are able to increase their ability to pay back the loan.
I come from a part of the country which is purely agricultural. The farmers of that area have borrowed over $1 million from this corporation since its inception. Many townships have borrowed much more than others, but in my county farmers have been able to borrow well over a million dollars. In the province of Ontario loans to the extent of $23,011,870 have been made.
I should like to draw to the attention of this house some figures which I obtained from the latest full report of the farm credit corporation, for the years 1959-60. I intend to give the figures for a period of five years, from 1955 to 1960.
The number of loans approved in 1955-56 was 2,057; in 1956-57, 2,921; 1957-58, 3,702; 1958-59, 4,805 and in 1959-60, 5,339. The difference in the number of loans during that five year period is 3,282.


Mr. Boulanger:: What does it mean?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Spell it out for him.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The farmers have been able to obtain that many more loans in 1960 than they were able to obtain in 1955. That is exactly what it means.
The average amount of the loans in 1955 was $4,040 while the average of the loans in 1960 is $7,498, which is almost double. The difference is $3,458. The total amount of approved loans in 1955 was $8,309,650, while the total amount in 1960 was $40,031,250, the difference being $31,721,600.
The farmers are not receiving anything for nothing because they must pay 5 per cent interest. This is not a hand-out in any way to the farmer.
I should like to explain how farm loans can be used. First, they can be used to acquire farmland and to erect or modernize farm buildings. Second, they can be used to purchase basic herd livestock and necessary farm equipment. Third, they can be used to provide lime, fertilizer and seed to establish permanent plantings. Fourth, they can be used to discharge liabilities, or for any purpose which the corporation considers necessary for the organization and operation of an economic family farm unit.
I should like now to give a few more figures by placing the following quotation on the record:

On March 31, I960, there were outstanding 28,453 first mortgage loans totalling $119,978,763, and 505 second mortgage loans totalling $173,108. In addition, the corporation held 91 sale agreements valued at $83,256 and 12 parcels of real estate in which the corporation's investment is $31,346 carried at a book value of $21,373. The following table shows the number of mortgage loans outstanding and the corporation's investment in them in each of the last five years, including accrued interest to March 31 each year.
Fiscal	Number of	
Year	Loans	Investment1955/56	18,931	$ 44,958,1361956/57	20,372	53,748,3641957/58	22,494	68,490,5231958/59	25,471	91,298,1191959/60	28,453	120,151,871
At the end of the fiscal year 90.9 per cent of all first mortgage loan accounts were in good standing, as compared with 91.4 per cent on March 31, 1959. A total of $7,903,633 of principal was repaid during the year, of which 67.4 per cent was received in payment of principal not yet due. Interest due during the year amounted to $4,443,338, of which $4,111,165, or 92.5 per cent had been paid by the end of the year.
Types of Mortgage Loan The Farm Credit Act provides two types of long term mortgage loans to bona fide and competent farmers, who are in actual need of assistance to set up economic farm units, the income from which is largely derived from crops grown on such units, and marketed either directly or through livestock. The first, under part II of the act, is an extension of the assistance formerly available from the Canadian farm loan board. It is based on the security of farm land and may be made to persons whose principal occupation is farming. The maximum loans may not exceed 75 per cent (formerly 65 per cent) of the value of the farm land taken as security or $20,000 (formerly $15,000), whichever is the lesser. These loans are repayable by equal annual or semi-annual instalments of combined principal and interest over an appropriate period not to exceed 30 years.
The second, under part III of the act, is designed to assist young farmers who have attained the age of 21 years and have not attained the age of 45 years, and who have at least five years' farming experience, to become established on economic farm units. Such loans are based primarily on first mortgage security of farm lands, but up to 40 per cent of the required security may be represented by livestock and farm equipment. The maximum loan may not exceed 75 per cent of the value of the farm land and chattels taken as security or $27,500, whichever is the lesser. That portion of the loan secured by farm land is repayable over a period not to exceed 30 years, and that portion (if any) which is based on chattel security must be repaid within the first 10 years. Part III loans are further secured by insurance on the life of the borrower. Another new and significant feature of these loans is the provision of supervision by the corporation of the borrower's farming operations until such time as the loan has been reduced to 65 per cent of the appraised value of the farm land held as security.
I should like to put on the record the cost of making and administering loans:
As of March 31, 1960, the average interest being paid on all money on loan to the corporation was 4.2 per cent. However, since the reserve, amounting to $3,748,862, and the capital of the corporation, 90205-6-398
Farm Credit Act
amounting to $5 million, are available for loaning without interest cost to the corporation, the average interest cost of all money on loan to borrowers at that date was 3.9 per cent.
If, as expected, the corporation is obliged to borrow $50 million in the fiscal year 1960-61, and assuming that the interest rate on new money is that now prevailing, the average interest rate on the total money available for loaning purposes will be approximately 4.45 per cent as of March 31, 1961. This would leave a margin between the average cost of money to the corporation and the interest charged to its borrowers of only 0.55 per cent as compared with an average annual operating cost over the past five years of 1.1 per cent.
The corporation will derive additional revenue from the increased appraisal fees payable on new applications, but this will be more than offset by the cost of the extra staff required to make and review appraisals, which is made necessary by the much greater risks inherent in the provisions of the new legislation, and to supply a pre-loan counselling and loan service to farmers in their own communities. Additional costs will also be involved in bringing salaries in line with those being paid for similar work within the civil service.
I do not wish to read any more. I have had a lot of experience with farm loans and with the Veterans' Land Act from 1940 to 1945 when soldiers overseas came back to be re-established. I have had a lot of experience with the farm loan board and now this act has come into being. I can assure the house that if loans under this act increase in the next three years, as they have in the past years, they will more than double in a very short time. I would say that in a year the number of loans will be double what they are now. This proves that the farmers themselves have accepted this act and are taking advantage of it.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate. I have only two remarks to make following the speech just delivered by the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Cardiff). He said that the number of loans increased from 2,025 in 1955-56 to 5,339 in 1959-60.
I agree with him that that legislation has been particularly beneficial to the farmers of western Canada, because in eastern Canada the number of loans did not increase so much owing to the fact that the Quebec farm loans legislation may be better suited to our farmers. However, I submit that if there is such a large difference between the number of loans in 1955-56 and 1959-60 it is because the farmers were in an impossible situation, and that is why the number of loans more than doubled.

Farm Credit Act
Furthermore, if the farmers' situation does not change the number of loans will increase further and it will not be any longer $27,500 which will be the limit of loans allowed to farmers, because they will need $50,000, and that, within a few years, if their net income does not increase.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Especially after a change of government in Quebec.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, since reference is being made to the Quebec provincial farm loan, I shall be pleased to talk about it, because if today the federal farm loan is of no benefit to the farmers of the province of Quebec, it is because in my province loans are made today on the basis of up to 80 per cent of the value of the farm and even 90 per cent in the case of young farmers of 21 to 45 years old. It is an improvement which has just been introduced by the government of the province of Quebec, and I would wish the federal government did as much.
In any event, I would suggest to the minister that the cost of assessment be reduced. Today, a farmer has to pay 2 per cent of the amount requested, or $50, whichever is the lesser. In the province of Quebec, the cost is only $5, and when the loan is refused, the $5 is refunded; however, under the federal legislation, a farmer has to pay $50, and if the loan is refused, it is his loss.
In view of the fact that the net income of the Canadian farm loan corporation was $240,000 last year, I think we might reduce the assessment cost on farm loans.
There would be much more to be said, but I shall end my remarks with this recommendation, to which I hope the minister will give serious consideration.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Will the hon. member allow me a question? As I understood him, he stated that we would soon have to raise the amount of the loans from $27,500 to $50,000. If farming conditions are as bad as my colleague claims they are, and if farm incomes keep dropping, could the hon. member explain how the farmers will be able to repay the $50,000 loans he has just suggested?


Samuel Boulanger: Farmers will do then what they are doing today; they will eat up their capital from year to year, and when they have reached the end of their resources, they will borrow as they do today.
Some farmers borrowed $10,000; they used part of their capital in order to stay on their farm and now they have to borrow $25,000.
That is why I say that in a few years from now, they will need $50,000.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska will allow, I should like to ask him a question.


Samuel Boulanger: Certainly.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Could the hon. member tell me what he thinks of the following quotation from Hansard of July 13, 1959, the day on which the government amended the Canadian Farm Loan Act. This is what he said then:
I must congratulate him and thank him for that, on behalf of the farmers.
By those words, the hon. member commended the Minister of Agriculture and, at the same time, the government.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I was glad at that time to commend the government for the amendments it made to the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
I remember that we introduced then two amendments to the act and that, by their vote, the government members rejected them. Yet, those amendments favoured the farmers in general.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.
(Text):


Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the Farm Credit Act is very popular in British Columbia. Some 355 applications have been received and according to the latest figures there are 25 now pending. To date about 16 per cent of the applications have been rejected. The total amount of loans in British Columbia is $3,469,150 for some 254 loans, or an average of about $13,700 per loan. I believe that Fraser Valley tops the list in the province for the number of loans made with the Okanagan Boundary district coming second.
As Fraser Valley is the centre of a large dairy industry, it is an area where farm loans are often required. The large co-operative Fraser Valley milk producers' association does big business in this area amounting to some $27 million a year. High-class cattle are bred here and although sales there do not average as high as the figure of $1,790, which was reached in Ontario recently at the national sale, the cattle that are bred do furnish considerable revenue along with the revenue from milk production.
I had one rejection of a loan brought to my attention before I came here last fall. A young man had received a farm of 225 acres with excellent soil because of the death of his mother and he wanted to borrow $20,000 on the farm. There were no mortgages on the farm at the time and I was rather amazed when he telephoned me one day and said that

his loan application had been refused. I discussed the matter with the supervisor and he informed me that he considered that this man was trying to run an uneconomic operation. There were two hired men on the farm in addition to the owner and they were milking 30 cows. It is a poor man these days who cannot milk 30 cows himself, let alone having three men doing the job. This application was turned down but the young man then borrowed the money privately elsewhere.
In discussing the Farm Credit Act I think we should consider both the pros and cons, and if I am a little critical I hope the minister will forgive me. It may be because of the hot, sultry weather we are having but I do feel somewhat critical tonight about certain features of the act. I believe the chief criticism of the act in British Columbia is the difficulty of getting a loan on a small acreage, say 10 acres. Holdings of that size may be operated as poultry, berry, vegetable, flower, seed or even holly farms. A poultryman does not require heavy, fertile soil. In fact, for drainage purposes often poorer soil is better than rich soil. On the other hand, a berry crop requires a good soil. These are opposite situations but it shows the difference that can be found in 10-acre farms. It is amazing how much a revenue can be derived from 10 acres under certain circumstances.
I believe that at the commencement of the operation of the act the idea was that a poultryman should produce on the property half the feed that he uses. Hence he needed more than just a small acreage and this was one of the reasons why applications were turned down. This is an erroneous idea. Grain may be purchased in Fraser valley and in fact in most of British Columbia much more cheaply than it can be grown, especially on small farms and crop failures could be common especially in wet weather. This is a very poor idea but if my information is correct, at the present time I believe this clause has now been more or less eliminated and it is up to the supervisor as to whether he thinks there is a prospect of this particular farmer, whether he is a poultryman, a dairyman, or a fruit grower, can make a success of the venture.
The small dairy farmer is a different proposition. So, as I say, anything that has a reasonable chance of success is likely to be passed by the supervisor. A loan on a farm that is not operating successfully should be turned down anyway. Where farmers cannot succeed, it is often necessary to move or at least for the sons to seek employment elsewhere.
This is where vocational training schools fit into the picture of the farm loan board.
90205-6-398J
Farm Credit Act
The vocational training school project has gradually caught fire. I note that Ontario is planning an $8 million building program to be completed during the next year and a half. This will accommodate many students from farms as well as other places and even the actual labour of building will, it is stated, provide employment for about 20,000 workers for 18 months. In a local paper from British Columbia recently I noted a report stating that the minister of education has planned to spend $10 million on enlarging vocational schools in agricultural areas in order to look after certain instruction to young farmers and farmers' daughters. Some farms in British Columbia are well adapted for recreation centres around a lake or for motels or camp sites, et cetera. A dude ranch might be more profitable than is more standard farming. This whole system is suitable for arranging just such things as these. All these features should be investigated by the owner in order to see whether increased revenue, some of it easy money, could not be picked up. If failure is sure on any farm, no loan should be given.
Another criticism in Fraser valley and the coast area occurred when the provincial head office was moved from New Westminster to Kelowna. It was moved without notice and to the minds of many, for very little reason. It was asserted that it was nearer the centre of British Columbia. This is incorrect because Vanderhoof is the centre of the province. It was asserted that there were more loans in this area. I believe this statement was incorrect. It was asserted that it was nearer the farming area. May I say that Fraser Valley produces a great deal of farm revenue. I am sure there is agreement on that matter. It was asserted that it was easier of access. This assertion I again contend is false. If you wanted to fly to Kelowna from here, you would go to Vancouver and fly back-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it seems to me that discussing the administration of the act, especially in the respect in which he is now doing it, namely as to the place in British Columbia where the manager of the farm credit board should be located, would have nothing to do with the principle of the bill before the house which has only one purpose, namely to increase from $8 million to $12 million the money paid to the corporation for the capital of the corporation. Although some phases of the administration of the act may have some relevancy to the purpose of the act, certainly the subject matter with which the hon. member is now dealing would have nothing to do with it.

Farm Credit Act


William Harold Hicks: I should like to finish up by pointing out this with respect to Kamloops- and this is what I was getting at. It would be easier to carry on in a place where there is a land registry office than it is where the office is now located. Let me conclude with this statement. I feel that the Farm Credit Act is good. Its growth is excellent, and from what I can learn it is generally acceptable.


Mr. J. N. Ormislon (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, last night when we listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) speak and again tonight I think we realized that he gave a rather concise picture of the operation of the farm credit corporation and of the need to increase the authorized capital of the corporation itself. Those of us who represent farm constituencies realize at first hand the need for this increase in capital because of the great demand for the service which the corporation is rendering. In an area such as that which I represent, where the assessment ranges from $500 a quarter section to $5,000, you can well realize the difficulty in the operation, and the assessment and the appraisal of the applications which come in. However, I have been greatly impressed by the enthusiasm not only of the staff and the officials of the farm credit corporation but by the responsibility which the applicants feel towards the officials of the farm credit corporation. It makes a person realize that the staff and the officials who are administering the act and working for the corporation really believe in them wholeheartedly. They impress upon the applicants the possibilities which are theirs within the scope of the act and the great way in which the farmers can avail themselves of the various opportunities.
When we look at the figures very briefly for the last three years, Mr. Speaker, we can realize why this authorization is required. In 1958, when the farm loan board was in effect, the loans made that year amounted to $30 million. In the following year, when the farm loan board was operated and the farm credit corporation took over after October 5, the loans rose to $40 million. In this last year for which we have records the loans are up to $60 million.
There has been very little increase in the staff during those three years. It is fairly obvious that the services which are rendered by the staff of the farm credit corporation are really outstanding. I refer primarily to the pre-loan counselling which is given by the farm credit corporation advisers. These officials are devoted servants. They are intelligent and they certainly have dedication to the work which they are doing. As I say, they impress the farmers very greatly and they are able to interpret the provisions of the

act in a most admirable manner. The farmers who benefit by the clauses of the act realize that here is something which can improve their position. They are now able to get adequate credit which for many years had been denied them. They are aware that under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture we have a corporation which is serving a crying need that had been denied for a long time.


Mr. G. R. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I see the evening is wearing on and in rising at this time it is not my purpose to delay the second reading of this bill. However, I do have some brief comments to make on farm credit legislation.
I think that before looking at Canada's new farm credit legislation we might look at the farm credit situation as it existed prior to the introduction of these measures, and at some of the reasons why legislative changes appeared necessary if agriculture was to be given a chance to take advantage of the new technologies and methods which have been found so effective in reducing agricultural costs.
The amount of capital required to set up a minimum economic family farm unit having more than doubled since the last war, the credit arrangements which could be made under the Canadian farm loan act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act, either separately or together, although fairly adequate for the well established farmer were entirely inadequate to meet the needs of the young and capable farmer desirous of setting up an economic family farm unit unless, of course, he was fortunate enough to possess at least 50 per cent of the required capital or a minimum of $15,000.
To start out with something less than an economic family farm unit meant higher production costs in the beginning, and consequently very little by way of profit with which to expand. The struggle toward such a unit had become so slow that only a fortunate few ever reached it in time to fully exploit its advantages and, because of its cost, it was a difficult unit to dispose of in its entirety or even to transfer from one generation to another without the intervention of very substantial credit. The result has been that the transition to the family farm unit of economic size capable of using modern methods and of producing a standard, readily marketable product at a minimum cost has, in most parts of this country, been extremely slow.
There seemed to be good reason to believe that the problems associated with low farm income and with surplus disposal were closely linked with relatively high production costs,

and that these excess costs were largely due to the fact that by far the greater number of Canadian farms were still a long way from being economic units by present day standards. It also seemed evident that lack of capital was making it difficult for farmers in the more adaptable areas to switch production from straight grain farming and in so doing help bring production more in line with future market requirements as estimated by the Gordon commission on Canada's economic future.
With our rangeland potential almost fully exploited, the predicted large increase in the demand for beef would have to be met in our more adaptable cultivated areas, both east and west, through switching to grassland farming and, incidentally, putting more of our good land into effective preservation against the day when every available acre may have to be put under intensive cultivation in order to feed our own increasing population and high protein foods, such as beef, will be a luxury, as they are today in many parts of the world.
That the net income of competent farmers now on inadequate units could be increased by at least 50 per cent and their production made to conform more nearly to future market requirements with ample, long term, package deal credit made available to them was well established by a survey conducted by the Veterans' Land Act administration in 1958.
This survey covered a cross section of 25 per cent of Veterans' Land Act farm settlers in all provinces of Canada and was made for the purpose of assessing their future credit requirements. It was also so designed that it would show what effect the availability and use of adequate long term credit would have on their farm income and on their future production pattern, they having been previously exposed to at least some instruction having to do with modern farm organization and methods, particularly as applied to agriculture, through the services provided by federal farm credit advisers.
The results of this survey indicated that the most serious problems facing agriculture today may well stem from the lack of sufficient long term credit. It also seemed evident that ample, long term, package deal credit designed to assist competent young farmers in the setting up of family farm units of economic size, when granted in sufficient amounts to do the job for which it was intended, always enough but never too much, was probably the most effective and economical way in which the government could assist agriculture to attain parity of income with other industries, and this through the
Farm Credit Act
medium of reduced production costs from which the whole economy would benefit.
While this would be essentially a long term program, the assembly under a competent owner-operator of each and every new, economically sized family farm unit would bring agriculture one step nearer to the objective of parity income for its operators and production costs which would not only keep the home market but would make it possible to compete favourably in the export market as well.
The object of this legislation, as stated by the then minister of agriculture, is:
-to assist Canadian farmers in the voluntary reorganization of their industry into economic family farm units, each of which will be of sufficient size or efficiency to produce the farm income necessary to pay all operating and maintenance costs; to provide a good livelihood for the owner-operator and his dependents; and to retire any required credit, with interest, within an appropriate term.
There are several reasons why this new credit program should be better than the old, the most important being that the corporation is operating under more comprehensive and forward looking credit legislation, with policy directed specifically toward the task of assisting the industry to reorganize itself into sound, economic family farm units.
Next in importance is the fact that the corporation has at its all-important field level a force of over 200 trained and experienced resident credit advisers who are now well deployed throughout the agricultural areas of the country. These have been drawn largely from trained and experienced V.L.A. farm credit advisers.
There is one area in the farm credit field that I feel merits careful consideration. In Manitoba, particularly, the size of the farm is not always a criterion for establishing an economic unit. I am advised by the farm credit corporation officials that it is the income potential rather than the unit size that provides a basis for their lending policy.
Where proper rotation, and careful husbandry is used, a loan to modernize equipment, or intensify the operation of the holding would be as satisfactory for increasing incomes as would a loan to enlarge the farm.
All farmers do not want to be big time operators. Many prefer to manage successfully on a small, but productive unit.
The fact that the farm credit corporation is seeking additional funds suggests that its credit facilities are being administered successfully under careful appraisal and supervision.
The continued use of these credit facilities by our farm people should have an important bearing on the income improvement of our rural communities, and the continuation of

Farm. Credit Act
the family farm, which is so essential to the economic well-being of the nation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: No. I should like to say a few words before the house passes this bill. The Farm Credit Act has been a matter of concern to me over the years and it has also been of concern to my constituents. The measure before us is designed to increase the amount which can be loaned under the act. It increases the amount of capital from $8 million to $12 million and as a result of the multiplication factor involved an additional $100 million will be made available for lending under the act.
This bill is a necessity because at the present time $165 million has been lent out and only $200 million can be lent, so before the end of the year the amount will have to be increased. We are now increasing it to $300 million. While discussing the total amount available for lending under the act I might point out that this government took action in 1958, under the old farm credit act, but $80 million was the limit of the amount which could be lent under it. In 1958 we increased the amount available under the farm credit act to $120 million but we saw the need for a still further increase and today the present bill will provide for $300 million to be lent out to farmers.
I may say that the act has worked reasonably well in most parts of Canada and perhaps in a large part of my own constituency but in my own constituency and in other parts of western Canada including northern and southern Alberta there are areas which are known as local improvement districts. These have certain special characteristics and the act as it now stands does not lend itself too readily to providing assistance in these particular areas. In my own constituency there are areas known as "special areas" somewhat similar in character to local improvement districts and here again the act as it now stands is not well adapted to the making of loans in those areas. I mentioned this in my maiden speech in 1958. Up until 1958, under the old act, there were no loans made in those particular areas. I may say there are about 3,000 farmers living in those areas and there is a demand for land and there is a change-over of land; this has been particularly the case in the last few years.
Again, the act may not be working too well in connection with the smaller farms as the minister himself suggested when he spoke this afternoon. I am thinking particularly of a case which was brought to my attention where a

farmer had been farming for the last ten or 15 years since the war on what we would call a small holding. He saw an opportunity to buy another quarter section recently adjoining his farmstead. He applied for a loan and his application was turned down because they thought his farm was not of an economic size. They said: if instead of $4,000 you are prepared to borrow $20,000 and buy an economic unit we will lend you the money, but we will not lend you $4,000. This particular farmer had been farming for 13 years He was a young man who had started farming in 1948 and who had acquired a lot of machinery, and perhaps a few debts with it, but he had been able to sustain himself and his family on a section of land. I think in this particular case he had a section and a quarter, and he had a lease on another half section. He wanted to buy another quarter section which he could have obtained for $4,000 but the corporation turned him down and said: you look around and try to find a large farm that is worth $20,000 and we will lend you the money.
These are some of the difficulties I have found in connection with the administration of this act. This particular farmer does not wish to move from his present farm. He wanted to add to it as adjacent land became available. Had he bought the other quarter section he might not have been through adding to it. He might have continued to add to it from year to year and maybe at the end of five or six years he would have built his loan up to $20,000. I think the corporation should have taken into consideration the fact that this particular farmer had been existing on his farm site. He wanted to add to his land as property became available. It is true he might not have had what some persons would consider to be an economic unit but we all know the difficulty of defining an economic unit. Acreage certainly enters into it, but acreage is not the only factor. It depends on how intensively the acreage is farmed. So I hope the men in charge of the administration of this act will pay particular attention to these things. I note that other hon. members who have spoken in connection with this measure tonight have encountered situations where this idea of what constitutes an economic unit in a given area sometimes varies to a large extent according to the peculiarities of a given locality. I certainly think there is a great deal of variation in what constitutes an economic unit and how it should be appraised in any particular area.
The particular areas I mentioned a while ago, the "special areas", are generally considered by some to be ranching country. But

there are lots of good farming spots in central Alberta-lots of places where the farmer can sustain himself and his family on a section and a half or two sections of land. In other areas he may need closer to ten sections. So I hope the authorities will be more ready to lend a small sum of money rather than trying to encourage young farmers to borrow the largest amounts in order to buy well established farms. It is today very difficult to find a well established farm or what most individuals would consider to be an economic unit, for less than $20,000. I think the farmer who wishes to enlarge, develop or perhaps intensify his farm operations, should surely be able to do so with credit obtained under this particular measure.
The minister made brief reference to the suggestion of accepting leased land as security for loans made under this act. I should like to enlarge upon that subject.
In my particular area the farmers have had a great deal of difficulty in using leased land as security for loans under the act. I realize that authorities have suggested that a loan on this basis could qualify under part III of the act as it now stands. However, I should like to point out that under part III of the act a potential borrower cannot purchase land in respect to which he is a tenant farmer. I can see no reason why the farm credit corporation should not accept a lease in its name, allowing a farmer to borrow money in order to develop that land until he has paid the loan, at which time the lease would then revert to his own name.
In a great many areas of southwestern Saskatchewan, southeastern Alberta, and even the southwestern portion of Alberta along the foothills, a great deal of leased land is used for agricultural purposes. In my particular area leases change hands at the rate of $3 to $6 per acre. That is not a lot of money, and certainly a farmer would not have to borrow much money under this act to buy land of that type at that price, and would be in a position to repay the loan within a relatively short period of time. If the farmer had enough livestock he could use that as security for a loan under the farm credit corporation measure along with his leased land, put in the name of the corporation, and would then find himself in a position to pay back the loan within a few years, at which time the lease would revert to his own name. I understand that the Veterans' Land Act administration has worked closely with the farm credit corporation administration. I should like to point out to the minister that I am aware of certain cases where the Veterans' Land Act administration has accepted leases in its name as
Farm Credit Act
security for loans. I suggest this same practice could be followed by the administration of this act.
There has been some mention made during the debate this afternoon of the subsidization provided under this act. The idea has been expressed that there might be a continued subsidization in this regard. I take strong exception to those suggestions, because last year was the first year for a long period of time that the farm credit corporation, or the farm loans act, lost money.
The government is now in a position to borrow money from the Bank of Canada, if I read the figures correctly, at an interest rate of between 3.3 per cent and 4 per cent. I say that because of articles appearing in various newspapers recently. I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) frowning at me. Perhaps the interest rate is 3.30 per cent.
In any event the interest rate is between 3 per cent and 4 per cent. In view of that fact, I see no reason why the government cannot borrow money at that interest rate, and make loans under this act to farmers because, as the minister stated last night, the operation cost amounted to only .8 per cent. Under this act, borrowers must pay 5 per cent interest, so that even if the government had to pay 4 per cent on its borrowings, it could do so and make these loans at a profit.
For the reasons I have set out, I cannot understand why this measure is considered to be a subsidization at all.
Some hon. members might feel that this particular measure does not concern the farmers in my area. I should like to point out that under section 27 of the act a loan can be made to cover a complete farming operation, using the farmers chattels as security, only if the loan is made under part III of the act. In addition, there are further stipulations which must be met. The first important stipulation is that a farmer cannot borrow, under part III of the act, at the same time as he has a loan under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. As an example of the difficulty involved here I should cite the case of a farmer farming an area, who desires to purchase additional land through a loan under part III of the act. Having done so, he would be prohibited from borrowing under the Farm Improvement Loans Act in order to purchase new or additional machinery to farm his land. While there may be a few isolated cases where an individual has used the same piece of machinery as security for two different loans, I see no difficulty in that regard under the application of part III, because when a young farmer makes application to the bank for a loan under the Farm

Farm Credit Act
Improvement Loans Act, the banker makes absolutely sure that the machinery used as security is clear of encumbrances.
I suggest the individuals who will take advantage of the loans available under this new legislation will be young fanners with a desire to purchase their father's holdings, and will be required to borrow close to the maximum amount. If those individuals accept supervision, they would make loans under part III of this act. Having done so they would not then be able to borrow money under the Farm Improvement Loans Act to purchase additional machinery, until such time as the original loan was reduced to less than $20,000. I can foresee complications arising because of the application of part III, and I do not understand the reason for its inclusion in the act.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to touch upon one other subject before I conclude, having to do with the appraisal fee. Most hon. members are perhaps aware that the appraisal fee is now set at 2 per cent of the amount of the loan, or $100, whichever is the lesser. I feel it is unnecessary to increase this appraisal fee from $10 to $100. I suggest this has caused a great deal of concern and hardship to those farmers who must pay the $100 appraisal fee in addition to the cost of finding out whether the title to the land is clear. I suggest that the total cost to the farmer, when making application for a loan under this measure, including the appraisal fee, might well be $200. That fact in itself perhaps would not be such a great problem if there was any assurance to the farmer that, having paid out that money, his application would be approved. In some instances farmers are apt to have an appraisal made, pay $100 and be turned down after the appraisal is made. Although the farmer is turned down, he still has to pay the $100. This is a hardship on a particular farmer who is thus prevented from enlarging his present holdings, as was the case in the instance I mentioned earlier this evening.
I should like to see some changes made in this regulation, perhaps not at this session but in the year to come, and the appraisal fee be reduced to $10 as it was formerly. If the applicant is turned down, or if the appraisal is not made, the fee should be refunded. This is a small point but I thought I should mention it because I know some of the difficulties that some farmers have had in my constituency in trying to get loans under this particular act. I might say that only the one area in my constituency has had this trouble. Farmers in this area have been turned down on a number of occasions because, as I said, they did not want to borrow too much money. They just wanted to

borrow a little to add to their present holdings. Sometimes an appraiser would come into the drier part of Alberta and not recommend the loan. The country is dry, so much so that some people have claimed the gophers have moved out. Actually it is not that bad. Farmers in that particular area are as good security risks as farmers in any other part of the province. They have proved this over the years.
I would strongly recommend that an appraiser be placed in this particular area because of the number of applicants that have been turned down. An appraiser coming from some of the more fertile parts of Alberta, the parts fortunate enough to receive a great deal of rain, drives into this dry country and says, "Oh my gosh, I would not lend a plugged nickel in this country", and drives out again. A farmer trying to borrow some money is put in the position where his case is not properly viewed in the light that perhaps he would hope it would be, and he is turned down almost automatically because he is living in that particular area.
Another thought that was suggested last night was that land and land size-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Because the hon. member indicated some time ago that he was completing his remarks I did not intervene. I think he is now continuing to discuss the administration of the act, as he has been doing for quite some time now, and I would point out that he has not related his remarks to the purpose of the bill which is to increase the capital of the farm credit corporation from $8 million to $12 million. I would hope that he would soon come to the point.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In speaking to the bill I paid close attention to what the minister said when he opened the subject on first reading and I have tried to follow his remarks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He said nothing on first reading.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, when he spoke first on the bill today. I did try to relate my remarks to what he said. He first mentioned isolated areas and particular localities in which there is a great deal of variety and in which a great deal of adjustment might be necessary. Certainly, my remarks were related to the fact that this bill is to provide an increase of about $100 million in the amounts lent under the act. Certainly the farmers in this particular area would like to get a chance to borrow a part of this $100 million.
I am trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, that if an appraiser was placed in this particular

area he might be in a better position to appraise and evaluate the land in the area, and in that way the farmers in this particular area, called the "special areas" of Alberta, would have an opporunity to borrow under this act.
I know that the president of the corporation has recently appointed Mr. Carr, chief land appraiser from Ottawa, to make a study of the whole lease problem in western Canada. I refer to the land that is leased in the area between the lakes in Manitoba and in southwestern Saskatchewan, in Alberta and in British Columbia. This land is leased by farmers and ranchers who are in the agricultural industry. The leased land changes hand from time to time, sometimes at high prices and sometimes at rather low prices. Certainly, those farmers should have the opportunity to adjust the size of their units, to make them more economic and to borrow money under this particular act. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for bearing with me for a moment while I got this particular thought across.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see this change and I should like to say a few words on the bill.
So far as I can ascertain, the remarks that have been made so far have all been in favour of this legislation. The reason that we are in favour of the increase in the amount of money is that there has been a new director appointed under the Farm Credit Act. We should be appreciative of the job he has been able to do in such a short time. The fact that we need more money under the Farm Credit Act now is an indication that the act is working for the first time in a long period of time.
It has always seemed to me that borrowing money from the Canadian farm loan board was a little bit like trying to borrow money from the treasury board or going to the Minister of Finance and asking him for a loan. The administrators of the act were not the least bit interested in lending money. There were certain requirements. If you fitted into that particular limited pattern then you got the money. Mr. Rutherford, the former director of the Veterans' Land Act did have experience. His officials had the approach of wanting to lend money that was going to be advantageous to the farmers. You did not lend the money whether the person needed it or not. Previously it depended on whether the farmer fitted into a little slot. It did not depend necessarily on whether it was advantageous to the farmer; he got the money if he met certain requirements. Now it seems no matter whether the money is asked for under
Farm Credit Act
supervision or not there is continuously a certain amount of supervision. It seems to me this is the only way that money being lent to farmers is going to be advantageously used by those farmers. Although farmers may not readily admit it, they need assistance in ascertaining how much help they need. The hon. member who just took his seat spoke of areas of 10,000 acres. This certainly does not apply in my area.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the hon. member is referring to my remarks, I said 10 sections or 2 sections.


William Arnold Peters: I am sorry if I misquoted the hon. member. It would not make any difference. Ten sections are still a great deal more than the area on which farmers in my constituency are going to be borrowing money, if it is a very large amount of land. It has been a factor. I presume the hon. member was referring to the need for larger farms to make up an economic unit. There has been a tendency for farmers to borrow money on an uneconomical unit. Obviously his borrowing of that money was not going to enable him to better his position very much.
One of the things to the credit of the Veterans' Land Act administration was the ability of the officials to supervise and the advice they gave. This practice is now being applied generally to Canadian farm loans and it means that the farmer is receiving some assistance and technical advice that he did not have the opportunity to obtain before. The advice is being given in such a manner that the farmer will accept it because it is not completely dependent upon the loan or the conditions of the loan. In my area, for example, farmers have been advised that if they plant certain crops the market is such and such and if they plant something else their chances of obtaining a better price per acre of produce will be much more readily realized. In some instances technical advice has been given in relation to the operation of the farm.
It seems to me that the technical assistance being given in this way by the officials is a great advantage over the system that obtained before. The Farm Credit Act agents are going to the farms and talking to the farmer and his wife. They are assessing the situation themselves and in my opinion this is doing a great deal to enable the farmer to obtain an advantageous loan, one which he is going to be able to repay and which it is to his advantage to obtain.
The fact that the government is asking for an increase in the amount of money available for loans is an indication that this credit system is an advantageous one. With its experience under this act, I believe that the

Farm Credit Act
government is going to give consideration to increasing the supervision under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. There is a similarity between the two acts. As a previous speaker mentioned, they are interrelated to some extent and they certainly work advantageously in combination.
Having in mind the inquiry into farm machinery that is now under way, I believe it is increasingly advantageous for the farmer to have impartial advice with relation to the purchase of new machinery because occasionally we find that rather than the farmer wanting to buy, the machinery companies are persuading him to buy. A little advice may help to prevent some farmers from trying to keep up with the Jones'. It seems to me that this act is a credit to the government. We are very pleased with the way it has been operating and with the fact that more money is necessary. We are also pleased that the bill has been introduced and will be passed before the budget is brought down because it might be more difficult at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Capital.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before this clause carries, out of curiosity on my part may I ask the minister whether he can inform the house in what amounts the farm credit corporation applies for advances from the consolidated revenue fund?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In the last report and the figures I gave tonight the hon. member will find that the amounts usually range from $15 million to $25 million at a time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. C-109, to amend the Financial Administration Act.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the house long. At the resolution stage of this measure last night one point was raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson). He asked why it was that the resolution made no reference to the provisions in the measure in relation to the assignment of debts. The answer is very simple, that no resolution is required in that respect because no matter pertaining to the balance of ways and means was involved in relation to the assignment of debts. Indeed, had that been the only provision in the bill there would have been no need for a resolution antecedent thereto at all. There are rights of the crown involved in this measure. His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the purport of the bill, has given consent, so far as Her Majesty's prerogative and property rights are affected, that the house may do therein as it shall see fit.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I have very little comment to make in connection with the bill. I see it is almost 10.30 and I assure my colleagues that I will conclude my comments within a time that will appeal to them. I think it is unfortunate that the government has not seen fit throughout its long regime to permit parliamentary secretaries to conclude debates such as that instituted yesterday, for example, with proficiency by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. This is quite contrary to the practice of the former administration.
I did raise the point to which the Minister of Finance has referred. However, I am satisfied that there is nothing in the bill which we are now considering at the second reading stage that is deserving of special attention in debate. I do ask the minister, who has great influence in the ministry, to consider the former practice under which the presentation of any measure perhaps might be shared between him and his parliamentary secretary. I do not think there has been adequate utilization of parliamentary secretaries in the presentation of the business of the house.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Ten thirty.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be considered in committee of the whole house? Next sitting of the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: In asking the minister for the business tonight I should like to observe to him that if he could get from his own

side co-operation comparable to that which he gets from this side of the house, this session would have been over long ago. Can the minister tell us what it is proposed that the backbenchers on the government side are going to filibuster tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation of the co-operation I get from both sides of the house in getting the business through quickly. Tomorrow we will take the estimates of the Department of Public Works. We shall commence with those estimates and, depending on the progress made by the house, they will be
Business of the House
followed by the estimates of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production. I do not know how long they will take. I can announce other estimates for consideration later this week, if the house so desires.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister assure us that nothing but estimates will be taken for the rest of this week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It depends on the circumstances, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
It being 35 minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 14, 1961

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the house has received from the chief electoral officer the certificate of election and return of Edgar E. Fournier, Esquire, for the electoral district of Restigouche-Madawaska.



PRIVILEGE


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might rise on a question of privilege. I shall be very brief about it. My question is based upon an editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail of June 12, 1961 wherein it states:
Twenty-four Canadian parliamentarians attending an interparliamentary meeting in Washington last week agreed with their United States colleagues that nuclear weapons should be used if necessary to defend West Berlin.
While I feel it would be unwise and unethical to refer to the position taken by any other member of the interparliamentary group, each of whom will have to speak for himself if he so desires, I would point out that the editorial incorrectly reflects my opinions on this question. This is understandable because of the wording of the press release issued by the interparliamentary group and subsequent changes thereto.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Alan Macnaughion (Mount Royal) presented the third report of the standing committee on public accounts, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


John George Diefenbaker: In accordance with the regular practice I wish to announce the appointment of the deputy postmaster general, effective
June 20. Mr. William Hugh Wilson is to fill the vacancy resulting from the forthcoming retirement of Mr. George A. Boyle, who has served for 45 years.
I should like to express appreciation on behalf of the government for the service Mr. Boyle has rendered. He has made many outstanding contributions to the development of Canada's postal service, particularly in the field of international postal affairs where he has represented Canada as vice-president of the executive and liaison committee of the universal postal union.
Mr. Wilson has been director of operations in the head office of the department since April, 1959. He entered the post office in 1929 as a temporary postal helper in Vancouver. He became postmaster in Vancouver in 1955, and in 1958 was named regional director of postal service for the Pacific region.
Mr. Wilson brings to the position of deputy postmaster general outstanding administrative skill and unusual ability to achieve results while maintaining the support of those who work for him. He has been responsible for numerous major innovations in postal techniques. As director of operations he has been responsible for all the aspects of the day to day operation of the postal service except matters of transportation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I simply wish to say-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: I apologize to the hon. gentleman, but I was speaking to my deskmate the hon. member for Essex East.
I simply want to add a word to what the Prime Minister has said. We on this side of the house would like to commend the retiring deputy postmaster general, Mr. Boyle, for the long service he has rendered to Canada. It has been outstanding service over the many years he has served our country. We should also like to join the Prime Minister in wishing his successor, Mr. Wilson, a long and successful career.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was
interrupted by the hon. member for Laurier. We are very pleased to hear of the appointment of an experienced and competent member of the civil service from British Columbia to this post of deputy minister.

Inquiries of the Ministry RAILWAYS, AIR LINES AND SHIPPING



REFERENCE OF ANNUAL REPORTS AND BUDGETS TO STANDING COMMITTEE

Léon Balcer: By leave of the house I move:
That the annual reports for 1960 of the Canadian National Railways and of the Canadian National Railways securities trust, the auditor's report to parliament in respect of the Canadian National Railways for the year ended December 31, 1960, tabled on March 28, 1961; the budget for 1961 of the Canadian National Railways tabled on April 19, 1961; the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for 1960 tabled on March 14, 1961, the auditor's report to parliament in respect of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ended December 31, 1960, tabled on March 28, 1961, and the budget for 1961 of Trans-Canada Air Lines, tabled on January 16, 1961, be referred to the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: 
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I presume that I should be allowed some latitude in view of the statement the Prime Minister has made.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the house will permit the hon. member to comment, in view of the fact that the statement goes beyond the question of the hon. member.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members of the house for this consideration.
The statement the Prime Minister has made prompts one to ask himself immediately what has become of the principle of consultation in so far as the commonwealth is concerned, because I am sure the Prime Minister will agree at once that in former conferences it was clearly laid down that there should be consultation among the commonwealth prime ministers. This question comes to mind at once.
Then there is the other question of whether or not-and I say this without wanting to be contentious in any way whatsoever-the Prime Minister has been repudiated by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the suggestion he made for a collective conference of the various commonwealth prime ministers. As the Prime Minister knows, the prime ministers of Australia, New Zealand and also India have given indications that they would not be prepared to meet at this time on the basis mentioned by the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a long way from repudiation.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry; I did not catch that.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a long way from repudiation.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps. I said I did not want to be contentious. If the Prime Minister does not like the word "repudiation" perhaps I could use the word "disagreement".
In view of what the Prime Minister said there comes to mind at once the whole question of what effect the common market will have upon our trade. In the face of tariff reductions in those countries what is Canada doing to protect its trade? What can we do to stop widening the gulf between the rich, prosperous and dynamic common market countries-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member for Laurier would agree with me that it would not be proper to extend the scope of his comment into matters not initially raised by this question nor dealt with by the Prime Minister in his answer. The hon. member for Laurier has raised one or two other questions which it would be appropriate to
Inquiries of the Ministry answer, and I would suggest that he allow the answers to be given rather than open up new subjects.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to complete my remarks, if I may. I will discontinue the line which I had intended to pursue, but I go back to the statement made by the Prime Minister in which he said that "the government will regard the talks with Mr. Sandys as exploratory in nature" and that "collective discussions were held in London" and he felt that the same thing might well take place again. Well, of course, the matter that raises is this. What are the alternatives being proposed by the Canadian government? What alternatives are being advanced? Are we to be face to face again with another 15 per cent diversion of trade?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member should not get into the substance of what may be before the conference or before the ministers in bilateral discussions. What his question related to were the mechanics of dealing with the problem of possible adherence by the United Kingdom to the common market.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, the Prime Minister said he did not call for an immediate meeting. Of course the house must accept what the Prime Minister has said, but certainly that is not what the United Kingdom government understood the situation to be. From the comments that have appeared in the United Kingdom press, and Canadian press as well, the indication seems to be to the contrary.
However, in order to complete what I have to say I want to make this brief statement. Our view is that instead of trying to be obstructive the Canadian government would be better employed in seeking to associate Canada with the common market through the establishment of an Atlantic trading area rather than in preventing Britain from joining-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is opening up a very broad subject which cannot be debated on routine proceedings. If the Prime Minister wishes to reply to any of the questions asked I think he might have the floor for that purpose.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister, reverting to the statement he made earlier on the commonwealth prime ministers' conference. May I ask the Prime Minister what alternatives Canada would advance at such a conference of commonwealth prime ministers?
6246	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall that over the years questions ol this nature have been regarded as improper.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if it is a fact that Mr. Jean Rey, a member of the economic European community commission, is to be in Ottawa tomorrow or this week for the purpose of carrying on talks with regard to the relationship between Canada and the common market? If that is a fact, will the Prime Minister relate that fact to the statement he made this morning?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is no relationship whatever between that fact and the statement I made this morning. The gentleman in question is coming and he will naturally discuss with appropriate ministers of the government the viewpoint of that commission.



STATEMENT ON EXCHANGE OF LEAD FOR SURPLUS U.S. GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last, June 9, I undertook to take as notice the question raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia as to whether the reported transaction between the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada and the United States authorities, involving the barter of Canadian lead for United States grain, would have any effect on Canada's own grain marketing policy.
I have now been informed that this transaction has been concluded and that it does not depart from the pattern of previous barter transactions entered into by the United States authorities in obtaining primary or strategic commodities under public law 480. From the government's standpoint this is a private business transaction concluded by a private Canadian firm and, as the hon. member is aware, the government does not interfere in private business transactions. Our only concern is that the sale of surplus grain thus acquired through barter will not displace normal commercial sales of grain. On this point we have been assured that this barter transaction will be subject to the same safeguards as those already established and agreed upon, and which have been applied in the past for the protection of our commercial marketing areas.



URANIUM-INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to address a question to the Minister of


Trade and Commerce, and ask him whether he has a report to make to the house on the uranium contract negotiations.


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker. A meeting was held yesterday and very useful discussions took place. Further meetings are taking place today on the technical level, and other meetings will be held later.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a question. Is it a fact, as now reported by the Canadian Press, that the Minister of Finance has asked for the resignation of the governor of the Bank of Canada?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): I have not seen the report, and I do not think I wish to make any comment on that matter until I have had an opportunity to examine the report.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a supplementary question based on a Canadian Press report dated Ottawa, June 13, in which it is stated that "Governor James E. Coyne of the Bank of Canada said today that finance minister Fleming had requested his immediate resignation". In view of this report, will the minister tell the house whether this is a fact, so the house can exercise its rights under the Bank of Canada Act with regard to the governor of the Bank of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this is the first intimation I have had of the report. I wish to examine the report, and I wish to be assured as to the accuracy of the reference to Mr. Coyne having made this statement before saying anything in the house. There will, of course, be something said in the house at the proper time, but I think that reference should be carefully checked first.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the importance of this matter I can well understand the minister's desire-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -to check the report, but I ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I fail to see how any supplementary can arise out of the minister having taken the matter as notice and declining to answer the question today.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Speaker, I can well appreciate your concern, but in view of what the minister has said will you permit me to put my question so you can then determine whether or not it is in order? In view of what the minister has now said, is it a fact that he has asked for the resignation of the governor of the bank?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I refer the hon. member to the answer to the last question. It was quite clear.


Peter Francis Martin: A statement later today.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. I understand that the federal government has extended its assistance in the battle against grasshoppers and cutworms in Saskatchewan. Can the minister give the house further details regarding the R.C.A.F. airlift of insecticide?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I informed the house, following a request from the Saskatchewan minister of agriculture an airlift was undertaken by the R.C.A.F. over the week end to transport supplies of insecticide from Toronto to Regina. To begin with the amount was supposed to be approximately 30,000 pounds, but there were subsequent requests so that the operation has grown into a very considerable airlift.
In response to a further request from the Saskatchewan government two additional R.C.A.F. aircraft are leaving Toronto today with an additional 70,000 pounds of insecticide. This will bring the total airlift to over 330,000 pounds of insecticide and it involves 17 flights in all.
I think hon. members will be interested in a telegram which I received yesterday from Mr. Nollet, the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan, which reads as follows:
We very greatly appreciate the R.C.A.F. airlift authorized by you. This has been a real life saver in our unforeseen emergency shortage of chemical control supplies during a critical period of our grasshopper and cutworm campaigns. The timely response of the R.C.A.F. was outstanding. The good spirit and co-operation of the air crews was wonderful. The farmers of Saskatchewan will greatly appreciate the emergency assistance given. Would you kindly convey our appreciation to the personnel involved and my sincere thanks to you for the help given.
Inquiries oj the Ministry GRAIN



INQUIRY AS TO QUOTA POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Russell Southam: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister bring members of the house up to date on the status of the Canadian wheat board quotas as they now apply to Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I think the house is aware of the tremendous urgency, so far as farmers of the west are concerned, with regard to the marketing of grain at this time. I have answered several similar questions in recent days, but for comparison purposes I can give the hon. member the figures for two weeks ago, May 29, and for yesterday, June 12. They are as follows:
Quota Distribution
Number of Number of
				stations,		stations,
					May 29,	June 12,
					1961	1961
Manitoba						
3	bushels	per	specified	acre	121	04	bushels	per	specified	acre	188	1325	bushels	per	specified	acre	34	1626	bushels	per	specified	acre	21	70364	Saskatchewan	3	bushels	per	specified	acre	190	-4	bushels	per	specified	acre	635	4505	bushels	per	specified	acre	197	4986	bushels	per	specified	acre	54	1281,076	The pace of moving grain is	still being
maintained this week, as last week, at 1,600 cars per day.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donat Raymond: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 8 I was asked the following questions by the hon. member for Assiniboia as reported at page 6017 of Hansard:
I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Defence Production. Would the minister care to make any comment on the report in this morning's Globe and Mail that a United States firm has in its possession 15 Mustang fighter aircraft which it purchased for $500 and which it hopes to sell for between $6,000 and $50,000?
Were tenders called in this case, and were the planes in flying condition when they were sold?
I have received the following information from Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. In reply to the first question, ten Mustang

Inquiries of the Ministry fighter aircraft with engines and five Mustang fighter airframes without engines, located at Carberry, Manitoba, were sold by Crown Assets Disposal Coporation to James H. De-Furia and Fred J. Ritts, of Syracuse, N.Y. in November, 1956. The ten aircraft with engines were short of carburetors and other navigational instruments; all 15 aircraft and airframes were sold in an unserviceable condition. The ten Mustang aircraft with engines were sold at $3,000 each, and the five airframes less engines were sold for $1,000 each.
In reply to the second question, I am advised that tenders were solicited from 101 firms or dealers.



LAKEHEAD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Fort William asked whether I had received a letter from the Canadian lakehead exhibition to the effect that they would welcome the establishment of an artillery unit within the grounds of the exhibition. I did receive such a letter yesterday afternoon. Mr. Walker, the secretary manager of the Canadian lakehead exhibition has written to me with regard to the construction of a building on the exhibition grounds and has suggested that this building might be used to accommodate a militia unit. His recommendations are being considered.
With reference to a supplementary question asked by the hon. member as to whether an artillery unit would be established at the lakehead, I might say that there is already an artillery unit at the lakehead, the 118th medium battery, stationed at Port Arthur.



CANADA-UNITED STATES  ADDITIONAL EXPENDI- TURE BY CANADA ON PINE TREE LINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of the statement he made in the house yesterday concerning the triangular deal between the United States and Canada, I should like to know what will be the additional expenditure imposed on the federal treasury as a result of Canada assuming full responsibility for the Pine Tree line?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer this question. The annual costs of civilian
staff, operation and maintenance are estimated at $5 million in 1961-62; $9.6 million in 1962-63; $15.1 million in 1963-64 and $16.1 million when the stations are fully taken over.

As far as the duration of the NORAD agreement is concerned, which is to rim to 1968 and will be reviewed at that time, the total estimated cost during that period is $94.1 million.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister said that was the cost of the civilian staff and maintenance. Would the minister say how many armed forces personnel will be employed in this work, and what the cost and maintenance of these personnel will amount to?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The military personnel, of course, will be provided from within existing R.C.A.F. staffs. The total number which will be required to man these stations will be in the neighbourhood of 1,700 to 1,800-1 am speaking from memory now, but I know it is in that area-and some 800 to 900 civilian staff.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to prepare a comprehensive answer to this question so we will know the total cost involved both for civilian and service personnel.


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The estimated cost of the 1,700 to 1,800 military personnel who will be involved in manning these stations when the take-over is complete is around $9 million a year.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Kon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingaie): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday last I directed a question first to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and then to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance asking in what fashion or by what method the government intended to ask for parliamentary approval for the $1J million special vote announced some time ago to provide for additional employment in Cape Breton. I was wondering whether the Minister of Finance could answer that question.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on June 10, as reported at page 6135 of Hansard, was brought to my attention. The answer is that the manner in which this particular matter is dealt with in the estimates will depend on how far particular projects are developed while the house is in session.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Various departments of the government which did not make. It was one that the hon. gentle-have possible projects in the area which will man hoped I would make, because he had his provide employment are studying those now little set speech prepared in advance and he with a view to advancing them. That is the proceeded to argue his case as though I had way the matter stands at the moment. So far made the statement that he hoped I would as provision is to be made, if those advance make.
sufficiently while the house is sitting then Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not been con-there will be an item to deal with them as vinced that there is a question of privilege such.	there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does that mean that the minister is contemplating another set of supplementary estimates?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there will have to be one further set of supplementary estimates before the house rises. It will not contain many items, I may say. But this particular matter could be dealt with as it stands now, in the absence of a particular approved project, out of a vote in the Department of Finance. If the projects are approved and come within various departments, thought will then be given to an item in one particular department to cover the various projects which will come from other departments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. Are these additional supplementary estimates for the purpose of putting in things like this vote that the minister forgot in others?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of course, Mr. Speaker, this was not forgotten, and the observation implicit in the question is utterly stupid and uncalled for.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But true.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have given the reason why, when the supplementary estimates were tabled, it was not proper at that stage to put in an item because of the fact that the particular projects had not been selected. I have given a sufficient explanation of the matter this morning, Mr. Speaker, I am sure, to clarify it to the satisfaction of all hon. members except the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting every hon. member of this house. The minister has said that if a further supplementary estimate for this purpose is not introduced into this house, this money could be paid out of a vote in the Department of Finance. The minister knows that vote is entitled "Unforeseen", and he also knows that this matter was foreseen and announced in this house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see no question of privilege in what the hon. member is saying.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, because the hon. member has attributed to me a statement I



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I apologize for not sending him notice but it came to mind only a few moments ago. I am rather sluggish this morning. In view of the fact that July 1 falls on a Saturday, would the government consider giving all civil servants the opportunity of enjoying Monday, July 3 as a holiday, on that account?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that matter was considered, and it was decided that it was impossible to accede to the suggestion contained in the hon. member's question.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the tragedy in the upper Niagara river the day before yesterday, which resulted in the death of four people, has the minister considered barring pleasure craft from the water of the upper Niagara river below Navy island to the falls?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I think everybody was extremely grieved by this terrible tragedy, and I can assure my hon. friend that we will investigate her proposal very closely.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I also inquire whether the minister has given any consideration to the provision of some coastguard facilities at this point in the Niagara river both for watching in order to prevent these tragedies occurring and for assisting if it appears that a tragedy is going to take place?


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Speaker, but we will
investigate this proposal also.
6250	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CENSUS



INQUIRY AS TO CENSUS COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS ENUMERATORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister say whether census commissioners can appoint themselves as enumerators, and thus draw two salaries?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for an interpretation of a statute and regulations?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not customary to ask for legal opinions. If the hon. member has a specific matter to inquire about, it would be in order, but a request for a legal interpretation of statutes and regulations is not in order.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I bring to your attention the fact that this is a matter which is of importance at the moment because the census is being carried on. It is not a matter in which an opinion is being sought with regard to interpretation of the law. Therefore I submit to Your Honour, with deference, that the question is one which is well put and should receive an answer under the circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as phrased is purely one of opinion. I do not want to prevent the hon. member from inquiring into any factual circumstances in relation to the census.


John Richard Garland: If I may say so with respect, Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of interpretation; it is an inquiry concerning the regulations.


An hon. Member:: It is a matter of fact.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has some factual situation to inquire into, that is quite proper. However, as has been pointed out quite frequently, the regulations are open to all hon. members of the house, as is the statute under which the census is taken. To ask the opinion of the minister for their interpretation is asking about something which is open to any hon. member to interpret for himself.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, you mentioned that my question would be in order if I made reference to a specific case. Perhaps the minister could tell me if Mrs. Priest, of 147 Riverdale avenue, has her husband, her son and herself out enumerating?


An hon. Member:: Where; what town?


Another hon. Member: Montana?


John Richard Garland: In the electoral district of Broadview.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of this particular case, but I will be glad to look into it.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on June 10 the hon. member for Assiniboia asked for my comments in connection with a recent incident in Toronto in which children were in contact with some powder containing radium, which they discovered in a warehouse.
I should like to pay tribute to the prompt and efficient manner in which the local authorities acted, which seems to have averted the danger of any serious results. On the basis of all the information received there seems to be no reason to expect that any of the persons involved will suffer any ill effects. The last stages of the clean-up and accounting process are now going on under the immediate direction of officers of the Ontario department of health.
During world war II large amounts of radium powder were used to paint luminous dials in aircraft and other equipment. It seems clear that the supplies in this case came from that source and were obtained before 1947, when the regulations of the atomic energy control board came into effect. Such material cannot now be acquired except under licence from the board, and licences are not granted unless the board is satisfied, on the advice of its health advisers, that the recipient has adequate knowledge and facilities to ensure that no health hazard will result.
It may be that some of the radium powder obtained prior to 1947 is still stored in industrial establishments, warehouses and similar places. After so many years the material will have lost its usefulness for the painting of luminous dials, but it will remain a potential danger to health because of its radioactivity. I wish, therefore, to advise all organizations to make quite sure that they do not have in storage any old stocks of radium luminous compound. My colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, whose department advises the atomic energy control board on matters relating to health and safety, suggests that the radiation protection division of his department be notified if any such material is found. That division

can then make arrangements for proper disposal, which should not be attempted by other parties.
Meanwhile, every effort is being made to locate any other supplies that may still be in existence under similar circumstances.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

Léon Balcer: the third reading of Bill No. C-98 to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
(Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent yesterday afternoon when the bill was considered on second reading and in committee.
I should like now to give the reasons that would have prompted me to take exception, not to the bill itself, but to section 15 in particular.
On account of that section, numerous representations were submitted to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, when the latter examined the bill, by the St. Lawrence pilots' federation and other organizations.
It now seems obvious that since 1959, that is, since Bill S-3 was introduced, the government has never given up the idea of eventually abolishing pilotage on the St. Lawrence.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if hon. members would take their seats and maintain reasonable silence so that we may hear the hon. member for Levis.
(Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, in 1959, following representations made by various pilots' associations and several members of parliament, the then minister of transport withdrew Bill S-3 to exempt any ship designated by the governor in council from the obligation of paying pilotage dues.
The government undoubtedly realized that their action was too drastic and they decided to proceed by steps but, I repeat, always with a view to abolishing pilotage all along the St. Lawrence.
That, in my opinion, is why section 15 was inserted in the bill we now have before us.
Indeed, section 15 stipulates that American lakers will be exempt from the obligation of paying pilotage dues in the St. Regis district down to Montreal, that is in an exclusively Canadian zone.
The scheme is clever. The exemption is only for that section for the time being but, in a few years from now, it will be extended to the whole length of the river.
Canada Shipping Act
The minister may tell us, as he did before the committee, that it will not be so. I am quite willing to take his word for it but, on the other hand, he will agree with me that his statement binds neither his successor nor the government.
The assurance he has given to the committee is no guarantee for the pilots as far as the future is concerned.
When this bill was examined in committee, we had the opportunity of hearing the legal adviser of the St. Lawrence pilots' federation and the representative of the Canadian merchant service guild.
These two representatives indicated before the committee that they took particular exception to clause 15 first on grounds of national sovereignty and then on grounds of safety in navigation.
The matter of sovereignty and of treaties was clearly dealt with yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). I will not therefore take it up again.
As for the question of safety, it must first be recognized that with the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway, the traffic is bound to increase considerably in the coming years. Moreover, as the ships plying those waters will be bigger and speedier, the danger will be greater. The logical thing to do then, Mr. Speaker, is to render more stringent the safety measures, not to relax them. As a matter of fact, that is what we have been doing for several years now in the case of highways. In order to insure the greatest safety on our highways, the traffic laws have been tightened each year.
When asked by the members of the committee to comment upon the conditions of navigation in the district concerned, Mr. Guy Chartier, president of the Cornwall district pilot association, stated that the channel was quite narrow and difficult. He added that in his opinion no one should be allowed to pilot a ship in those waters unless he had been plying them for six or seven years. He also remarked that on the Canadian side, before getting a pilot licence, one had to have a master licence and two years of navigation in this area after apprenticeship while, on the American side, licence is granted after 12 trips only, which gave him reason to conclude unhesitatingly that such persons could not be qualified to navigate in that district.


Léon Balcer: Would my hon. friend allow me a question?

Canada Shipping Act


Maurice Bourget: Surely.


Léon Balcer: Is he not aware that it is absolutely forbidden to any American pilot to pilot a ship in Canadian waters, between St. Regis and Montreal?


Maurice Bourget: Yes, but is the minister not aware also that, under the amendment to section 15, captains of United States ships shall not be required to take a pilot on board and that, according to the statement made in Montreal by the president of the federation or association of the St. Regis district pilots, after 12 trips masters or captains will to be able to obtain a certificate allowing them to pilot their ships from Cornwall to Montreal. Therefore, I base my assertion on the statement made by the president of the association of pilots.


Lionel Chevrier: This allows the Americans to pilot their ships without the help of a Canadian pilot.


Maurice Bourget: This is the argument of the hon. member for Laurier: under section 15, United States ships may now ply from Cornwall to Montreal without the help of a Canadian pilot.


Léon Balcer: They could do it before.


Maurice Bourget: I admit they could do it before, but circumstances were different, as the hon. member for Laurier mentioned when he discussed that point.
I wish to point out, that it is strange that the Department of Transport does not require the American masters-and I repeat the point the minister and I just mentioned-to pass tests before they are permitted to pilot their ships in exclusively Canadian waters. It seems to me that we should expect from the American masters the same qualifications and the same degree of experience as we expect from our own pilots.
Therefore, it seems clear to me according to the views of experienced men, that to exempt those ships of the payment of pilotage dues would endanger the safety of navigation in that area. Furthermore, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, the adoption of clause 15 would be a step toward the abolition of compulsory pilotage by Canadian pilots in the other districts of the St. Lawrence river.
The minister is aware that strong representations have been made in Washington- and there is no call to doubt their continuance in the future-to grant the American lakers the same privileges upon the whole length of the St. Lawrence river.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that it was for those reasons that I would have supported

yesterday the amendment of the hon. member for Laurier to the effect that clause 15 of the bill be deleted.
I regret very much that the minister refused to agree to that amendment.
( Text):


Heber Edgar Smith: Mr. Speaker, it was suggested during the committee stage of this bill that Canada had given up something but had not received in return a quid pro quo. I should like to deal with that point for just a moment or two.
I should like to refer to pages 1 and 2 of the treaty between Canada and the United States dated May 5, 1961. At page 1 it is provided that the President of the United States by proclamation may declare certain areas compulsory pilotage areas, and listed there are districts Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Without reading the detailed descriptions, district No. 1 is the St. Lawrence area between St. Regis and Kingston, district No. 2 is roughly the area of the St. Clair river, and, district No. 3 is the area of the St. Mary's river and Sault Ste. Marie.
I should like to read the paragraph following the description of those districts, which is as follows:
Registered vessels of the United States and foreign vessels navigating United States waters of the great lakes which are not designated by the president by proclamation-
That refers to the three preceding areas that have been designated. I continue:
-are required by the act to have on board a United States registered pilot or a Canadian registered pilot or other officer qualified for the waters concerned

To me, and I think to anyone who reads it, that is a clear indication that Canada does receive some rights in United States waters and the great lakes, particularly the waters of lake Michigan.
There was a question asked in the committee as to why this matter of having a pilot or not having a pilot betweeen St. Regis and Montreal was not covered by the treaty. One answer is that the waters are exclusively Canadian. I think perhaps an analogy can be made regarding the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway. In order to make a workable navigation seaway in Canada, certain work had to be done on the canals between St. Regis and Montreal. That work was done at a cost to and by the Canadian government because it is exclusively Canadian waters. Would the United States government have spent the $100 million odd it did spend without having the assurance from the Canadian government that it was going to improve the channel between St. Regis and Montreal?

I think the analogy is clear there. The United States government would not have given us a general pilotage agreement concerning the whole of the St. Lawrence system without having received an undertaking or understanding that certain provisions would be made for it in respect to that section of the St. Lawrence seaway from St. Regis to Montreal.
I am not sure that the argument of the hon. member for Levis is valid when he says this is only a first step. I cannot go as far as he does, because it seems to me quite clear that Montreal is the end of the seaway works built either by Canada or the United States, and there would be no validity in a United States request for pilotage rights beyond Montreal by reason of that fact. It is true, of course, that the traffic between the United States and Canada, in that section from Seven Islands to the Ohio steel ports on the United States side, is increasing and that possibly fewer ships than heretofore will now turn around at Montreal, although I think for some years Montreal will be essentially the eastern terminal of the seaway in regard to grain shipments.
Again I should like to emphasize the fact that there has not been any clear indication as to the matter of safety. Sometimes we tend to make open assumptions that when an accident happened at a time when there was no pilot on board, it happened because there was no pilot on board. I do not think our pilots would be happy if we made the similar assumption that because there was a pilot on board at the time an accident happened, it was his fault. As I pointed out in committee, I hope better statistics and records are kept so that more detailed statistics can be published. If this is done we will then have the opportunity of assessing that portion of responsibility for an accident which is attributable to the fact that a pilot was not on board.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise and join in the debate, but I am wondering whether on third reading the minister has the right to reply. Before I make my intervention I should like to point out that situation to Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister does not have the right to reply, and would only be speaking on the basis that he had not spoken in moving the motion but had deferred his remarks. That is sometimes permitted by the house, and I think is a reasonable practice. If the minister speaks now he will not close the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am not objecting to the minister replying, but I should not like to be cut off after his speech.
Canada Shipping Act


Mr. Speaker:: His reply will not close the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you.
(Translation):


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I do not seek to raise a new debate or continue the one we had yesterday, but just the same, the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) has raised some points that have to be considered and to which I must make some correction.
First of all, for the hon. member's information, I should tell him that the Department of Transport gives the St. Lawrence pilots a remarkably good treatment. In fact,
I think there are few Canadian corporations whose employees are so highly paid proportionately to their work. I realize that pilots have responsibilities, and my department has always seen to it that their salaries or dues be guaranteed and in line with their responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing we seem to forget sometimes about our pilots: our primary concern should be the safety of navigation on the St. Lawrence river. On the other hand, if we impose all sorts of charges and give rise to all sorts of difficulties, if, in a word, we enforce special procedures for vessels using the St. Lawrence river, there is a risk of less efficiency in the St. Lawrence shipping trade.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in our discussion with the United States, in order to come to some agreement with regard to piloting on the great lakes or any other waterway where both countries have a common interest, we must keep in mind that the safety of navigation must be the prime consideration. The same applies to the efficiency of seaway traffic. We do not wish ships to be hampered in their business; on the contrary, they should be able to go about their business in a logical way. That is why, in those discussions with the United States, we always have in mind not only the improvement of seaway traffic but also the protection of the Canadian pilots' position, their salaries and the part they play in the seaway traffic of this country.
That is why in this case, when we had to negotiate with the United States, we came to an agreement which, to my mind, is justified. As a matter of fact, as the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith) explained a

Canada Shipping Act
moment ago, the Americans also made some concessions, and I am convinced that the agreement which has been concluded is entirely reasonable, as not a single Canadian pilot will lose a cent because American vessels benefit from an exemption. Not a single Canadian pilot will lose his job following this arrangement, because we did insist that no American pilot be entitled to do any piloting on the St. Lawrence river, between St. Regis and Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Levis suggested a moment ago that the Department of Transport did not seem to care too much about the fate of our Canadian pilots, and that our officials seemed to want to please the Americans. Well, I must point out to him that the Department of Transport guarantees very attractive salaries to the pilots, and that there are not many Canadian corporations which pay their staff a salary of about $12,000 a year, not including an expense allowance of up to a couple of thousand dollars, and all that for eight or nine months of work.
I know Canadian pilots have responsibilities and that their services are most important to shipping and in many other ways. Just the same, they are paid very attractive salaries. Members of the Canadian corporation of pilots enjoy rights based on an ancient tradition which I respect as much as anyone else; however, in view of the fact that the Department of Transport guarantees jobs and fees to Canadian pilots, I feel they enjoy great benefits under our legislation.


Maurice Bourget: Would the minister allow me a question? What will happen to the pilots in the Cornwall-Montreal area?


Léon Balcer: I beg your pardon?


Maurice Bourget: What will happen to the pilots in the Cornwall-Montreal district if, within a few years, all American ships can be piloted by Americans?


Léon Balcer: I am very pleased that my hon. friend has asked this question because as Minister of Transport, I was asked by the pilots themselves to grant compulsory pilotage in that district. In fact, in November 1960,
I told them: Your request is a serious one, and we shall do our utmost to grant it. After studying the matter, we imposed compulsory pilotage on all foreign ships. At the time, I indicated to the pilots that I was not prepared to impose compulsory pilotage on

American ships because we were then discussing pilotage on the great lakes. However, I asked the pilots to grant voluntary exemptions to American ships until the Canada Shipping Act was amended. Well, that is what happened, and the pilots themselves exempted American ships.
My hon. friend has asked what will happen to the pilots in that district. Well, their position is better today than it was in November 1960. We have improved their position. Moreover, I would point out to those who feel inclined to raise cries of persecution in a case like this, that I think there is a tendency to make a bogey out of everything that is done by the Department of Transport in regard to pilotage.
These pilots are members of an old association with traditions going back many years. They are jealous of their rights, and you may be sure I respect those rights. However, representations are constantly being made as if we wanted to deprive them of their livelihood. There is always a hue and cry whenever a word is changed in any document dealing with pilotage.
Pilots are now organized in a federation, they have well defined districts, their working hours have been reduced, their salaries and expense allowances have gone up from year to year. Considering that they were granted compulsory pilotage on all foreign vessels under the sole condition that American vessels be exempted, I feel that the pilots should not raise any bogey in such a case, because their situation has improved in that district since last November. It should be kept in mind especially that those districts did not even exist before. There was only the Ottawa-St. Lawrence district where pilotage was not compulsory. Consequently, they were at a disadvantage as compared with the pilots downstream from Montreal. Their position is much better nowadays. Pilotage has become compulsory. Their association is recognized and so are their districts. I think they have made a great step forward.
I know they did not get everything they wanted, but they have made a great step forward.
I feel that our agreement with the United States concerning the great lakes is both reasonable and justifiable. We did not twist their arm. We ensured fair treatment for our pilots. The United States agreed to our request, namely that there should be equal treatment right from the first year. They made

Canada Shipping Act
that concession and, in return, we made concessions on other points.
Consequently, I feel that as far as pilotage on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence is concerned, the pilots' situation is better now than it has ever been.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in the discussion on the third reading of this bill but I rise again because of the intervention by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith) whom, I hope, will resume his seat. Incidentally, I also rise because of what the Minister of Transport just said.
First of all, with all respect, I say that the Minister of Transport added nothing to the debate a while ago. He only repeated what he had said yesterday. But he used a new phrase, that is, safety is the prime consideration.
The safety of the shipping traffic urges us to conclude an agreement with the United States. Very well. As a matter of fact, the pilots themselves have been saying that. That is why they asked the minister not to exempt from compulsory pilotage, as the minister says, from the payment of pilotage dues, United States ships. They claimed that if such an exemption is granted, what would surely happen, as the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) indicated, is that eventually there will be no more demand for Canadian pilots in that district. The United States ships will be handled through these dangerous waters by their own captains or masters, so that in five or ten years, there will be no need for Canadian pilots in that district.
Now the minister says that compulsory pilotage was granted the pilots. Prior to last November, no compulsory pilotage existed in that district.
Why was the pilotage made compulsory by the department in that district? For the same reason of course that brought the setting up of pilotage districts on the great lakes. It is on account of the increase in traffic in that area, because compared to the period which preceded the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway, the volume of traffic has more than doubled. Ships are bigger and longer, with a deeper draught and a carrying capacity of 20,000 to 25,000 tons, which explains the need to ensure the safety of American, Canadian and foreign vessels in those waters by making pilotage compulsory.
Now, after having agreed to that in November, exemption is intended for American ships. Well, pilots are objecting to that.
There is no question of raising cries of persecution or of making a bogey out of that. Neither the hon. member for Levis, nor I ever said any such thing. We made our argument here the same way as the pilots did before the committee where I think, they very calmly made very logical representations. They feel it is an invasion of their rights and of our sovereignty over Canadian waters. Furthermore, they feel that safety of navigation is threatened and they put their case to the minister.
The minister says they are well treated and that their remuneration is excellent. Remuneration or salaries are not involved in that legislation; only two things are involved: upholding of sovereignty and protection against accidents.
(Text):


Heber Edgar Smith: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Heber Edgar Smith: Is it not a fact that even before November, 1960, when there were no compulsory requirements either as to dues or pilotage, all vessels using the seaway at that time employed pilots; and does the hon. member not think that in the future as in the past the safety of these valuable ships will be a factor whether or not pilots are employed, regardless of the legislative requirements?


Lionel Chevrier: I think the answer to that question was given by the minister in committee, when he said that while it is true that most of the United States vessels are now using Canadian pilots because they are unfamiliar with the waters, there is no doubt that in due course the necessity of using Canadian pilots will gradually disappear and the day will come, which in our opinion is not far off, when the masters and mates on United States ships will be able, because of the experience they have gained, to take these ships right through to Montreal without using a Canadian pilot and therefore the pool of Canadian pilots will in due course disappear.
I wanted to say a word or two about some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Simcoe North. Since he understands so well what I am saying in French, perhaps I might continue in that language. However, it might not be courteous to do so. The hon. member concluded his remarks by asking whether the United States government would have spent upwards of $100 million without

Canada Shipping Act
having the assurance from Canada that they would obtain exemption from pilotage in this section of the river.


Heber Edgar Smith: I think the hon. member misunderstood me. I said it was related to the problem of getting the United States government to spend $105 million in that particular section, and that part of the implied agreement must have been that we would approve canal facilities between St. Regis and Montreal.


Lionel Chevrier: I took down the exact words that my hon. friend used, and I think they jibe very accurately with the argument he was trying to make. Why would the Americans spend over $100 million in the international section of the river if they did not expect to get the same treatment from Canada that the United States has given to Canada under the United States-Canada pilotage arrangement which he mentioned earlier?
The point is this, and it seems to have been forgotten entirely both by the hon. member and by the minister as well. We are dealing here with the international section and the international section alone. That is the point. It seems to have been forgotten both by the minister and the hon. member that in the international section, where the Americans have spent money for navigational facilities, they have all the protection that is required in so far as pilotage is concerned. They got it under the amendment to section VI of the pilotage act which was passed last year, and they also have it under their own legislation.
The point I am trying to make is that we are giving them in Canadian waters rights which they have not got today, rights which they have in United States waters under their own legislation and rights which they have in international waters by legislation which we passed last session. Now the hon. member comes forward and says we have received a quid pro quo, and that is why we have put this in the legislation. There may be a quid but I should like to know where the quo is. As the hon. member for Simcoe North has said, the quid is the exemption on lake Michigan. Canada gets rights for its Canadian pilots on that lake, which is wholly in United States territory. That is true. But why, and I have asked this question repeatedly, is that right of exemption on lake Michigan not placed in United States legislation in the same way that the right of exemption for United States ships is placed in Canadian legislation in this bill?
If it is a good thing to amend the Canada Shipping Act to give United States ships, because of certain commitments that have been made by Canada, the right to be exempt from pilotage in the Cornwall-Montreal
[Mr. Chevrier.l
district, why should the Americans not do the same thing in their legislation? The minister replied that their laws are not the same as ours. However, they have enacted certain laws so far as the great lakes pilotage area is concerned, and the question that comes to my mind is why should they not do it in this case?
The hon. member for Simcoe North attempted, and I say to him respectfully that he did not succeed, to argue away the treaty aspect of this matter. United States citizens were given rights in the international section of the river by treaties going back as far as 1783 and extending right up to the boundary waters treaty act of 1909. Those rights are clearly established in these treaties. It seems to me that if they are to have additional rights, particularly in the Canadian section of the river, it should be done by way of a treaty as well.
I know those who sit on the other side of the house challenge this argument, but it seems to me that there is a loss of sovereignty in these Canadian waters. It seems to me that the law so far as these Canadian waters from Montreal to Cornwall-St. Regis are concerned should remain as it was before, and I know the minister will reply at once that of course it does remain. It does not in this sense, that the pilots no longer have control in that section of the river, but they have in the section extending from Montreal to the sea. For that reason the pilots have come and protested against this legislation.
No one is challenging the statement that the pilots are well paid, but the pilots would not have been before the committee of the house as they were for two days protesting against this legislation unless they feared not only the international and safety aspects of it but also that it might represent a step toward taking from them certain rights in the river downstream. Furthermore, I am sure the pilots will continue their representations in that regard, which is indicative of the fact that they are not satisfied with this legislation.


Heber Edgar Smith: Would the hon. member permit another question? I think the hon. gentleman is perhaps being deliberately obtuse. Does the hon. member think the United States in constructing the seaway would have spent $105 million, or whatever amount was spent, in the international section of the St. Lawrence if there had not been an undertaking, either firm or implied, on the part of the Canadian government to improve and deepen the canal between St. Regis and Montreal?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to that question is "no", and I shall tell the house why. There is no doubt that the United States government

made an expenditure on the seaway long before there was any question of an agreement on pilotage.


Heber Edgar Smith: I was not talking about pilotage. My question related only to the question of the improvement and deepening of the canal. I was not attempting to relate it by analogy to pilotage. I was relating it to the deepening and improvement of the canal between St. Regis and Montreal. It strikes me that it would have been rather odd for the United States government to have spent $105 million and then encountered the question of a much shallower canal opposite Cornwall.


Lionel Chevrier: The point is that the
Americans made that expenditure without receiving that assurance. I am attempting to make that clear to the hon. gentleman but he will not let me reply. I wish to add this. Not only did the United States government make that expenditure, but the question was never raised before 1960. It was certainly never raised in 1959, and certainly not before the seaway-


Heber Edgar Smith: If I may interrupt, permit me to say we did not have to agree to deepen the canal between St. Regis and Montreal before the Americans would commit themselves to spend $105 million.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member is now changing his ground.


Heber Edgar Smith: I am not changing my ground. I am merely emphasizing the point I attempted to make earlier.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member is changing his ground. There is no doubt that if the United States government had not had from Canada the assurance that we were going to build 27 foot facilities downstream, they would not have been foolish enough to build facilities upstream in the international section. But that is not the point the hon. member was making. I took down the hon. member's words. The hon. gentleman said "Why should the United States government have spent this money without having the assurance that they would have an exemption from pilotage?" Those are the words the hon. member used, as I took them down.
Let me point out to the hon. gentleman that the expenditure was made by the United States government without receiving any assurance whatever from Canada with respect to pilotage. Furthermore, the directions to the United States authority that was building the seaway are set out in the United States legislation. In that legislation there is no reference whatever to pilotage. That was a
Division
matter which, I take it, was to have been ironed out eventually between the two governments.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The hon. member for Simcoe North is all wet.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Unless the minister is rising to correct what he considers to be a misinterpretation, I must inform him that he cannot speak twice in the debate. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion is for
third reading of the	bill. Is it the pleasure
of the house to adopt the motion?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. the yeas and nays?	Speaker, will you call
The house divided	on the motion (Mr. Balcer) which was agreed to on the following division:	
YEAS	
Messrs:	
Aiken	Forbes
Aitken, Miss	Fortin
Allmark	Frechette
Balcer	Gillet
Baldwin	Grafftey
Barrington	Hales
Baskin	Hamilton (Notre Dame
Beech	de Grace)
Bell (Carleton)	Hamilton (Qu'Appelle)
Bell (Saint John-Albert)	Hanbidge
Belzile	Hees
Best	Henderson
Bigg	Herridge
Bissonnette	Hicks
Broome	Hodgson
Browne (Vancouver-	Horner (Acadia)
Kingsway)	Horner (Jasper-Edson)
Bruchesi	Horner (The Battlefords)
Brunsden	Howe
Cadieu	Jones
Campbell	Jung
(Lambton-Kent)	Kennedy
Campbell (Stormont)	Kindt
Cardiff	Knowles
Casselman, Mrs.	Kucherepa
Cathers	Lambert
Chambers	Legere
Charlton	Lennard
Churchill	Macdonnell
Clancy	MacEwan
Comtois	Maclnnis
Creaghan	MacLellan
Crouse	Macquarrie
Danforth	MacRae
Diefenbaker	McBain
Dinsdale	McCleave
Doucett	McFarlane
Drysdale	McGee
Dubois	McGrath
Fairclough, Mrs.	McIntosh
Fairfield	McLennan
Fane	McPhillips
Fleming (Eglinton)	Maloney
Fleming (Okanagan-	Martineau
Revelstoke)	Matthews
Flemming (Royal)	Monteith (Perth)

Committee on War Measures Act
More	Skoreyko
Morris	Small
Morton	Smallwood
Muir (Cape Breton	Smith (Lincoln)
North and Victoria)	Smith (Simcoe North)
Muir (Llsgar)	Southam
Murphy	Speakman
Nesbitt	Spencer
Noble	Starr
O'Hurley	Stearns
Pallett	Stefanson
Pascoe	Stinson
Paul	Tasse
Payne	Thomas
Peters	Thompson
Phillips	Thrasher
Pigeon	Villeneuve
Pitman	Webb
Rapp	Webster
Ricard	Weichel
Rynard	White
Se vigny	Winkler
Simpson	Wratten-133.
 NAYS Messrs:
Badanal	Hellyer
Batten	LaMarsh, Miss
Benidickson	Leduc
Boulanger	Macnaughton
Bourget	McMillan
Cardin	Martin (Essex East)
Chevrler	Meunler
Denis	Nixon
Deschatelets	Pickersgill
Eudes	Roberge
Garland	Robichaud
Habel	Tardif-24.
Motion agreed to and the 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.


John George Diefenbaker: That a special committee be appointed to consider and recommend changes that may be desirable in the War Measures Act;
That the committee consist of fifteen members to be designated by the house;
That the committee be empowered to sit during the sittings of the house;
That the committee have power to send for persons and papers;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as it may deem advisable and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation to the printing thereof; and
That the committee be empowered to report from time to time.
He said: Mr. Speaker, ever since 1914 there has been on the statute books of this country an act known as the War Measures Act, which

was passed immediately after the commencement of the first great war. Following that war there were discussions on various occasions both in the House of Commons and in the other place regarding this legislation, particularly as to whether or not it should continue in effect following the declaration of peace.
The act in question, and I shall make only a short reference to it, provides for the issue of a proclamation by Her Majesty, or under the authority of the governor in council, who may then "do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may by reason of the existence of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada"; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms-"the power to censor, control and suppress publications, writings, communications and means of communications, arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation, control of the harbours, ports and territorial waters, and the movement of vessels in Canada, and also the control of transportation by land, air or water, control of trade, exportation, importation, production and manufacture, as well as appropriation, control, forfeiture and disposition of property". In other words, under the general powers there is virtually nothing that the governor in council cannot do within the powers granted by the act.
Following the second world war the government of Right Hon. Mackenzie King and later the government of Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent brought in and had passed by parliament two acts which contained virtually the same powers as the War Measures Act, and enabled the governor in council to draft orders in council which, regardless of whether or not they were infringements on provincial jurisdiction, were none the less lawful.
In 1960 parliament passed the bill of rights and made certain provisions therein respecting some of the powers contained in the War Measures Act. Section 6 of the War Measures Act reads as follows:
The provisions of the three sections last preceding shall only be in force during war. invasion, or insurrection, real or apprehended.
Those are the sections giving the power, imposing penalties, and providing that anyone held for deportation under this act, or under arrest and detention as an alien enemy, or upon suspicion of being an alien enemy, or to prevent his departure from Canada, shall be released upon bail or otherwise discharged or tried, without the consent of the Minister of Justice.

The bill of rights provides that section 6 of the War Measures Act is repealed and substitutes therefor the following:
Sections 3, 4 and 5 shall come into force only upon the issue of a proclamation of the governor in council declaring that war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists.
For the protection of the rights of parliament there is this provision. The proclamation declaring that war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists shall be laid before parliament forthwith after its issue or, if parliament is not then sitting, within the first 15 days next thereafter. A further subsection provides that when the proclamation has been laid before parliament a notice of motion in either house signed by 10 members thereof, praying that the proclamation be revoked, shall be debated in that house at the first convenient opportunity within the four sitting days next after the motion in the house is made. This section further provides that if both houses of parliament resolve that the proclamation be revoked, it shall cease to have effect. In other words there was restored to parliament the right to assure that the executive power exercised by the governor in council shall be subject to the elected representatives of the people.
Various hon. gentlemen participated in the debate on the bill of rights. I am not going to refer to what they said, but I would point out that their views are dealt with at length in Hansard of August 3, 1960, at page 7503, when clause 6 of the War Measures Act, as part of the bill of rights, was before the house. Various suggestions were made for amendments to the War Measures Act. At that time I said, as reported at page 7506:
If a committee is set up and, of course, I am in the hands of the house as always-
To which the hon. member for Essex East with his customary suavity remarked as follows:
The right hon. gentleman has some influence.
I said:
I thank my hon. friend for those kind words. His geniality has brought about the recognition of a fact that he often denies.
This would be a most important contribution to the Canada of today and to the Canada of the future. At that time we would not deal as we are asked to now on a piecemeal basis with the rights under the War Measures Act. If there is a degree of unanimity, and I think there will be, that Canadian citizens should not be deported the committee might make that recommendation along with such other recommendations as will bring about a war measures act which on the one hand will maintain the solidarity and security of the state and on the other hand will have before it the paramount necessity of not needlessly sacrificing the rights of Canadians.
Committee on War Measures Act
That summarizes the general tenor of the views expressed by me and also by the Minister of Justice. Later at page 7511 of Hansard I said:
In so far as this is concerned-
I was referring to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition.
-no naturalized Canadian may be deprived of his citizenship and no naturalized British subject may be deprived of his status as a British subject under this act, and we accept that as a desirable objective when full and complete amendment of the War Measures Act or other acts is made.
There seemed to be general agreement at that time that there was the necessity for parliament to have the opportunity to deal with this matter. It is not a partisan matter. I am not going into anything which by the greatest exaggeration could be considered as bringing partisan considerations into this debate. I simply say there was agreement that something should be done to bring about amendments to the War Measures Act and to assure that the act, while maintaining the need of security at all times, should be so altered or changed as to provide that security, while at the same time preserving to the greatest degree possible the rights of the individual.
On January 27, 1961, at page 1475 of Hansard, the Leader of the Opposition asked me this question:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he could confirm or deny a report in the press this morning to the effect that during this session the government is going to amend the War Measures Act?
I replied:
I did not see that report. The government feels -and it expressed its feeling in this regard at the time discussions were taking place relative to the bill of rights-that some committee of the house might well consider the War Measures Act and, having considered it, make recommendations as to what revisions or amendments could be made to that act to render it a measure from which injustice would not follow.
A little later on I said:
I feel and I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree, that a full and complete review of the War Measures Act would be following a course in keeping with the desires of Canadians as a whole. In time of war the measure is necessary in the interests of maintaining security, but in the days of peace there cannot be too large a degree of justification for its maintenance in effect without giving parliament at least the opportunity, through a committee, of fully considering the representations that have been made from time to time with regard to this legislation.
Following that, the hon. member for Essex East indicated that a private member had a bill on the order paper showing the intention to introduce amendments to the War Measures Act. With customary modesty he did not refer to himself but simply said an hon. member had such a bill on the order paper. Later, on

Committee on War Measures Act May 29, the Leader of the Opposition asked this question as recorded at page 5504 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, having regard to the statements made by him during the debate last year on the bill of rights and similar statements on January 27 this year, whether the government intends to submit the War Measures Act to this session of parliament for consideration?
To which I replied:
I can only say at this time that depending on the progress that is made in the house, a decision in that regard will be announced to the house.
Again a supplementary question was asked by the hon. member for Essex East. All this indicates, I think, that there is a desire to bring about a close scrutiny and examination of this legislation. I had hoped to bring it before the house yesterday, but in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition and at the request of the hon. member for Laurier the motion was set over until today.


William Moore Benidickson: It was introduced only on Saturday.


John George Diefenbaker: I hope the house will accept this motion. I realize that many hon. members will argue, as they have argued throughout the session, that committees are becoming too numerous. This committee is one on which I am sure all who are chosen will be most happy and honoured to serve. It is the kind of constructive work in which members who wish to devote themselves to the maintenance of our freedoms will naturally desire to take part.
The question might arise as to how long this committee would sit. I think a start should be made. Many representations were made in 1960 and prior thereto. Various groups of lawyers, constitutional law professors and professors of history made representations. Professor Lower, professor emeritus of Queen's, has given many years of study to this question. I think of others equally well in-tentioned and well equipped who would be most desirous of playing their parts in this investigation and examination, and also in making recommendations consonant with the purpose of the legislation, but at the same time assuring the preservation of those things that should not be denied to Canadians.
This is now the 13th of June. I have no idea how long the session will continue, but the progress that has been made would seem to lend support to the hope that by the end of this month we should be in a position to conclude. If, however, we are not, I want the house to make its own determination. In that regard I return to a view that I expressed earlier, that in the interests of hon. members, particularly those with families including


small children, they should not be denied the opportunity to be with their families during the months of July and August.
During the summer the committee might conceivably exchange ideas and views on this particular matter and have representations made while not necessarily having to convene. In that way the committee would perform its duty without inconvenience or interfering with the legitimate desires of members not only to do that to which I have already referred, but also to see their constituents. Therefore, without further argument, I place this motion before the house. It may be contended it should have been done earlier. That will always be an argument; but if it had been done there would have been one more committee in addition to the number already sitting, about which complaint has been made.
Is this a necessary work to be done? I think it is. I do not feel that recommendations for amendment of this legislation should be the prerogative of departmental officials or cabinet ministers. This legislation crosses all party lines, and members of the committee when chosen will be able to do something to meet the anomalous situation which has prevailed in two world wars and following, that while we fought for freedom we found it necessary to place in bond as security for their preservation, the freedoms for which we fought.
I hope the house will accept this motion so the committee may commence the discharge of its duties and make decisions as to such suggestion as I made earlier, so as to enable not only the exchange of ideas between members of the committee, but also the reception of ideas from those learned in the law and also those learned in the processes of freedom. Then, the committee may bring about recommendations which will maintain the essence of the War Measures Act as the instrument for the mobilization of our people should war ever come and at the same time preserve so far as possible those things which are dearer than life itself.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask a question arising out of the Prime Minister's motion to set up this committee? The Prime Minister indicated that there might be a new departure from past practice, in that the parliamentary committee might sit during the recess. I am sure he is aware that this has become a very common practice of the provincial legislature in Ontario. I wonder whether the rules committee could be considered as a committee that could do this kind of useful work so that its work would not come in conflict with other legislative duties when the House of Commons is in session.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member has asked a very challenging question. I did not, of course, say the committee should sit during the recess. I said it mignt exchange views. If it chose to sit, that would be its right.


William Moore Benidickson: It would require government approval.


John George Diefenbaker: I recall that during the war days I was on the committee on the defence of Canada regulations-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Defence expenditures.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, defence expenditures. We sat most of the summer, and found that we were able to do worth-while work. However, after the months that hon. members have been here I would not wish on them a continuance of their presence in Ottawa, though the hon. member may represent a large group who believe that committees should sit during the summer holidays as well.


William Moore Benidickson: Not I, but there may be others who want to do so, and it might save time later.


John George Diefenbaker: If there is that enthusiasm and such a desire-


William Moore Benidickson: I want to get back to Kenora.


John George Diefenbaker: -to apply the suggestion of the hon. member to the fullest extent every month in the year, I must say I would be the last to suggest a detour.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will be the last to suggest that we do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this motion, which provides among other things that a special committee be appointed to consider and recommend changes that may be desirable in the War Measures Act, the Prime Minister has pointed out that he believes there is a general desire to give consideration to amendments to the War Measures Act and, he might have added, to take steps to make sure that the War Measures Act be rendered consistent with the bill of rights passed by parliament in 1960.
I think the Prime Minister is right. There is a desire that the War Measures Act should be considered in the light of present and future conditions. In so far as we in the Liberal party are concerned, we are anxious, as the record demonstrates, that the War Measures Act should be consistent with the provisions of the bill of rights and the security of the state.
The Prime Minister has said there is nothing that the governor in council cannot
90205-6-395
13. 1961	6261
Committee on War Measures Act do under the War Measures Act subject only to the provisions of that act. That is a fact, of course, and the consequence is that the War Measures Act supercedes the bill of rights.


John George Diefenbaker: Only after proclamation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Only after proclamation.


John George Diefenbaker: Only to a limited extent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And to the extent indicated in the bill of rights itself, to which I will make reference in a moment. The Prime Minister has suggested that because of the importance of this measure and the common attitude that prevails about considering amendments, this is not in itself the kind of question that should divide the house. I readily agree that such is the case. The Prime Minister will not expect me, of course, to refrain from putting on the record with regard to this matter which seem desirable in the light of the position we took last session with regard to amendments to the War Measures Act. However, with his general statement I do not quarrel.
The Prime Minister will recall, as he himself has reminded us by his several references to Hansard, that questions were put to the government and in particular to the Prime Minister asking when steps would be taken to bring about amendments to the War Measures Act. The Prime Minister mentioned one of the replies he made in which he said by way of response, I think somewhat vaguely, that it would depend largely on the progress that was made during the course of the present session.
I take the position, of course, that this is not the view the Prime Minister took when we discussed this matter in 1960. I believe his words in that regard, to which I will refer later, were more definitive than was the indication given in reply to the questions put to him during the course of this session by the Leader of the Opposition.
The Prime Minister has referred to the fact that there is now on the order paper a bill standing in my name which embodies the proposed amendments to the War Measures Act which were submitted last session in this house by the Leader of the Opposition and later in the committee on the bill of rights, by me, supported by the hon. gentleman from Maisonneuve-Rosemont.
The practical consideration, however, is one that we must bear in mind. The government brings in, on the 13th day of June, a proposal that a committee should be established for the purpose of considering the War Measures Act and any amendments thereto. Under our procedures a bill introduced by the

Committee on War Measures Act government, of course, will likely have precedence over a bill proposed by a private member of this house. If it is a fact that my bill, which obviously encouraged the government at long last to take some action, is to be superseded by the action taken today by the government, then of course I can have no legitimate procedural complaint, nor would any such complaint get very far. I would be practical enough to recognize that situation at once.
That being the case, and if this is the government's final stand in the matter, as one who wants to see amendments to the War Measures Act and who wants to see the War Measures Act brought into a position consistent with the bill of rights I would under those conditions, of course, support the motion proposed today by the Prime Minister. However, I would do that not without some complaint on other grounds.
It is regrettable that this particular motion was not presented early in the session. We have complained from time to time that the government's mismanagement of the business of this house has been such as to crowd in, in the dying days of the session, not only much important legislation to be considered exclusively in this chamber, and other legislation to be considered by parliamentary committees, but as well the work of many of the standing and special committees of this house, with the result that not only are we sitting from 11 o'clock in the morning until 10.30 o'clock at night in the House of Commons but at the same time we have obligations in committees that are meeting simultaneously, some three times, some four times and on one occasion five times in a day, with one committee actually having had its sittings-I refer to the external affairs committee which is an extremely important one-during the luncheon recess from one o'clock until two thirty in the afternoon.
With the background of this heavy schedule for our committee and house work, the government now comes forward at this late moment to present this motion, which could well have been presented in the month of January. If it had been presented at that time, ample opportunity this session would have been provided for consultation with law experts and other competent people outside to assist in our deliberations of the amendments thought desirable in the War Measures Act.
The Prime Minister will therefore not be surprised if, seeking to be as conciliatory as possible at this time of the session, I lay before him with some justification our complaint for not having brought this measure forward early in the session. That was the time to bring forward something about which the government had been properly forewarned and

which indeed the Prime Minister himself, as he indicated in what he said today, had suggested to the house would be the action taken by the government during the course of the present session. I believe this matter is so important that we ought to begin the work of this committee at once, if that is to be the procedural situation in relation to the bill now standing in my name.
The Prime Minister has referred to some observations of Professor Lower. I am not surprised that he should do so, because Professor Lower obviously is a protagonist of the Prime Minister. He made that fact clear in the committee on the bill of rights when he spoke glowingly of the Prime Minister's efforts and generally of certain other points of view and positions taken by the Prime Minister.
I do not fail to recognize the merits of Professor Lower, although I would not be as enthusiastic, and the Prime Minister would not expect me to be-


John George Diefenbaker: Did not the hon. gentleman quote him?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to quote him. I would not be as enthusiastic nor would the Prime Minister expect me to be as enthusiastic about him as within this limited context Professor Lower has been of the Prime Minister. However, Professor Lower made this statement, and I refer to page 5650 of Hansard of July 1, 1960, and to words quoted by the Leader of the Opposition:
I submit that if we are going to have a bill of rights in Canada, and there will be a great deal of debate about it, we ought to have one that means something. I believe that in normal peacetime our liberties are not in very serious danger. But in wartime they are in very serious danger, the liberties of all of us. Hence, it is the duty of the government to find a method of enacting legislation which will give at least minimum guarantees. Suggestions could be made which would modify the War Measures Act. In the meantime, as long as it is on the books it is the duty of everybody who loves a free society, who loves liberty, to bend his best efforts to attack this act and try to get rid of this invidious liberty-destroying statute, the War Measures Act.
I do not agree, and I am sure the Prime Minister does not agree, with this full denunciation of the War Measures Act, because I think we feel that human liberty already recognizes that in wartime there are certain exigencies in the interests of the security of the state which must be borne in mind. Professor Lower has expressed his views in a number of other publications. In the Canadian Commentator of March, 1959, he wrote an article entitled "The Bill of Rights" in which he said:
The Canadian War Measures Act is the most iniquitous piece of legislation ever to disgrace a British statute book-at least since the celebrated legislation-by-proclamations act of Henry VIII, 400 years ago. Its parallel is to be found not in any

other English-speaking country, for none have disgraced themselves in this respect as has Canada done-*
Then he went on to say:
If Mr. Diefenbaker, in the fullness of his wisdom, decided tomorrow that a state of apprehended insurrection existed, and proclaimed the War Measures Act, he could call parliament and the immense liberty-loving Conservative majority behind him, shocked at his conduct, might then proceed by open vote in the commons, to require him to withdraw his proclamation. This provision (section 6, etc.) is fantastic in its futility. I cannot understand how serious-minded public men can have the effrontery to put such words on paper. And yet there they are. If Mr. Diefenbaker has any regard to his future reputation-
I suspect that the Prime Minister has, and that would be understandable:
- (especially among those who make or mar the reputations of public men, that is, the historians and the constitutionalists), he will withdraw this section of his bill.
So the Prime Minister is right-


John George Diefenbaker: One year later he supports it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. So the Prime Minister is right in saying that Professor Lower had strong views about the War Measures Act, particularly in relation to the bill of rights. It is a fact that in the committee on the bill of rights I asked Professor Lower whether in view of his strongly expressed views regarding the War Measures Act he did not think appropriate amendments should be made to that act in the bill of rights. He answered in the affirmative. I think I should point out, in fairness, that after I left the room the Minister of Justice -and this is a matter of record in Hansard; the minister was not taking advantage of my absence and it was a mere coincidence; I mean that sincerely-put questions to Professor Lower and as a result got from him replies in direct contradiction to the position he had taken earlier in the committee.
This does not in any way affect the merits of the proposal now before the house, but since Professor Lower's name was mentioned I thought I should let the Prime Minister know that I was not unaware that this great admirer of his had strong views on this matter, views which in principle if not in every detail coincide with those expressed by the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke in this house on the occasion of the second reading of the bill of rights. On that occasion the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that the only change made in the bill of rights regarding the War Measures Act was to make possible parliamentary debate on the proclamation of the War Measures Act, which of course brings that act into force, and on its revocation. The bill of 90205-6-395J
13. 1961
Committee on War Measures Act rights provides that after such debate parliament may take a particular course of action as to whether or not it wishes to withdraw the proclamation. The point is that there was reference in the bill of rights to the War Measures Act, but only within the limited terms I have just mentioned.
The Leader of the Opposition urged that there should be amendments to the War Measures Act, and that these amendments should be incorporated in the bill of rights. While he recognized that the mere reference to the War Measures Act in section 5 of the bill of rights represented an improvement, he argued that it did not go far enough. The Leader of the Opposition said that because of the way the bill of rights dealt with the War Measures Act we were giving to the latter a greater sanctity and a greater prestige than was necessary or desirable, and that we were giving it as well a pre-eminence by that kind of amendment, rather than dealing with it in its form.
The Leader of the Opposition also pointed out that notwithstanding this provision in the bill of rights the law would remain in such a position that whatever had been done before would continue to be possible, notwithstanding the passage of the bill of rights. But he did point out-I think this is important for us to note, and it is something that Professor Lower has not taken into consideration-that we have to take into account war emergencies and, while that is the case, he would be a bold man who would argue that war emergencies may not make it necessary in the future for persons to be detained in a manner that apart from the exigencies of war would seem undesirable, not because of any act they had done but because of the danger of what they might do with regard to certain acts which obviously would involve the security of the state.
The War Measures Act, as the Prime Minister said, was placed on the statute books in 1914. As the Prime Minister said, it gives to the governor in council, in time of war, virtually unlimited powers to restrain the freedom of the person of the Canadian citizen. The Prime Minister did not note, however, that since the passage of the act we have adopted in our own Canadian Citizenship Act legislation that now makes it impossible for the government in peacetime to deprive any Canadian citizen, resident in Canada, of his citizenship.
Notwithstanding that, the Leader of the Opposition urged that we should now go a step forward. He said that any bill of rights should contain a provision limiting the powers given to the governor in council under the War Measures Act by expressly excluding from those powers the power by order in

Committee on War Measures Act council to deprive any Canadian citizen of his citizenship. The Leader of the Opposition argued, and I believe we would all agree with this, that the governor in council should be expressly forbidden to act under the War Measures Act to banish or exile any citizen from our country. I think we would wish it were possible to agree that the governor in council should be expressly forbidden, even in wartime, to detain any citizen or resident of our country without providing for an early trial on charges specifically laid in accordance with the law of Canada.
However, I am sure careful reflection will suggest that this would not be a responsible thing for parliament to do, and we are not prepared to go that far. Certainly in the bill I have before this house we do not take that extreme position. Nevertheless we in this party do feel that there should be, in the light of all that has transpired, a limitation by law on the absolute and arbitrary power of the governor in council to detain persons, even in wartime. We believe that a provision should have been written into the bill of rights which would limit the power of the governor in council to detain any person for more than let us say three months, or the period might be less, without a hearing before a supreme court judge and satisfying that judge that there were serious grounds for believing that the detention of such person was essential to the security of the state.
This measure, in so far as the Prime Minister is concerned, admittedly has a long association. I remind the Prime Minister that it was on May 16, 1947, when he as a private member of this house recommended not only that there should be amendments to the War Measures Act but as well that the Official Secrets Act should be repealed. The latter act was objectionable, I suppose, on the ground that it presumed guilt on the part of an accused contrary to the common law tradition which has existed for a long time and contrary to section 3(f) of the bill of rights, which now guarantees by law that an accused person is presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise.
The Prime Minister said in 1960 when this matter was discussed, as may be found on page 5948 of Hansard for July 7 of that year:
I think the whole act-
He was referring, of course, to the War Measures Act.
-deserves to be considered... I think if we could get together the membership in the house and deal with the War Measures Act and ascertain the degree to which the rights of the individual may be maintained to the highest extent without detriment to the security of the nation as a whole, changes and amendments might be made to that act. If hon. members of the house so desire, I would be willing that at the next session a committee

be set up to consider this whole field, for the War Measures Act, like all measures passed for the purpose of ensuring the salvation and survival of the state, has been found in the light of experience not only here but in other countries to contain provisions that ought to be ameliorated or subdued in the interests of the individual while at the same time maintaining the security of the state.
The Prime Minister referred to some parts of this discussion, but I did not note that he read all that was relevant. I may be wrong in that particular. I formed the impression, listening to the recital of what he did say in 1960, that he did not give the full text as I find it before me now in volume 6 of Hansard for last session. I had been urging, as indeed, had the Leader of the Opposition, that we should incorporate into the bill of rights certain amendments which we proposed. By such incorporation, we would bring the War Measures Act, without depriving it of its desired strength, into a form consistent with the bill of rights.
To return to the Prime Minister's statement which I have just quoted, I took that as an undertaking by the government that at this session such a course would be followed. I agree, the Prime Minister could say consistently that he is taking that course and fulfilling his promise in so far as this present procedure represents a compliance with the letter of the assurance given. But, I repeat, the course taken by the Prime Minister at this late date in the session is not consistent with the spirit of that assurance. That course could have been taken early in the session, particularly when it was prompted by the two interrogations of the Leader of the Opposition and referred to by the Prime Minister a few moments ago. Not only did the Leader of the Opposition press this matter, but I myself asked a number of questions in connection with it. I cannot put my hands on the precise quotations at this moment, but I asked the Prime Minister two questions-


John George Diefenbaker: I think I have them here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, if I had all
the research facilities of the Prime Minister I can assure him I should not be wanting at this moment.


John George Diefenbaker: I did the research on this myself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime
Minister says he did the research on this himself, but the Prime Minister has more time than other people-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Peter Francis Martin: -because he has so many people to help him. Again, it must not be forgotten that on the estimates of the Minister of Justice I asked the minister only ten days ago, or thereabouts, when we were going to have the opportunity of considering amendments to the War Measures Act pursuant to the assurance given by the Prime Minister in 1960. I do not have the minister's reply here but he can look it up, because, he too has more time and more help than I. He will remember that his answer was very equivocal. He did not possess the same positive assurance that the Prime Minister displayed today. The Minister of Justice did not seem to know what would be done.
I can understand that, because after all this is a matter which primarily concerns the Prime Minister and perhaps there has not been time for the usual conversations to take place. However, the fact that the minister was not conversant with the thinking of the Prime Minister in this connection merely indicates how dilatory this government has been in putting the matter before the house.
Be this as it may, I asked the minister ten days ago whether the government would support Bill No. 62 introduced by a private member, the hon. member for Essex East. Again I got an equivocal reply. If the government had given careful consideration to this matter, it could easily have indicated what it thought of these amendments, and what it thought of the amendments introduced last year by the Leader of the Opposition; what it thought of incorporating these amendments in the bill of rights. These questions could easily have been answered by the Minister of Justice, who is an intelligent man, if there had been the same preoccupation with this matter then that seems to exist now, but which certainly did not exist during the early period of this session. So I hope the Prime Minister will not misunderstand me, if I suggest that it is this Bill No. C-62, to amend the War Measures Act, introduced by a private member, which has forced the government at long last into doing something which the Prime Minister spoke about doing in 1957.


An hon. Member:: Would you like to
think so?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I would like to think so. I would like to think that some of the things I do have some constructive influence as far as the government is concerned.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would the hon. member permit another question? Does the humble member for Essex East take the stand that the bill he
Committee on War Measures Act has introduced, Bill No. C-62, contains all the necessary amendments to the War Measures Act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not intend to assert the doctrine of infallibility as far as I am concerned. It may be that many of the things I propose are inadequate or wrong. I do not assert that I am infallible, but if this bill is inadequate the government has had all this session in which to indicate that it is inadequate. It could have set up a committee to consider it, and it could have appointed the brilliant member for Parry Sound-Muskoka to that committee to assist us to determine whether this bill is adequate or not. I am simply saying that in the absence of evidence to the contrary-and no one has contradicted the substance of this bill-it does seem to put forward substantial and desirable amendments, particularly in relation to the bill of rights.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I suppose there is time.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would he indicate to the house whether when he sat on the treasury benches he also exercised the same persuasive powers that he is personally applying to the government while he is in opposition?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should think that the record of legislative achievement by the former minister of national health and welfare is sufficient answer to the enlightened question put by the hon. member.
But the record must be clearly observed. The Leader of the Opposition argued, as I said, that there should be further amendments to the bill of rights, and that the one amendment of the bill of rights dealing with the War Measures Act was insufficient because the character of that amendment gave to the War Measures Act a position in relation to the bill of rights that was undesirable. He further urged that there should be amendments to the War Measures Act, and that those amendments should be incorporated into the bill of rights so that we should have had in one legislative document something that would have been more compact to clearly indicate the full character of our desire to preserve fundamental freedoms and human liberties. Those amendments were not accepted in the house, but they were put forward by the Leader of the Opposition on August 1, 1960, and in the committee in respect of the bill of rights prior to that, on July 29, 1960.
As will be found in the reports of the committee, I moved, seconded by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Committee on War Measures Act Deschatelets), certain amendments to the War Measures Act which, in principle, are incorporated in Bill No. C-62. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), whose observations will be found at page 712 of that committee's report, without in any way deprecating the character or the form of the proposed amendments, replied that the government took the position that it would not want to deal with the War Measures Act in bits, piece by piece, without studying the whole problem of emergency powers in wartime. That was the position he took in a forthright manner. We pointed out to him that, as the War Measures Act did abridge human freedoms and fundamental rights, the government should have given consideration to that particular aspect of the problem, and incorporated the amendments in the bill of rights.
Following that we came back to this house where the amendments were put forward again-two of them moved by the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, and two of them by me-they were overwhelmingly defeated by hon. gentlemen opposite. The Minister of Justice, who piloted the measure at that time, gave as the reason for the government's position, substantially the answer he had given in committee.
I feel it is important that the provisions of Bill No. C-62 should be noted, because there has been no suggestion by the government, with regard to the substance of the amendments proposed in the house or in the committee last session, that these amendments were not satisfactory nor, as I recall, that they were alleged to be incorrect, inapplicable, or that they had gone too far, or not far enough.
The bill which I introduced in this house received first reading on January 31, 1961, so this is not a bill that was brought in during the dying days of the session. This was a bill brought in by the hon. member for Essex East on January 31.


John George Diefenbaker: Was it not January 27?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, the date of first reading was January 31.
That should have been ample warning to the government of its own assurance to set up a committee to deal with this matter early in the session. All this time has gone by, yet all we have received from the administration are vague replies which indicated no positive intention to proceed with the matter this session.


John George Diefenbaker: Are you disappointed now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister asks if I am disappointed now. Of course I am not disappointed, but we should have preferred that the government would

have dealt with this matter early in the session, and should have preferred it had the government to have accepted at once our amendments which were carefully considered, and which apparently the government considered satisfactory because there was no suggestion to the contrary.
Bill No. C-62 is not without its significance. It provides that subsection 5 of section 6 of the War Measures Act be repealed and-


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is now proceeding to discuss Bill No. C-62 which is not a matter before this house at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, surely I am entitled to point out the kind of amendments which we believe should be provided for in the War Measures Act. These amendments are now contained in a bill which is now before this house, and I know of no violation of our rule that precludes me from doing so. If I cannot refer to the act at all I shall simply give the substance of it and thereby satisfy my hon. friend, if there does seem to be a violation of the rule. However, I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and should like a ruling before I proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: It would not be in order to carry on now a debate on the principles of the hon. member's Bill, C-62, such as would be relevant when it comes up for second reading, but I see no objection to a reference to the fact that this committee would be able to deal with a matter which has already been raised before this house in another way. It is largely a question of extent, I should think.
For the guidance of this house I refer to May's comment about debate on a motion of this kind. In May's sixteenth edition at page 452 it is stated:
On a motion for the appointment of a select committee, or for determining the number of its members, the merits of the matters referred to the committee have not been allowed to be debated. Our practice in this house has varied from motion to motion, but in general terms the desirability of establishing a committee is the subject of debate, which necessarily involves a discussion in general terms of the matters which will come before it. I should think that if the hon. member wishes to refer to his bill in general terms as an argument in favour of establishing the committee, he can do so, but he should not debate the principles of his bill, which would be anticipating another matter on the order paper.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I should like to state that the reason I raised it is that, when I attempted to discuss a resolution which I had put on the order paper under similar circumstances, the hon. member for Essex East was very quick to rise on a point

of order and to suggest that I was discussing it at that time, following which I was ruled out of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the old principle of the rules applying equally to both sides.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I recall the incident, the hon. member did have a great deal to say about his resolution on the order paper. I do not intend to be too severe, but I do caution the hon. member that this is not a debate on his bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, and suggest that I was not debating the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I assure the hon. members, and particularly my young friend from Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), who seems to laugh louder than the others, that if the house decides that my bill does not have precedence, that is the end of it. All I am seeking to do now is to indicate the character of the amendments which I believe should be incorporated in the War Measures Act. I fully agree with the position taken by Your Honour.
We proposed that, subject to certain sections of the War Measures Act, any act or thing done or authorized or any order or regulation made under the authority of these amendments, should be deemed not to be an abrogation, abridgment, or infringement of any right or freedom recognized by the Canadian bill of rights.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the hon. member indicate what he is presently reading from?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am referring to the bill.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Which bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am referring to Bill No. C-62. I am not arguing the merits of the bill but simply pointing out the amendments which are proposed.
We also urged that a naturalized Canadian citizen should not be deprived of his citizenship and a naturalized British subject should not be deprived of his status as a British subject.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the point of order, I suggest the hon. member is even going further than the course he took which you just ruled to be out of order. Not only is he discussing the principles of Bill No. C-62, he is also discussing it clause by clause.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite wrong in that.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I suppose you are quite right?
13,	1961
Committee on War Measures Act


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course, I am quite right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I ruled that if the argument the hon. member is advancing is the subject matter of his bill it would be a proper subject matter for this committee to consider. However, I do think it is a simple matter to indicate that, without an extensive review of the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The bill is very short. We took the position that a Canadian citizen should not be deported from Canada under this act.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: He is also reading from the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We also took the position-well if hon. gentlemen are so vitally interested in human liberties as by their interruptions they indicate I shall let their interventions stand on the record and the public who read Hansard will judge their interest. We also propose, as the Leader of the Opposition proposed last year, that a Canadian citizen or a British subject-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Subclause 4.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -should not be detained under the act beyond a limited period unless the cause for the detention had been reviewed by an appropriate impartial tribunal, which would thereafter report to the minister who would have the sole authorization for detention.
Then it was finally proposed-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Subclause 5.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -in this bill that there should be an opportunity in this house to debate the provisions of the act and, finally, that there should be revocation of an order by resolution in this house. These are the amendments which are incorporated in the bill to which hon. gentlemen expressed such objection to having recited, although the Prime Minister has acknowledged that these were the liberties, and properly so, that should be carefully examined in order to bring the War Measures Act into conformity with the bill of rights. And yet hon. gentlemen in this non-controversial debate have sought to display that characteristic opposition to anything that comes from we who are vitally concerned, about the preservation of human liberties in this country.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The matter is not completed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Committee on War Measures Act Mr. Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I do not object Mr. Speaker: Order. If I understand the to references in general terms by the hon. hon. member correctly he is now raising a member for Essex East. I was one of those point of order which, it seems to me, should who interrupted him because in spite of your have been raised when the motion was made, ruling he read subclauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 of his The debate has continued on the motion to bill, Bill No. C-62, verbatim, as he went set up the committee and without protest through them. The only comment I made that it in any way interfered with other mat-was that he missed out subclause 5.	ters on the order paper.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, I had not intended to include the hon. gentleman in my indictment but since he has discredited his own witness himself I have to let that act stand by itself.
I am not aware that the mere recital of a bill is a contravention of the rules. However, I am so used to those interruptions from hon. gentlemen that I can only say it gives me a certain amount of exhilaration when they are present and are so persistent.
We have discussed the War Measures Act but at the same time we ought to consider all of the legislation which exists on our statute books which is inconsistent with the bill of rights. While the Minister of Justice did not give assurance that that would be done, he did indicate at the last session that it would be considered although on his estimates this year he modified his position. There are many acts of parliament in addition to the War Measures Act-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is going beyond the scope of the debate in referring to other matters. The motion is a specific one for the establishment of a committee to consider amendments to the War Measures Act and does not refer to other matters which might contravene the bill of rights.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, but I do not know of any rule that prevents one from making reference in passing to the inadequacy of the motion-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There again we have hon. gentlemen who respect the Chair so much as to not allow an hon. gentleman to make his speech without any difficulty. I say I do not know of any rule that precludes an hon. gentleman from saying that a particular proposal is inadequate in that it ought to include within the compass of its reaches certain other things. That is all I was seeking to do.
This is the position. We have on the order paper Bill No. C-62 which provides for amendments to the War Measures Act. The Speaker will have to rule which of these measures takes precedence. This bill has been on the order paper since January 31.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I thought one could always raise a point of order. Do I understand that Your Honour just now ruled that Bill No. C-62 must be superseded by the bill proposed by the Prime Minister?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: No. I just suggested that if the matter were to be raised it should have been raised when the motion was introduced. A point of order might have been taken then that something on the order paper impeded the progress of this particular bill but it has now been proceeded with and debated. The hon. member himself has debated it. I would think it is not in order now to raise the point.


John Ferguson Browne: On the
point of order raised, I believe it should be brought to the attention of the house that according to the rules Bill No. C-62 could not possibly come before the house for debate this session and the hon. member must have known it when he put it on the order paper. Parliament would have to sit for seven months for the hon. member's bill to be discussed, because of its position on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not hearing the point of order of the hon. gentleman. I trust the hon. member will proceed with the debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to argue the point because I do not believe it is necessary to argue it at this stage. The bill will take its position and if it is reached, then the point will have to be determined.
I did clearly indicate at the outset that if the position was that Bill No. C-62 would be superseded by the proposal of the Prime Minister, I would naturally welcome it under those conditions. That is what I said. I never took any other position. I think all that I shall do is to leave the situation as it is. It may be that in the course of the session an opportunity will be presented to consider whether or not Bill No. C-62 should be discussed. That being the case, I simply point out that this bill providing for amendments to the War Measures Act was given first reading on January 31, 1961. On June 13 the Prime Minister put forward the proposal that we should consider amendments to the

War Measures Act, with no indication given by the government, as I said before, whether or not the amendments incorporated in Bill No. C-62 were acceptable or undesirable. In the absence of a declaration by the government the presumption was that the bill was not unacceptable to them in principle. In any event, in the dying days of the session we are now faced with a proposal that might well have been brought forward by the government at the beginning of the session, particularly in the face of the assurance given by the Prime Minister last session. In my judgment, to have waited all this time demonstrates that the government was not as concerned about those amendments as it professes to be. It would not have been difficult for the government to come forward with this proposal early in the session when we could have given the matter the fullest consideration. However, it has chosen another course. It has chosen to increase our work in the dying days of the session in such a manner as to make it impossible for every member to give full consideration to the work of the house. There is not a member within sound of my voice who does not know that what I am saying is true. That is the situation. The country knows it. The country must know the kind of pressure that has been put upon us in the dying days of the session in the effort to discharge our duties.
However, the government has finally brought forward this measure. I hope the committee will be set up forthwith. I hope an opportunity will be given us to call the necessary persons to consider whether amendments should be made to the War Measures Act consistent with the security which I agree with the Prime Minister must ever be foremost in our minds in time of war which we all sincerely hope will never again eventuate. But I feel that the record deserves to have this statement of the events that have transpired since the introduction of the bill of rights, since the introduction of amendments to the War Measures Act similar to those in Bill C-62 introduced last session, similar to the amendments put forward in the bill of rights committee by Liberal members of the house to determine whether or not we can reconcile further with the bill of rights any act that is inconsistent or is a violation of our liberties and rights. These, it seems to me, are reasons that the government might well have expected us to express at this time.
I cannot explain why the government did not bring forward this measure earlier in the session other than the reasons I have given. They seem to be the only reasons in the light of all the facts that are apparent. 1 am sure that some hon. members, like the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and the 90205-6-396
13, 1961
Committee on War Measures Act hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), young members who seemingly have recognized in the Conservative party, although I am sure by now they realize their mistake, a hope for the preservation of liberty, must be wondering why after all these assurances, why after all this time the Prime Minister should only now come forward on the 13th day of June with amendments which were discussed in this house last session and with respect to which we were assured there would be a committee.
I can only conclude that the government is so overwhelmed by the many problems confronting it and finds itself in such a difficult situation with regard to the making of decisions that it has had to place certain problems in one basket and certain other problems in another basket. It thus happens that because they were slow in dealing with the problems in the basket on the right they have been so slow and so tardy in dealing with problems which they recognized as urgent a year ago but which have remained in the basket on the left. At long last the government has acted, but it must be clear to everyone, it must be clear even to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi that it was the Liberal party, that it was Bill C-62 that finally brought the government to the point of taking action and caused it to make a decision which it should have made over 14 months ago.


Louis Fortin: Will the hon. member permit a question?
(Translation):
The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) made quite a fuss over a suggestion he put forward on clause 4 of Bill No. C-62, to the effect that a citizen should not be held more than 60 days without a trial. Could he have been prompted by feelings of remorse he may have felt at the thought that a few years ago, the Liberal government of which he was a member held the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Camilien Houde, for several years without trial and without giving him a chance to defend himself?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious, in view of your decision, that I cannot reply to the hon. member, because I would be out of order in discussing this plan of which I spoke at such great length in my speech.


Louis Fortin: You are taking an easy way out. (Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak for this group I must first of all say that I regret that I was detained for 15 minutes by a delegation dealing with the principle of this particular measure or some personal aspects of it and

Committee on War Measures Act because of being detained I missed the usual demonstration of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Diefenbaker) laconism in introducing questions of this kind, his usual gems of language and his explanation of the legalities surrounding a problem of this nature. However, shortly after my arrival I was briefed by a fellow member as to what the Prime Minister had said so I think I have a very good idea of his remarks in introducing this motion.
I think everyone will realize that as a layman I suffer some disadvantage in following such legal luminaries as the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) who are well versed in legal problems and constitutional matters. However, regardless of that I wish to assure the house that although I am a sort of simple, naive layman I have always had a great interest in this question and I fully realize and appreciate the purpose and the importance of this motion. While I am not able to discourse on the legal aspects of the question with any degree of knowledge compared with the previous speakers, I can say that I am one who always has been easily aroused by injustices and any transgression of human rights and human dignity has always concerned me.
In fact, over the years and until recent years I felt almost frustrated and exasperated on occasions at the lack of understanding of other persons' rights and I felt at times that I was tilting against windmills. I will say that I feel the situation in Canada has changed quite rapidly in recent years. More and more people are realizing what the citizen's rights are in a democratic state.
Like the previous speaker, I regret that this very important motion has been introduced at this late date in the session. The question is an important and serious one that requires time for almost leisurely study, shall I say. It is not one of those technical questions where you can deal with the matter with exactitude after certain facts have been produced. There is an infinite variety of aspects to a problem of this nature. Plenty of time must be taken for the hearing of views of legal authorities by the committee, for hearing the views of representatives of various sections of the community throughout the land and even the views of individuals who have paid a great deal of attention to this subject and have studied it for many years. Following the hearing of these views, I am sure the committee will require some time before it arrives at its conclusion.
This is a subject that will arouse a great deal of interest. As I said before, even in the smaller places I find that in recent years there is more interest in this topic than there was years ago. Years ago it was considered too

abstract, not in the ordinary day's activities, shall I say, but there is greater concern and interest now and the committee will need plenty of time to give consideration to the evidence, facts, views, suggestions and recommendations presented to it. Members of the house as individuals will want time to read the evidence and proceedings of the committee and I believe plenty of time should be provided. Later when legislation is introduced the house will want ample time to discuss this very important question properly and at suitable length. On that account I say again that we in this group regret that this motion was not introduced earlier in the session.
I am not going into the legal aspects of the matter. I am only going to deal with it from a broad point of view. As I said before, I am not competent to deal with the niceties of such a problem but I can deal with its impact on the citizen and speak of it in general terms. I believe that several advantages can flow from the passage of this motion, the study of the problem by the committee, by members of the house generally and the consequent proposed amendments to the War Measures Act. First of all, I think that the primary advantage is that the legislation will make certain, as far as it is humanly possible to do so under the circumstances, that the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens are protected in periods of emergency. I think that is the primary advantage.
Then I think there are two or three others. I believe that the gathering of evidence, facts, opinions, suggestions and recommendations from all those sectors of the Canadian community should prove of value to the present generation and to future generations. The record itself should prove of great value. Then I believe that the hearings of the committee and the discussion of the problem generally in the house and in the country will provide general interest in the subject and I am sure, as the result of happenings in recent years-[DOT] I am talking of happenings within the last ten or fifteen years, particularly since the second world war-greater understanding will be brought about. If the committee fulfils its responsibility and if the government accepts those recommendations which will come from people in all groups of society with various political opinions, including persons who support the group for which I have the honour to speak at the present time. I believe this whole study and consequent legislation will do something more to strengthen the sinews of democracy.
The average citizen is not learned in the law and is not learned in parliamentary procedure but he is interested in the basic rights of the citizen in a democracy. When you find

that this average citizen has a greater understanding, democracy is strengthened to that extent. We must realize that. While we are complacent and while we have accepted without question our freedom and our rights throughout the years, when we view the world around us it is marvellous to note how, under certain circumstances and certain emergency conditions, those rights can crumble if they are not supported by an informed citizenry.
In conclusion I wish to say that this group will co-operate in the work of the committee and in making suggestions as to amendments to the War Measures Act and will do all it can to the end that the demands of freedom and the rights of Canadian citizens are better served by this resolution, the consequent legislation and the action of this parliament. (Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I believe that all members agree that the establishment of this committee to examine the War Measures Act is in order, and we take no exception to the passage of this motion.
However, two things strike me for which the Prime Minister is responsible. First-and I come back to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin)-why wait until the end of the session to examine this measure, when a number of bills mentioned by the government in the speech from the throne have yet to appear on the order paper, many of which are contentious and will give rise to discussion?
In addition, we are being asked to serve on committees while the house is sitting. From the start, we have objected to any committee sitting at the same time as the house.
If we were to accept such an arrangement, I wonder how the Prime Minister could find time to operate such a committee.
I have here a list of the days on which committees sit at the same time as the house.
On May 1, the committee on agriculture sat at 3.30 p.m. and 8.00 p.m.
On May 3, the committee on external affairs met at 2.00 p.m. and the committee on Indian affairs, at 2.30 p.m.
On May 4, the committee on Indian affairs sat at 2.30 p.m.
On May 8, the committee on agriculture met at 2.30 p.m. and again at 7.30 that evening.
On May 9, the committee on Indian affairs sat at 3.30 and the committee on external affairs at 1.00 p.m. In this case, the members did not even have a chance to take a decent meal.
The committee on research met at 2 o'clock that same afternoon.
90205-6-396J
Committee on War Measures Act
On May 10, the committee on Indian affairs held a meeting at 2.30 p.m.
On May 11, the committee on Indian affairs and the one on research met at 2.30 p.m.
On May 12, the committee on agriculture met at 2.30 p.m.
On May 16, the committee on research sat at 2.30 p.m. and 8 p.m.
On May 18, you had Indian affairs at
2.30	p.m., research at 2.30 p.m. and at 8 p.m. and procedure at 3 p.m.
On May 19, the committee on agriculture met at 2.30 p.m.
On May 22, again agriculture at 2.30 p.m. and at 7.30 p.m.
On May 23, Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m., research at 2.30 p.m. and 8 p.m. and the committee on external affairs at 1 p.m.
That was another lunch cut short for the members.
On May 24, research sat at 2.30 p.m. and Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m. also.
On May 25, the committee on broadcasting sat at 3 p.m.; Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m., and research at 2.30 p.m. and 8 p.m.
On May 26, the committee on agriculture met at 2.30 p.m. and external affairs at
2.30	p.m.
On May 29, the committee on agriculture at 2.30 p.m. and 7.30 p.m., then the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee at 3 p.m.
On May 30, the committee on Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m. and that on procedure at 3 p.m.
On May 31, the committee on external affairs at 2.30 p.m., Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m. and research at 2.30 pm.
On June 1, the committee on broadcasting met at 3.00 p.m., Indian affairs at 2.30 pm. and research at 2.30 pm. and the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee at 3 p.m.
On June 2, the committee on agriculture at
2.30	p.m. and external affairs at 2.30 pm.
On June 5, the committee on agriculture at
2.30	p.m. and 7.30 p.m.
On June 6, the committee on Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m., research at 2.30 p.m. and 8.00 p.m.
On June 7, the committee on external affairs at 2.30 pm. and Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m.
On June 8, the committee on broadcasting at 3 p.m. and the committee on veterans affairs at 2.30 pm.

Committee on War Measures Act
On June 13, the committee on Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m. and the committee on research at 2.30 p.m. and again at 8 p.m.
On June 14, the committee on Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m. and the committee on external affairs at 2.30 p.m.
On June 15, the committee on broadcasting at 3 p.m. and the committee on Indian affairs at 2.30 p.m.
On June 16, the committee on agriculture at 2.30 p.m.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Certainly.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Did the hon. member make a survey on the attendance at those committees?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I noted that we did not always have a quorum and in view of the great number of Conservative appointments, I was quite amazed at that.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Can the hon. member say that he was never absent?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I may happen to miss a meeting of a committee, because I am attending another committee meeting. At any rate, I will continue to attend the committee meetings as I see fit.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Then if it is all right for you to take such a stand, it is undoubtedly right for others.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, those are facts that nobody can deny.
Members are overworked. They move from one committee to another or they attend the sittings of the house.
We are now trying to close this session as soon as possible and we are asked to hasten the business of committees.
The list of committee meetings I just read, Mr. Chairman, is merely an addition to a longer list relating to the business of the house.
Considering all those facts, I think the Prime Minister is showing evidence of gross inconsistency.
He wants an improvement of the War Measures Act. Yet, he knew right from the beginning of the session that this act had to be amended, as a result of the adoption of his bill of rights.
Why, then, did he not act with consistency?
We have thus been taking up the business on the order paper since the beginning of the session, so much so that yesterday at 10.15, the government had nothing left on

the order paper and we had to adjourn for lack of business.
Well, I submit that if the government had better planned its session, if it had placed its bills on the order paper in due time, we would have had time to do the work properly, instead of being pressed at this late date to rush through such important legislation. I think it ill becomes the Prime Minister to act in this way, particularly in view of all the time he has had at his disposal since the beginning of the session.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I ask a question to the hon. member?


Alexis Pierre Caron: As you wish.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Does the hon. member not feel it is never too late to introduce legislation to avoid such glaring injustices as in the case of Mr. Houde who was imprisoned without trial?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I agree that it is never too late to do good. I recognize that in the case of Mr. Houde, action was taken on the basis of the legislation then in force, but we must now look to the present. When it comes to such important legislation as this, the proposer should place it before the house earlier. In fact he has known since last year that this bill would be introduced, because he is the one who introduced the bill of rights.
(Text):


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take only a few minutes of the time of the house in speaking on this resolution. It is certainly the right of a free people to voluntarily surrender their rights in times of national emergency. It is certainly also the right of a free people to have this voluntary surrender supervised by their elected representatives to the end that these rights will be given up only when this is really required.
The bill of rights, in part II, section 6, sets out that the operative sections of the War Measures Act, when brought into effect by the governor in council, shall be laid before parliament and parliament itself shall agree that the government shall have these all-inclusive and overriding powers in connection with the lives, property and movements of citizens of the country.
When one reads the War Measures Act one discovers it is rather a frightening act in the degree to which free people voluntarily give into the hands of the government the right

to do whatever that government may wish to do. Section 3 (1) of the War Measures Act provides:
-it is hereby declared that the powers of the governor in council shall extend to all matters coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter enumerated, that is to say:
(a)	censorship and the control and suppression of publications, writings, maps, plans, photographs, communications and means of communication;
(b)	arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation;
(c)	control of the harbours, ports and territorial waters of Canada and the movements of vessels;
(d)	transportation by land, air, or water and the control of the transport of persons and things;
(e)	trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture;
(f)	appropriation, control, forfeiture and disposition of property and of the use thereof;
Then it says:
All orders and regulations made under this section shall have the force of law,-
This means that the government, by executive decree, can imprison or report people and seize property. In short, the government has all the powers of a dictator state. These powers are given by a free people; they are given voluntarily; they are surrendered in the national interest during a time of emergency.
Hon. members will notice that the wording of this act contains the phrase "real or apprehended". The bill of rights puts a limitation on this. The limitation is that these powers shall be confirmed by parliament and that parliament shall say whether it is a real emergency such as requires that these overriding powers be given to the executive whereby this free nation voluntarily surrenders to the government, of its own free will, all of the rights which have been won over hundreds of years in seeking a truly democratic status.
It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that the work of this committee will be most important in trying to marry two concepts and in trying to reconcile two points of view; one as expressed in the War Measures Act, that in times of emergency the state must come first; and the other as expressed in the bill of rights, that the rights of an individual must be protected against the state. These two viewpoints are not incompatible, but it does mean that perhaps the committee will have to spell out in more detail how they shall be reconciled.
I believe that in bringing forward this resolution the Prime Minister has married together the magnificent concept of the bill of rights and the very practical and utilitarian measures carried in our statutes by the War Measures Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss this motion of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister
13, 1361
Committee on War Measures Act (Mr. Diefenbaker), which is one more evidence of the right hon. gentleman's real interest and determination to protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens of this country. It is one more step in the steady progress which has been made since the right hon. gentleman assumed the office of Prime Minister to undo the steady erosion of our rights and liberties which had taken place over the previous 22 years.
In discussing matters of this sort it is generally desirable to be calm and not to introduce notes of criticism. Of course, when dealing with intemperate speeches such as that of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) one recognizes that the hon. member gets carried away with a sense of his oratory, if not importance, and makes allowance for this kind of speech on that account. However, the hon. member did say something which I think calls for comment, because if there were no comment it would stand unanswered on the record of Hansard.
The first thing I wish to say simply by way of reply to my hon. friend is that he shows now a refreshing change of attitude from that which he showed during the many years he was a member of the treasury benches. Indeed, the government of which he was a part had 22 years in office during which time they had ample opportunity to deal with the War Measures Act and to remove from it those features which constitute the possibility, if not the fact, of an undue interference with human rights and fundamental freedoms. It was conspicuous then, and it is more conspicuous now in view of the hon. member's present attitude, that the previous administration did nothing during that time to bring about the results which the hon. member now professes himself so anxious to achieve.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when we listened this afternoon to the strictures heaped upon the government for not getting on with this proposal sooner, I think we are able to put the hon. gentleman's strictures in their proper perspective by recalling that his conversion, although we may welcome it, is very late.
The hon. member cannot take refuge in the answer that this measure is only necessary now because we did not have a bill of rights before; therefore his party and his government were blameless, because they did not have a bill of rights and it is the bill of rights that makes this necessary. It will be recalled that in the discussion of the bill of rights itself last year during all that lengthy period when we had to listen to the strictures he heaped upon that measure, he persisted in saying it added nothing by way of rights but was a mere codification of existing rights. If that is the hon. member's view, then the

Committee on War Measures Act rights which are in the bill of rights now existed at the time the hon. gentleman held office and the War Measures Act was as much in conflict with those rights then as it is now.
The hon. gentleman is now so anxious to see something done that he professes to claim exclusive credit for everything that is being done, yet, as I say, in all those years he was unable to see the importance of the measure which the Prime Minister has now brought forward. It is well understood, of course, that there is no one so keen as a recent convert and we welcome the hon. member to the ranks of the converted, the ranks of those who are now prepared to align themselves in support of the liberty of the individual. In contrast to the sudden conversion and the over eagerness now displayed by the hon. gentleman, may I emphasize that this government has been proceeding steadily and surely to the restoration and protection of those rights which were so eroded in earlier years. A major step was the enactment of the biU of rights itself. At that time the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that he would look at the War Measures Act and invite parliament to consider in what ways it might be amended so as to bring it into harmony with the bill of rights, and do what could be done to protect the rights of citizens even in times of emergency without unduly prejudicing the interests of the state as a whole.
Pursuant to the bill of rights we have brought in two important amendments to statutes this year to bring them into line with the bill of rights, and now comes this further measure initiated by the Prime Minister in order to make amends for the 22 years of erosion of rights-the motion we are now debating to set up a committee to examine the War Measures Act. Indeed, when one considers the change of attitude of the hon. member for Essex East I cannot help, while listening to him, thinking that he displays all the frustrated inconsistency which would be displayed by the outcome of a cross between a leopard and a chameleon, because you know, Mr. Speaker, the leopard's trouble is that he cannot change his spots while the chameleon changes colour with every perch upon which he alights. We come now to consider this motion which the hon. member professed a desire to see carried because that would have the result of amendments being made to the War Measures Act, and yet the hon. member has invited you, Mr. Speaker, to rule this motion out of order. Of course, with your usual wisdom and perspicacity you refused to entertain the point of order which the hon. member sought to raise, but the extraordinary thing to contemplate is this measure of frustration felt


by the hon. member for Essex East. He is so frustrated because he cannot himself claim the exclusive credit for what is being done that he forgets he has told us he intends to support the measure and solemnly invites Your Honour to rule it out of order. I think all members will understand the situation and accept the speech made by the hon. gentleman with the caution and reserve which it deserves.
What, then, of the proposal of the Prime Minister which is now before us, a proposal consistent with the undertaking which he gave last year when we were considering the bill of rights? This proposal, I suggest, sets out the proper way of dealing with this problem. The opposition has consistently suggested that we should get the bill of rights and the War Measures Act all mixed up and confused. Indeed, this desire on their part to confuse things was brought to my mind by one of the comments made by the hon. member for Essex East when he said the government had the habit of putting certain problems into one basket and certain other problems in another basket. He seemed to think this was a matter for criticism. It seems to me that this orderly method of dealing with things is the proper method instead of getting them all mixed up until, like the hon. member for Essex East, they are hopelessly confused. We have persistently and consistently taken the position that these matters should be dealt with separately because that is the most effective method of dealing with them.
When the bill of rights was before the special committee of the house last year there was a lengthy discussion on the bill in context with the War Measures Act and, as has been pointed out, one of the chief witnesses in this regard was Professor Lower of Queen's University. Professor Lower certainly repeated then a stricture he had uttered earlier against the War Measures Act and urged strongly on the committee that parliament should repeal the War Measures Act. It is true that Professor Lower at one point in his evidence did comment on the fact that we had incorporated in the bill of rights itself the provision having the effect that if the government proclaimed the War Measures Act due to a state of emergency parliament would have the right to review that proclamation and if it felt that the state of emergency was imaginary rather than real it would have the right to overrule the proclamation. Professor Lower did at one stage say this was a meaningless provision, particularly when he was being prompted in that regard by the hon. member for Essex East. That seemed to be the position he took. But it is

also significant to note that Professor Lower admitted the necessity for some legislation conferring special powers on the government in time of war. I refer to his evidence at page 321 of the committee reports when he was being questioned by the hon. member for Essex East. The passage reads as follows:


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now. that does not seem to me to be completely what you said today. You recognize, I take it, from what you said today, that there is a need to preserve the War Measures Act.


Mr.   Lower@: Yes, you will find that in the statement. I made it very clear 1 would like to get rid of the War Measures Act. I think there could be a change.
Again, at page 322 he said:
There is an important point there where we might misunderstand each other-and I hope we will not, because I think we are in agreement.
I would like to get rid of the present War Measures Act completely. I agree you have to have special legislation in war, but I think it could be much more carefully framed than it is in this legislation.
Again, when he was being asked what he thought the War Measures Act should contain, he said, as reported at page 323 of the committee's proceedings:
I would agree with that, but I think you would want to make a provision there that the judge would have the right to have the hearing in camera, would you not?
The witness was being questioned at this point with regard as to whether there should be a right of hearing enjoyed by persons detained under the War Measures Act-a provision written into the act itself. He said:
I quite agree in wartime there are certain things that must not come out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You see a necessity that there should be the right to have this hearing in camera?


Mr.   Lower@: Yes, I think that would be pretty necessary.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. Well, that might run contrary to another section of this proposed bill of rights which provides for public hearings.


Mr.   Lower@: Which one are you referring to Mr. Martin?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is clause 3 (f).


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, 3 (f).


Mr.   Lower@: Yes. Well I would be just a bit nervous about that. We must not be sentimental over these things, must we?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Mr.   Lower@: I would be a bit nervous. I would agree that in wartime there are certain things that probably cannot come out in public, but we have got to have the next best thing.
I should like to refer the house also to the evidence of Professor Lower in connection with the value of the provision we did incorporate into the bill of rights providing that parliament shall have the opportunity and right to overrule any declaration
Committee on War Measures Act by which the War Measures Act is brought into effect. I was questioning Professor Lower in the committee and should like to read a certain portion of that evidence as it appears at pages 330 and 331 of the proceedings.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -I will only ask one or two questions on it. It did seem to me in one or two of the exchanges that a point might have been obscured which I thought was clear from your first remarks.
I might add that I thought Professor Lower's first remarks were obscured by the very extraordinary and involved questions asked by the hon. member for Essex East. I went on as follows:
I take it that you do not question in principle the desirability of a government having at its disposal a War Measures Act or something of that sort in times of war?


Mr.   Lower@: Special powers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, an act giving it special powers in wartime. What you question is the extent to which these powers should go?


Mr.   Lower@: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You would like to see written into the War Measures Act the maximum safeguards of the liberties of the individual consistent with the welfare of the state?


Mr.   Lower@: Yes. You express it very well, I think.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But you said you think it is better under the present circumstances to have a bill of rights now and then review or revise the War Measures Act as soon as possible?


Mr.   Lower@: Yes.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the course that we have been following. We enacted the bill of rights last year and the Prime Minister undertook to have the War Measures Act studied to see what revisions should be made to it, and to have the War Measures Act then amended at leisure but thoroughly so that it might be, to the maximum extent possible, brought into line with the spirit of the bill of rights. Professor Lower expressed unqualified agreement with that position.
I then went on to ask Professor Lower about other provisions that we had put into the bill of rights, and that appears as reported in that committee's proceedings as follows:


Edmund Davie Fulton: If it is possible then that a government might resort to such a declaration in circumstances in which such a resort was not justified, would you not think it is most desirable that parliament should have the right of veto over the invocation of the War Measures Act under that declaration?


Mr.   Lower@: Yes. That had not occurred to me before. That would give an important justification for this.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This would seem to give parliament the right to review the declaration made by the government, and examine whether the state of affairs really warranted the resort to emergency measures.


Mr.   Lower@: This makes me a lot happier about this clause. Of course I would like it to go further.

Committee on War Measures Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I would accept the point that if there was an actual war and war was declared the debate might be pretty much pro forma, but I was directing my attention particularly to a situation in which there was a fictitious declaration which was being used as a device for the government gaining power. If there was a question as to whether there really was this state of emergency, both government members as well as opposition members might well be strongly inclined to check the government.


Mr.   Lower@: Yes, indeed. That would be a very unlikely circumstance, but I can imagine a circumstance under which something of this sort might occur.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would you then agree with me that it is a sensible provision at the moment to put this safeguard in against abuses of the powers of invoking the War Measures Act, which will thus give you some protection against the abuse of the powers conferred by the act; and then say we will look next at the act to see whether improvements should be made in the statute itself.


Mr.   Lower@: Yes. I was under the impression, when I read this, that this is an attempt to make criticism of the War Measures Act. From what you say about it I can see you have something additional in mind. I would be very happy not only to have this retained but also to have the revision of the War Measures Act made subsequently. Of course, I do think it is too big a thing to be examined at this time of year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. It is a big thing whenever you examine it. When you get into the War Measures Act you are into a really difficult philosophical as well as legal problem.


Mr.   Lower@: Yes.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we can properly and with justification say we can call to witness, as supporting our present action, one of the foremost opponents or critics of the War Measures Act in its present form, who stated clearly before the special committee of the House of Commons last year that he thought the sensible thing to do, as we did by the bill of rights, was to enact a bill of rights standing on its own feet, putting in safeguards immediately against a fictitious declaration of emergency which would give the government an opportunity to abuse the emergency powers, and then to make a lengthy and full study of the War Measures Act itself to see what changes to the measure should be made to bring it into conformity with the spirit of the bill of rights.
It is in that spirit that we have been studying this problem in the interim. As I said in the committee, which comment is contained in the portion I just quoted, and with which Professor Lower agreed, when we get into the realm of the War Measures Act we are getting into the realm of very difficult philosophical as well as legal problems. That is the area and the extent to which it is justifiable to ask parliament itself to give to the government, in times of real emergency, powers which, under normal circumstances, the government should not only not use, but


should not even possess, because they are definitely contrary to the kind of situation which prevails in normal time of peace.
The extent to which the War Measures Act could go, and should go, is the problem which we have been considering during all this intervening period because, unlike the hon. member for Essex East, we have the responsibility of ensuring that the government will in time of war-which we hope to God will never come-have the ample powers which it needs to safeguard the interests of the state. Simultaneously we have the responsibility of ensuring that the powers given to the government do not go further than those which are necessary for that purpose.
One must be very careful, as I am sure every hon. member will realize, as to what one does, because two things must be remembered. The kind of war that would confront us in these days is such that events will move with such swiftness there will not be time to commence changing legislation then, nor to determine the limits of powers. If one gets oneself into that situation, it may well be, and indeed probably will be, too late to ask parliament to extend the powers. Therefore, one has to be conscious of the fact that too severe limitations on the powers of government in time of real emergency would be in the long run perhaps more dangerous than a rather restricted recognition of the rights and liberties of the individual.
It is hard to crystallize this matter in a few words, but this is the sort of problem that we have had in mind in approaching the War Measures Act in the context of the bill of rights. That is one of the reasons why we were not able, as readily and as rapidly as my hon. friend from Essex East thought desirable, to produce a concrete proposal to lay before this house. The hon. member for Essex East made the extraordinary and, indeed, absurd suggestion that it was his bill, introduced in January, which had the result of causing the Prime Minister to introduce this proposal now in June. If we were as frightened of the results of the hon. member's efforts as he seems to suggest, I hardly think that would be consistent with the position that he has taken, nor that we should have waited from January to June before proceeding as we now are. The fact of the matter is that the main reason this proposal comes forward at this time is because the government is now in the position to meet with members of parliament and to discuss with them the changes which should be made or considered to be appropriate in the War Measures Act.
The Prime Minister has outlined how this committee might proceed. I would ask the liberty of perhaps elaborating a little on what

he said, to the following effect. It is true that this motion comes in late in the session, on June 13, at a time when it may be difficult to arrange in the immediate future for an opportunity for the widespread hearing of members of the public which will undoubtedly be desired. I suggest that one useful method by which the committee itself might consider the matter-and of course the committee will be master of its own proceedings and will determine for itself how it should proceed-might be as follows. When the committee first meets the government might, through those persons who have the responsibility for advising in these matters, present an outline to the committee for the committee's information of the sort of problem that arises in times of emergency represented by war.
I think it will be helpful to the committee to have that outline as a sort of indication of the scope of the problem with which we are dealing. Then the government would be prepared to lay before the committee a draft bill for its consideration. That bill would not be in the form of a "take it or leave it" document, but in the form of a specific draft in order that the committee may have something concrete before it. Then the committee might consider that, after some preliminary study, the matter could stand over for a while, during which time the draft bill could be circulated to all those individuals and organizations who would be interested in commenting on it. It might well be, therefore, that during the summer months this process could be going on and whenever parliament comes together again the committee would be in a position to continue its study and to hear the views of those to whom in the meantime the draft would have been circulated.
I put this forward as one suggested method of procedure only which the committee might consider. It might prefer to consider others, or it may prefer others, but it does seem to me this could be a very logical method of proceeding, and it was with this in mind that the Prime Minister made his suggestion earlier today, and it was with this thought in mind that we felt that this would be an appropriate time to bring this resolution before the house. That is all there was to it, and we had not any of the evil motives in mind attributed to us by the hon. member for Essex East.
Perhaps I should just conclude with a reference to some of the things that it might be suggested should be accomplished by any amendments to the War Measures Act. Some of these may have crossed the minds of my hon. friends opposite or some of them. If so,
Committee on War Measures Act this is all to the good. This problem of amendments to the War Measures Act is not a problem of any one party or another in this house; it is a problem for the House of Commons, the parliament of Canada and the Canadian nation.
The War Measures Act is not the interest or the property of any one party. It is the means by which or through which in times of war a government will be entrusted with the necessary powers for the effective and successful prosecution of that war. And if, therefore, there are views held in common here as to the lengths to which we can go and the limits to be put on the lengths to which we should go in amending the War Measures Act, it is all to the good. It does seem to me these are some of the areas in which it might be thought appropriate to amend the War Measures Act.
First, amendments placing limits upon the rights of the governor in council to authorize the deportation of Canadian citizens. Second, it may well be considered whether or not we should amend the War Measures Act to take away the power to deprive Canadian citizens of their citizenship under the War Measures Act without in any way interfering with any other statute, the citizenship act itself, which confers those powers. Therefore we certainly may well consider whether it is not perfectly proper and indeed essential to limit the power to take away citizenship under an emergency measures act such as the War Measures Act.
Again, we might consider the question of whether persons detained under the emergency powers of the War Measures Act should have the right of hearing written into the act itself. I would think hon. members would feel that such a hearing should not be held in open court before the ordinary judicial tribunal. Professor Lower and I exchanged some views and the hon. member for Essex East and Professor Lower exchanged some views on this in the committee last year; but it certainly might be considered whether there might not be provided in the statute itself some right of review of the detentions under these emergency powers.
Then there are several sections of the War Measures Act, it seems to me, such as sections 5, 8 and 9, which could well be looked at to see whether they are really necessary at all. The committee could consider whether they should be repealed or amended so that if continued they are left over in substantially modified form. As I have indicated the government-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister permit a question?
6278	HOUSE OF
Committee on War Measures Act Mr. Fulton: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I put this forward for non-controversial purposes. Does the minister not recognize that practically all of these proposals are embodied in the bill which I introduced in the house on January 31?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend has seen the light after 22 years I am delighted. He and his party had 22 years to do these things. We are just delighted, as I said a moment ago. We welcome the speed with which the hon. member now seeks to move. We just hope he will not over-reach himself.
These are some of the areas in which we think the committee might consider amending the War Measures Act. As I said, the government will be prepared, if the committee desires, to lay before it a draft bill putting in concrete form these and some other ideas in order to assist the committee in its deliberations.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of following up the purely political comments made by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) with regard to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin).
The legislation before us today is very simple. The comments made by the hon. member for Essex East who spoke after were based on unchallengeable facts.
This legislation is to appoint a special committee responsible for examining the War Measures Act and recommending any amendment of this legislation considered appropriate in the perspective of 1961.
At one time, the hon. Minister of Justice quoted two names of animals in connection with the comments of the hon. member for Essex East. I do not propose to follow in the minister's footsteps in that respect.
Yet, I might tell him this. The government makes me think of a tortoise which has to be pulled by the ears to get the promised job done.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Have you ever seen a tortoise's ears?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I now want to refer to page 5949 of the English issue of Hansard, dated July 7, 1960, to recall a few words from the Prime Minister's statement in answer to a question by the hon. member for Essex East.
(Text):
I think the whole act deserves to be considered, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said.
I think if we would get together the membership in the house and deal with the War Measures Act 

and ascertain the degree to which the rights of the individual may be maintained to the highest extent without detriment to the security of the nation as a whole, changes and amendments might be made to that act. If hon. members of the house so desire, I would be willing that at the next session a committee be set up to consider this whole field, for the War Measures Act, like all measures passed for the purpose of ensuring the salvation and survival of the state, has been found in the light of experience not only here but in other countries to contain provisions that ought to be ameliorated or subdued in the interests of the individual while at the same time maintaining the security of the state.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister last year-I think it was on July 1-introduced his bill of rights, the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Pearson) suggested for the first time that while considering the bill on fundamental freedoms, we might at the same time take up the War Measures Act and make such improvements and amendments to it as were deemed necessary.
The Prime Minister then did not see fit to accept the suggestion of the leader of the official opposition.
When the bill of rights came up, we submitted amendments which were rejected by the Minister of Justice. When the matter came up again in committee of the whole, we again submitted the same amendments, which were again rejected.
These are facts which no one can deny.
The only measure submitted this year is Bill C-62, sponsored by the hon. member for Essex East, which proposes some very important amendments to the War Measures Act.
I can say to the hon. member for Essex East that the committee which is to be set up would be well advised to consider the amendments he suggested on January 31 last.
I feel sure that the legal experts who will be invited to the committee will also stress the importance of the recommendations made by the hon. member for Essex East.
Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a bill which has to be extensively scrutinized and which calls for considerable study, as the Minister of Justice said, because times have changed and the dangers that might result from a state of war are not all known yet. We shall have to take into consideration, the disaster which might follow a state of war, as well as security requirements and the safeguard of fundamental freedoms for individuals.
I am sure that those hon. members who will have the privilege of sitting on that very important committee will consider the bill very carefully in order to include in our statutes, without any partisanship, a War

Measures Act that would spare as much as possible the rights of our citizens even in time of war.
Mr. Speaker, before assuming my seat, I wish to read a few lines from an answer given by the Minister of Justice to a question put to him by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), and I quote from page 5463 of Hansard, the following question of the hon. member for Essex East:
(Text):
Before the minister leaves the subject of the bill of rights, may I be permitted to ask another question. My recollection is that the Prime Minister said, I think at this session, there would be amendments brought in to the War Measures Act. The government has not given any indication of its intention in that regard. I have pointed out that I have prepared amendments that are incorporated in a private bill that has not yet reached this house but notice of which exists. Is it the government's intention to proceed with the amendments to the War Measures Act during this session?
(Translation):
And here is the answer given by the Minister of Justice-let us not forget that this is on May 27, 1961, just a few days ago- and I quote:
(Text) :
My department has been working on amendments to the War Measures Act. We are not at the moment in a position to recommend legislation. I therefore regret that I am unable to assure the hon. member that an amending measure will be proceeded with at this session. It is also my recollection that the Prime Minister indicated that some action would be taken, but I am not quite sure whether the intended action referred to was legislation or a committee study. However, whichever it was, my recollection is that reference was made to action being taken at this session.
At the moment, so far as my responsibility goes, I am not in a position to state definitely that we will be in a position to take action at this session. If we should find ourselves in that position, and if there should be an immediate demand for action, we would then do our best to proceed; but I must say that in view of the stage the session has reached, and the state of the order paper, I think probably we all might wish to have another look at that situation.
(Translation):
Now at that time the Minister of Justice says:
(Text):
There was no immediate demand for action.
Private Bills
during this session, a bill amending the War Measures Act, but that such study of it that could be made would bear fruit next year.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder why efforts are being made to deprive the hon. member for Essex East of the credit to which he is entitled. What will come out of this? From time to time, measures of this nature, which transcend partisan considerations, are introduced, and I believe things would be so much easier if credit were given for it to a member, even if he happens to sit on the opposition side.
The hon. member for Essex East has been a member of this house for many years. He has been the very impersonation of due respect for the rights and freedoms of citizens, and I am of the opinion that the Prime Minister, and more particularly the Minister of Justice, would be much more deserving if-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker;: Order. I thought the hon. member was nearing the termination of his remarks.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I am just about finished, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks, I wish to assure the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice that we shall do everything possible so that the study of this measure will be most profitable in order that the bill to be submitted to us in due course will protect the rights of the citizens in peacetime as well as in wartime.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the house wish to dispose of the motion before I call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Diefenbaker) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
(Translation):	(Translation):
It must not be forgotten that while the Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull): Mr. Speaker, I Minister of Justice was stating:	"There rise on a question of privilege,
was no immediate demand for action", the Referring to today's order paper, and more hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) especially to the item "Order of Business", had put on the order paper, since January this is what I find'
21st last, a bill in which he suggested very From five to six O.clock p.ra._Private and publlc important amendments to the War Measures bills, the former having precedence. (De cinq Act.	heures a six heures du soir: bills prives et bills
I listened carefully to the remarks of the publlcs, ceux-ia ayant la priorite.)
Minister of Justice, and I understood I wonder what is the meaning of the term that the house would not be asked to study, "ceux-la"? Does it refer to private bills or

Private Bills
to public bills? Would it not be better to write "les premiers ayant pr^seance", because the term "ceux-la" as it is now used, could apply to public bills as well as to private bills.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's suggestion will be taken into account.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-15, respecting the construction of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river near the city of Trois-Rivieres-Mr. Paul-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Construction of bridge authorized.
Frank Howard: There is only one general question that I should like to pose dealing with the bridge itself and more particularly with a clause of the bill assented to by the legislative assembly of the province of Quebec. I appreciate the fact that we are not dealing with that bill except in so far as it is in the schedule. Before I proceed I wonder whether I may inquire whether my reference to these matters in the schedule could be considered under the schedule. You will be calling the schedule of the bill, will you not, Mr. Chairman, even though it is a copy of an act assented to by the legislature of the province of Quebec?


Jacques Flynn: Yes.
(Translation):


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, when this bill was drafted, the sponsors felt that they should include as a schedule to Bill S-15, a piece of legislation that was adopted by the provincial legislature in 1956, so that the members of the House of Commons would be familiar with the powers of this corporation which under this bill applies to the house for an authorization which in fact is nothing more than a requirement under section 11 of the Canada Shipping Act. Consequently, the hon. member should feel free to ask questions about the schedule any time he feels like it. On the other hand, I should like to point out to him that this parliament has no authority to make any change whatsoever concerning the "Corporation du Pont de Trois-Rivieres" which was incorporated under a statute of the Quebec legislature. (Text):


Frank Howard: I quite appreciate the fact that one cannot alter a provincial bill itself. In addition to that, I would say that I have no desire even to attempt to engage in such a practice. The only purpose is so far as the point of interest is concerned. By hon. mem-

bers raising this matter, as was done by my friend the hon. member for Vancouver East at the time the bill was given second reading, and perhaps by making reference to this particular thing, the result may be this. At some subsequent time the legislative assembly of the province of Quebec may be involved in amending this particular statute. If these matters are dealt with somewhat here, the question may be raised in the minds of the legislators in that province and they on their own initiative may desire to do something. However, my particular question has to do with what I will call section 22 or part 22 of the schedule, which I imagine is section 22 of the provincial act respecting the construction of this particular bridge. With some guidance from you, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could leave these particular remarks until we get to the schedule; or perhaps we could deal with them under clause 1 because the whole matter deals with the provisions contained in clause 1 of the bill and with the maintenance and operation of the bridge. However, whatever you think would be the better way in which to approach the matter, Mr. Chairman, will be all right with me.


Jacques Flynn: It seems to me that the discussion probably would be more appropriate when we come to the schedule because in clause 1 there is no special reference to the schedule. Usually the debate on clause 1 of a bill is more of a general nature. I think it might be better to wait until we reach the schedule.
Shall clause 1 carry?
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I have only one question to put to the hon. member.
In wonder if it would take too much time to give the names of the principal members of the corporation or of those who were the promoters of this bridge project.


Rémi Paul: This bill, as I have already said, was introduced in the provincial legislature in 1956, as a result of concerted action on the part of the chambers of commerce of the city of Three Rivers and the vicinity. Several municipalities, I should say, nearly all the municipalities of central Quebec passed resolutions supporting the project, which when implemented will favour the economic development of that part of the province.
The principal officers of the corporation are Mr. Frank Spenard as vice president, Mr. Francois Nobert, a barrister in Three Rivers, as secretary or treasurer. There is also a Mr. Wickadam who is president of the corporation. The bill also provides for the appointment of a representative of the city of Three Rivers so that the city will have someone to look after its interests when the time comes

to do away with the ferry-boat system now in operation between the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence river.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to ask only one other question. Has Mr. Frangois Nobert been elected to the post of secretary or was he imposed by-


Rémi Paul: I do not think that any change has occurred in the respective functions assigned to the persons whose names I have just given since the corporation has been in existence.
(Text):


Frank Howard: There is one additional
thought that I have here. In answer to the first question I understood the hon. member to give the names of three individuals and the reference to a fourth one to be appointed by the city of Trois Rivieres. In this regard I think I must make reference to the schedule and say that in the schedule which was assented to 2nd February, 1956, as found in the bill at page 3, there appear the names of two others who were members of the corporation, namely J. Henri Rene de Cotret and Maurice Langlois. I wonder whether these people are still members of the corporation.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, they are still members of the corporation. I did not give the names of all the directors of the corporation, but only those of the executive.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On the schedule.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I think the discussion will be relatively short in connection with the schedule and therefore perhaps it is not necessary to consider it point by point.
My remarks are concerned with paragraph 22 of the schedule. That paragraph gives to this corporation a monopoly in the operation of this bridge over any other bridge, tunnel or ferry service, save only the ferry operated at the present time by the city of Three Rivers, for a radius of 25 miles above and 25 miles below the site of the bridge.
I assume this means that within a total distance of 50 miles no other person can build or operate a bridge, tunnel or ferry over or under the St. Lawrence river during the period of eight years from the sanction of this bill. I do not know whether that means eight years from February 2, 1956, or eight years from the passage of the bill now before us. In any event, it is not only covered for a period of eight years, which I presume is the construction period, but it is also covered for the whole period of the utilization of the proposed bridge. So long as the bridge
Private Bills
is in use, no other person can build any bridge, ferry or tunnel within a 50 mile area of the site of the bridge; that is, an area of 25 miles each side of the bridge.
It seems to me this is a rather unusual degree of power and authority and an unusual amount of monopoly to give to a corporation.
I presume that initially it was done to cover the period of time until the indebtedness of the bridge was paid off by way of tolls collected. If this was the intention, I think it should be so stated in the bill. Perhaps one could accept that sort of proposal in the light of whatever circumstances might be applicable. However, I think it is an extremely unique power to give forever, to the corporation, or so long as the bridge is utilized. The corporation is in a monopoly position in this regard and no other person is allowed to build a bridge, ferry or tunnel in this area.
It may well be that the growth of this part of the province of Quebec which will be served by the bridge will make it inadequate in a few years' time to serve the traffic that uses it. This is quite apart from the discussion we had earlier about the width of the bridge and why it could not be built in such a way that would allow expansion for additional lanes of traffic. This monopoly provision is even more difficult to appreciate.
I certainly would not wish this committee to take this action and then within a period of ten or 15 years find the bridge totally inadequate to serve the area, in view of the traffic using it. We would not want to prevent the legislature of the province of Quebec from having additional bridges constructed as time goes on.
In the city of Vancouver in the late 1930's a three-lane bridge was built across Burrard inlet by a private company. Not too many years after the bridge was constructed it was found to be completely inadequate to handle the traffic using it. Within five or six years of this bridge being constructed by a private company it was purchased by the tolls, bridges and highway authority of the provincial government, and the provincial government subsequently built another bridge a few miles from the first one in order to deal with the volume of traffic travelling between the north Vancouver area and the lower mainland part of the city of Vancouver.
I think it would be most unwise for us to find ourselves in this position, especially in view of the importance of the area which the hon. member represents and the area that will be served by this bridge. It would be helpful to myself, and I think to all hon. members of the committee, if the hon. member would tell us the reason why there is this very unique, "forever" type of monopoly given to this corporation. Perhaps the hon.

Private Bills
member would also tell us what possibilities exist tor building an additional bridge, ferry or tunnel if within a relatively short period of time the volume of traffic using the bridge demands additional facilities.
(Translation):


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, in view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I wish to say that if we examine the preamble of the provincial bill, we note it has been introduced to serve the interests of a whole series of constituencies enumerated on page 3 of the bill, namely Three Rivers, Maskinonge, Champlain, St. Maurice-Lafleche, Nicolet, Lotbiniere and Drummond-Arthabaska.
That is to say that a whole industrial sector will benefit from the advantages of that bridge.
I beg to disagree here with the previous speaker who said this bill was actually setting up a monopoly.
It is too bad the hon. member has not yet had the opportunity of visiting that beautiful district of the province of Quebec. He would have discovered that topographically the site is not at all suited for the erection of another bridge, first of all because of the width of the river, and second, because of the difficulties of approach on the south and north shores in all other locations.
The nearest large commercial centre is located on the south shore of the St. Lawrence river at Sorel. A bridge construction in that location would raise difficulties which could be overcome only with a considerable capital outlay.
Furthermore, when the provincial legislature examined the request submitted by "La Corporation du Pont de Trois-Rivieres", it unanimously granted the request. Exclusive rights were granted the corporation, not to create a monopoly but to insure that the project would be seriously dealt with.
The amount of $35,000 has already been spent for the preparation of plans, and that amount was raised through voluntary contributions raised in the Three Rivers area.
The drive was conducted long before the passing of the bill incorporating "La Corporation du Pont de Trois-Rivieres" by the provincial legislature.
If we are today faced with the situation that the corporation has to submit its case to parliament, it is because the governor in council cannot on his own authority grant permission for the erection of a bridge over the St. Lawrence seaway.

The governor in council has the required authority when the construction of a bridge over any other navigable water is concerned, but not in this case.
Plans were submitted to the Departments of Transport and Public Works, and were not approved by government engineers. After some checking it was realized that they contained drawbacks or disadvantages for navigation on the St. Lawrence river.
The House of Commons adopted a similar bill in 1956. A three-year limit had then been set to have the plans approved by the governor in council. Unfortunately, they were not approved. I am now talking from memory and I wonder if the plans were ever submitted during that three-year period.
That is the reason why it was necessary to renew the rights granted under the 1956 bill.
The hon. member has referred to an eight-year limit. One has to be aware of the interest taken in the construction of a bridge at Three Rivers to realize how anxious the corporation is to carry out this project as soon as the required powers have been granted by this house.
First of all, a three-year period is necessary, that being the ultimate limit for the plans of the future Three Rivers bridge to be submitted to the governor in council for approval. Then, during the three-year period following the approval of the plans, the corporation will have to build the bridge; that is the reason why the provincial legislature has specified in the bill a possible eight-year limit for the project to be carried out.
However, it is hoped that the corporation will be able to build the bridge before the end of this period, to the satisfaction of all that industrial and promising area of the province of Quebec.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of opposing the building of a bridge at Three Rivers particularly on account of the fact that there was once another bridge, known as the Duplessis bridge which subsequently collapsed, probably because the guards who were supposed to watch its approaches against the communists were absent.
If I understand the bill correctly, a bridge is to be built which will not only be used by the citizens of the constituencies mentioned in schedule 3, but by all cars from every part of the province and of the whole country.
I fail to understand why we are being asked to pass a bill to entrust a corporation set up beforehand by a provincial legislature with

the building of a bridge which may or may not pay its own way. Why should we members of the federal parliament, vote an advance of funds, or actually guarantee that the promoters of that corporation should never lose any money, but on the contrary make some?
I am in favour of having a bridge at Three Rivers. It will be extremely useful. And to please my hon. friend, the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere, I even believe it might be preferable to build it from Berthier to Sorel as it would link together two very important municipalities.
I do not see why we should vote a bill to benefit a corporation comprising Conservatives, Liberals and even C.C.F. people-of course, there are no members from the New party in it, but such will eventually be the case because the C.C.F. people are in it, and they only changed their name to please the public and not because of new ideas.
At all events, Mr. Chairman, I object to allowing even public corporations to build a bridge with only profit sharing in mind, because a corporation becomes illegal the moment it shares in profits only. Consequently, if the government is kind enough to give us a bridge, it should not do so only for the benefit of a handful of citizens-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I must say I have tried most strenuously to connect the hon. member's remarks with the schedule but I fail to see any connection.
I realize that he is now dealing with section 1 which is already carried. The schedule is merely the statute under which the "Corporation du Pont de Trois-Rivieres" was incorporated and I fail to see the connection of the hon. member's remarks.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I was speaking on schedule 3 which follows section 3 we are considering at present. I could not deal with it while we were examining section 1.
If Your Honour will just take the trouble of looking, he will see that for himself. I do not know what that schedule is doing there but it seems obvious that if the federal government ever decides to adopt this bill, it is the Three Rivers corporation which will benefit from it while the federal government will foot the bill.
If profits are to be made, it seems to me that it is the government which should be making them since it is the government which will be lending or guaranteeing the necessary funds.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for St. Denis, I should like to point out that the person who drafted this
Private Bills
bill is a lawyer whose competence is highly recognized in the city of Three Rivers, since it is Mr. Frangois Nobert, who was the sponsor of this bill in the provincial legislature, and who then acted as counsel when the bill was examined by the senate committee in 1956.
Besides, when one refers to bridges-as did the hon. member for St. Denis-he recalled unfortunate events that took place in the city of Three Rivers when the Duplessis bridge collapsed-the hon. member seems to connect the collapse of this bridge-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Rémi Paul: -with certain communists who were blamed at the time for the collapse of the bridge-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Rémi Paul: -but I wonder whether the member for St. Denis could tell us who is responsible for the collapse of the Duplessis normal school in Three Rivers last April?


Jacques Flynn: Order. I think I need not indicate to the hon. member why I called him to order.
(Text):


Frank Howard: I should like to make one or two comments following the remarks of the hon. member who sponsored the bill. I must apologize not only for not having had the pleasure of visiting his fine part of the country but for not being able to pronounce the name of his riding. It is for that reason I refer to him as the hon. member who sponsored the bill.
I was interested in the comments of the hon. member for St. Denis when he spoke about profits and losses. I wondered if they represented a reversal of the stand taken with regard to the trans-Canada pipe lines project a few years ago when they wanted the Canadian taxpayers to lose everything provided certain individuals and companies could make a profit. I can see that there has obviously been a change in policy, besides a change in the position of the hon. member in the house. I notice that he has moved away from the front bench and I wonder whether he has gone to the back bench in order to get close to the New party about which he was speaking.
If the topography of the area around or alongside the river where this bridge is to be built makes it impossible for an additional bridge to be built there, then I wonder why this should have to be stated in a statute. That is the only thought I have on this. Perhaps it is not necessary to go once again into the whole question of whether or not this is a monopoly. I think

Private Bills
that has been well enough established. Besides, once we get into the profit and loss question we shall not get too far. Your agility, Mr. Chairman, would bring you immediately to your feet to slow us down and I do not want you to go through that exercise too often.


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

Murray Douglas Morton: the second reading of Bill No. S-16, to incorporate National Mortgage Corporation of Canada.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member intend to explain his bill?


Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps, because of the importance of this bill, I should make a few brief comments. I shall attempt to be brief because I realize some hon. members on the other side of the house intend to make some comments.
Bill No. S-16 proposes an act to incorporate a public company under the name of National Mortgage Corporation of Canada. This company is being formed because of an apparent need for secondary mortgage financing. This need was set out in an article entitled "An Investment Opportunity" written by J. L. Whitney, one of the incorporating directors, in the Financial Post on August 1, 1959. Shortly after that a group of interested individuals began to study all of the problems. As a result of this study and negotiation this company now requests incorporation.
The bill has a threefold purpose. One, that the company be allowed to deal in mortgages. Two, that the company be given the power to raise funds for investment in N.H.A. and conventional mortgages, through the sale of mortgage bonds to investors. Third, to give the company the power to carry on the business of managing and servicing mortgages, not only those which are owned by its policyholders, but also those which are owned by other individuals and corporations and which are left with the company for the purpose of being serviced.
It is the hope of the sponsors of this bill, through the medium of their mortgage bonds, to be able to induce institutional lenders, who have restricted their operations to relatively large urban centres throughout Canada, to make money available to them in order to
[Mr. Howard.l	i
make mortgages freely obtainable in remote communities. This will be done in the following way.
The company will set up two funds. The first fund will be used for the purchase of N.H.A. mortgages which are government backed. Those funds will be raised by the issuing of certificates to the lenders, either trust companies or large institutional companies or individuals who lend this money to the proposed companies, for which they will in return receive certificates which can be registered as to principal or as to interest and transferrable the same as bonds. The money received in this way will be invested in N.H.A. mortgages.
The second fund will be used for conventional mortgages and, of course, certificates will be issued in the same way but the interest rates on these certificates will be slightly higher than those received in respect of the ones backed by N.H.A. loans.
That is a brief outline, but I should just like to point out that the corporation will have a capital stock of $10 million, which may be increased to $15 million, and shall be divided into shares of $10 each. At least 60 per cent of any offering of stock be reserved for a period of 15 days from the time of such offering, for the purchase by corporate or natural persons ordinarily resident in Canada. It should also be noted that not less than 75 per cent of the directors of the corporation must be Canadian citizens, ordinarily resident in Canada. The head office of the company is to be in Toronto.
I can assure hon. members that when this bill is referred to the banking and commerce committee, representatives of this proposed company will be in attendance to explain in detail its proposals, and to discuss them with anyone who is interested at that time.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words concerning Bill No. S-16, an act to incorporate a company under the name of National Mortgage Corporation of Canada. My remarks will be brief, but I intend to pose a few questions which seem to me to require answers at this stage.
It should be noted that the petition was dated December 14, 1960 and was read on December 19, 1960. When this bill was given first reading, in the other place, on April 25, the purpose was outlined briefly. The purpose was that the company proposed to deal in mortgages of two types; those which are guaranteed by the government under C.M.H.C., and conventional mortgages. It was also stated that the company desired to raise funds for investment in N.H.A. mortgages and conventional mortgages. It is also proposed

that the company shall have the right to manage and service mortgages which are owned by its bondholders, as well as mortgages placed with the company.
Therefore, this bill provides, as the sponsor suggested this afternoon, for three main functions. One, that the proposed company be permitted to buy and sell mortgages. Two, that the company is to have the power to raise funds. Three, that the proposed company will be allowed to manage and service mortgages.
I think it will be agreed that this bill provides for a broad range of activity in the mortgage financing field in Canada. While the bill provides for activity in two separate and distinct mortgage financing fields, I cannot argue that the principle of the bill is contentious. In fact, for the past three years or more, I have urged the government to encourage the establishment of a secondary mortgage market in Canada, and on at least three occasions have set out in detail my version of an institution which could be publicly or privately owned, and would purchase N.H.A. mortgages guaranteed by the government to be used as collateral against the issuance of certificates in small denominations available to the small private investors, as well as to the large corporations. Many of these small investors, some with only a few hundred dollars, up to this point have not been able to conveniently invest in housing.
The interest rate paid on these certificates will vary with the N.H.A. fixed rate, probably one half of one per cent to three quarters of one par cent below the N.H.A. interest rate. Therefore, the series A bonds, being mortgage bonds backed by N.H.A. insured mortgages and by cash, should encourage new investors. It is my sincere hope that these mortgage bonds will be made available in small denominations, and that the greatest possible encouragement will be given the small investor to channel some of his savings in this way into the mortgage lending field. In my view it is only in this way that this corporation will be of any real benefit in bringing any new money into the mortgage lending system. Surely it cannot be argued that simply switching investment from one large corporation to another at a profit to both would contribute very much in this field. Now we have a new development and rather timely in respect of this corporation, of the government unloading C.M.H.C. mortgages at a discount which obviously will provide handsome additional profits for organizations such as the one envisaged in this bill.
A second mortgage fund to be known as mortgage fund B will be used in connection with the financing and sale of older houses,
Private Bills
we are told, and to provide funds for investment in the conventional mortgage field. It is also said that this fund will provide a suitable market for individuals, corporations and estates to sell or convert mortgages into cash. I am especially interested in the aspect of activity proposed in respect of the financing of houses already built. I would hope that we can have some clarification of what precisely is proposed in this field.
During second reading in the other place, at one point it was indicated that the fund would be used for this purpose and later that consideration would be given to ways and means of making financing available on existing houses. I would point out that there is some difference between the term "would be" and the matter of possibly giving consideration. I would hope that the hon. member who introduced this bill will be able to clear up this point. I would remind hon. members that this bill gives the corporation broad powers and once they have qualified as an approved lender under N.H.A. the company will be able to buy, sell, administer, deal in and service all mortgages coming under N.H.A. Provision is also made for investment in income-producing realty, and it will be governed by the provision of the Loan Companies Act.
As I mentioned earlier, the original petition was presented in the other place on December 19. It is of more than passing interest to note that on April 17 the Minister of Public Works made an announcement on government policy concerning the establishment of a secondary mortgage market and it is of equal interest that first reading was given to the bill in the other place on April 25, only eight days later, second reading the following day and the bill was then referred to the Senate standing committee on banking and commerce. This committee examined the bill on May 3 and third reading took place on May 10.
As a result of the careful scrutiny given this bill in the other place nine amendments of a rather technical nature were made. It is rather strange that this bill, which was so long in the drafting stage, and which had a model bill to work from, was so technically deficient when presented to the other place, unless the sponsors realized the need for haste with these new opportunities just around the corner, with the government's decision to unload $170 million worth of mortgages at a discount.
Although provisions exist in the 1954 National Housing Act for block sale of existing mortgages, there has been relatively little activity in this field up to this time. I simply pose the question that it seems a little more than coincidental that the initiative for the

Private Bills
formation of the corporation embodied in this bill has been timed so completely in accord with the government's announced policy of April 17 to unload a substantial quantity of mortgages at discounts.
My main objection to this bill arises from the proposed name, National Mortgage Corporation of Canada. The use of "National" and "of Canada" together clearly gives the impression of a government agency. I realize this matter was dealt with at some length in the other place, because I have carefully read the proceedings there. However, some very interesting evidence was presented on May 3 to the banking and commerce committee in this respect. Then later an amendment was moved on third reading in an effort by some hon. members in the other place to correct the confusion that will arise, and indeed has arisen already, as to the relationship of this corporation and the federal government. I would urge hon. members to read the objections presented to the banking and commerce committee by Mr. K. R. MacGregor, superintendent of insurance. His argument was sound and it is not my intention to delay the house by repeating or referring to his objections, nor am I going to raise the objections put forward by certain private companies such as the National Trust.
I would, however, draw hon. members' attention to the views of Dr. Stewart Bates, president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and as such perhaps the person most qualified to make a recommendation in this matter. I would like to quote, if I may, from a letter of Dr. Bates.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member proposing to quote on the question of the name of the corporation? Does the letter which the hon. member has in mind quoting refer to the name of the corporation?


John Richard Garland: Only, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that that matter is not one properly to be elaborated on second reading. The hon. member has indicated that there is objection to the name, and this is a matter which will come before the committee and before the committee of the whole house and is a matter of detailed discussion of the bill. It would be appropriate then to take exception to the name.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On the point of order, if the hon. member is speaking to the principle of the bill, namely the abuse of the word "National" in the name of any company, not particularly this company, then would it not be considered as part of the principle of the bill?


Mr. Speaker:: Well, if hon. members feel that a matter of principle is involved in the proposed name I do not want to be too technical about the discussion. I would think that one should not get into a detailed presentation of evidence on the point.


John Richard Garland: It was my intention to refer only to this one piece of evidence. It seems to me to be quite important because of the position occupied by Dr. Bates. I would quote from his letter, if I may:
Since Bill S-16 to incorporate National Mortgage Corporation of Canada was introduced in the Senate it has been brought to our attention that among approved lenders and others there is confusion as to whether this is a private corporation or a publicly owned one. In particular, we find many mortgage buyers believing this to be a government company, associated with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in connection with the recently announced government policy to develop a secondary mortgage market in Canada through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
The confusion appears to stem from the fact that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation administers the National Housing Act and insures National Housing Act loans and indeed, makes direct National Housing Act loans on its own behalf.
We believe that the confusion to which I refer is undesirable from the point of view of the sponsors of the proposed new corporation and as well, from the point of view of this corporation. We would deem it a favour if you would explore with your colleagues and the sponsors of the new corporation the necessity of having the new corporation renamed.
This is a serious request from the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and merits the serious consideration of all hon. members. As head of the corporation, Dr. Bates is possibly in the best position to assess the confusion which has arisen already and which is bound to arise in the future. Quite apart from Dr. Bate's concern about the immediate future I would also remind hon. members that governments of the future may find it necessary and desirable to set up a public corporation along these same lines. I would therefore urge that the words "National" and "of Canada" be not granted to this company to be used together in the title, one or the other would be O.K. but certainly not both together.
I do not think there is any doubt that this has caused considerable confusion. I have proof of that in the statement of the Minister of Public Works in this house on May 9 in dealing with his announcement of the first offering to the secondary mortgage market, in which he had this to say:
Prospective purchasers should therefore get in touch with one of the organizations I have just mentioned, and not with the corporation itself.
I should also like to know what the Secretary of State's department thinks about this matter. It has always been my understanding

that any words capable of giving the impression that the organization is a federal institution or a federal agency have been considered to be objectionable and have been frowned upon by the department.
I know that hon. members are aware of "Fanny May", the United States federal government company, the proper name of which is the federal national mortgage association. This, 1 suggest, is just another reason to recognize that the day may well come when we will want to form a government corporation in this particular field. What we are doing here today cannot or is not likely to be undone, and I appeal to hon. members not to grant to a private corporation a name that clearly marks it as an instrument of the federal government. Surely we are giving this corporation broad powers already and we should not be required to give it a name that would even suggest it to be an agency of our national government.
With these few general remarks, I should like to ask the sponsor a few questions. First, will this company be able to sell bonds to the banks which would yield 6 per cent and then distribute profits made on the operation of fund A, thus enabling the banks to earn more than the statutory 6 per cent allowed them under the Bank Act? Second, since the securities of this corporation, the A bonds, will be indirectly guaranteed by the government, is it not a fact that they will in effect be competing with debentures of school boards, municipalities and provinces on the one hand and at the same time getting the federal government off the hook with regard to some of its long term commitments? Normally I would not object to this form of competition but surely all hon. members are aware of the unfair treatment these junior levels of government have received as a result of the excessive borrowing of the federal government. In fact, this competition from the federal government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member does not propose to pursue that line because it is not raised at all by the bill.


John Richard Garland: Then I will refer to another matter. I had intended to establish this point with statements made at the recent conference of mayors and municipalities in Halifax but perhaps I can leave that for another opportunity. There is another question I should like to pose to the sponsor of the bill. If the government could unload a number of long term commitments on this new market, is it not possible that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) could hide a part of his deficit? Certainly he could avoid the necessity-
Private Bills


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is discussing public finance and not the incorporation of a company with certain restricted powers to invest in mortgages. I do not want to keep interrupting him but to my mind the bill does not raise any question of public finance.


William Heward Grafftey: He will have to throw away that page of his speech.


John Richard Garland: Surely if the corporation we are creating is to deal primarily in mortgages being sold by an agency of the government there has to be a relationship. However, I will proceed.
Finally, the market is only going to take existing mortgages if a profit can be made on them. If they yield less than the discounted value of current mortgages they are not going to move. On the other hand, if they are sold at a discount the taxpayer is going to have to pay.
While the need for mortgage funds at the moment is not creating any problem, increased demand is bound to develop in the foreseeable future as Canada's wartime babies hit the housing market and/or when our economy resumes its normal rate of development. Today's problem is a lack of demand for buyers willing to take on these heavy commitments of high cost housing and high cost financing of housing. However, to whatever extent the corporation envisaged in the bill will attract new investors to channel their savings into the financing of housing it will, of course, be welcomed by most hon. members. It is only to the degree that it attracts investors who have not yet invested in housing that the corporation will make an important contribution. I believe there is a place for this kind of institution in the mortgage financing field. I do, however, object vigorously to the use of the words "national" and "of Canada" together in the name of the proposed corporation.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate that the hour is nearing six o'clock. I have no desire to delay passage of the bill. I appreciate the remarks that have been made by the previous speaker and I am in agreement with them. A problem has been created in this regard mainly because the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) has used the same type of name in referring to this field. Therefore there is an implication that there will be a government crown corporation in the secondary mortgage field and its name would have some relationship to the name now being sought by this company.

Farm Credit Act
I should have liked to have the opportunity to refer to some of the good points in connection with this proposed company because in some respects it is better than most mortgage companies while on the other hand there are also some restrictions. I will not do so, however, because time is limited. There are many who will want to discuss this matter and we do not want to see the bill go to the bottom of the list because we will probably be recessing on the 28th of this month. The bill might possibly die because of its position on the order paper. I should like to see the bill go to the committee where there will be an opportunity to say something about it. I would request the chairman of the banking and commerce committee to have the proceedings respecting this measure published so that even those who are not members of that committee will have an opportunity to study them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 7.30 p.m.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Farm Credit Act
or vice versa. So generally speaking, at the working level of the provinces there has been very fine co-operation in the last year or so.
In addition to that we have occasional conferences of federal heads of the farm credit corporation and representatives of the various provincial governments. I think these consultations came about largely because of the fact that in the first few months of operation of the farm credit corporation it became very clear, and I noticed it particularly when I took over the department in October, that the loans going into the province of Quebec and the four eastern provinces did not show that startling growth rate that they showed in the province of Ontario and right through to the west coast.
Naturally it will be asked, "Why was this so?" In consultation with the agricultural ministers of these provinces we discovered that the terms of reference of our act do not lend themselves too readily to the type of farming done in the maritime areas. Then of course the very generous provisions of the Quebec act make it very difficult for us to get in there. In the maritimes the set-up we have was not right for their type of operation. In other words, the Farm Credit Act gives a tremendous emphasis to assets in land, and these assets are not available, in most cases, in the maritime provinces. I might make the same observation with regard to the province of British Columbia.
As a result of these consultations the farm credit corporation worked out with one province, first of all, very good co-ordination between the federal and provincial credit organization. As a result we took on as an experiment a new type of loan in the province of Nova Scotia.
First of all we looked at the possibility of marketing the production of the farms in that area. There was a deficiency in the hog production of Nova Scotia in relation to the demand for pork products in that province. It was estimated that some 300 to 400 farmers would be well advised to go into some form of hog production along with their other forms of production in order to meet this deficiency. The price for hogs, as hon. members know, is higher in the maritimes than it is in the central provinces.
A barn was designed, the best techniques of feeding were worked out, and our farm supervisors in these areas are now going out and making this market possibility known to farmers. They are encouraging farmers, in 300 to 400 cases, to take this on as one of the types of activities on their farms.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I have every desire to co-operate with the minister. However, would the minister indicate, in point
	.
of time, when these statistics were prepared in regard to Nova Scotia?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The figures I quoted for Nova Scotia were for the fiscal year 1960-61. What I am discussing now, of course, is the operation of the farm credit corporation in Nova Scotia in the last three or four months. This, to my mind, is a perfect example of what can be done by going into a certain area and considering the particular economic needs of that area in consultation with the local people. I hope that the setting up of these barns to handle 250 hogs a year will lead to a better living for the three or four hundred farmers who have received these loans at interest rates of 5 per cent.
I think that in other areas we shall need to take a searching look at the farm situation to make sure we are familiar with the situations prevailing locally. I am intrigued by the possibilities in the province of British Columbia, the maritime provinces and certain areas of Quebec and northern Ontario. I might include, also, the fringe areas of the prairies where the Farm Credit Act does not seem to be meeting the need as well as it does in the better established farm areas.
I forgot to mention one problem in Alberta. We realize there is a difficulty there. I refer to the question of lending money to ranchers and in the special areas.


William Moore Benidickson: What about the questions I asked yesterday?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have just finished answering them. Before the hon. member arrived I gave the figures for Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec where there is provincial loan legislation. 1 explained what the rates were, and how we co-operated with the provinces.
That completes the remarks I had to make in answer to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I should like to end by saying that the demand for this type of credit has been gratifying. It demonstrates that the need exists, and that if we operate in close contact with the farmer and work out plans under which they will not have undue difficulty in repaying the money, while demonstrating at the same time that the farmers concerned are going to enjoy an increased income, there will be a widespread acceptance of the idea of farm credit. Approximately 50 per cent of our farmers are farming land which could, potentially provide them with a good living. If we can provide them with the capital to develop that land into economic family farm units I think we shall have accomplished the main purpose we have in mind.
I should like to thank the staff of the farm credit corporation for the hard work they

have done in the last two years and I should like, also, to thank the staff of the Veterans Land Act administration who have worked in the same office and shown that men of two different organizations can work together under the same heads without too much friction. The results of the last year or so are, I think, a measure of their efforts on behalf of Canadian farmers.


William Moore Benidickson: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we had a discussion in this house on the resolution stage of this bill. At that time we indicated to the minister that we felt that in this field he and his department had made considerable progress. We were prompted to compliment him for that. I did, however, raise one or two questions which I do not think the minister has decided to answer. I referred yesterday to the interest rate which is payable by the farm credit board to the government. I indicated that we are amending the bill so as to provide capital which amounts to another $4 million but that in effect it involves 25 times that amount, namely, $100 million.
As far as the operation of the farm credit board is concerned I do not think the minister has, in accordance with my request yesterday, provided us with information as to the rate of interest which applies to borrowings by the farm credit corporation from the government. Under the amendments which were made in 1959, I think, the farm borrower pays 5 per cent. I indicated yesterday that there was some record that the corporation had borrowed from the government under the statute at a rate as high as 5| per cent. The minister does not appear to have dealt with this up to the present time.
The Farm Credit Act is a successor to the farm loan act. Under the latter act we had always operated on a non-subsidy basis. According to the report of the farm credit corporation for the year ended March 31, 1960, to which I referred yesterday, there had not been disclosed, in the financial statement, a financial loss. However, I urged the minister in our discussion yesterday to give us information which is up to date, or at least up to date to March 31, 1961, with respect to the operations in the second year of the new farm credit corporation. I do not think the minister has done that. I hope that before the debate is concluded, in view of the fact that this amendment involves $100 million of additional credit, to which we do not object, the minister will indicate the current rate of interest at which the farm credit corporation is borrowing money from the dominion government, relate that to the operating expenses of the corporation and relate it also to the section in the act which refers to the neces-
Farm Credit Act
sity for providing for a reserve fund.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Being absent last evening attending a function given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in tribute to the president of the general assembly of the United Nations I lost the opportunity to say a few words on the resolution preceding this bill, so I am now taking the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the bill.
We support the principles and purposes of this bill because it represents the type of farm credit legislation which members of this group have advocated for many years in this house and numerous legislatures throughout Canada. I remember being in the provincial house in company with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) just after the war began when we were advocating provincial legislation almost identical to this with respect to its interest rate and its terms of operation.
We are particularly interested in this type of legislation because we in this group are interested in the development and the welfare of the economic family farm, because we realize its place on the Canadian scene and its value to Canadian society.
The success of this legislation is clearly indicated by the fact that the minister found it necessary to introduce this bill to extend the capital available to the farm credit corporation. Its success is also indicated by its generous acceptance by the farmers and farm organizations. Because of that it is clearly indicated that it fills a long-time unfilled need in the credit sphere as far as agriculture is concerned. Personally I have been very interested for many years in long term low interest credit for farmers. In fact, I think my interest was first aroused about 1920 shortly after the first world war.
I have been on committees that studied the matter, and have been an officer of farm organizations and fruit growers' associations, during which time I have given this serious consideration. I, in association with other members, have urged the necessity for this type of legislation, at farmers' institute meetings, fruit growers' meetings, in the legislature of British Columbia, and in the House of Commons since I came here in 1945, on behalf of this group, as well as in the country since. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting this measure.
We believe that when the government introduces legislation which we consider advantageous to the Canadian people, we should say so and support it. When we disagree with government policy we criticize it just as harshly as we think necessary. So, after a long time, the government of Canada

Farm Credit Act
has begun to realize or accept the fact that there is a need for this type of legislation, and has done so in response to representations made by farmers' organizations in this country and by hon. members of various parties in this house over a number of years.
At the present time farm organizations and farmers generally need this type of assistance, and those who are interested in agriculture support this act and the administration. We have had a good piece of legislation in the form of this act. It is evident that it is sound because of the use that has been made of it during a very short period of time by those who have required it. Good legislation is not sufficient unless accompanied by sound administration.
Without any hesitation I wish to pay tribute to the very sound administration of this legislation by the officials of the farm credit corporation from the director to the most junior supervisor or appraiser in the field.
Why have they been able to give that good administration? I suggest first of all it is because the great majority have that "something" which is required to make this type of legislation a success. They have a feeling for agriculture, and the experience in this field which gives them the knowledge of the farmers' problems, which is required. I suggest therein lies the basis for sound judgment when it comes to the question of assisting to meet farmers' needs in respect to credit.
In addition to that, not only have they this feeling for agriculture, and experience, but the staff has had much imagination and many ideas, while at the same time they have kept their feet on the ground. This is very different from the administration of the Canadian Farm Loan Act. I am not blaming the board or personnel, but that act was administered under the Department of Finance. It is very peculiar that whenever this type of act is administered under the Department of Finance it is not as successful as it might otherwise be, because it is being administered by people who think in terms of money and interest rather than personal relationships, land development and so on. However, that situation is inevitable. The act was too restrictive in its application and it did not provide to those administering it the opportunity to exercise their imaginations, nor to put into operation their ideas, as this act does. There was too little contact with applicants after loans had been made and very little in the way of an advisory staff in partnership with the farmers in their day to day operations after they had become clients of the board. That situation has changed entirely.
Before going on, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make reference to what I thought was

rather a critical note. I may be mistaken but I thought the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) was somewhat critical of the slight element of subsidy that is associated with this act. I do not know if I am correct in assuming that-


William Moore Benidickson: No, I just wanted to make it clear that there was subsidy.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The only subsidy that would arise would be the difference in interest rates between the interest paid by the farmers at 5 per cent, and the interest paid by the corporation on its borrowings.


William Moore Benidickson: And the administrative costs.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And of course administrative costs, but we should exclude them because we have many other government services which are non-profit making in respect of which we do not consider administrative costs. I think it would be fair to the farmer, the people, and the government if we just considered that subsidy in relation to the difference between the interest paid for the funds received by the corporation, and the interest paid on the loans. There is no doubt that there is a slight element of subsidy.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not object to that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think we should realize the value of family farms in this country and the work that is being done under this act, in conjunction with a realization of the existence of subsidies being paid to other industries. For instance, we have heard about the $50 million being paid to railways and the $15 million paid to the gold mining industry-


William Moore Benidickson: And the subsidy to the coal mining industry.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not intend to criticize for one moment.


William Moore Benidickson: And tariffs.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The small element of subsidy under this legislation has not, in my opinion, gained enough in proportion, in relation to the value of the economic family farm in this country.
The personnel at staff headquarters are individuals of long experience, some with considerable experience under the Veterans' Land Act administration and some in other services. That experience is very valuable to the administration of this act.
To indicate the imagination of the progressive ideas which are put forward by the present headquarters administration of this legislation I should like to refer to the booklet entitled "Farm Credit Corporation Lending Policy". I do not intend to deal with it at length but I think anyone who reads the booklet through-I urge all hon. members to-will

realize that this administration is soundly based, and I suggest that the relationship of the corporation to the individual farmer and to the public of Canada is very well dealt with in this booklet, as far as lending policies are concerned. I suggest it is worth while for members to take the time to read about this lending policy as expressed in this booklet, if they wish to get some over-all idea of the thought, imagination, ideas and soundness of this administration.
In the field of local staffs, there are persons with experience in similar work, some with the Veterans' Land Act, and some with other organizations. That experience is not only in respect to legislation but in many cases has regard to circumstances and conditions which change so much across Canada. I can foresee that in the future this legislation will be increasingly complementary to the rural rehabilitation and development act. It will be one of the several acts which will dovetail into this scheme of rural improvement.
As far as the local administration is concerned, I have noticed a big difference in the administration of this act compared with that of the Canadian farm loan board, and I have had quite a long time experience with the Canadian farm loan board. I found them a somewhat impersonal body. They seemed to deal at arm's length with the poor farmer on many occasions. They have often been more impersonal than members of parliament. I have had much closer contact with farmers. The people in the field working under this act, go into a district and discuss the farmer's problems, taking the time necessary to make a thorough assessment of the situation to obtain the confidence of the farmer and determine whether or not in his judgment the amount of loan for which he makes application is in his favour.
Another interesting aspect is this continuing co-operation with the client, as it were, the farmer who has obtained a loan, in making regular visits and working with the farmer in the drafting of a satisfactory program for his soil, for his local circumstances and in relation to his markets.
I notice also that more younger farmers are interested in this legislation, and the staff itself is coming into contact with increasing numbers of young farmers as it becomes known and the terms of the legislation become known. I have a few suggestions to make. They are not made in a critical sense whatever. I make them as a result of pretty close association with the farmers in my district, a lifetime association with a very different type of farmer from those great 90205-6-397
Farm Credit Act
prairie farmers who ride on combines with a radio on the front seat and a television set on the rear.


Mr. Speaker:: Pardon my interruption but there are several very audible conversations going on which make it very difficult to hear the hon. member.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am by no means flattered by that suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I represent the dairy farmers, the beef farmers, the small general farmers, the fruit farmers, the poultry farmers, the muskrat farmers, and so on. I want to make a few suggestions in this connection but they are not particularly critical. I realize the difficulties at the present time with respect to the administrative load that is being placed on the headquarters staff.
I do suggest to the minister that within reason every opportunity be presented to the senior staff of headquarters, the director and his close associates, to make more frequent visits to different parts of Canada, to visit the local offices and become as acquainted as they can personally with the various regions of the various provinces and the areas within the provinces under their jurisdiction. I think it would be very worth while from their point of view and from the point of view of the farmers they are aiming to serve. I think this brings the administration close to the people and everything should be done toward that end. I particularly suggest that they do not overlook the Kootenays, because there they can do business and enjoy themselves at the same time. You can actually fish, troll or fly-fish in a boat as you go along from one farm to another around these beautiful lakes. It is a combination of business and recreation.
Then I suggest that senior officials and the provincial and district officials, where the opportunity occurs under suitable circumstances, attend farmers' meetings and the meetings of other organizations. As far as the farm organization meetings are concerned, I am thinking particularly of the local farm level, the local farmers' institute, the local federations of agriculture, the local fruit growers' association, and so forth. I urge them to attend those meetings and inform them fully of the purposes of the legislation and maintain that close contact and co-operation.
This type of legislation to serve the country to the best advantage also requires cooperation from the top right down to the individual farmers and through them the farmers' organizations because even skilled administrators and ministers can learn from people in very humble circumstances who have the capacity to observe, form judgments and pass on their information to others.

Farm Credit Act
I may say, Mr. Speaker, one of the main reasons why I utter so many, or give vent to so many, wise suggestions in this house and express so many good ideas is that I am fed continually by the people I represent in Kootenay West. They furnish me with these ideas and I simply rise in my place and act as their spokesman.
Then again I suggest also that the senior officials and the district officials, particularly the senior officials, should take the opportunity to visit on a spot basis certain typical farms in each of the areas they visit so that they will get a pretty close understanding of local circumstances.
I have one further suggestion. I can see possibilities in this direction. I presume there has not been a great deal of experience with this up to date. I understand it is quite possible for forest farmers to secure a loan under proper circumstances, as any other farmer can do, from the farm credit corporation. This is a thing I am very interested in and a good number of my constituents are interested in forest farms. I think you call them woodlots in Ontario. It is an area in our country of anything from say 100 acres up to 2,000, 3,000 or 5,000 acres of timber which a man is farming and cropping. Under the legislation I understand it is possible for a person with satisfactory security and knowledge of his business to obtain a loan if he satisfies the requirements of the act. I do suggest it would be a good idea if some of the senior officials would give some thought to this type of application. It takes a person with a little bit of experience, a man who is able to cruise timber and measure it. If a farmer says, "I have 5 million feet of timber on this property," he must be able to confirm that there are 5 million feet. It takes a man who understands species, who understands accessibility of timber, the markets, the cost of building roads and the possibilities for the development of, say, a local lumber market or other forest products market, or shipping to outside markets. In view of the possible future developments in that direction, I do suggest that it is a very worth while feature of farm technology and that more consideration be given to making certain that there are some of the officials of the farm credit corporation who have a knowledge of forest farming in all its aspects.
This is all I have to say at this time. I may have a word or two to say later on but I see nothing to criticize in the legislation, nothing to criticize so far as the administration is concerned to date and I think the best way to show my appreciation to the minister at this time is to conclude at this point.
[Mr. Herridge.l


Harold Warren Danforth: I should like for a few minutes to add my words of support for this measure. As one who represents a district where farming is perhaps a little different from that in most areas may I say I am sure hon. members will appreciate the difficulties that are found in an area where a family farm can consist of one acre covered with glass or maybe 1,500 acres used as a ranch. It could be land used for tobacco at $1,000 an acre in value or land that could be used for pasture purposes, heavy land, worth approximately $60 an acre.
Hon. members will appreciate that in administering a measure such as the farm credit corporation legislation the administrators are faced with immense problems. Under the previous administration there was not a great deal of desire on the part of the farmers, because of the high price of land, to use the implements at hand because it was felt that the money involved did not represent a large enough sum to help them obtain the necessary loan that would make such a venture profitable. When the act was amended to make it possible for young men to borrow up to $20,000 at 5 per cent from the farm credit corporation and to obtain additional funds for machinery and livestock under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, it was quite apparent that the young farmers in the riding of Kent felt that they at last had the tools necessary to help them obtain a farm loan.
One of the basic problems that faced these young, progressive, scientific farmers when they began to take advantage of these loans was the time lag. A great deal of time elapsed from the time they applied for a loan until it was processed and the money was actually placed at their disposal. There was considerable concern over this time lag and a desire to know where to place the blame. I too was very interested because of the many representations made to me and so I took the opportunity of going through the district to try to ascertain where the blame lay. Much to my amazement and to the amazement of other people concerned I found that the main reason for the delay was the tremendous number of applications being placed in the office by farmers wishing to take advantage of this legislation. It was absolutely impossible for the staff then available to process so many applications more rapidly. Let me assure you that these people were highly experienced and competent because of their association with the administration of the Veterans' Land Act. They simply had too many loans to process in too short a time.
However, when the thing began to roll the time lag became shorter and shorter, and I am very happy to report now that there are

very few instances indeed where the young man is held up to any extent on this account. One of the most amazing things that occurred when some of these young men made applications for loans was that they did not always get the amount for which they applied. Any man who has dealings with a bank will very often find that he does not get what he asks for; but in connection with these applications these people in some instances did not obtain what they asked for but rather much more than the amount for which they applied.
I should like to refer to one young farmer with whom I am acquainted. He made application for a loan of $9,000. The men who administer the act are very competent farm managers themselves. They were able to point out to this young farmer that he could put his farm in a much more stable position, thus making it possible for him to repay the loan much sooner, give his farm a better rating and provide his family with a better living if he would borrow more money than the amount for which he had applied. This farmer who had applied for a loan of $9,000 was actually granted a loan of $20,000 by the farm credit corporation, and today he is one of the most progressive young men in the area.
I should like to lend my support to this measure for one basic reason. For too long we have seen the best and most energetic young men leaving the farms and going to the cities to take positions in industry simply because they lacked the necessary funds to purchase their fathers' farms. These fathers had worked through the years to pay off their farms and in many instances there were still small mortgages left. These young men were unable to take over their fathers' farms and so they went into industry and the farms passed into the hands of strangers.
I am very happy to report that in my district the situation seems to have reversed. The young men feel that at last here is an opportunity to borrow a large amount of money at a reasonable rate of interest over a suitable period of time. Thus they are given a reasonable opportunity to pay back the loan with honour, and thanks to the farm credit corporation legislation they feel they can obtain the necessary amount to buy the family farm which means so much to them, land which they are accustomed to work and on which they can do the best job.
I think we have in my riding one of the finest examples in Canada today of young men at last being able to remain on the family farm because they feel that it will carry them and their families into the future with the same degree of security and satisfaction that was experienced by their parents.
90205-6-397J
Farm Credit Act
At last there is a source of credit that is of value to the young men in my area and enables them to attain a business of their own. They have the desire and the knowledge and now they have the funds. This measure makes it possible for them to achieve success in life.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, last night and again tonight the minister gave us a detailed summary of the operation of the Farm Credit Act which is the old farm loans act under a new name, and his summary was very useful indeed. However, I wish to submit a few suggestions which, if taken into consideration and acted upon, will help not only the farmers of my constituency but farmers on small holdings everywhere.
The actual effect of this legislation is to increase the amount available for lending from $200 million to $300 million. I am heartily in favour of the principle of the bill and therefore I am not going to criticize the principle but rather some aspects of the administration of the legislation. As I realize that the bill under discussion would mean the enactment of legislation which could be of assistance to the agricultural potential of the district of Thunder Bay in which my constituency is located, I desire to avail myself of the opportunity to participate briefly m the discussion in the hope that I may be able to impress upon the minister the importance of doing something more than is being done at present by the senior levels of government to bring the agricultural lands of the district, ^ which, as everyone knows, are not a prairie type of soil, into productive holdings from which our farmers can make a decent living.
I need not tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the district is not known as a prosperous agricultural area. It has within its confines a few very fine, well developed and productive farms. The great majority, however, are comparatively small holdings of anywhere from 100 to 300 acres.
One of the commendable aspects of this bill is to provide assistance to those on the land who would otherwise be unable to obtain loans in the ordinary way. This is a welcome measure, especially for those who will be able to qualify; but the farmers of my district have had very little success in obtaining loans to improve their farms in the past.
I have already indicated that the average farmer in my constituency cultivates a comparatively small parcel of land. The majority are of the dairy and truck garden variety. We have, however, large tracts of empty barren areas that could profitably be put

Farm Credit Act
to farm use if the prospective farmer had the means of acquiring stock and machinery.
From its inception the farm loan act the name of which was changed to the Farm Credit Act has provided the means for financing farm equipment to western farmers. But it has not been too prone to do so for the poor farmers of the east, notably those in my constituency, with the result that they have had to resort to finance companies for their purchases of machinery, paying a rate of interest considerably higher than they would have had to pay had they been able to borrow from the banks through the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
During the past decade we have witnessed a trend of movement from the rural to the urban centres, brought about by more attractive living conditions, which in no small measure, have been due to gainful employment which up to two or three years ago it was rather easy to obtain. Conditions are now somewhat reversed in many cases and therefore I believe that what we should be concerned with at present is stimulating an interest in a return to the land movement. That is something which, in my opinion, we must do sooner or later.
Speaking on the supply motion on agriculture in 1960, as reported at page 3427 of Hansard I made the following statement:
I have said previously and I say again that unless a farmer in our district has sufficient collateral to show it is next to impossible for him to secure a loan to enable him to develop efficiently and economically the agricultural potential of his holding.
The situation as described is just as true today as it was a year ago. I have been pleading with the government for easier credits for our farmers ever since my election to parliament in 1958, and I shall continue to do so until the tillers of the soil of my constituency receive the same consideration as do their more fortunate counterparts in the prairie provinces and in the lush eastern parts of Ontario. Social workers, clergymen and others agree that the farm and village are the ideal setting for family life, the best of all places in which to bring up a family. But, so long as a lack of opportunity for financial improvement exists, and so long as inability to borrow money from lending institutions continues, individual poverty and lack of community resources will drive farming people to the urban areas where, instead of milk and honey, only crowded conditions and often misery prevail.
Our efforts should be directed toward building a happy rural Canada instead of discouraging people from living on the farm, thus leading them to the misery of unemployment in the cities.

As a result of neglect on the part of both senior levels of government, both federal and provincial, during the past 20 years, the number of farmers in the Thunder Bay district decreased from approximately 2,500 to about half that number or 1,250, and a considerable portion of the land which they farmed is now deserted and looks as though a hurricane had passed through it leaving behind nothing but buildings which look like derelicts.
I think that the role in the economy of the farmer who operates a mixed holding of a few hundred acres or less has been overlooked by the government. Not sufficient emphasis has been forthcoming from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) in the way of promotion, especially in undeveloped areas such as the lakehead district which has a population of 125,000, of which only 5.3 per cent are farmers, whereas for the province of Ontario the percentage of farmers to the total population is about 12J per cent.
The advent of the seaway, now in its third year of operation, has increased the demand for fresh farm produce. Unlimited supply of livestock feed is available at lakehead terminals. The disadvantage appears to be small amounts of crop land. There are plenty of good prospective farmers as well as those who are now on the land who would wish to enlarge and improve their holdings in order to get the maximum return from their land, and the only thing that stops them is lack of capital. If this increase in the capital of the farm credit corporation is really going to be made available to needy farmers and prospective farmers, then I would certainly congratulate the minister on his too little but, I hope, not too late measure to rescue the type of farmer for whom I am speaking.
I am a staunch advocate of a liberal credit policy designed to encourage ownership and operation of farms, large and small, in every part of Canada. Among the small farmers of northwestern Ontario is the mixed farmer who keeps cows, grows vegetables and has a woodlot from which he derives the biggest part of his income by selling the pulpwood to the local pulp and paper companies. These farmers should be assisted in setting up projects of reforestation. I express the hope that the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming) will take under advisement the establishment of a policy to encourage reforestation on lands owned by these small woodlot farmers. This is the type of farmer that predominates in the agricultural areas of northwestern Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have been following the hon. member with some misgiving and wondering what he is saying has to do with

the bill in question. Actually, we are dealing with the Farm Credit Act as it stands. The question or the principle before the house is whether to increase the capital of that act. I concede that anything that comes under the act as it stands is in order. However, the hon. member is talking about farm woodlots and reforestation and a great many agricultural problems that surely have nothing to do with this bill.


Hubert Badanai: I am merely attempting to show that this legislation could help the farmers by helping them through a reforestation policy within their woodlots. I am speaking about small farmers who do mixed farming and who operate woodlots within their own holdings. That is the type of farmer about whom I am speaking and to whom this legislation will be helpful if the money is available to them and approved by the proper authority.
The largest group of small farmers are those engaged in the production of whole milk which is sold to city dairies. During the past two or three years the market for whole milk has declined because there is a lack of facilities for the production of cheese and powdered milk, which would absorb the portion not used by the lakehead milk distributors.
This is another way in which we could help these farmers to create for themselves an avenue which would be of assistance to them financially. It is here that a substantial government loan could assist in the establishment, for example, of a cheese factory. A few years ago a few farmers did band together and established a small plant-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are several members who wish to speak on this bill and I think I would not be doing my duty if I allowed the hon. member to discuss a great many unrelated matters. There is nothing in this bill relating to the establishment of a cheese factory.


Hubert Badanai: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to bring to the attention of the house ways in which I believe this legislation could help our farmers. It may be of interest to hon. members to know that in order to establish a 5 cans of milk quota an investment of from $30,000 to $40,000 is required. This would gross to the farmer the princely sum of only $20 per day. As everyone knows, the farmer must of necessity milk his cows 12 hours apart, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, notwithstanding the mechanization which has taken place in recent years.
One of the greatest problems of the farmer today is finding the money for the operation of his farm in the face of heavy payments on his capital expenditure for the mechanization
Farm Credit Act
of his operation, which mechanization has been forced upon him due to the difficulty of securing part-time farm help.
Farm loans have taken the place of the hired man. The farmer now hires money instead of men to carry on his farm operations. Of course, if he cannot borrow money his enterprise will suffer. It is for this reason the government has realized that more money is needed, and I am all for it.
I would feel much happier, of course, if those responsible for the approval of these loans took into consideration all factors, not least of which is the essential need of the individual applicant, regardless of geography. In the northern Ontario area there are a number of French speaking farmers, which would justify the appointment of a bilingual inspector of farm holdings whose job it is to approve loan applications. The point is that applications are often turned down because of a lack of understanding of the farmer's problems and because there is not a proper appreciation of the relative value of farms in these rugged parts of Ontario.
Local banks, while sympathetic, will loan money under the farm loan act. However, they will only loan amounts which are not necessarily based on needs, but rather on the bank's evaluation of the farmer as a financial risk. It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture should initiate a study of all the potentials of agriculture in every part of Canada, instead of confining most of his attention to the problems of the big western farmers. The farm credit corporation should be able to recommend applications for loans to any farmer or farm organization for the establishment of facilities which would help not only farmers but the economy of the area in which these facilities will be located.
Loans are required to assist farmers to acquire registered livestock. If they had the money, they would be in a position to buy a better class of cattle. This is just as important in agriculture as it is for a factory to have better machinery with which to improve its products. According to the annual report in connection with the Farm Improvement Loans Act for the year 1960, in the 15 years since the act was introduced, from 1945 to 1960, out of a total of $1,013,782,000 borrowed under the act there remains outstanding $177 million, represented by 170 loans. Practically all the money borrowed from 1945 to 1956 has been repaid. This is the point I wish to bring out. On the basis of this record no one can deny the wisdom of the government of the day in enacting this legislation, the results of which have been an outstanding success.
The submission of the national farmers' union made to the government on February

Farm Credit Act
15, 1961, rejected the widely held opinion that technology and efficiency demand the removal of the majority of farm families from the land. The brief included these words:
We do not subscribe to the theory that the activities and institutions ol men are determined solely by technology and economics regardless of human and social values, but hold that technological developments can and must be adjusted to serve the human, social and economic needs of men.
We believe that the family farm is the most efficient unit in terms not only of production, but also in terms of soil conservation and human and social values. We therefore believe that the preservation of the family farm is of importance to farm families as well as to the nation as a whole.
I for one certainly subscribe to these sentiments, which are opposed to the farm people of Canada becoming "factory in the field" instead of a happy family farm. Canada's best interests will be served in the end by a large number of mixed farms rather than by a few specialized farm units.
It seems to me that the flight from the farm to the city which has been going on over the past several years is a sad trend. This decline in our farm population and in the relative importance of agriculture to the national economy is to be regretted. Certainly it has its sad side, particularly for those whose roots are deep in the land.
Our farm population may continue to shrink. The farmer is unlikely to become extinct, however, because he has an important role to play in the Canadian economy for a long time to come; just as long, in fact, as human beings need to eat.
With modern aids life on the farm is undoubtedly easier than it has ever been. The advent of the automobile, telephone, radio, television, the differences between rural and urban living have been narrowed to the point that a "back to the land" campaign would not be a bad idea. I commend this to the minister. If this bill will do anything to encourage people to stay on the farm and encourage some to settle on the land, then I say it will have accomplished a great deal for Canada.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, if the sentiments expressed by the last speaker truly represent the views of the official opposition, I am very happy to learn that the Liberal party has at long last discovered the value and virtues of the family farmer.
In considering whether or not support should be given to legislation of this kind which, in effect, will have the result of increasing by $100 million the amount of money available for lending under this legislation, I think one is driven to consider what were the simple principles which encouraged the government to pass the legislation in the

first place. In order to recapitulate these I can do no better than read briefly from a statement made by Mr. George Owen, chief of the loans division of the corporation to the banker's summer school in Guelph. I am paraphrasing and summarizing the statement but I think it is constructive and I should like to put a few paragraphs on the record. These are simple principles but there is a tendency for us to stray away from them. When legislation has been passed we are inclined to look only at the means of applying the legislation and sometimes we forget the principles which led to its introduction. I am quoting now:
The farmer, looking for ways and means of increasing his net income, has little hope of increasing prices for his product. There seems to be even less possibility that the cost of the items he must buy, in order to produce, will be less. His only real hope appears to lie in producing a greater volume of high-quality, readily-marketable product, thus spreading overhead costs over a larger number of units, and in careful planning and organization to reduce operating costs.
Higher wages in industry have made it almost impossible to hire farm labour at a price the farmer can afford, and a shortage of labour in the production season adds to the risk of depending on hired labour. Farm labour which could be paid for by the day, week or month has, therefore, been largely replaced by machinery, which must be paid for in cash or with credit.
Fortunately, with modern machinery and laboursaving methods, farmers may now handle much larger units. The cost of setting up a minimum economic family farm unit has thus greatly increased over the years. What is equally important is the fact that the capital structure of the individual farm has changed, with a higher percentage of total assets being represented by livestock, equipment and working capital, and a lesser percentage by real property, which has been the traditional security for long term credit. As a result, the credit arrangements which could be made under the former Canadian Farm Loan Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act, either separately or together, although fairly adequate for the well-established farmer, became entirely inadequate to meet the needs of the capable farmer on a farm of limited size who wishes to expand his unit, or of a young and capable farmer desirous of setting up an economic farm unit.
I think it was for the purpose which those last few sentences have defined that this legislation was passed. It has proved a most valuable asset to the farmers, as I know from my personal knowledge, and for this reason I have no hesitation at all in adding my support to this particular bill.
Dealing with the measure from a narrower angle, let me say that I have made it my business as I go home to talk to the people who have made applications, who have been granted loans or whose applications are being processed. I would estimate that I have seen or visited or written letters to approximately 25 per cent of those farmers in my constituency who have been in contact with the officials of the farm credit corporation with respect to this legislation and there is not

the slightest doubt that the benefits which have been brought to these farmers are invaluable. As I say, I am speaking from my own experience. I am not going to deal with this subject statistically because I do not think dealing with it on a statistical basis would lend colour to our reasons for supporting this legislation. These are living people we are dealing with, working farmers, many of whom I have met.
In my area particularly under the old administration-I do not place any particular blame upon them, but it did happen-some of the officials of the farm loans board responsible for policy completely refused to acknowledge that farmers could be successful if they carried on their operations some miles from rail head. In what is called the Battle river district, some 60 miles north of the Grimshaw area through which the new railway will go, a splendid farming community has been built up, but only within the last two or three years has it been possible for the people of that district to have the benefit of this farm credit legislation made available to them. These benefits will, I hope, in due course be extended even further up into the Fort Vermilion area between 200 and 250 miles from the railroad.
Another aspect of this legislation I should like to praise is the time spent by the officials in preliminary assessment and appraisal. In the old days people would make applications for loans and send in their forms. Then there would usually be an attempt to cut down the amount of the loan to some extent without too much regard for the purpose for which the loan has been made. I think that was entirely wrong. It is a fault which has certainly been cured by the present legislation and the machinery for administering it. I know from my experience that the officials spend a great deal of time counselling and assisting the farmers and making recommendations concerning the type of loan they should have, the amount they should ask for and the purpose for which it should be granted, not in an arbitrary or authoritarian way but as helpers and advisers. I think this has paid off and that it will continue to pay off in the future.
My colleague who spoke before me mentioned the flexibility of the machinery of legislation and the willingness of the officials, should the circumstances justify it, to increase the amount of a loan which had been made in order to meet the exigencies of a particular situation; their willingness to take into account the human factor. I can recall last summer receiving a telephone call and, later, a visit from a middle aged farmer who had made an application for a loan which had been rejected. He did not come to me in
Farm Credit Act
order to complain, but he wanted to know whether anything further could be done. This was obviously a borderline case and in certain conditions he might well have been eligible. From what I knew of him I was satisfied that he was a suitable person to receive a loan. I telephoned the head office and within 24 hours another official came out, there was a reappraisal of the land in the light of certain conditions which I knew, and, as a result, in less than three days this application had been accepted. This is an illustration that knowledge of the human beings concerned in these transactions can, in itself, be enough to justify placing an application in a category where it can be accepted.
Another thing which appeals to me in connection with this legislation and its administration is the provision made for decentralization. I mentioned this before in connection with the A.R.D.A. bill which the Minister of Agriculture brought in. Undoubtedly it is necessary for governments to take unto themselves a large degree of power and authority. They have to do so in the complex world in which we live. But it is my conviction that wherever possible the use of such power should be decentralized and the right to make decisions should be left as far as possible with the officials in the field who are calculated to have a more precise knowledge of what the real facts are. All too often, by the time applications had been processed by a system of intellectual osmosis from the perimeter to Ottawa and back again weeks had elapsed, the tenor of the application had been destroyed and its urgency entirely dissipated. I know for a fact that a large amount of control and authority is left with the officials who are in the field. So far in my experience, they have made good and adequate use of it. That is another reason which I advance for supporting the legislation.
I could mention a number of cases, perhaps 25 per cent or 30 per cent in my constituency, where this program has been effective, but I shall not take up the time of this house to do so.
I know that while there are no figures or information available as to the exact aomunt of loans which have been made, they are quite substantial. I am satisfied for the reasons I have advanced that many of the people who were entitled to loans found that their rights to a loan have been restricted by the regulations of the old farm loan board, which considered the applications from this area, and I should think that because of this, under the new act we have probably had as large a number of applications from that area as from any other constituency in Canada, and I think that will continue for some time.

Farm Credit Act
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but put on the record my feeling that the family farm, with the individual farmer, is probably one of the important remaining strongholds of the principles of human freedom, enterprise and liberty. I am not suggesting that it is the only stronghold, but the man and family who have to contend with nature with their own resources, represent an institution which, in our struggle with the other half of the world, we must strengthen and perpetuate.
I read just the other day in a news item that a large quantity of land in Russia has been turned over to collective farming, where because of the fact that there had not been that care and regard which the individual farmer has for his own land, machinery and stock, that land, which probably should never have been put under the plough, had seriously deteriorated. As a result, the estimates of the U.S.S.R., in anticipation of their food requirements, were much higher than could be produced, and they were sadly disappointed. I suggest that illustrates the absolute necessity for strengthening and maintaining, as an underpinning of our economy and way of life, the family farm of our country, because from there will be fed those qualities of industry, initiative and enterprise which have injected into the bloodstream of the nation those things which will perpetually keep us strong and maintain us in our present economy.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, having been in this house for many years I can assure hon. members that because this farm loan corporation comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) and because I am his parliamentary secretary, I feel it my duty to say a few words to strengthen his hand.
This is the best farm loan corporation that has ever existed in the Dominion of Canada during my lifetime. It has been brought forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker), the leader of this government, to assist farmers to assist themselves. We are now in a position where any farmer who has the qualifications can secure this type of loan without any difficulty.
I have been farming all my life and have paid for a farm the hard way, by borrowing the money from the bank at too high a rate of interest. I suggest 5 per cent interest is the highest rate that farmers can afford to pay, if thew are to be able to pay back the loan. The farmers must certainly pay back the loans because when they borrow from the farm loan corporation it is made abundantly clear to them that unless they prove 
that they are able to pay back the loan with interest within a certain number of years the loans will be refused.
We have the advantage now that many farmers who previously were unable to obtain a loan find they can do so through the farm loan corporation at 5 per cent interest, and thereby are able to increase their ability to pay back the loan.
I come from a part of the country which is purely agricultural. The farmers of that area have borrowed over $1 million from this corporation since its inception. Many townships have borrowed much more than others, but in my county farmers have been able to borrow well over a million dollars. In the province of Ontario loans to the extent of $23,011,870 have been made.
I should like to draw to the attention of this house some figures which I obtained from the latest full report of the farm credit corporation, for the years 1959-60. I intend to give the figures for a period of five years, from 1955 to 1960.
The number of loans approved in 1955-56 was 2,057; in 1956-57, 2,921; 1957-58, 3,702; 1958-59, 4,805 and in 1959-60, 5,339. The difference in the number of loans during that five year period is 3,282.


Samuel Boulanger: What does it mean?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Spell it out for him.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The farmers have been able to obtain that many more loans in 1960 than they were able to obtain in 1955. That is exactly what it means.
The average amount of the loans in 1955 was $4,040 while the average of the loans in 1960 is $7,498, which is almost double. The difference is $3,458. The total amount of approved loans in 1955 was $8,309,650, while the total amount in 1960 was $40,031,250, the difference being $31,721,600.
The farmers are not receiving anything for nothing because they must pay 5 per cent interest. This is not a hand-out in any way to the farmer.
I should like to explain how farm loans can be used. First, they can be used to acquire farmland and to erect or modernize farm buildings. Second, they can be used to purchase basic herd livestock and necessary farm equipment. Third, they can be used to provide lime, fertilizer and seed to establish permanent plantings. Fourth, they can be used to discharge liabilities, or for any purpose which the corporation considers necessary for the organization and operation of an economic family farm unit.
I should like now to give a few more figures by placing the following quotation on the record:

On March 31, I960, there were outstanding 28,453 first mortgage loans totalling $119,978,763, and 505 second mortgage loans totalling $173,108. In addition, the corporation held 91 sale agreements valued at $83,256 and 12 parcels of real estate in which the corporation's investment is $31,346 carried at a book value of $21,373. The following table shows the number of mortgage loans outstanding and the corporation's investment in them in each of the last five years, including accrued interest to March 31 each year.
Fiscal	Number of	
Year	Loans	Investment1955/56	18,931	$ 44,958,1361956/57	20,372	53,748,3641957/58	22,494	68,490,5231958/59	25,471	91,298,1191959/60	28,453	120,151,871
At the end of the fiscal year 90.9 per cent of all first mortgage loan accounts were in good standing, as compared with 91.4 per cent on March 31, 1959. A total of $7,903,633 of principal was repaid during the year, of which 67.4 per cent was received in payment of principal not yet due. Interest due during the year amounted to $4,443,338, of which $4,111,165, or 92.5 per cent had been paid by the end of the year.
Types of Mortgage Loan The Farm Credit Act provides two types of long term mortgage loans to bona fide and competent farmers, who are in actual need of assistance to set up economic farm units, the income from which is largely derived from crops grown on such units, and marketed either directly or through livestock. The first, under part II of the act, is an extension of the assistance formerly available from the Canadian farm loan board. It is based on the security of farm land and may be made to persons whose principal occupation is farming. The maximum loans may not exceed 75 per cent (formerly 65 per cent) of the value of the farm land taken as security or $20,000 (formerly $15,000), whichever is the lesser. These loans are repayable by equal annual or semi-annual instalments of combined principal and interest over an appropriate period not to exceed 30 years.
The second, under part III of the act, is designed to assist young farmers who have attained the age of 21 years and have not attained the age of 45 years, and who have at least five years' farming experience, to become established on economic farm units. Such loans are based primarily on first mortgage security of farm lands, but up to 40 per cent of the required security may be represented by livestock and farm equipment. The maximum loan may not exceed 75 per cent of the value of the farm land and chattels taken as security or $27,500, whichever is the lesser. That portion of the loan secured by farm land is repayable over a period not to exceed 30 years, and that portion (if any) which is based on chattel security must be repaid within the first 10 years. Part III loans are further secured by insurance on the life of the borrower. Another new and significant feature of these loans is the provision of supervision by the corporation of the borrower's farming operations until such time as the loan has been reduced to 65 per cent of the appraised value of the farm land held as security.
I should like to put on the record the cost of making and administering loans:
As of March 31, 1960, the average interest being paid on all money on loan to the corporation was 4.2 per cent. However, since the reserve, amounting to $3,748,862, and the capital of the corporation, 90205-6-398
Farm Credit Act
amounting to $5 million, are available for loaning without interest cost to the corporation, the average interest cost of all money on loan to borrowers at that date was 3.9 per cent.
If, as expected, the corporation is obliged to borrow $50 million in the fiscal year 1960-61, and assuming that the interest rate on new money is that now prevailing, the average interest rate on the total money available for loaning purposes will be approximately 4.45 per cent as of March 31, 1961. This would leave a margin between the average cost of money to the corporation and the interest charged to its borrowers of only 0.55 per cent as compared with an average annual operating cost over the past five years of 1.1 per cent.
The corporation will derive additional revenue from the increased appraisal fees payable on new applications, but this will be more than offset by the cost of the extra staff required to make and review appraisals, which is made necessary by the much greater risks inherent in the provisions of the new legislation, and to supply a pre-loan counselling and loan service to farmers in their own communities. Additional costs will also be involved in bringing salaries in line with those being paid for similar work within the civil service.
I do not wish to read any more. I have had a lot of experience with farm loans and with the Veterans' Land Act from 1940 to 1945 when soldiers overseas came back to be re-established. I have had a lot of experience with the farm loan board and now this act has come into being. I can assure the house that if loans under this act increase in the next three years, as they have in the past years, they will more than double in a very short time. I would say that in a year the number of loans will be double what they are now. This proves that the farmers themselves have accepted this act and are taking advantage of it.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate. I have only two remarks to make following the speech just delivered by the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Cardiff). He said that the number of loans increased from 2,025 in 1955-56 to 5,339 in 1959-60.
I agree with him that that legislation has been particularly beneficial to the farmers of western Canada, because in eastern Canada the number of loans did not increase so much owing to the fact that the Quebec farm loans legislation may be better suited to our farmers. However, I submit that if there is such a large difference between the number of loans in 1955-56 and 1959-60 it is because the farmers were in an impossible situation, and that is why the number of loans more than doubled.

Farm Credit Act
Furthermore, if the farmers' situation does not change the number of loans will increase further and it will not be any longer $27,500 which will be the limit of loans allowed to farmers, because they will need $50,000, and that, within a few years, if their net income does not increase.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Especially after a change of government in Quebec.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, since reference is being made to the Quebec provincial farm loan, I shall be pleased to talk about it, because if today the federal farm loan is of no benefit to the farmers of the province of Quebec, it is because in my province loans are made today on the basis of up to 80 per cent of the value of the farm and even 90 per cent in the case of young farmers of 21 to 45 years old. It is an improvement which has just been introduced by the government of the province of Quebec, and I would wish the federal government did as much.
In any event, I would suggest to the minister that the cost of assessment be reduced. Today, a farmer has to pay 2 per cent of the amount requested, or $50, whichever is the lesser. In the province of Quebec, the cost is only $5, and when the loan is refused, the $5 is refunded; however, under the federal legislation, a farmer has to pay $50, and if the loan is refused, it is his loss.
In view of the fact that the net income of the Canadian farm loan corporation was $240,000 last year, I think we might reduce the assessment cost on farm loans.
There would be much more to be said, but I shall end my remarks with this recommendation, to which I hope the minister will give serious consideration.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Will the hon. member allow me a question? As I understood him, he stated that we would soon have to raise the amount of the loans from $27,500 to $50,000. If farming conditions are as bad as my colleague claims they are, and if farm incomes keep dropping, could the hon. member explain how the farmers will be able to repay the $50,000 loans he has just suggested?


Samuel Boulanger: Farmers will do then what they are doing today; they will eat up their capital from year to year, and when they have reached the end of their resources, they will borrow as they do today.
Some farmers borrowed $10,000; they used part of their capital in order to stay on their farm and now they have to borrow $25,000.
That is why I say that in a few years from now, they will need $50,000.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska will allow, I should like to ask him a question.


Samuel Boulanger: Certainly.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Could the hon. member tell me what he thinks of the following quotation from Hansard of July 13, 1959, the day on which the government amended the Canadian Farm Loan Act. This is what he said then:
I must congratulate him and thank him for that, on behalf of the farmers.
By those words, the hon. member commended the Minister of Agriculture and, at the same time, the government.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I was glad at that time to commend the government for the amendments it made to the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
I remember that we introduced then two amendments to the act and that, by their vote, the government members rejected them. Yet, those amendments favoured the farmers in general.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.
(Text):


William Harold Hicks: Mr. Speaker, the Farm Credit Act is very popular in British Columbia. Some 355 applications have been received and according to the latest figures there are 25 now pending. To date about 16 per cent of the applications have been rejected. The total amount of loans in British Columbia is $3,469,150 for some 254 loans, or an average of about $13,700 per loan. I believe that Fraser Valley tops the list in the province for the number of loans made with the Okanagan Boundary district coming second.
As Fraser Valley is the centre of a large dairy industry, it is an area where farm loans are often required. The large co-operative Fraser Valley milk producers' association does big business in this area amounting to some $27 million a year. High-class cattle are bred here and although sales there do not average as high as the figure of $1,790, which was reached in Ontario recently at the national sale, the cattle that are bred do furnish considerable revenue along with the revenue from milk production.
I had one rejection of a loan brought to my attention before I came here last fall. A young man had received a farm of 225 acres with excellent soil because of the death of his mother and he wanted to borrow $20,000 on the farm. There were no mortgages on the farm at the time and I was rather amazed when he telephoned me one day and said that

his loan application had been refused. I discussed the matter with the supervisor and he informed me that he considered that this man was trying to run an uneconomic operation. There were two hired men on the farm in addition to the owner and they were milking 30 cows. It is a poor man these days who cannot milk 30 cows himself, let alone having three men doing the job. This application was turned down but the young man then borrowed the money privately elsewhere.
In discussing the Farm Credit Act I think we should consider both the pros and cons, and if I am a little critical I hope the minister will forgive me. It may be because of the hot, sultry weather we are having but I do feel somewhat critical tonight about certain features of the act. I believe the chief criticism of the act in British Columbia is the difficulty of getting a loan on a small acreage, say 10 acres. Holdings of that size may be operated as poultry, berry, vegetable, flower, seed or even holly farms. A poultryman does not require heavy, fertile soil. In fact, for drainage purposes often poorer soil is better than rich soil. On the other hand, a berry crop requires a good soil. These are opposite situations but it shows the difference that can be found in 10-acre farms. It is amazing how much a revenue can be derived from 10 acres under certain circumstances.
I believe that at the commencement of the operation of the act the idea was that a poultryman should produce on the property half the feed that he uses. Hence he needed more than just a small acreage and this was one of the reasons why applications were turned down. This is an erroneous idea. Grain may be purchased in Fraser valley and in fact in most of British Columbia much more cheaply than it can be grown, especially on small farms and crop failures could be common especially in wet weather. This is a very poor idea but if my information is correct, at the present time I believe this clause has now been more or less eliminated and it is up to the supervisor as to whether he thinks there is a prospect of this particular farmer, whether he is a poultryman, a dairyman, or a fruit grower, can make a success of the venture.
The small dairy farmer is a different proposition. So, as I say, anything that has a reasonable chance of success is likely to be passed by the supervisor. A loan on a farm that is not operating successfully should be turned down anyway. Where farmers cannot succeed, it is often necessary to move or at least for the sons to seek employment elsewhere.
This is where vocational training schools fit into the picture of the farm loan board.
90205-6-398J
Farm Credit Act
The vocational training school project has gradually caught fire. I note that Ontario is planning an $8 million building program to be completed during the next year and a half. This will accommodate many students from farms as well as other places and even the actual labour of building will, it is stated, provide employment for about 20,000 workers for 18 months. In a local paper from British Columbia recently I noted a report stating that the minister of education has planned to spend $10 million on enlarging vocational schools in agricultural areas in order to look after certain instruction to young farmers and farmers' daughters. Some farms in British Columbia are well adapted for recreation centres around a lake or for motels or camp sites, et cetera. A dude ranch might be more profitable than is more standard farming. This whole system is suitable for arranging just such things as these. All these features should be investigated by the owner in order to see whether increased revenue, some of it easy money, could not be picked up. If failure is sure on any farm, no loan should be given.
Another criticism in Fraser valley and the coast area occurred when the provincial head office was moved from New Westminster to Kelowna. It was moved without notice and to the minds of many, for very little reason. It was asserted that it was nearer the centre of British Columbia. This is incorrect because Vanderhoof is the centre of the province. It was asserted that there were more loans in this area. I believe this statement was incorrect. It was asserted that it was nearer the farming area. May I say that Fraser Valley produces a great deal of farm revenue. I am sure there is agreement on that matter. It was asserted that it was easier of access. This assertion I again contend is false. If you wanted to fly to Kelowna from here, you would go to Vancouver and fly back-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it seems to me that discussing the administration of the act, especially in the respect in which he is now doing it, namely as to the place in British Columbia where the manager of the farm credit board should be located, would have nothing to do with the principle of the bill before the house which has only one purpose, namely to increase from $8 million to $12 million the money paid to the corporation for the capital of the corporation. Although some phases of the administration of the act may have some relevancy to the purpose of the act, certainly the subject matter with which the hon. member is now dealing would have nothing to do with it.

Farm Credit Act


William Harold Hicks: I should like to finish up by pointing out this with respect to Kamloops- and this is what I was getting at. It would be easier to carry on in a place where there is a land registry office than it is where the office is now located. Let me conclude with this statement. I feel that the Farm Credit Act is good. Its growth is excellent, and from what I can learn it is generally acceptable.


James Norris Ormiston: Mr. Speaker, last night when we listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) speak and again tonight I think we realized that he gave a rather concise picture of the operation of the farm credit corporation and of the need to increase the authorized capital of the corporation itself. Those of us who represent farm constituencies realize at first hand the need for this increase in capital because of the great demand for the service which the corporation is rendering. In an area such as that which I represent, where the assessment ranges from $500 a quarter section to $5,000, you can well realize the difficulty in the operation, and the assessment and the appraisal of the applications which come in. However, I have been greatly impressed by the enthusiasm not only of the staff and the officials of the farm credit corporation but by the responsibility which the applicants feel towards the officials of the farm credit corporation. It makes a person realize that the staff and the officials who are administering the act and working for the corporation really believe in them wholeheartedly. They impress upon the applicants the possibilities which are theirs within the scope of the act and the great way in which the farmers can avail themselves of the various opportunities.
When we look at the figures very briefly for the last three years, Mr. Speaker, we can realize why this authorization is required. In 1958, when the farm loan board was in effect, the loans made that year amounted to $30 million. In the following year, when the farm loan board was operated and the farm credit corporation took over after October 5, the loans rose to $40 million. In this last year for which we have records the loans are up to $60 million.
There has been very little increase in the staff during those three years. It is fairly obvious that the services which are rendered by the staff of the farm credit corporation are really outstanding. I refer primarily to the pre-loan counselling which is given by the farm credit corporation advisers. These officials are devoted servants. They are intelligent and they certainly have dedication to the work which they are doing. As I say, they impress the farmers very greatly and they are able to interpret the provisions of the

act in a most admirable manner. The farmers who benefit by the clauses of the act realize that here is something which can improve their position. They are now able to get adequate credit which for many years had been denied them. They are aware that under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture we have a corporation which is serving a crying need that had been denied for a long time.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, I see the evening is wearing on and in rising at this time it is not my purpose to delay the second reading of this bill. However, I do have some brief comments to make on farm credit legislation.
I think that before looking at Canada's new farm credit legislation we might look at the farm credit situation as it existed prior to the introduction of these measures, and at some of the reasons why legislative changes appeared necessary if agriculture was to be given a chance to take advantage of the new technologies and methods which have been found so effective in reducing agricultural costs.
The amount of capital required to set up a minimum economic family farm unit having more than doubled since the last war, the credit arrangements which could be made under the Canadian farm loan act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act, either separately or together, although fairly adequate for the well established farmer were entirely inadequate to meet the needs of the young and capable farmer desirous of setting up an economic family farm unit unless, of course, he was fortunate enough to possess at least 50 per cent of the required capital or a minimum of $15,000.
To start out with something less than an economic family farm unit meant higher production costs in the beginning, and consequently very little by way of profit with which to expand. The struggle toward such a unit had become so slow that only a fortunate few ever reached it in time to fully exploit its advantages and, because of its cost, it was a difficult unit to dispose of in its entirety or even to transfer from one generation to another without the intervention of very substantial credit. The result has been that the transition to the family farm unit of economic size capable of using modern methods and of producing a standard, readily marketable product at a minimum cost has, in most parts of this country, been extremely slow.
There seemed to be good reason to believe that the problems associated with low farm income and with surplus disposal were closely linked with relatively high production costs,

and that these excess costs were largely due to the fact that by far the greater number of Canadian farms were still a long way from being economic units by present day standards. It also seemed evident that lack of capital was making it difficult for farmers in the more adaptable areas to switch production from straight grain farming and in so doing help bring production more in line with future market requirements as estimated by the Gordon commission on Canada's economic future.
With our rangeland potential almost fully exploited, the predicted large increase in the demand for beef would have to be met in our more adaptable cultivated areas, both east and west, through switching to grassland farming and, incidentally, putting more of our good land into effective preservation against the day when every available acre may have to be put under intensive cultivation in order to feed our own increasing population and high protein foods, such as beef, will be a luxury, as they are today in many parts of the world.
That the net income of competent farmers now on inadequate units could be increased by at least 50 per cent and their production made to conform more nearly to future market requirements with ample, long term, package deal credit made available to them was well established by a survey conducted by the Veterans' Land Act administration in 1958.
This survey covered a cross section of 25 per cent of Veterans' Land Act farm settlers in all provinces of Canada and was made for the purpose of assessing their future credit requirements. It was also so designed that it would show what effect the availability and use of adequate long term credit would have on their farm income and on their future production pattern, they having been previously exposed to at least some instruction having to do with modern farm organization and methods, particularly as applied to agriculture, through the services provided by federal farm credit advisers.
The results of this survey indicated that the most serious problems facing agriculture today may well stem from the lack of sufficient long term credit. It also seemed evident that ample, long term, package deal credit designed to assist competent young farmers in the setting up of family farm units of economic size, when granted in sufficient amounts to do the job for which it was intended, always enough but never too much, was probably the most effective and economical way in which the government could assist agriculture to attain parity of income with other industries, and this through the
Farm Credit Act
medium of reduced production costs from which the whole economy would benefit.
While this would be essentially a long term program, the assembly under a competent owner-operator of each and every new, economically sized family farm unit would bring agriculture one step nearer to the objective of parity income for its operators and production costs which would not only keep the home market but would make it possible to compete favourably in the export market as well.
The object of this legislation, as stated by the then minister of agriculture, is:
-to assist Canadian farmers in the voluntary reorganization of their industry into economic family farm units, each of which will be of sufficient size or efficiency to produce the farm income necessary to pay all operating and maintenance costs; to provide a good livelihood for the owner-operator and his dependents; and to retire any required credit, with interest, within an appropriate term.
There are several reasons why this new credit program should be better than the old, the most important being that the corporation is operating under more comprehensive and forward looking credit legislation, with policy directed specifically toward the task of assisting the industry to reorganize itself into sound, economic family farm units.
Next in importance is the fact that the corporation has at its all-important field level a force of over 200 trained and experienced resident credit advisers who are now well deployed throughout the agricultural areas of the country. These have been drawn largely from trained and experienced V.L.A. farm credit advisers.
There is one area in the farm credit field that I feel merits careful consideration. In Manitoba, particularly, the size of the farm is not always a criterion for establishing an economic unit. I am advised by the farm credit corporation officials that it is the income potential rather than the unit size that provides a basis for their lending policy.
Where proper rotation, and careful husbandry is used, a loan to modernize equipment, or intensify the operation of the holding would be as satisfactory for increasing incomes as would a loan to enlarge the farm.
All farmers do not want to be big time operators. Many prefer to manage successfully on a small, but productive unit.
The fact that the farm credit corporation is seeking additional funds suggests that its credit facilities are being administered successfully under careful appraisal and supervision.
The continued use of these credit facilities by our farm people should have an important bearing on the income improvement of our rural communities, and the continuation of

Farm. Credit Act
the family farm, which is so essential to the economic well-being of the nation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No. I should like to say a few words before the house passes this bill. The Farm Credit Act has been a matter of concern to me over the years and it has also been of concern to my constituents. The measure before us is designed to increase the amount which can be loaned under the act. It increases the amount of capital from $8 million to $12 million and as a result of the multiplication factor involved an additional $100 million will be made available for lending under the act.
This bill is a necessity because at the present time $165 million has been lent out and only $200 million can be lent, so before the end of the year the amount will have to be increased. We are now increasing it to $300 million. While discussing the total amount available for lending under the act I might point out that this government took action in 1958, under the old farm credit act, but $80 million was the limit of the amount which could be lent under it. In 1958 we increased the amount available under the farm credit act to $120 million but we saw the need for a still further increase and today the present bill will provide for $300 million to be lent out to farmers.
I may say that the act has worked reasonably well in most parts of Canada and perhaps in a large part of my own constituency but in my own constituency and in other parts of western Canada including northern and southern Alberta there are areas which are known as local improvement districts. These have certain special characteristics and the act as it now stands does not lend itself too readily to providing assistance in these particular areas. In my own constituency there are areas known as "special areas" somewhat similar in character to local improvement districts and here again the act as it now stands is not well adapted to the making of loans in those areas. I mentioned this in my maiden speech in 1958. Up until 1958, under the old act, there were no loans made in those particular areas. I may say there are about 3,000 farmers living in those areas and there is a demand for land and there is a change-over of land; this has been particularly the case in the last few years.
Again, the act may not be working too well in connection with the smaller farms as the minister himself suggested when he spoke this afternoon. I am thinking particularly of a case which was brought to my attention where a

farmer had been farming for the last ten or 15 years since the war on what we would call a small holding. He saw an opportunity to buy another quarter section recently adjoining his farmstead. He applied for a loan and his application was turned down because they thought his farm was not of an economic size. They said: if instead of $4,000 you are prepared to borrow $20,000 and buy an economic unit we will lend you the money, but we will not lend you $4,000. This particular farmer had been farming for 13 years He was a young man who had started farming in 1948 and who had acquired a lot of machinery, and perhaps a few debts with it, but he had been able to sustain himself and his family on a section of land. I think in this particular case he had a section and a quarter, and he had a lease on another half section. He wanted to buy another quarter section which he could have obtained for $4,000 but the corporation turned him down and said: you look around and try to find a large farm that is worth $20,000 and we will lend you the money.
These are some of the difficulties I have found in connection with the administration of this act. This particular farmer does not wish to move from his present farm. He wanted to add to it as adjacent land became available. Had he bought the other quarter section he might not have been through adding to it. He might have continued to add to it from year to year and maybe at the end of five or six years he would have built his loan up to $20,000. I think the corporation should have taken into consideration the fact that this particular farmer had been existing on his farm site. He wanted to add to his land as property became available. It is true he might not have had what some persons would consider to be an economic unit but we all know the difficulty of defining an economic unit. Acreage certainly enters into it, but acreage is not the only factor. It depends on how intensively the acreage is farmed. So I hope the men in charge of the administration of this act will pay particular attention to these things. I note that other hon. members who have spoken in connection with this measure tonight have encountered situations where this idea of what constitutes an economic unit in a given area sometimes varies to a large extent according to the peculiarities of a given locality. I certainly think there is a great deal of variation in what constitutes an economic unit and how it should be appraised in any particular area.
The particular areas I mentioned a while ago, the "special areas", are generally considered by some to be ranching country. But

there are lots of good farming spots in central Alberta-lots of places where the farmer can sustain himself and his family on a section and a half or two sections of land. In other areas he may need closer to ten sections. So I hope the authorities will be more ready to lend a small sum of money rather than trying to encourage young farmers to borrow the largest amounts in order to buy well established farms. It is today very difficult to find a well established farm or what most individuals would consider to be an economic unit, for less than $20,000. I think the farmer who wishes to enlarge, develop or perhaps intensify his farm operations, should surely be able to do so with credit obtained under this particular measure.
The minister made brief reference to the suggestion of accepting leased land as security for loans made under this act. I should like to enlarge upon that subject.
In my particular area the farmers have had a great deal of difficulty in using leased land as security for loans under the act. I realize that authorities have suggested that a loan on this basis could qualify under part III of the act as it now stands. However, I should like to point out that under part III of the act a potential borrower cannot purchase land in respect to which he is a tenant farmer. I can see no reason why the farm credit corporation should not accept a lease in its name, allowing a farmer to borrow money in order to develop that land until he has paid the loan, at which time the lease would then revert to his own name.
In a great many areas of southwestern Saskatchewan, southeastern Alberta, and even the southwestern portion of Alberta along the foothills, a great deal of leased land is used for agricultural purposes. In my particular area leases change hands at the rate of $3 to $6 per acre. That is not a lot of money, and certainly a farmer would not have to borrow much money under this act to buy land of that type at that price, and would be in a position to repay the loan within a relatively short period of time. If the farmer had enough livestock he could use that as security for a loan under the farm credit corporation measure along with his leased land, put in the name of the corporation, and would then find himself in a position to pay back the loan within a few years, at which time the lease would revert to his own name. I understand that the Veterans' Land Act administration has worked closely with the farm credit corporation administration. I should like to point out to the minister that I am aware of certain cases where the Veterans' Land Act administration has accepted leases in its name as
Farm Credit Act
security for loans. I suggest this same practice could be followed by the administration of this act.
There has been some mention made during the debate this afternoon of the subsidization provided under this act. The idea has been expressed that there might be a continued subsidization in this regard. I take strong exception to those suggestions, because last year was the first year for a long period of time that the farm credit corporation, or the farm loans act, lost money.
The government is now in a position to borrow money from the Bank of Canada, if I read the figures correctly, at an interest rate of between 3.3 per cent and 4 per cent. I say that because of articles appearing in various newspapers recently. I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) frowning at me. Perhaps the interest rate is 3.30 per cent.
In any event the interest rate is between 3 per cent and 4 per cent. In view of that fact, I see no reason why the government cannot borrow money at that interest rate, and make loans under this act to farmers because, as the minister stated last night, the operation cost amounted to only .8 per cent. Under this act, borrowers must pay 5 per cent interest, so that even if the government had to pay 4 per cent on its borrowings, it could do so and make these loans at a profit.
For the reasons I have set out, I cannot understand why this measure is considered to be a subsidization at all.
Some hon. members might feel that this particular measure does not concern the farmers in my area. I should like to point out that under section 27 of the act a loan can be made to cover a complete farming operation, using the farmers chattels as security, only if the loan is made under part III of the act. In addition, there are further stipulations which must be met. The first important stipulation is that a farmer cannot borrow, under part III of the act, at the same time as he has a loan under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. As an example of the difficulty involved here I should cite the case of a farmer farming an area, who desires to purchase additional land through a loan under part III of the act. Having done so, he would be prohibited from borrowing under the Farm Improvement Loans Act in order to purchase new or additional machinery to farm his land. While there may be a few isolated cases where an individual has used the same piece of machinery as security for two different loans, I see no difficulty in that regard under the application of part III, because when a young farmer makes application to the bank for a loan under the Farm

Farm Credit Act
Improvement Loans Act, the banker makes absolutely sure that the machinery used as security is clear of encumbrances.
I suggest the individuals who will take advantage of the loans available under this new legislation will be young fanners with a desire to purchase their father's holdings, and will be required to borrow close to the maximum amount. If those individuals accept supervision, they would make loans under part III of this act. Having done so they would not then be able to borrow money under the Farm Improvement Loans Act to purchase additional machinery, until such time as the original loan was reduced to less than $20,000. I can foresee complications arising because of the application of part III, and I do not understand the reason for its inclusion in the act.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to touch upon one other subject before I conclude, having to do with the appraisal fee. Most hon. members are perhaps aware that the appraisal fee is now set at 2 per cent of the amount of the loan, or $100, whichever is the lesser. I feel it is unnecessary to increase this appraisal fee from $10 to $100. I suggest this has caused a great deal of concern and hardship to those farmers who must pay the $100 appraisal fee in addition to the cost of finding out whether the title to the land is clear. I suggest that the total cost to the farmer, when making application for a loan under this measure, including the appraisal fee, might well be $200. That fact in itself perhaps would not be such a great problem if there was any assurance to the farmer that, having paid out that money, his application would be approved. In some instances farmers are apt to have an appraisal made, pay $100 and be turned down after the appraisal is made. Although the farmer is turned down, he still has to pay the $100. This is a hardship on a particular farmer who is thus prevented from enlarging his present holdings, as was the case in the instance I mentioned earlier this evening.
I should like to see some changes made in this regulation, perhaps not at this session but in the year to come, and the appraisal fee be reduced to $10 as it was formerly. If the applicant is turned down, or if the appraisal is not made, the fee should be refunded. This is a small point but I thought I should mention it because I know some of the difficulties that some farmers have had in my constituency in trying to get loans under this particular act. I might say that only the one area in my constituency has had this trouble. Farmers in this area have been turned down on a number of occasions because, as I said, they did not want to borrow too much money. They just wanted to

borrow a little to add to their present holdings. Sometimes an appraiser would come into the drier part of Alberta and not recommend the loan. The country is dry, so much so that some people have claimed the gophers have moved out. Actually it is not that bad. Farmers in that particular area are as good security risks as farmers in any other part of the province. They have proved this over the years.
I would strongly recommend that an appraiser be placed in this particular area because of the number of applicants that have been turned down. An appraiser coming from some of the more fertile parts of Alberta, the parts fortunate enough to receive a great deal of rain, drives into this dry country and says, "Oh my gosh, I would not lend a plugged nickel in this country", and drives out again. A farmer trying to borrow some money is put in the position where his case is not properly viewed in the light that perhaps he would hope it would be, and he is turned down almost automatically because he is living in that particular area.
Another thought that was suggested last night was that land and land size-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Because the hon. member indicated some time ago that he was completing his remarks I did not intervene. I think he is now continuing to discuss the administration of the act, as he has been doing for quite some time now, and I would point out that he has not related his remarks to the purpose of the bill which is to increase the capital of the farm credit corporation from $8 million to $12 million. I would hope that he would soon come to the point.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In speaking to the bill I paid close attention to what the minister said when he opened the subject on first reading and I have tried to follow his remarks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He said nothing on first reading.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, when he spoke first on the bill today. I did try to relate my remarks to what he said. He first mentioned isolated areas and particular localities in which there is a great deal of variety and in which a great deal of adjustment might be necessary. Certainly, my remarks were related to the fact that this bill is to provide an increase of about $100 million in the amounts lent under the act. Certainly the farmers in this particular area would like to get a chance to borrow a part of this $100 million.
I am trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, that if an appraiser was placed in this particular

area he might be in a better position to appraise and evaluate the land in the area, and in that way the farmers in this particular area, called the "special areas" of Alberta, would have an opporunity to borrow under this act.
I know that the president of the corporation has recently appointed Mr. Carr, chief land appraiser from Ottawa, to make a study of the whole lease problem in western Canada. I refer to the land that is leased in the area between the lakes in Manitoba and in southwestern Saskatchewan, in Alberta and in British Columbia. This land is leased by farmers and ranchers who are in the agricultural industry. The leased land changes hand from time to time, sometimes at high prices and sometimes at rather low prices. Certainly, those farmers should have the opportunity to adjust the size of their units, to make them more economic and to borrow money under this particular act. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for bearing with me for a moment while I got this particular thought across.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see this change and I should like to say a few words on the bill.
So far as I can ascertain, the remarks that have been made so far have all been in favour of this legislation. The reason that we are in favour of the increase in the amount of money is that there has been a new director appointed under the Farm Credit Act. We should be appreciative of the job he has been able to do in such a short time. The fact that we need more money under the Farm Credit Act now is an indication that the act is working for the first time in a long period of time.
It has always seemed to me that borrowing money from the Canadian farm loan board was a little bit like trying to borrow money from the treasury board or going to the Minister of Finance and asking him for a loan. The administrators of the act were not the least bit interested in lending money. There were certain requirements. If you fitted into that particular limited pattern then you got the money. Mr. Rutherford, the former director of the Veterans' Land Act did have experience. His officials had the approach of wanting to lend money that was going to be advantageous to the farmers. You did not lend the money whether the person needed it or not. Previously it depended on whether the farmer fitted into a little slot. It did not depend necessarily on whether it was advantageous to the farmer; he got the money if he met certain requirements. Now it seems no matter whether the money is asked for under
Farm Credit Act
supervision or not there is continuously a certain amount of supervision. It seems to me this is the only way that money being lent to farmers is going to be advantageously used by those farmers. Although farmers may not readily admit it, they need assistance in ascertaining how much help they need. The hon. member who just took his seat spoke of areas of 10,000 acres. This certainly does not apply in my area.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the hon. member is referring to my remarks, I said 10 sections or 2 sections.


William Arnold Peters: I am sorry if I misquoted the hon. member. It would not make any difference. Ten sections are still a great deal more than the area on which farmers in my constituency are going to be borrowing money, if it is a very large amount of land. It has been a factor. I presume the hon. member was referring to the need for larger farms to make up an economic unit. There has been a tendency for farmers to borrow money on an uneconomical unit. Obviously his borrowing of that money was not going to enable him to better his position very much.
One of the things to the credit of the Veterans' Land Act administration was the ability of the officials to supervise and the advice they gave. This practice is now being applied generally to Canadian farm loans and it means that the farmer is receiving some assistance and technical advice that he did not have the opportunity to obtain before. The advice is being given in such a manner that the farmer will accept it because it is not completely dependent upon the loan or the conditions of the loan. In my area, for example, farmers have been advised that if they plant certain crops the market is such and such and if they plant something else their chances of obtaining a better price per acre of produce will be much more readily realized. In some instances technical advice has been given in relation to the operation of the farm.
It seems to me that the technical assistance being given in this way by the officials is a great advantage over the system that obtained before. The Farm Credit Act agents are going to the farms and talking to the farmer and his wife. They are assessing the situation themselves and in my opinion this is doing a great deal to enable the farmer to obtain an advantageous loan, one which he is going to be able to repay and which it is to his advantage to obtain.
The fact that the government is asking for an increase in the amount of money available for loans is an indication that this credit system is an advantageous one. With its experience under this act, I believe that the

Farm Credit Act
government is going to give consideration to increasing the supervision under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. There is a similarity between the two acts. As a previous speaker mentioned, they are interrelated to some extent and they certainly work advantageously in combination.
Having in mind the inquiry into farm machinery that is now under way, I believe it is increasingly advantageous for the farmer to have impartial advice with relation to the purchase of new machinery because occasionally we find that rather than the farmer wanting to buy, the machinery companies are persuading him to buy. A little advice may help to prevent some farmers from trying to keep up with the Jones'. It seems to me that this act is a credit to the government. We are very pleased with the way it has been operating and with the fact that more money is necessary. We are also pleased that the bill has been introduced and will be passed before the budget is brought down because it might be more difficult at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Capital.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before this clause carries, out of curiosity on my part may I ask the minister whether he can inform the house in what amounts the farm credit corporation applies for advances from the consolidated revenue fund?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In the last report and the figures I gave tonight the hon. member will find that the amounts usually range from $15 million to $25 million at a time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. C-109, to amend the Financial Administration Act.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the house long. At the resolution stage of this measure last night one point was raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson). He asked why it was that the resolution made no reference to the provisions in the measure in relation to the assignment of debts. The answer is very simple, that no resolution is required in that respect because no matter pertaining to the balance of ways and means was involved in relation to the assignment of debts. Indeed, had that been the only provision in the bill there would have been no need for a resolution antecedent thereto at all. There are rights of the crown involved in this measure. His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the purport of the bill, has given consent, so far as Her Majesty's prerogative and property rights are affected, that the house may do therein as it shall see fit.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I have very little comment to make in connection with the bill. I see it is almost 10.30 and I assure my colleagues that I will conclude my comments within a time that will appeal to them. I think it is unfortunate that the government has not seen fit throughout its long regime to permit parliamentary secretaries to conclude debates such as that instituted yesterday, for example, with proficiency by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. This is quite contrary to the practice of the former administration.
I did raise the point to which the Minister of Finance has referred. However, I am satisfied that there is nothing in the bill which we are now considering at the second reading stage that is deserving of special attention in debate. I do ask the minister, who has great influence in the ministry, to consider the former practice under which the presentation of any measure perhaps might be shared between him and his parliamentary secretary. I do not think there has been adequate utilization of parliamentary secretaries in the presentation of the business of the house.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Ten thirty.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be considered in committee of the whole house? Next sitting of the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: In asking the minister for the business tonight I should like to observe to him that if he could get from his own

side co-operation comparable to that which he gets from this side of the house, this session would have been over long ago. Can the minister tell us what it is proposed that the backbenchers on the government side are going to filibuster tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation of the co-operation I get from both sides of the house in getting the business through quickly. Tomorrow we will take the estimates of the Department of Public Works. We shall commence with those estimates and, depending on the progress made by the house, they will be
Business of the House
followed by the estimates of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production. I do not know how long they will take. I can announce other estimates for consideration later this week, if the house so desires.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister assure us that nothing but estimates will be taken for the rest of this week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It depends on the circumstances, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
It being 35 minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 14, 1961