1962-11-01

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the house would subside perhaps the Chair could hear the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was rising on a question of privilege, which I am seeking to do in a thoroughly non-contentious way, with respect to a return made to a question which I asked and which was made an order for return on October 22, and to which the return was furnished yesterday. I draw Your Honour's attention to one part of the question only and to the return made thereto by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The question was:
Has a benevolent fund been set up for exprisoners of war captured at Hong Kong from the war claims fund as recommended by the veterans affairs committee of the House of Commons and. if not, why not?
The answer to that was "No". Now, I recognize that if this had been a question answered in the house I would have no right under the rules to have made any complaint about it, but this was made an order for return. It then became an order of the house; therefore there was an obligation on the department and the minister to make a full reply as the house ordered it to be made, and the failure to do so of course is, in a technical sense, in contempt of the house.
I am not seeking to make this point except in a purely technical way. I am quite sure neither the minister nor the department intended any such thing, but it is an important matter and the privileges of hon. members and of the house are involved.
I am not just drawing attention to this particular return. I venture also to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that it is very important, if questions are to be made orders for returns, that very careful consideration should be given to the terms of these questions so the returns can be made in accordance with the orders.


Mr. McPhillips:: What government sent Canadian soldiers to Hong Kong?


Mr. Habel:: Great Britain asked for them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The point the hon. member raised really has some relation to the question as to whether on an oral question or an ordinary written question it is open to an hon. member to comment on the sufficiency or insufficiency of the answer Here again I think we could have perhaps 260-odd versions of what might be sufficient for the hon. member's question in so far as an answer is concerned. It must also be considered that the minister and the department involved must take the question as they find it on the order paper. Some questions, the hon. member will agree, are well drafted; others are somewhat less well drafted. Therefore I do not know that a question of privilege arises in relation to the quantum or the sufficiency of the answer. I think there might be a point-and I am subject to correction here-if the answer were to mislead or were to be incorrect; then perhaps, if it is within the knowledge of the hon. member who has asked the question that the answer is obviously wrong, he might have something to say. But as to the sufficiency of an answer, I am highly doubtful as to whether there is a true question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If Your Honour will hear me on the point of order Your Honour has raised, I would agree completely with Your Honour if this were an answer to a question. But the point I am making is that it is not an answer to a question. This is a return in compliance with an order of the house, an order made at the instance of a minister of the crown. If the minister of the crown was not satisfied with the wording he should not have asked the house to make an order in those terms. That is the whole point. He should have answered it, in whatever fashion he wished, in the house. But once an order of the house is made by the whole house, then it becomes an order of the house. It is a well recognized principle that the government, being responsible to the house, and the ministers individually being responsible for their departments, once an order of the house has been made-as it was in this case-that order must be complied with.
That was the whole of my point. I am not arguing for one minute that I or any other hon. member has a right to complain about an answer, whether it is an answer on the orders

Question of Privilege
of the day or an answer given in response to a question on the order paper. Your Honour is absolutely right about that. It is for the government to take whatever responsibility it likes, and we cannot complain about those answers. But this is an order of the house, made by this house at the request of the minister. The question is very simple. It is "If not, why not?", and the answer to that, sir, cannot possibly be no.


Mr. Speaker:: That may be, in this particular instance, but I hesitate to think that the hon. member would be setting up a double standard for answers; that a lesser degree of care might be exercised in replying to ordinary written questions, or starred questions, and there should be a greater degree of care given to those which are made orders for returns. If there is any suggestion of that in the hon. member's representations to the Chair, I do not think the Chair could for one moment entertain that sort of double standard. I think there is one standard that applies all the way through, and I think the hon. member would recognize that.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could be heard further on the point. The very point here is that the standard that applies to questions is not applicable to an order of the house. Once an order of the house issues a minister has no choice in the matter; he must either comply with that order or move to have it discharged. There are certain procedures for doing that. The point at issue here is as to whether or not there is compliance with the order of the house. The order having been issued, then the minister no longer has that discretion in relation to the answer he may give to a question; he has no such discretion left to him. It is an order of the house and he must comply with it, unless he takes certain other remedies that are set out in the rules, having to do with a motion to discharge the order.
The point is of such importance that I am wondering if I could, with respect and propriety, ask Your Honour if you would consider reserving the question and dealing with it at a later time.


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps we might do that, although I would once again reiterate that I do not think there should be any question of a double standard. Unfortunately that, to me, at the moment is implicit in some of the remarks which have been made. However, I will accede to the suggestion made by the hon. member and I will take the matter under advisement.


Mr. Knowles:: May I say just a word on this point?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has decided to take the matter under advisement, and I think we will pass on to something else.



USE OF HOUSE MESSENGER SERVICE TO DISTRIBUTE ADVERTISING

Mr. R. B. Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Is the messenger service of this house maintained for the good of this house and the benefit of members of this parliament, or is it intended for the free distribution of advertising material on behalf of private enterprise? Is someone basking in the indulgence of this house to use the messenger service for the distribution of advertising material, as is being done continually by hon. members opposite?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the house that speeches should be made by hon. members standing in their places, and some of these more barbed exchanges do not contribute much to the business before us.



MR. CHATTERTON    REFERENCE TO STATEMENT BY MEMBER FOR NANAIMO-COWICHAN-THE ISLANDS

Mr. G. L. Chatterion (Esquimali-Saanich):: I rise on a point of privilege. Last Friday, as reported on page 991 of Hansard, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands asserted that Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey of thalidomide fame is a native of his constituency. According to my information Dr. Kelsey was born and raised to school age in my riding-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps on some other occasion we might put the two hon. members in question in a ring and say "seconds out", but these assertions of one constituency as against another are definitely not questions of privilege.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement with respect to the participation of the federal government in Canada's bid for the 1968 winter Olympic games.
As the house knows, an engineering survey financed by my department recommended that a proposal involving the use of the Banff-Lake Louise area would provide this country with the strongest hope of selection as host for this international event. I now wish to advise that my colleague, the Minister

of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and I intend to allocate additional funds to further this project, as a firm indication that the bid has the support of the federal government.
It has been decided that my department will bear the responsibility of federal aspects of matters relating to the operation of the games and for provision of the necessary funds to cover all federal grants and subsidies. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources will deal with all matters relating to developments within Banff national park, and will provide necessary funds to cover all federal capital expenditures in this area.
To date $139,000 has been spent federally on this project. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources will spend a further $35,000 this year toward providing capital construction needed to bring this site up to Olympic standards. If surplus funds are available, an additional $25,000 will be allocated to secure cost analyses by suitable consultants.
Further funds will be sought through the estimates of the next fiscal year so that the Calgary Olympic development association will be given the utmost federal support in its application to the international Olympic committee a year from now. If our bid is successful it is anticipated that total federal costs involved in staging the games will be in the neighbourhood of $8 million. It is my hope that parliament will see fit to grant further funds year by year to meet our commitments.
It has been most heartening to observe the support this project has been given by the public and all levels of government. My department's $35,000 operational grant to C.O.D.A. was matched by the province of Alberta and the city of Calgary, and these matching arrangements will, I expect, be maintained. Efforts at the local level deserve the highest praise, and I think much of the credit must go to C.O.D.A.'s president, Mr. Ed. Davis, and to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith).


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of fhe Opposition):: I should just like to say that we on this side will warmly support anything which can be done by the government and outside the government to bring the Olympic winter games to Canada. If that can be done, I could imagine no more suitable place for the games than that which has been proposed by the minister.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I think it appropriate that I should add a word at this time, as a good part of my constituency is within the confines of the 27507-3-75
Inquiries of the Ministry Banff national park. Certainly for the good of Canada, even though some hon. members on my right do not always realize it, I am very happy to add my word of commendation to those who have had the foresight and have been in the position to put forward the cause of Canada at this time in regard to the winter Olympics, and we will look forward to the preparation for it over the next few years.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group welcome this very limited degree of government planning arising from our policies, and we also welcome as a result this limited public investment in a very worthwhile project, which is beyond the scope or the capacity of private enterprise to undertake.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I should add, of course, that the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) has been very active in this matter.
(Translation):


Mr. Leo Cadieux (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Would the minister tell the house if a study was made into the possibility of choosing Mont Tremblant, in the constituency of Terrebonne, before giving priority to Banff for the holding of the Olympic games?
(Text):


Jay Waldo Monteith: It was considered, Mr. Speaker.



LETTER IN NEWSPAPER RESPECTING MR. SPEAKER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister, and ask him whether he intends to take any action in connection with a letter which has been written to His Honour the Speaker by the hon. member for Bellechasse, concerning certain happenings in this house.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman did not completely cover the situation; it was a letter written to Mr. Speaker and published in the paper which he has before him. This is a matter, of course, concerning the privileges of parliament, which at all times must be upheld; and I take it, from the suggestion and the question of the hon. gentleman, that he charges that there has been an infraction of the prerogatives of parliament. That being so, such a matter

Inquiries of the Ministry he would naturally expect, on the basis of his question, to be submitted to the committee on privileges and elections.

On the orders of the day:


John George Diefenbaker: At the beginning of the question period this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier had before him some document or paper containing some matter to which he directed the attention of the house, regarding the hon. member for Belle-chasse. I think it is proper that he should table that document so that consideration can be given to whatever action might be taken in connection therewith.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, with pleasure, not only will I table it but I will send a copy to the Prime Minister, who I take it has already seen the letter which appeared in this morning's issue of Le Devoir.


Mr. Speaker:: I am advised that the document should be tabled and read. The Clerk will read it.
And the Clerk proceeded to read the document, as follows:
(Translation):



BILINGUALISM

[Stage Direction]
Bernard Dumont complains of the attitude of the Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr. M. Lambert.
Mr. Bernard Dumont, Social Credit member for the riding of Bellechasse, raised a protest against the "gag" used by the Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr. Marcel Lambert, to prevent questions on bilingualism from being asked.
Mr. Dumont sent the following letter to the Speaker of the House:
"My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
"Does the Department of National Defence still have the simultaneous translation system which was used in a room of the parliament buildings for the universal postal congress?
Could that system be installed in a room in the west block so that the meetings of the committee on agriculture and other committees could be made bilingual?"
To the copy of that letter he sent to Le Devoir, Mr. Dumont added this:
An English person might be blamed for banning questions on simultaneous translation, hut it is unforgivable in the case of a Speaker whose name is Lambert and who is aware of minorities' difficulties since he was born in Edmonton. The same question was asked on October 18, 1957 and at page 135 of Hansard, Speaker Michener permitted a discussion on the matter; but today, because the problem is being discussed by a Social Crediter, the Speaker rules the question out of order, probably because he is anti-Social Credit.
That is very serious since it is an insult to French Canadians who are asking for the installation of simultaneous translation equipment used at the universal postal congress and which the Department of National Defence has in its possession.
So, once again, the French Canadians' rights are encroached upon and the 92,000 farmers earning
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
less that $1,200 a year will not have an opportunity to state their case since everything will be carried out in English.
Newspapers were right when they said that we should have had a Speaker from Quebec to represent us.
(Text) :
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this a subject which is not up for debate at the present time but is deserving of consideration. Since it has been brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Laurier perhaps he, as well as others, would agree that this problem should be referred to the committee on privileges and elections for study. Obviously the letter will have to be translated and studied by various members of the house.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer):
That the article appearing in the issue of the newspaper Le Devoir of Thursday, November 1, 1962, under the heading "Le Bilinguisme" and the words therein attributed to Mr. Bernard Dumont, member of parliament for the constituency of Bellechasse, alleged to have been contained in a letter or letters written by the said member, be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections for consideration and report.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(Translation):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Cook (Monimagny-L'Islet):: Mr. Speaker, my question could have been one of privilege, but being in doubt, I chose to wait for the orders of the day. I say "privilege" because it deals with various representations addressed to me from the Quebec district and more particularly from my riding to the effect that subscribers to Hansard get it one week late while the Queen's printer asserts that the copies of that publication are mailed every evening. I think my question might be directed to the Postmaster General.
(Text):
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Postmaster
General): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will give me the names and domiciles of the persons who have complained I will have the matter investigated.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Cook: Very well, this very evening. (Text):



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the

government considered shipping Canada's two Bomarc bases to India to help that country in her struggle with communist China?



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister inform the house what instructions have been given to the Canadian delegation as to how Canada should vote tomorrow on two resolutions regarding a nuclear test ban, which are before the political and security committee of the United Nations.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there have been two resolutions before the first committee, one brought in by the eight non-aligned countries and co-sponsored by 25 or 26 others and another resolution brought in by the United States and the United Kingdom.
Yesterday Canada introduced amendments to the first resolution to which I have referred. In so doing we had several aims. One was to insert in the resolution a reference to the letters which had passed over the week end between President Kennedy, Premier Khrushchev and Prime Minister Macmillan. Then in the operative part of the resolution we are seeking to add a paragraph which urges that if there should not be agreement right away between the nuclear powers on all types of testing, at least there should be agreement with regard to tests in the atmosphere, under water and in outer space. This Canadian amendment was just tabled yesterday afternoon and is under debate today. I therefore do not know as yet what the result will be.
On Monday when I was in New York we circulated another resolution. We had hoped to get it agreed unanimously, but that was not possible. The Soviet union refused to accept this resolution. We are now hoping, of course, that our amendments to the eight nation resolution will be accepted. There probably will not be a vote until tomorrow.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe
Opposiiion): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the minister comment on the report out of New York that General Burns announced that Canada would vote not for this 36 power resolution but for the United Kingdom-United States resolution on this subject?
27507-3-754
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: Canada has intended throughout to vote for the United Kingdom-United States resolution. If we can get our amendment to the other resolution accepted, then we shall be voting also for that resolution as amended.



TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP IN EUROPEAN MIGRATION COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James E. Brown (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister inform the house whether the government has decided to terminate Canada's membership in the intergovernmental committee for European migration?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker. However, subject to approval by the house, I expect we shall be continuing to make a contribution for certain parts of the work of that organization.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for York Centre asked me whether the unemployment insurance commission would continue its policy of hiring casual help during the winter months.
The commission has advised me that the practice of hiring casual employees for the handling of seasonal claims will be carried on this winter in the Toronto offices and across Canada in line with the policy followed in other years. In view of a lower rate of unemployment, and if this is maintained, it is possible that fewer casual employees will be required.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can assure the house that the government is being fully consulted by its major NATO allies on any measures which may have to be taken or any policies which are to be followed in the event of a serious situation developing over Berlin.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is full con- given in camera it should not have been sultation taking place in respect of that matter made public. However, I am not prepared to from day to day.	comment on this.



INDIA-ARRANGEMENTS FOR SUPPLY OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['When it comes to answering a question, the minister can choose either language.\n(Text):']
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the government in a position to indicate the general arrangements under which defence equipment is to be supplied to India?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not in a position to do that. The Indian representatives have not yet arrived to go into the matter with our people.
(Translation):



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we do not have yet a French version of Beauchesne's work and as I do not know to whom I should address my question, I shall direct it to the Minister of Agriculture.
As regards the written and oral questions we now send to the various departments, could we not obtain French answers from the Department of Agriculture when those questions are written in French?


Mr. Pigeon:: That is exactly what is being here-


Bernard Dumont: No. I have the document done now.


Mr. Speaker:: When it comes to answering a question, the minister can choose either language.
(Text):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Benson (Kingston):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that part of Mr. Towers' in camera evidence before the royal commission on banking and finance has been made public, will the minister assure the house that Mr. Coyne's evidence will also be made public?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: I have not seen any in camera evidence, and I am not in a position to say

(Translation):



REPAYMENT OF LOAN FROM INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Minister of Finance.
As a result of the article published in the Montreal Gazette of Thursday, November 1, concerning the refund of the loans made outside Canada, would the Minister of Finance tell us when he expects the refund of the loan of about $300 million which was obtained in June 1962 from the International Monetary Fund?
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: I did not quite hear the question, Mr. Speaker, but I shall take it as notice.
(Translation):


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question- Mr. Langlois: Could the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is taken as notice.
(Text):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question concerning the C.B.C.-C.T.V. network arrangements. I have information that negotiations between the C.T.V. and C.B.C. regarding arrangements to cover the Grey cup have collapsed. In view of the approach of the deadline set by the board of governors, for this matter, November 1, I should like to ask the minister if he has anything to report on the situation.


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Secreiary of State):: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Yesterday I addressed a question to the Secretary of State in connection with a question which

was made an order for return on October 15. I wonder if the Secretary of State would look into it so that I may get a reply?


George Ernest Halpenny: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to do that.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ian G. Wahn (St. Paul's):: May I ask
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if he can now tell the house whether he proposes to introduce a new immigration act at this session?


Hon. Richard A. Bell (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I have nothing to add to what I have already said to the house earlier this session.



FARM CREDIT ACT


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-71, to amend the Farm Credit Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill No. C-71 is to amend the Farm Credit Act of 1959, to provide for an increase in the Farm Credit Corporation's capital from $12 million to $16 million, to eliminate some anomalies and restrictions which experience has demonstrated to be unnecessary to the successful operation of the act, to provide for greater flexibility in the purposes for which farmers may borrow money from the corporation, and to broaden the role of the corporation in co-operation with ARDA in the vital field of agricultural readjustment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if hon. members would conduct their conferences outside the chamber so that the minister could be heard.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It will be recalled, Mr. Speaker, that the Farm Credit Act of 1959 had the effect of broadening the basis and increasing the amount of long term mortgage loans to Canadian farmers. The expressed objective of the act was:
To assist Canadian farmers in the voluntary reorganization of their industry into economic family farm units, each of which will be of sufficient size to produce, under the operation of the owner, the farm income necessary to meet all operating and maintenance costs, provide an adequate livelihood for the owner-operator and his dependants, and retire any required credit, with interest, within an appropriate term.
Canadian farmers quickly recognized the opportunities afforded them by this act. A
Farm Credit Act
total of 17,549 farmers have borrowed $198,804,900, an average of over $11,000 per loan, since the inception of the act for the express purpose of expanding and reorganizing their farms into economic family farm units.
Administratively, the Farm Credit Corporation has worked tirelessly toward the attainment of its objective. A survey shows that a large number of farmers have received loans in excess of the amounts applied for because, after discussion with the corporation's credit adviser, they realized they needed the additional credit to properly organize their farms. This surely is a positive indication that the corporation is going all out in its efforts to provide the necessary long term credit for the establishment of Canadian farmers on farm units of economic proportions. At the same time the regulations prevent loans from going to those who do not need them.
During debate on the resolution some hon. members of the official opposition were loud in their criticism of the objectives of the Farm Credit Act. They asked that we delete
economic units" and "adequate livelihood" from our objective and substitute "more economic units" and "more adequate livelihood". Apparently they do not believe that farmers should have an economic unit or an adequate standard of living, that something a little better than they now have will suffice. This government will settle for nothing less than adequate incomes for farmers. Anything less will merely perpetuate uneconomic units, delay inevitable adjustment and restrict the farm family to an inadequate living standard. It is an attempt by some of the official opposition to turn Canadians back to a peasant type of farming.
What happens to a Canadian farmer whose income is inadequate? I will tell you what happens. He does one or all of three things: (1) he lowers his standard of living, (2) he defaults on his mortgage or fails to pay his operating costs, (3) in his determination to maintain living standards and repay his credit obligations he exploits his soil resources, neglects maintenance and repairs, and makes no allowance for depreciation in buildings, equipment or livestock.
This surely is not the type of agriculture that we want. This is the type of agriculture that is bred in part by inadequate credit institutions with objectives that are less than they should be.
At this point I wish once again to draw the attention of the house to the chart taken from page 10 of the Farm Credit Corporation's annual report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1962. This chart vividly illustrates

Farm Credit Act
the niggardly assistance provided farmers by the previous administration, and with equal clarity illustrates the progressive advances this government has made in the matter of providing the credit essential for agricultural reorganization.
The success of farm credit, however, is not measured solely in terms of money. Associated with each application is an intensive program of pre-loan counselling, launched by the corporation. Broadly speaking the objectives of this counselling service are threefold; first, to ensure that the basic ingredients of productive land, adequate livestock, essential buildings and equipment are present in such amounts and quality as are normally essential for successful farm operation; second, that these essential ingredients are tied together in a practical plan of operation which, in combination with the farmer's operating and management skills, can be expected to produce sufficient income to cover the normal requirements of the farm business and provide the farmer and his family with an adequate standard of living. The third objective of the pre-loan counselling program is to influence the flow of investment capital into the various agricultural enterprises with the view of matching production to changing market requirements.
Hon. members will be interested to know that this is in fact being done. A recent analysis of the corporation's lending to dairy farmers reveals that a relatively insignificant part of the total credit granted to dairy farmers contributes directly to expanded production. On the contrary, the bulk of the credit has been provided for reorganization purposes within the industry. Concurrent with this, the corporation has recently been encouraging farmers who can profitably do so to convert from dairy to beef production. Thus our farm credit program is not only making contributions to the development of economically sound individual farm units, but is also making a significant contribution to the vitally important problem of matching agricultural production to market requirements.
Before moving on to other matters of importance, Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment briefly on the supervision program for part III farmers under the act. Eight hundred and twenty loans have been made under this section, the bulk of them in 1961 and 1962. Loans under part III have been somewhat slower than anticipated, and you will be asked to approve amendments to this section which your government believes will make part III substantially more attractive to prospective young borrowers.
You will also be asked to remove other restrictions which experience has shown to

be unnecessary and unduly restrictive. I do not believe that a valid assessment of the success of part III can be made at this time. Most borrowers have had their loans less than two years, and progress can hardly be assessed in that short period. It is perhaps significant to note, however, that such payments as have fallen due under this part have been promptly met, and the government sees advantages in further exploiting the potential of the supervised credit program.
The house will be further interested to know that the Farm Credit Corporation is presently working on the development of a system of electronic farm accounting. This system will not only reduce supervision costs, but more important it will serve to make possible the analyses of large numbers of farm records, returning to farmers concerned better information on the optimum use of their farm resources, and providing the corporation as well as federal and provincial research agencies with basic research material for such things as regional production costs. If this program can be developed successfully, the system of electronic farm accounting can move basic research in agricultural production economics, as well as farm management extension, to a new and higher level of achievement. Once again this government is demonstrating its ability to provide progressive leadership in the agricultural field.
May I at this point, Mr. Speaker, make reference to the Agricultural Stabilization Act of 1958 and to the Crop Insurance Act of 1959, introduced by this government. These two measures are playing a major role in reducing the risks arising from wide price and productivity fluctuations which hitherto have plagued Canadian agriculture and have been responsible for most of the extreme fluctuations in farm income. These measures, in contributing to the stability of agricultural income, have also created confidence in the field of agricultural credit. The risk hazard to the farmer and the lending agency has been reduced and the farmer, confident of his ability to repay, does not hesitate to ask for the credit he needs to establish a successful farm business.
Activities under the Farm Improvement Loans Act as amended in 1959 and 1961 are a further important consideration in the government's over-all credit program. When speaking on the resolution on Friday, October 26, I covered this subject in detail, and do not propose to repeat that information at this time. I would like to emphasize, however, that this type of credit is designed primarily to serve the intermediate credit needs of Canadian farmers, and in so doing it complements the services of the Farm Credit Act

and serves a very useful and significant role as part of the government's over-all program of farm credit.
I would like now to refer to the history of long term federal farm credit. The Canadian farm loan board was established in 1929, but its lending record was notably unenterprising until 1957, when this government took office. In the first 30 years of operation the farm loan board lent $183,160,586. The Farm Credit Corporation, in only three years of operation, has lent more than this, having approved a total of $198,804,900 from its inception on October 5, 1959 until September 30 of this year.
Here, Mr. Speaker, are the figures, both provincially and nationally, to show this comparison. What I am going to give now is a statement by provinces of farm loans approved to September 30, 1962. I will first of all give the province, then the figure for the amount lent under the Canadian farm loan board from 1929 until October 4, 1959, which is 30 years. Then I will give the amount lent by the Farm Credit Corporation from October 5, 1959 to September 30, 1962, which is three years: British Columbia, $8,751,181.97; for the last three years, $10,503,400; Alberta, $28,146,771.47 for 30 years as compared with $50,663,900 in three years; then Saskatchewan, $48,327,820.78 as compared with $57,028,900 in three years; Manitoba, $19,884,809.95 in 30 years as compared with $12,584,000 in three years; Ontario, $43,295,717.01 in 30 years as compared with $54,421,200 in three years; Quebec, $22,454,665.74 in 30 years as compared with $7,902,450 in three years; the Atlantic provinces, $12,335,619.19 in 30 years as compared with $5,701,050 in three years. The total-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On these
figures?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, on the figures. Could the minister give the figures for each of the Atlantic provinces separately?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, I could, but I will have to dig into my tables here and break them down. I will give them later on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister will give them later on.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. The total for the country in 30 years was $183,160,586.11, and for the three years of the Farm Credit Corporation the figure is $198,804,900. From the foregoing discussion the house will begin to appreciate the comprehensive and progressive nature of this government's agricultural program, and something of the
Farm Credit Act
corporation's efforts in the field of agricultural reorganization. It also shows how we ended the tight money policy of the previous administration.
I am certain, however, that many hon. members must have in mind other groups of farmers who because of the physical nature of their land, or due to the lack of personal assets, or for a variety of other reasons, are unable to achieve the objectives of an economic farm unit on a solely agricultural basis. In keeping with this government's stated objectives in the field of agricultural readjustment, we believe the time has come to further exploit the success of farm credit legislation by extending it to include assistance to that large group of farmers who do not have the resources to be self-sustaining agriculturally, but who can obtain a reasonable standard of living by secondary off-farm income, or by virtue of their ability to develop and successfully exploit other non-agricultural pursuits on their farms. Part of the proposed amendments to the Farm Credit Act, as well as amendments to the regulations already approved by the governor in council, are devoted to this purpose.
I now wish to summarize the proposed amendments to the act for the convenience of hon. members.
The present authorized capital of the Farm Credit Corporation is $12 million, which permits the corporation to borrow $300 million from the Minister of Finance. The present total outstanding investment is $227,048,262.05. Because of the tremendous increase in volume of lending, the remaining funds will all be committed to borrowers by about next June. An amendment to the act will increase the capital by $4 million, providing an additional $100 million for the corporation to lend to Canadian farmers. If this is used, I will be back to ask for more.
To allow farmers greater flexibility in the use of the money they borrow, amendments are proposed which will permit the corporation to lend funds:
(a)	to make improvements to any part of the land the farmer is operating, including land, such as that on long term lease, which is not covered by the mortgage to the corporation;
(b)	to pay the farmer's operating and living costs during the first year or two, while he is developing his farm to the point at which it will produce the income necessary to meet these costs;
(c)	to help the farmer develop non-agricultural enterprises on his farm, such as camping grounds, tourist cabins, etc., if he can make more profitable use of his land resources in this way.

Farm Credit Act
Other amendments are proposed to eliminate some anomalies and restrictions which seem unnecessary.
Although the corporation has been making life insurance available to all borrowers, there is some doubt about its authority to do so for farmers who borrow under part II of the act. This authority is spelled out in the amendments.
Presently, if a farmer puts up land for security and joins in the mortgage to provide a loan to set up one son, he limits his eligibility for a loan in his own right, or to assist another son. One amendment removes this restriction.
At present a supervised loan must be fully disbursed before the borrower reaches his 45th birthday. It is proposed to amend the act to permit such a loan, provided it is approved by the corporation before the applicant has reached his 45th birthday.
So that the appraisal fee which a farmer must pay for a loan under part III of the act may be kept commensurate with that under part II, it is proposed to have it set by regulation, as it is for part II, rather than being prescribed in the act.
Supervised loans may now be made only to individual borrowers. An amendment proposes to make a farmer and his wife eligible as joint tenants. Couples frequently hold title to their property as joint tenants, and under the existing provisions of the act it is not possible to make a part III loan unless title is transferred to the name of the husband only. This seems to be an unnecessary interference with the manner in which a borrower may hold title to his property.
The amendments will also permit farmers who borrow under part III of the act to forgo supervision of their farming operations, if they so desire, when their debt has been reduced to 75 per cent of the value of their farm, rather than 65 per cent as at present.
Farmers who obtain supervised loans from the corporation are presently ineligible for loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act until their debt is reduced to 65 per cent of the value of their land or $20,000, whichever is the lesser. This sometimes forces them to seek credit elsewhere at high rates of interest. An amendment to the Farm Credit Act will make them eligible for farm improvement loans when their debt has been reduced to 75 per cent of the value of their land, and before that time at the discretion of the corporation.
Concurrent with the amendments we are proposing to the Farm Credit Act, amendments have been made to the farm credit regulations.


Mr. Argue:: May I ask the minister the date on which the regulations were changed, and when the new regulations went into force?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I cannot give the hon. member an answer offhand, but I think it was about two weeks ago, just at the time I introduced the bill. I had hoped to bring them out simultaneously, but I thought I would get this resolution and bill through a little faster than I have.
As I was saying, amendments have been made to the farm credit regulations. I wish to highlight these amendments and comment briefly on the effect they will have on the government's farm credit policy.
1.	A change in the basis of valuing farms will permit the corporation to attach greater importance to the value of farm buildings on specialized units. This will make it possible to lend to poultrymen, greenhouse operators, and other farmers who operate with costly buildings on relatively small areas of land.
2.	Another amendment will make eligible those farmers who must depend on other income for part of their living costs. In the past, only the income stemming from the production of the land could be considered in granting a loan. This restriction has been relaxed to take into account supplementary income from a number of sources. The corporation will now be able to recognize income from specialized operations based on the use of purchased feeds, as in the case of poultry and hog production; non-agricultural enterprises conducted on farms such as the operation of camping grounds or tourist cabins, etc., and revenue from outside sources, such as pensions, annuities or off-farm employment.
It will still be necessary, of course, that the applicant's principal occupation be farming. We do not intend that the Farm Credit Act be used to set up large commercial businesses; these are already adequately financed by the industrial development bank. This act was made for, and will continue to be used to assist, farmers who can show the corporation that with the use of credit they can increase their income and obtain a reasonable standard of living.
In conclusion, it is the contention of the government that the amended regulations, in conjunction with the amendments to the Farm Credit Act which the house is being asked to approve, will make a significant contribution to agricultural readjustment and stability. Many farmers, particularly in the older age groups, are unable to adjust to industrial pursuits but will, nevertheless, with the credit assistance proposed by this legislation, be able to achieve satisfactory standards of living and continue to retain their dignity and the respect of the community. At the same

time the legislation provides an opportunity for other farmers to develop non-agricultural pursuits for which their land, by virtue of physical characteristics or location, is particularly adapted.
The work of the Farm Credit Corporation up to this point has been in the organization of farm units which are economic solely from the agricultural point of view. It has gained experience and built up an efficient and enthusiastic organization. It is now ready to take on a broader task. The fundamental changes now being proposed will bring the corporation into close co-operation with the ARDA administration to form a team which will lead our assault upon the problems facing the small Canadian farmer.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has just spoken on the second reading of this bill, and we now have the advantage of having the bill before us. When the minister spoke on the resolution stage I made the statement that he had used flowery language. Well, I was taken up on that statement and told that his language was not flowery. This bill and everything that goes along with it have been introduced with a great deal of fanfare, and on reading reports in the newspapers it appeared that it was really going to do something to make vast improvements in the administration of the Farm Credit Corporation. Some of these amendments which are before us, and some of the regulations of which the minister has spoken, are undoubtedly important and will be supported; but the bulk of them are very much of a technical nature and, while desirable and important, they are not very far reaching.
The minister has talked about the government's general attitude in regard to the kind of loans which are made. He went back to a fundamental definition which was put forward early in the discussion with regard to the administration of this act, and I thought we had moved him from this ground when I spoke first at the resolution stage and suggested that the definition should not be that of loans for an economic unit

in other words, if you have not got an economic unit you would not get a loan-but that it should be "loans for a more economic unit". The minister seemed to agree with that because on page 687 of Hansard he is reported as saying:
The hon. member was quite correct here. There should be a more economic farm unit-
Then he went on to say:
There were some new members who, probably in their innocence, told the committee that we have to give more loans to the small farmers. That is exactly what we have been doing. That makes the difference between what we have been doing for the last three years-
Farm Credit Act
And so on. The minister was then emphasizing loans to the small farmers and agreeing that this original definition might be changed. He comes into the house this afternoon and says that those of us who think there should be greater emphasis on loans to the smaller farmers are trying to perpetuate a peasant type of economy. I do not think anything could be more nonsensical than that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I suggest the hon. member go back a little.


Hazen Robert Argue: I did not interrupt the minister when he was speaking, and I was listening carefully to him.


Mr. Ricard:: He talked more sense than you.


Hazen Robert Argue: He reiterated the definition that was in the instructions to the Farm Credit Corporation and was contained in their document called "Lending Policy". I suggest that while the minister has spoken about these amendments, there is very little in this legislation which will give the small farmer a chance. I should have liked to see something in this legislation, or in the changes in the regulations, which would make it clear-and it is not clear now-that in the administration of this act there would be a very substantial change from the situation which prevailed last year, when out of 14,517 documented interviews less than 6,000 applicants finally obtained loans. In other words, 55 per cent of the people who asked for loans and who had documented interviews were unable to get loans.
This is the contention of the members of the Liberal party; that there should be changes in the legislation itself, changes in the definitions by which it is administered, and changes in the regulations so as to place a much greater emphasis, a real emphasis, on the provision of more loans to the small farmers. Mr. Speaker, I say that the way this act has been administered recently shows that it is definitely weighted on the side of the larger farmers and larger loans.
The minister's very statements will support that contention. He goes on to talk about the aggregate sums of money lent, and everyone is in favour of that; but then he points out that the average size of loan is going away up. All that means is that, taking a certain aggregate sum of money, more emphasis is being given to larger loans. Of course the whole premise on which the administration of this act is based brings this about. The entire emphasis is on economic units instead, as we have suggested, of the loans being designed to bring about an improvement in the position of the farmers; and as long as that improvement is likely to take place, then they should be eligible for loans.

Farm Credit Act
The minister went on to talk about certain changes in the regulations. I am not going to tell the minister that they are not in effect; I am sure they must be. He has just told us that they are in effect. However, I have in my hand a copy of what was sent to me as purporting to be the changes in the regulations. No date is given on which changes were to have gone into effect. I am not arguing that they are not in effect; all I am saying is that what came out of the minister's office had no date on it.
However, I suggest that these changes are not adequate from our point of view. There will be the removal of a provision in the legislation which under part III requires certain appraisal fees. We have complained and protested most strongly against the $50 appraisal fee which was provided by regulation. This fee is away too high. It is a bar to the little farmer. It is an unjust tax on a farmer receiving a small loan-at least a farmer who got one-under this measure. It is another tax by order in council. Mr. Speaker, this sort of thing should be in legislative form. We cannot move an amendment at this stage to change this situation, though if there were a provision in the bill itself, we might be able to do so; but it is not in the bill; it is in the regulations. Unless the minister can stand up and tell me now that in these changes in the regulations the $50 fee will be reduced, I can only say to him that I am exceedingly sorry to see that there is no change in regard to this $50 fee in the regulations.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Shall I answer that now?


Hazen Robert Argue: If you would. I do not know whether it is in order, but that will be fine.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not think the hon. member for Assiniboia was here, but-


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I am not losing my place in the debate. I am willing to have the minister answer a question which I have put with regard to the $50 fee, but that is all.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member for Assiniboia should not be so suspicious. I was just going to explain that last point. Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Assiniboia was away I explained to the house that the question of the appraisal fee was up for consideration by the farm credit board who wanted an amendment to the act in order to make both sections alike. This was because the section on the appraisal fee was set in part III, and was not set in part II. So to bring the whole thing into conformity we had to amend the legislation before the house. When the discussion is completed and the bill is completely amended, then the farm credit board can take action on the question of the

appraisal fee. I did explain that to the house, but I think the hon. member was away at the time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, the minister certainly has not answered my question. I said there was nothing in the regulations which would suggest any lowering of the $50 fee. There is nothing suggested by the minister now which indicates that the fee will be lowered. If it was possible up to this point under the regulations to have a $50 fee by order in council, it is possible to change that fee, and to change it irrespective of the provisions of this bill. But I am afraid what government wants is that the minister should hint right now that there might be a reduction in the fee, and hope he can get past the debate and past any further criticism of the $50 fee, and once this bill becomes law and is out of the house-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is what the Liberals did.


Hazen Robert Argue: -it will go merrily along with this $50 bar to the appraisal of farms. The minister mentioned the Liberals. That is fine; I expected he would. Let him not forget that under the old farm loan board the appraisal fee was $10. Now it is $50. I ask the Conservative members opposite-and I refer to the farm members-if they are in favour of the $50 fee, this multiplication of the fee by five.


An hon. Member:: How much money did they lend?


Hazen Robert Argue: The corporation obtained
$400,000 from these farmers last year, or almost $400,000. This is the way in which they are trying to cover up some of the losses that result from the government's tight money policy and the high interest rates, namely by soaking the farmers $50 apiece when they apply for a loan.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is pure nonsense.


An hon. Member:: It is more baloney.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would suggest that the hon. member ask the farmers who have to pay the $50, whether the $50 is pure nonsense. If you do not pay the $50 you do not get a loan.
There is another indication that the government is not really too serious about any great broadening of the application of this legislation. On a previous occasion the minister told us that in the administration of this act this year, he expected $80 million would be lent. He says this is a great program to help expand economic farm units; yet he is asking for only $100 million or just over the sum of money he says will be required for one year. I do not think that is a very sensible way in which to administer an extremely important act like this one, namely

to keep it on a kind of year to year basis. We should like to see placed in this act an amount which will demonstrate that there will he an expansion of loans to small farmers. If there is to be any expansion in the loans to small farmers there must be a raising of the sights above the $100 million figure which, in the minister's own words, is barely enough to cover just over one year's operations.


Mr. Horner:: After twenty years of neglect under the Liberals.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, I know that my friends do not like it when we hit them where it hurts. What amazes me is that the Minister of Agriculture at the resolution stage should accept our contention that loans should be for more economic units, and then change the whole basis of the government's attitude between that time and now. We like to see some improvements. We like to see some changes. We like to see some advances. However, we do not like to see this retrograde position.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Vote against it.


Hazen Robert Argue: When he was speaking at the first stage of the resolution the minister said he was not doing too well in the maritime provinces, that not too many loans were being made. He wanted to see some improvement. Then when we all agreed that what he said was right and that the job was not being done in the maritime provinces, he makes another speech and says that if you relate the total amount of loans to the farm income in those provinces we have been doing about as well in the maritime provinces as we have been doing elsewhere. I do not know what the minister means. I do not mind dealing with the statements one at a time. However, when he keeps contradicting himself in the various speeches he makes, it is extremely difficult to know just where he is going.
We had hopes that there would be a much greater indication in this legislation that something more would be done for the small farmers, that there would be greater emphasis on getting a greater number of loans to the marginal farmers, to the farmers who are having a difficult time, and that they would be loans of a size, even if they are small loans, that would help them improve their business. We thought there might be in this legislation some extra provision for loans for livestock. This has not been the case. The minister has put forward figures to demonstrate that loans are being made for this purpose under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, something of which we are all very much aware. However, I feel that under this legislation as well there could be a greater
Farm Credit Act
emphasis on the provision of loans for livestock. The governing consideration under this legislation is that all of the loans must have as security the farm land. This requirement makes it impossible to make many loans under this act for the extension of beef production.
The minister has an extremely difficult problem in the butter surplus in the country.
I think everybody agrees that any shift there may be out of butter production into the production of beef is something that should be supported. I had hoped that under this legislation, as was stated in the newspapers before it was introduced prior to the assembling of the house, there would be something to demonstrate that the government was endeavouring in a substantial way to encourage the increase of beef production. I see virtually nothing in this legislation designed in this direction. There are some amendments which will allow people who get loans under this legislation to get into other fields of activity, but there is nothing designed to bring about a substantial increase in the production of beef. We suggested earlier, and we do so again, that the best way in which to get improvements under this act is to have the whole thing aired before the agriculture committee of this house, and not brought before the committee after the legislation goes through. We do not think that procedure serves a very useful purpose. It may have some purpose. However, we do not think it serves a very useful purpose to say to the house, "Pass the legislation, make it the law, and then we will have a class of learners to hear what the officials of the Farm Credit Corporation have to say".
These officials should be brought before that committee. They should be asked to substantiate the $50, if they can do so. I do not think they can. They should be asked to explain why 55 per cent of the farmers who come in for documented interviews are turned away cold, without any loans. That is what we should like to find out. We should like to see what more can be done to improve this legislation, and we suggest once again that the bill, after second reading, should be sent to the committee on agriculture and colonization for further study and for the many substantial improvements that are required.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, since the discussion that took place after first reading of this bill I have used the time to investigate the attitude of farmers not only in my own constituency but also in various parts of Canada toward this farm credit scheme. Almost without exception I find a grateful attitude of appreciation for what the Farm Credit Act has done, and

Farm Credit Act
that farmers everywhere desire its continuation. Perhaps the hon. member for Assini-boia will call that more collaboration. However, if he would just get his mind out of his boots and look at the thing objectively perhaps he could face up to something that was good, even though it might happen to come from across the floor.
I find that farmers, generally speaking, suggest two points with regard to which they feel this could be improved upon. One is the purpose for which these loans are granted. I mentioned this the other day. It not only involves the improvement of present farms by way of clearing land, levelling, drainage, and so on, but loans should be extended for purposes other than those which are considered general farming. I have had representations even from poultry farmers, not to mention truck farmers and other farmers who have already been mentioned. I will not take the time to go into this in any detail because I believe these are matters of the administration rather than the legislation which we are discussing here in the house.
The second point relates to the appraisal fee. The farmer who is obtaining a comparatively large loan does not object to the appraisal fee involved. However, I do agree that we should try to direct the workings of this legislation towards the small farmer wherever possible. I agree with what has been said in this regard. A suggestion has come to me that for loans of less than $5,000, the appraisal fee should be eliminated. The farmers are quite happy to pay this fee on loans over this amount. I think that this is common sense.
Now, one of the suggestions which the hon. member for Assiniboia has made is that this bill should go before the committee on agriculture. As I look back to the October 9 record of Hansard, I find he was very critical of me for having blocked this move. This is not true. I used to think that the hon. member spoke chiefly to the galleries and probably to a few farmers back home. However, I am becoming convinced that he talks because he likes to listen to himself. I have never indicated in any way my opposition to this bill going before a committee. As I look back on what I said, I cannot see anything that even indicates this position. Certainly, it was not in my thinking or in my speaking.
We have agreed that this is a good piece of legislation necessary for our agricultural community. We hope that it will be available not only to greater numbers of smaller farmers but to farmers elsewhere in Canada. In this regard I think some public relations effort might usefully be made in areas where

farmers are not taking advantage of the legislation as they would if they were more aware of it. When an hon. member criticizes another for something he has not said and then tries to intimate that cheap politics are behind this, I find he is cheapening the very argument he is trying to put forward. I contend that this whole statement on page 729 of Hansard is wrong because of the words he is trying to put into my mouth.
However, leaving that aside, I may say it seems to me as a newcomer to this house that it is most difficult to become accustomed to this constant talk and discussion of things that may be irrelevant to the basic principle of the legislation before us. If any good could come out of sending this measure to the agricultural committee, then by all means let us do it. But it does seem to me that we are agreed that this legislation is something that is not only good but necessary. It is necessary now in order that the purposes of the measure can be extended this fall to farmers who are looking forward to preparations for next spring's operation. We should proceed to pass it as quickly as possible.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize for leaving the house while others were speaking on this very important bill. After the minister concluded his statement, I was called out to meet a delegation. There is no question about it, the length of the debate on the resolution indicated the interest of the members of this house generally in the problems facing the farmer and the things that are necessary through legislation of this type to assist him. I think that was generally indicated.
I was interested also, while listening to the debate, to hear of the experiences and circumstances explained by members from all parts of Canada where conditions are so different, as for instance between say the mountain valleys of British Columbia and the alluvial plains of some parts of Quebec. No doubt the minister will explore the possibilities of a good many of the suggestions that were put forward by the various members. Personally, I was very glad to hear him say, in mentioning certain amendments to the act, that poultry farmers are now eligible to receive loans. I think this will fill a gap in the legislation which has existed to date. I have known of a number of very successful and excellent poultry farmers who required extra assistance to expand their operations, and who were denied loans under previous circumstances.
If I understood the minister correctly this afternoon he said, in effect, that there would be loans for the part time farmers, the people

who supplemented their farm income from other sources, particularly tourism and things of that sort. I am very glad to hear that because we get so many differing circumstances in this country. When I was speaking on the resolution, I mentioned these part time farmers and another group which I called the modest maintenance farmers.
Now, I do urge that further consideration be given to a few other groups not now eligible under the act. I am not suggesting for a moment that the facts can be obtained overnight. However, I do believe the minister's officials should be making a study of the problem of the other farmers who are not covered by this legislation. I should like to deal first with the question of tree farmers. There is a great opportunity in this country for a combination of agriculture and tree farming. In Sweden, tree farming comes under the department of agriculture because they are so closely related. I think the way developments in Canada are headed we will find private tree farming will achieve its greatest possibility for development under the Department of Agriculture and linked very closely to ARDA.
There is no question about it, private tree farming requires more long range confidence in government co-operation and in the economic future than any other type of farming. This development is just beginning in Canada, and there are tremendous opportunities for it. I know the members of this group are very interested in this aspect of agricultural development. I realize that a lot of intensive study will be required before a decision can be made with respect to this type of investment. Study will be required of rates of growth, regional circumstances, local conditions, markets and so on. I should like to suggest to the minister that there is a shortage of staff in his department capable of undertaking this type of study satisfactorily. I know many people are of the opinion this is something that could be done by the Department of Forestry. However, the history of persons engaged in private forestry or tree farming in other countries has been that they have found their greater opportunity for assistance lies with the agriculture departments of those countries. I suggest that the minister should be looking around for persons who could satisfactorily perform these duties, even if that required their being sent to other countries, such as Sweden and Norway, to explore what has been done there. I hope my suggestion is given serious consideration.
There is another type of farming now developing. It is fur farming, and there are a number of fur farmers in my own constituency who have made a great success of it. Under
Farm Credit Act
certain circumstances it can be a very profitable operation for the persons engaged in it, and I suggest the minister give some consideration to the developing of opportunities for this type of farming, particularly when allied to straight agricultural operations, tree farming and other types of farming.
In addition there is yet another type of farming in which, surprisingly enough, I have found a few people who have made a success. That is fish farming. I do not know what the experience of other hon. members is, but I know of two very successful fish farms in the Kootenays where they raise fish, place them into artificial ponds and charge tourists so much per pound for the fish they catch. It is only on a small scale as yet, but I suggest it is worth while studying because any type of farming which affords an opportunity for a young Canadian with the ability, intelligence and willingness to carry it on, requires investigation and, should it be proven sound, deserves the assistance and co-operation of the government.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this legislation is very closely linked with the ARDA program. One can hardly separate them. How then are we going to make this legislation successful in its relationship to the ARDA program? In order to make the Farm Credit Act successful there are several things required. First of all there is the information to be supplied to farm organizations and farmers. The farmer must be fully informed of the possibilities under this bill and of the terms of the legislation itself.
Together with supplying the information, interest must be stimulated in local communities and among the individuals who form the various farm organizations. The government, if it is to be successful in the operation of this bill or in the operation of its ARDA program, must secure community co-operation.
Without proper public relations there is a danger that this type of legislation will be looked upon something after the fashion of a loan in time of need, and that the ARDA program will be regarded as an opportunity for a few farmers with trucks and mechanical equipment to dig some ditches or do other work as part of a temporary employment program. We have to guard against that by providing farmers with a thorough understanding of the terms and principles of the bill in its relationship to ARDA.
I give the minister full credit for the literature he sends out, but literature alone is not sufficient. I am sure some hon. members have found that out as a result of the election campaign. Look at the torrent of literature distributed by friends of the hon. gentlemen who now sit on the government benches, and look

Farm Credit Act
at the effect it had. Look at the strength of our group here in ratio to the money we spent and the number of pieces of literature we distributed. As I say, literature is essential, but the government, through its officials, must obtain the co-operation of the farmers themselves, of the farm organizations and the community organizations where loans are being granted and work is being carried out under ARDA.
I suggest that the formation of local advisory committees be considered. There is nothing like democratic participation to ensure the success of any program. These are not short term programs; they are long term programs and unless the foundations are laid on the basis of sound understanding and the co-operation of the farmers concerned, then their success will not be that which is desired or anticipated.
Further than that-and I am very concerned about this particular aspect in relation to conservation of natural resources, development of land, the use of water and the promotion of forestry-I suggest that the department should consider securing the co-operation of the provincial departments of education so that during their high school years our boys and girls may be given an understanding of these problems, of their importance to Canada, and of the need for programs like this being understood and supported by the population as a whole.
I submit those few suggestions to the minister at this time and urge him to give them consideration. Before concluding I wish to say that members of this group support the principles of this bill and are glad to see the amendments proposed, but we shall have other suggestions to make when we come to deal with the bill clause by clause in committee.


Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchester-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the minister has seen tit to introduce these amendments to the act. It is well known that the act, as originally drawn, did not apply too readily to some areas in Nova Scotia. The definition of an economic farm unit has been hard to meet in that province due to the fact that much of the farming undertaken there, what we know as a family farm, is supported by other income earned off the farm, such as a wife teaching school or the farmer himself working part time at something else, such as operating school buses. These amendments will assist that type of farmer.
The farms in Nova Scotia could support certain other operations such as the raising of beef and hogs, and considering the current surplus in the dairy industry it is desirable
fMr. Herridge.]
that we should change over as much as possible to these types of operation. Indeed in Nova Scotia important action has been taken toward that end.
The provincial government of Nova Scotia has combined with the federal government in the provision of community pastures and some excellent land has been made available, both in these pastures and on private property, under the combined operation of the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act. These pastures provide excellent grass and will support a good number of animals.
One of the greatest difficulties in acquiring a beef herd is the necessity for long range capital. In that connection I hope the officials in administration will take note of the amendments proposed by the minister to provide greater flexibility in the purposes for which loans may be made and, if they do, I believe the bill will apply to a lot of farm units in the province of Nova Scotia.
(Translation):


Mr. Viaieur Eihier (Glengarry-Prescoti):: Mr. Speaker, since this is my maiden speech, my first remarks will be to congratulate His Honour, who is absent at present, and to congratulate you, as Deputy Speaker.
I believe from what we have seen of you in the five weeks we have been here that you quite honourably discharge the duties of your office.
The reason why I should like to say a few words on the Farm Credit Corporation is that the riding I represent is 95 per cent agricultural and made up almost entirely of what we call family farm units.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) may not understand what actually is a family farm.
Some family farms are large enough to justify a farm loan, according to the provisions of the act now in force, but there are not many.
As a matter of fact, I went to both your offices to obtain information concerning the constituency of Glengarry-Prescott, and I learned that about only 25 per cent of applicants can now obtain loans from the Farm Credit Corporation.
Those figures are not official, in the sense that all those people would have lost their deposit of $50, but I may say that 41 applications were made, which means that 41 farmers gave a deposit of $50 in order to obtain a loan. Well, there was only one who lost his deposit of $50 but about 100 others-



NOVEMEER 1. 1962

[Stage Direction]
according to the information I received- have put in an application and, after discussing the matter, thought it wise not to risk $50 since they were almost sure not to obtain anything.
If a man applies for a loan, that surely indicates that he needs it.
So then, why ask him to make a $50 deposit? Why has the $10 deposit which used to be required stopped being enough for the government which has been in power for the past five years? Nothing doing today. First, they want $50.
Therefore, how can you come to the conclusion that the loans have helped the applicants?
I know that several members in this house talked about those who secured farm loans in the past six years, that is, since the Farm Credit Act was amended. However, our hon. opposites should not be too proud of themselves. If a farmer has to borrow it is because he does not make enough money. The truth of the matter is that he has not made enough money for six years, since this government came into office or since the existing act has been in force.
(Text):
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Look at the record. See what they are borrowing it for today.


Viateur Éthier: I imagine the record will show the hon. member that the farmer's income is the lowest it has been since 1953-that is, the net income of all farmers. If the government is prepared to see the cost of living rise all the time, it should introduce measures which would help farmers, because I think the small family farmer has always been forgotten when it comes to borrowing money. Before the measure respecting farm loans was changed, the farmers in my riding did not bother too much about it because the average farmer did not need it then; he had the power of borrowing from the bank; his name was good. But who is going to lend money to a farmer at the moment?


Mr. Gundlock:: The Farm Credit Corporation.


Viateur Éthier: At the moment the government is refusing about 70 per cent of those who go into the Farm Credit Corporation offices and ask for loans. The banks have refused about 200 per cent of those farmers who are going into the banks for loans.


Some hon. Members:: Two hundred per cent.


Viateur Éthier: They will not make loans to these farmers. I am very glad that the farm credit legislation is to be amended, but-as we heard in the house this afternoon-there is no specific improvement that will assist
Farm Credit Act
the small family farmer. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support the suggestion of my hon. friend from Assiniboia that this bill be studied by the committee on agriculture and brought back again before this house. (Translation):


Mr. J. A. Roy (Levis):: Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to address the house once more to discuss the possibilities of farm credit in my riding, in the province of Quebec and in the whole of Canada.
I am proud to represent one of the most beautiful ridings of the south shore of the St. Lawrence, in the province of Quebec. Farmers and labourers are the backbone of my constituency. We have had rather hard times.
Personally, I was a farmer until the age of 33, and I am proud of it. At the time, people used to call us "habitants". Farming was hard on my health. Like many others, I had to sell my farm because it did not bring me enough income to give my family a decent living.
That was under a Liberal government. In those years, potatoes were selling for 30 cents a bag; butter, 14 cents a pound; and eggs, 15 cents a dozen. It was impossible for us to put enough money away to improve our farms, see to the maintenance of our buildings and secure the equipment we needed.
The government of the day had created a farm credit, but it did not make any loans. I remember that during election years, of course, people went around with forms to fill out, which obviously did not come from the parish church. We were required to make a $10 deposit, and the applications of the interested farmers were never acted upon because the government did not make any loans in those days. And it is those very people who are now asking the government in power to grant loans for which a deposit of only $10 would be required.
I am not opposed to that, especially since the government can carry the expense of the investigations, for I submit that $50 is rather high. As a matter of fact, I would accept that provided that the government would refund part of the unused $50 set aside for the investigation.
Mr. Speaker, it would be desirable that this
government took the necessary steps to help farmers, many of whom are presently in difficulty if not faced with bankruptcy.
If some day you should see this chamber empty, it would not mean the end of the world; but if the farmers and the farm workers should stop working some day and
Farm Credit Act

if our farms should cease producing, such a situation would seem to me rather alarming.
When our present governments-which do not take their responsibilities seriously- finally understand that without farmers and workers they cannot survive on this land that our fathers, our grandfathers and even our great grandfathers cleared with great difficulty, in order to secure freedom and a decent living for their families, it may be too late, and they will experience the fate other countries are meeting with these days.
We, of the Social Credit, advocate a proper monetary system to solve that situation, a system that many members on both sides of the house find acceptable, but which they are forced to reject because their party is under a financial dictatorship which is interested in keeping the tight money situation. As long as they submit to such dictatorship, no government, save a Social Credit administration, will be able to grant freedom and security to the people.
A Social Credit government will be a government elected by the people to serve the Canadian public; its administration will be commendable and advantageous for all Canadians.
The Farm Credit Corporation wants to increase farm credit by $100 million, which means that the amount available will be $400 million. Such credit will be advantageous on one condition, that the money is used to increase farmers' production and income in order to cover the interest and capital payments they will have to meet. Otherwise they will have to keep on sinking lower and lower into indebtedness, into socialization and nationalization, and no further money will have been spent for it.
The Farm Credit Corporation lends money at a rate of 5 per cent. The provincial governments, for reasons of petty politics, are prepared to refund 2| per cent on the amount of the loans, and they always make such commitments on the eve of an election of course, whatever their party or political hue.
The same attitude has been witnessed in the case of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans, and it was always for petty political purposes. I hope to have an opportunity of going further into this matter before the end of this session.
Mr. Speaker, due to circumstances and to the fact that we have not a choice of means, I think that this government should charge an interest of 2J per cent, which would be more advantageous to the farmers, in many ways.

First, it would be easier for them to have their loans granted according to their revenues.
Second, instalments would be smaller.
Third, the provincial governments would not have to come and beg any more for their due share from the federal government, in order to compensate for the difference of extra interest charged by the Farm Credit Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to all members who want to be re-elected in their respective ridings at the forthcoming election, to stand behind the Social Credit banner. After the next federal election, the Social Credit members will sit on the government benches, the Conservatives, I hope, will constitute the official opposition, the Liberals will be comfortable in the part of the house now reserved for our socialist friends who, I hope, will have disappeared from the house and parliament.
(Text):


Mr. John R. Malheson (Leeds):: May I make a brief contribution to the discussion on this bill particularly from the standpoint of a community engaged in dairying. 1 do so with some authority. I represent Leeds riding, and the county of Leeds is the most concentrated area in Ontario from the point of view of dairy cattle. It may not be the most productive-not as productive as Oxford county, for example, or Waterloo, where they have the advantage of better land; but from the standpoint of cattle population we are faced with the fact that we are in dairy production and shall likely continue to be in dairy production.
When one studies this bill and listens to the remarks of the minister he wonders to what extent the minister's objectives and those of the various farm representatives differ. The Ontario Union Farmer of September describes the national farm union as being devoted to working toward the maintenance of the family farm structure in our agricultural policy. Canadian agricultural policies must be designed to supply stability and security for the average farm family so that they will enjoy a level of living comparable to that of other members of society.
References to a peasant society and upgrading the peasantry have been disturbing to some of us, because in a community like Leeds people have lived there for upwards of 200 years and they are not going to change, particularly in the matter of where they live or how they earn their living. We appreciate that there are problems and important shifts which must take place from time to time. I had hoped before the resumption of this debate to be able to refer to three statements

which the minister has made to the dairy farmers of Ontario and Quebec in which I think he gave warning that subsidies would be cut unless consumption dropped.


Mr. Fulion:: I think the hon. member made a mistake. He said the minister gave notice that subsidies would go unless consumption dropped. I do not think the minister said that.


John Ross Matheson: I thank the Minister of Public Works. Of course, I meant to say "unless production dropped". The fact is that currently and, we think for a short period only, there is a serious problem of overproduction in dairy products. I have before me a copy of the Ottawa Journal of last night, October 31, in which the Minister of Agriculture addresses himself to this problem. The report is headed: "Dairymen may resist beef plan". This is the plan whereby the Minister of Agriculture suggests that dairy farmers will have to switch to beef. I am disturbed about this, because when I look at the answer to question 382, as it appears on page 1017 of Hansard, I notice, for instance, that fluid milk consumption has dropped from 405.10 lbs. in 1956 to 385.27 lbs. in 1961. This is serious. This really is the dilemma facing eastern Ontario. It is the fact, not that we have fewer people, although the population has not increased as much as we would have wished, but that the people we do have are drinking less and less milk. Again, the consumption of butter in 1956 was 20.51 lbs., and last year it was down to 16.43 lbs. We appreciate from the answer given recently to another question that the present volume of butter and butter oil is startingly high, but there is a great fear that the minister, who at times is decisive and makes long range plans which are sometimes implemented, may do something which could be very hurtful to the people in the community I represent, a community which has been established there for a long time.
I want to say to the minister that for many years the agricultural people in my type of area have tried to uplift themselves, preferably without loans from the Farm Credit Corporation, by doing exactly what they were advised, directed and guided to do, largely by the Ontario minister of agriculture, who told them that the way they were going to upgrade their production was to produce more, to have larger herds, to produce a better breed of cattle, and to raise breeding standards. Therefore, in a community such as Leeds, where the herds are chiefly Holstein, and some Jersey, there has been a
Farm Credit Act
great effort to improve herds, milk houses and coolers, and to go into large capital debt.
What has been the result of that? The result has been that the average income from our manufactured products is in the order, at the moment, of approximately $2.65 a hundred. When this government came into power it was well over $2.85 a hundred. The fact is that, through taking advice at this time in becoming more efficient as dairy farmers, we have suffered as a result. If I am wrong in this I would be grateful if the minister would correct me, but I believe that the operation of the Farm Credit Corporation has been to discourage loans of all kinds in any area where there were dairy producers anxious to increase production.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are wrong.


John Ross Matheson: I will give examples. A number of new Canadians have come into our part of the community who knew a great deal about the dairy trade. They have come mainly from Holland, and some of them have been spectacularly successful. They knew experts and people with graduate training in some very fine European schools in the field of agriculture and husbandry generally, and they have made serious studies as to how to improve their prospects. They bought more land, improved their herds, and built on and added to their farms. They went to the Farm Credit Corporation on different occasions, but they were either discouraged from putting down their $50, or they did not get their loans. They did get a very good hearing from some of the extremely fine people we have as representatives on the Farm Credit Corporation, and in many instances recommendations did go forward to area officers. But I have reason to believe that in the past few months there has been a drop in the number of grants made to dairy farmers who wish to improve their farms. Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe that the minister is concerned about this overproduction in milk to the extent that word has actually been passed round that we cannot go into further production. If that is the problem and the minister feels that we do have overproduction at the moment in the dairy trade in Canada, and if it is the fact that the dairy people are being discouraged from any kind of expansion, I think we should know and be told that quite frankly.
This state of affairs is discouraging to people who have made a study of dairy farming. Some of our native Canadians going back three or four generations in Leeds county have tried to improve their stock and plant. They go over in the first instance to Kingston with every reasonable assurance that a loan will be forthcoming, only to find out that

Farm Credit Act
although everything seems to be all right at the Kingston level, the application does not go any further. These people do get discouraged, go to a member and ask the reason for this, and I suspect that the reason is a very real one.
The minister is a man of great ability and is earnestly interested, as we know, in this agricultural problem. We also know he has made up his mind on a number of things and is trying to work out a solution to this overall situation. But if the solution that he sees is to get our dairy people out of dairy production and into beef, it is not going to work just like that. I have had a number of reactions since this article in the Ottawa Journal was published. I have made a number of phone calls too, because I wanted to check on what was the local feeling. Some people who have been agricultural representatives for years say that getting out of dairy production and into beef will be a slow process, and in fact in some respects it can never be successful. There are certain farms where it will never be successful.
In Leeds county at the present time great use is made of the export market. Actually, over 25 per cent of the incomes of our dairy farmers comes from selling cattle to the United States, mostly two-year old springers. We are counting on this cattle trade but can never be sure that it will continue to be as stimulating as it is at the present time. There are many factors which could wipe out the cattle trade. As a matter of fact, these people who have been in the cattle business exclusively, and rather successfully, having bred cattle over a period of years, indicate that their net incomes will be lower than they would have been if they had been engaged in the dairy trade. I would tell the minister that $2.60 for manufactured milk is all that has been obtained on average in our community, through General Milk, Cow & Gate etc. The cheese people are able to go up perhaps to $2.95. The fluid milk people are a little better off because they have a contract. It is a quota contract, but the price they can expect right now is $4.80 for specialty milk, and they dump the balance at something like $2.40, which averages out at $3.60.
Mr. Speaker, a few months ago I was at the Ontario Agricultural College speaking to a number of agricultural economists.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have been listening to the hon. member for some time, but I would respectfully draw his attention to the fact that we are now engaged upon the second reading of this bill, where we are debating the principle of the bill before the house. This is not a wide-ranging agricultural debate. The principle of the bill now before the house

is a simple one; it concerns an increase in the total capitalization of the Farm Credit Corporation, and there are certain administrative changes. While I have permitted the hon. member to base himself on certain references to particular aspects of the agricultural industry, I think now that he is really engaging in a wide-ranging discussion of agricultural problems as a whole, and that is not within the rules of relevancy.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be guided by your direction. I was attempting to address myself to some of these problems, because I thought the minister, in his various references to over-all objectives and to ARDA, had brought in certain matters which showed why this kind of loan was important to us. Perhaps I have made my point and I will simply say this. We are interested in credit. We are interested in expansion. We are also interested in what happens to our dairy farmers with regard to raising money in order to produce more dairy commodities. This is one of the reasons that the recommendation of the hon. member for Assiniboia with respect to the bill going to a committee is so very important. There are some things which we have to say to the minister in connection with various area interests in the application of this particular act. It is not enough just to take the provincial situation or the national situation as an over-all situation.
It is quite clear on comparison that the western provinces have been able to avail themselves of this legislation a good deal more successfully than has Ontario, not only on a total but also on a proportionate basis-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Ross Matheson: Did the hon. member have a question?


Mr. Speaker:: No. I would indicate that the hon. member who has the floor has a right to speak, without any interruptions, whether against or in support of him.


John Ross Matheson: I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, and will thank the Chair for the opportunity to make these comments. I should like to remind the minister that the farm cash income for 1961 indicates that dairy products represent 18 per cent of the over-all income for Canada. We from my part of the country are greatly concerned about the future of the dairy trade. We wish to be co-operative with the minister. We wish to understand his thinking in the matter. We thank him for his general statement, and as this lending is available we hope that we shall have our opportunity to make representation on another occasion where there can be a broader consideration of over-all policy.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to see this bill before us today. As we discussed at great length the agricultural prospects of the country in relation to credit during the resolution stage, we are surprised to see the bill that comes before us take into consideration some of the things that were raised. One of the unusual aspects of this bill is the fact that the minister in explaining it was extremely cautious not to pick out exactly what the bill is saying. It is different. It is fairly revolutionary as far as agriculture is concerned. I am very much surprised to find that the hon. member for Assiniboia did not understand this either.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is this about motels?


William Arnold Peters: Motels may be part of it. It is also true that in this bill we are now facing up in a positive way to a problem discussed through ARDA and the economic change that is taking place or must take place in agriculture if it is to be established as a sound and economic part of our community.
I think this bill has gone a long way. There is no question that this matter will be contentious and that this legislation will not be completely accepted by everyone. However, I believe that in the remarks of the last speaker there was an indication that there is in the Liberal party some understanding of some of the implications of this particular bill. In this legislation there is provision for the increases we expected in the amount of money that would be available-I refer to the increase in the capitalization of the corporation -and some consideration is given to these small matters referred to such as the appraisal fees and the other fees that are being required. However, I think it should be borne in mind that while this $50 fee is in some cases a detriment to those applying for the loan, very few of those who have paid the $50 have lost that $50 after they have paid it. This is an indication that the supervisory staff of the corporation are doing a very good job in explaining the legislation and in doing the initial work that is necessary with the farmer in order to establish the prospectus for an economic unit in which the corporation can participate through the granting of a loan. While this is not always true, there is in the main a desire on the part of the corporation and their officials to see that the farmer can develop an economic unit. Much of the work in the initial interviews produces a result that would be satisfactory and then the application is applied for. In my area at least this is being done.
Private Bills
There is no question that there is some resentment on the part of individuals who feel that they should have received a loan. However, most of the resentment lies in the fact that their opinions of an economic unit and that of the advisory staff differ greatly, having regard to the manner in which an economic farm unit could be accomplished for the individual. In most of these cases no appraisal fee was paid because the matter was not pushed this far.
However, Mr. Speaker, this is not the main part of this bill. It is true that we needed more money but the main part of the bill is in that section which will allow the corporation the right to give assistance to the transfer from one type of economy in rural Canada to another type of economy and, while doing this, to supply the farmer with a livelihood and which will make this change operative if it is applied for. It should not be stated, as was stated by the hon. member who last spoke, that this legislation is going to be forced on the farmer. I would suggest that it is not going to be forced on the farmer by the government, but that it is going to be requested by the farmer himself. It is going to be forced on him by an economic situation over which neither the government nor the farmer has very much control.


Mr. Speaker:: It is now five o'clock, the time appointed for the consideration of private members' business.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, November 1, 1962
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 1st November, at 5.45 p.m.. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill SD-1, an act for the relief of Madeleine Francoise Hankowski.-Mr. Mandziuk.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Stand.

Private Bills


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of the hon. member for Marquette, this bill stands. Therefore, everything under his name will stand.
Order stands.


Mr. Speaker:: The next item is notices of motions for papers. It will be recalled that by order of the house the item that would normally have come up for consideration today will be deferred for discussion until next Thursday.



SWEEPSTAKES


Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-16, to provide for the establishment of a hospital sweepstakes board.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of moving the second reading of Bill No. C-16 to provide for the establishment of a hospital sweepstakes board. If this measure passes, of course the board will be empowered to operate a national lottery. The object of the bill, as set out in the explanatory note and simply expressed, is to provide a legal outlet under strictly supervised conditions for those Canadians who wish to participate in a sweepstake or lottery on a national scale, and at the same time redirect or rechannel the proceeds from any such national lottery toward the promotion of the social welfare and public welfare of Canadians.
I know too, Mr. Speaker, that in introducing this bill I follow in the footsteps of a great many members of this house, both present and past, who have introduced similar legislation. I think we should be particularly indebted to a colleague of ours, the former member for Vancouver-Kingsway, Mr. Ferguson Browne. He, perhaps more than any other member, did a great deal of research and put considerable effort into bringing this matter to the attention of parliament during two sessions.
While this bill does set out in some detail the mechanics of how it is proposed a national lottery should operate, it is not my intention this evening to discuss anything more than the principle. In fact, it is my hope that we will deal with the principle because for too long we have argued about which charity or which welfare program the proceeds might be directed toward, and we have invariably found ourselves in some conflict about the principle in question. I submit, therefore, we must settle this issue first of all, and it is to this question that I turn my attention. I hope, in the next few minutes, to establish three points. The first is that today, as perhaps never before, there is a substantial demand,

I suggest an overwhelming demand, by the public for the establishment of a national lottery in Canada. I hope to reply, too, to some of those critics who, while constituting what I suggest is a small minority, have nevertheless registered objections which we in this house must acknowledge are sincerely held and with deep conviction.
In looking at the demand for a state lottery, one does not have to search very far through the daily reports in the newspapers to find one body or one group of individuals suggesting to this parliament that we amend the Criminal Code in order to make provision for a national lottery. Very briefly, it is interesting to note that two legislative assemblies, Quebec and Ontario, one by a vote in the house supporting a motion for a provincial lottery and in the instance of Quebec establishing legislation of a permissive nature, have supported this proposal. We are all familiar with the fact that municipalities in the various provinces, in particular Ontario and Alberta, recommended to their own legislative assemblies a lottery on a national scale, or at least a provincial lottery.
In so far as business and industrial support for this principle is concerned, recently the Canadian Chamber of Commerce offered a resolution in support of the principle to the executive committee at their annual meeting. The international railway brotherhood have offered their endorsation. The Canadian Trades and Labour Congress, through the officers of the international longshoremen and warehousemen union, have also offered their support to this principle.
What about the individual? We know that a short time ago a Gallup poll was taken in Canada, in 1956 to be exact, and it showed that 82 per cent of the people polled indicated their support of a national lottery. Then, more recently, I believe early in 1961 a survey was undertaken by La Presse, that well known publication, in the province of Quebec and the result of that poll was 98,780 in favour and 149 against. A group of women who belong to an organization known as "Operation Sweepstake" in my own city, developed a petition which I hope to present to parliament later this year. To date, they have obtained some 300,000 signatures in support of the principle of a national lottery. I personally pay particular tribute to one woman in this group, Mrs. Mamy English who went across this country, travelling some
12,000	miles, and at no time has she had anyone who in any way registered any objection to the principle of a national or state lottery. All of the major veterans organizations, the army, navy and air force veterans associations and the Canadian

Legion, have repeatedly at their annual meetings sent recommendations to parliament subscribing to this principle.
What is perhaps most interesting, sir, is the fact that this support does not come from any particular area or any particular classification of either age or economic status. In fact, my most recent group of petitions came from a number of old age pensioners in my own province. What is significant is that every area of Canada, every classification of people, have indicated for some years basic support of this principle.
Having established, I hope to the satisfaction of the house, that there is a demand, we might examine the objectives and principles of this type of legislation. What are we trying to accomplish? First of all, we realize that a substantial amount of capital goes out of Canada by the appeal of other national lotteries. There are some 70 of them, I believe, throughout the world. In fact, it is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, it is easier to select that state or country that does not have such a lottery than it is to identify those who are actually enjoying the benefits of such lotteries. Canadians have been participating in these lotteries of one type or another for a great many years. It is estimated, for example, that the Irish sweepstake, one of the better known, takes something like $10 million a year out of Canada. The total figure for all lotteries is probably closer to $100 million or $150 million a year. This, in itself, is not the most disturbing factor to me. I think it is going to follow that people will support lotteries probably under any circumstances.
What does bother me, sir, is the hypocrisy of the situation in Canada today in which the Criminal Code sets out certain regulations which govern lotteries within Canada, and those particular regulations are paid very little attention. There is no attempt to enforce them, and this is understandable. I am going to make certain references to a study that was made in 1956 by a committee of the two houses, the upper and lower houses of this parliament, and put before you one or two of their recommendations. I think before we make any assessment of the attitude of Canadians, we are pledged to pay some attention to what has been the experience with lotteries in other areas of the world.
The proceeds of Sweden's national lottery have benefited that nation in many ways, such as the provision of repertory theatres, sports facilities, scholarships, playing fields and so on and these, I believe, are testimonials to the value of the state lottery of that country.
The Swiss have been successful in assisting combat the major welfare problems of that country, and so have the Australians, the
Private Bills
Japanese, the Israelis, the Turks, the Spaniards, the Italians, the Portuguese, the French, the British and the West Germans. This therefore establishes beyond any doubt that we have throughout the world a great deal of experience to draw upon in guiding any legislation for a Canadian lottery. Yet in Canada, while we insist on accepting an archaic law to prevent even the most harmless games of chance, we close our eyes to the law as it stands, and as a consequence abuse of the present Criminal Code encourages lotteries to flourish on a private basis as never before in Canada.
In this respect I draw the attention of hon. members of the house to the report of the joint committee, some of the recommendations made in it, and comments on the evidence presented to it. The first of these appears in paragraph 8 of that report and reads as follows:
Lack of public support for lottery laws-The committee notes that there is widespread difficulty in enforcement and it is disposed to accept the statement of the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that there is a lack of support for the present prohibitory laws and that they cannot be enforced in the face of adverse public opinion.
Paragraph 9 says further:
The committee has little doubt that the results of this evasion of the lottery law are serious in that the law and law enforcement in general are thus brought into contempt.
Therefore we have a situation in Canada in which we are unable to enforce the present law of the state, and we will not recognize the advantages or opportunities that exist in a controlled or state lottery.
Many objections are raised by a great many people. I suggested earlier that we must examine these objections to examine what is the basis in fact, whether it is on a question of economics in the control of a lottery or its advantages, or whether it is purely on a moral issue.
On the basis of a moral issue it is my belief that this is a question for one's own conscience. If one considers it is immoral, or to use the words of one distinguished gentleman of the church that it will "corrupt the moral fibre of this country," might we not ask him if it has not the same effect on the peoples of Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland? If we accept the principle that it would be immoral to hold a lottery in Canada, do we also subscribe to the principle that the provinces should not make profits on the sale of alcohol or impose taxation on horse racing?
I spoke to one of my colleagues a short time ago on this subject and he said that if it were not for the taxes raised on horse racing and the sale of alcohol in Ontario, they would not be able to pay for provincial educational costs. I do not know if that is true or not, but I do

Private Bills
make this point for these people inclined to criticize the principle of a state lottery on a purely moral basis: is there anything immoral in taking the proceeds from a state lottery and devoting them to the aid of people who are sick and people who need help, when it is a fact lotteries in one form or another already exist today in Canada.
There is a second objection raised, which to me seems more valid. That is the objection of whether or not a state lottery should be expected to maintain or sustain hospital construction, or perhaps any form of social welfare within a country. Basically I think this is one of the most misunderstood points in the whole argument. No one has ever suggested at any time that the proceeds of a state lottery should be the sole source of income for any particular charity or any particular social welfare. It would be ridiculous to assume that we could maintain hospital construction on the basis of the proceeds of any state lottery; but I can assure you, sir, those proceeds would be a very welcome source of income to assist in that important work.
There is a third objection which one hears from time to time. It is suggested that this is one of the most inefficient methods of raising money, but the facts do not bear that out. It is clearly indicated that in the instance of every major country in the world proceeds of lotteries have benefited those countries to a substantial degree.
I now wish to quote from the Toronto Star of March 6, 1961, which contained an article indicating that governments all over the world used the proceeds of lotteries to assist them in many ways. The article says:
Government around the world use the lure of lotteries-For up to 400 years governments have been supplementing their tax revenues through the earnings of officially sponsored lotteries-
It goes on to say:
Spaniards spend more than $50 million a year in their state-run lottery. Three drawings monthly decide the winners and the state takes 30 per cent. .. Ireland-the sweeps were established in 1930 to raise funds for hospitals. In the most recent one the gross reached $16 million,... so far the hospitals have received about $100 million while the government makes about $2 million a year.
Thus it is clearly established that a great deal of assistance could be given to the state by this very innocent form of gambling, and I hope I have established that we have a demand, such as never existed before, for a state lottery in Canada. There is a desire on the part of the individual to put money into a lottery of this nature, whether it be the Irish, the Spanish, the Mexican or a Canadian sweepstake, and the proceeds, in terms of aid to human beings could be measured by a more realistic yardstick.

When most community chests, united fund appeals and red feather agencies are out knocking on doors in an attempt to help a great number of agencies-and most of them have some difficulty-then surely this is the opportune time to give consideration to a national lottery of this kind?
To those who raise an objection of one type or another, I would only say that perhaps this debate is not the proper time to illustrate clearly the nature of their objection, whether it is a valid one or not, because I feel this bill will not be passed at this session; consequently it will go to the bottom of the order paper. However I would hope that the government, if nothing else, would agree to refer the bill to a joint committee of the two houses where people from every area could give evidence in support of it or raise objections to it. In such a committee we could constructively examine the advantages and disadvantages. We could study the types of aid which a sweepstake could provide in terms of social welfare and then, having heard the evidence, in the quiet calm of a committee room prepare a report upon which the house could later make an intelligent decision. I believe this is the only practical way, and I would ask the house to support that proposal if it cannot subscribe at this time to passing the bill.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: There are three points of view within our group, Mr. Speaker. First there are those who are opposed outright to the bill, or anything like it. There are a few members in that category. Then there are those who are in favour of it as it is, and a third group who accept the fact of life that people will gamble and therefore controlled gambling should be allowed. The latter may be called the "if you can't lick them join them" group, and that is where I stand.
The hon. member for Calgary South suggested that we debate the principle of the bill. I am glad he made that suggestion, because I do not like some of the details.
Clause 15 states that the moneys should be paid into a hospital fund. I believe that all the moneys should be paid into consolidated general revenue; I do not like to see moneys for social institutions tied to a particular source such as a lottery. I think the hon. member did deal with that point. However, I believe the moneys should go into the general revenue. I am sure those hon. members who oppose lotteries in one form or another do not really represent the views of the people in their ridings. I am sure if they went out and conducted a poll among the

people they would find at least seven out of ten would support the bill presented by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith).
I think many members of parliament tend to be very professional and very middle-class and are perhaps expressing that point of view and not really the views of the vast majority of their constituents. If the suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary South were implemented, that people be called in and asked their views on this question, I think we would find there is a large measure of support for it.
In connection with this matter there is another point concerning the views of members of parliament. I wonder how many of the 265 members have not at one time or another collected some of their campaign funds through lotteries. Certainly I have. Of course, I do not have the resources of some other hon. members; but even other parties do this, I understand. How many members in this parliament have never purchased a sweepstake ticket? I would like to know that too, because if they have purchased sweepstake tickets-


An hon. Member:: I haven't.


Robert William Prittie: There is one over there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I haven't.


Robert William Prittie: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says he has never bought a sweepstake ticket. If they have purchased sweepstake tickets, if their supporters have sold raffle tickets to collect money for campaign funds, I do not see how they can in all conscience oppose a measure such as the one introduced. The fact remains that year in and year out people spend money on gambling of one form or another, and it is very important that this should be controlled. I think it should be controlled by the government and not by the unsavoury type of character who has been appearing before the Ontario royal commission on crime recently; that is, the criminal element anyway.


An hon. Member:: You were not referring to the Conservative element.


Robert William Prittie: I was not referring to some of the distinguished lawyers who have been appearing before the commission, either; I was referring to the criminal element behind this operation. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, if this sweepstake does not have some sort of public supervision, this is what will happen. I think the suggestion made by the hon. member, that a joint committee be established, is a very good one.
We in Canada are very slow to change in these matters. We were very slow to change
Private Bills
our liquor laws, when compared with other countries; we are very slow to change the grounds of divorce. The effects of puritanism are lasting much longer in Canada, at least on the surface, than elsewhere. I think we should recognize the facts of modern life and finally get around to doing something about this question. I and some other members of this party wholeheartedly support the principle of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Calgary South, but I think some of the details should be changed.
(Translation):


Mr. Georges Valade (SI. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in supporting Bill C-16 submitted by my hon. fellow member from Calgary South (Mr. Smith).
The suggestion of forming a joint committee of both houses to study the matter is a timely one. As a matter of fact, people in general, and the members of the house, have discussed for many years whether it would be fitting to set up national lotteries for the benefit of hospitals and various charitable organizations.
Hon. members are certainly aware that, in the past, some of them have actively tried to make the public aware of the fact that such a bill would be a sensible one. I want to associate myself with my fellow members from Quebec and the other provinces who have actively promoted that idea and proclaimed the necessity of instituting in this country some sweepstakes or lotteries for charitable purposes.
I would also stress the interest shown by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), my former colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) and all other members of parliament, as well as the members of social groups concerned with the matter, and who will be gratified if the bill is accepted.
I also would like to point out, Mr. Speaker -I do not want to inject any partisan flavour into the discussion-that the Conservative party has for a long time been interested in this legislation, because, in 1951, at the national convention here in Ottawa, I had the privilege of submitting, as president, of the Quebec Young Conservatives, a similar resolution which was accepted by the majority of the Young Conservatives Association of Canada.
It may be said that the Conservative party, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) stated a moment ago, that is, that we were slow to evolve, had foreseen the need of such legislation more than ten years ago.

Private Bills
There is no doubt that today the people's views have evolved in this matter. My hon. fellow member from Calgary South mentioned the results of a public opinion poll which took place in the province of Quebec under the sponsorship of La Presse, and which clearly showed that more than 99,482 people were in favour of such a plan, whereas only 149 disapproved it. This proves that interest in this matter is increasing and that the idea is progressing among our population.
Mr. Speaker, I have also submitted a similar measure for the operation of provincial lotteries in order to financially assist hospitals and charitable institutions. If the provisions are somewhat different, the principle of the measure I have put on the order paper is the same.
After submitting my bill, I received several letters, particularly one from Vancouver. I wish to quote from that letter to show that from coast to coast, public opinion on lotteries and gambling did evolve.
(Text):
Georges Valade, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:
Congratulations on submitting Bill No. 56 which I hope the house will pass.
I would like to submit for your consideration that the bill should provide that only those over 55 and the physically handicapped could be employed in lotteries.
And so on.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, my purpose in reading a few extracts from this letter was simply to show the interest aroused throughout the country by such bills.
The house is no doubt aware also of the fact that more than 600 boards of trade, throughout the country, have conducted public opinion polls to that effect. The results clearly indicate that 70 per cent of the Canadian population want their representatives to put forward their views in the house on this matter and also to express their full support for this kind of legislation.
For the guidance of those sympathizing with certain groups who exert pressures and put forward objections which, to my way of thinking, are not very serious nor fully justified, I must explain that gambling is almost innate in human beings.
In fact, one has but to study the history of gambling itself to realize that games of chance are quite old. In 1562, for example, the bull in eligendis declared void the bets which were being made on the election of the pope. Around the year 27, the Romans drew

lots on the robe of a crucified man. Later, archeologists inquiring into the ruins of primitive societies unearthed bones, cut in cubes, and dotted like dice.
As can be seen, games of chance are human because they are universal and ancient. They show, first of all, a need for relaxation and amusement, and then, the need to get a lot for almost nothing.
Those who are opposed to games of chance place lotteries in the same category, and the main objection brought forward is that of morality or of immorality.
In fact, some conscientious objectors consider very immoral the fact that some people contribute a dollar to take the risk of getting cash profits, but they forget that the morality or the immorality of an act depends on the intention and on the conscience.
For their guidance, I should like to read what has been published in this regard in a report submitted by Mr. Leon Trepanier, in April 1936, on the question of lotteries. The following extract, to be found on page 11, is entitled "Conscientious objectors":
(Text):
"Conscientious objectors"
To legalize lotteries would be to violate Christian morals . .. teach the young to gamble ... a principle of "unsound economy".
And the stock exchange, whose unbridled speculations multiply suicides, ruin homes and turn thousands of young people into criminals; is the stock exchange a school of morals?
Allow a poor devil to buy legally a $1 lottery ticket, that is teaching him to gamble. But, on the other hand, the dominion parliament, by a law adopted in 1912, allows anyone to toss away his savings at races at Woodbine, Connaught Park, or Blue Bonnets. That is not encouraging gambling!
A principle of "unsound economy".
(Translation):
In my estimation, that is the answer to those who are conscientious objectors to lotteries because of principles they could not even define.
In my opinion, our gambling law is most ridiculous. In fact, according to section 254 of the Criminal Code, people travelling on trains are prohibited from playing cards for money. However, if these same players use discs, chips or some other gimmicks like matches, for instance, to pay for what they have lost at the game and later exchange them against the money they owe, everything becomes legal and those whose conscience is easily aroused are relieved.
Mr. Chairman, gambling is immoral if there is excess. If there is no excess, it is

permitted, because gambling may involve three things: intelligence, ability and chance.
But if it implies intelligence and ability, the less it is interesting unless there is added to it the incentive of a prize to gain. It is therefore a game of chance. And it is to the game of chance that is added the money risk.
Is that money risk immoral? That is the main question.
Is it more moral to risk $200 on a hunting trip and to come home with an empty bag, than to risk $1 on a lottery ticket for charitable purposes?
Are not two persons who draw lots on a restaurant bill engaged in a game of chance in which money is involved?
Therefore, if gambling in itself is legitimate, and if to risk money on a game of chance is per se authorized, how can we consider immoral that particular game of chance?
Those games of chance are not bad in themselves, as long as they keep within the bounds of morals, and avoid accidental elements which could make them immoral, such as cheating and exploitation, such as the risk of losing what does not belong to the gambler. In other words, a gambler may not risk the money he needs to ensure the welfare of his family, and he may not have as main motive the desire to win in itself, because he must prevent his gambling from becoming a passion. Those are elements which could have an immoral character.
But when lotteries, as the hon. member for Calgary South suggested, are designed to procure funds for charitable purposes, in order to help hospitals, they involve elements which, by themselves, stand apart from the immoral aspect of the matter.
I therefore suggest that such lotteries would be moral.
The purpose of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Calgary South therefore automatically eliminates all objectionable elements. So I suggest there is nothing immoral in the fact that Canada should finally decide to refer to a joint committee of both houses this matter of lotteries, in order that we may have the views of the members of the house on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, if you were to ask the hon. members of this house who are in favour of this project to raise their hand, I am sure that more than 90 per cent would be in favour of lotteries. Those who would be opposed to lotteries or who would abstain from voting would probably do so under the pressure of certain groups having definite views on the matter, or out of personal con-27507-3-76
Private Bills
viction, or else for political expediency, or again through lack of understanding of the meaning and scope of lotteries.
I would have liked to deal at greater length with the moral aspect of this matter, because I suggest that this is the main objection to this bill concerning lotteries.
The Catholic church is not against lotteries when they comply with moral standards. This bill has nothing whatsoever to do with religion; but we should not end up, after mentioning that point of view, by discussing the subject in the light of our religious beliefs.
I feel it would be advisable to restrict ourselves to the principle of the bill. But we should take into account the views of persons qualified to discuss the moral aspect of this resolution. The opinion of Cardinal Griffin on this matter is worth mentioning. This is what he said:
Let us keep in mind that it is the abuse and not the games of chance themselves that must be denounced and that certain puritan views on the subject should be corrected.
The English, the French, the Irish, the Australians, the Swiss and others who take part in lotteries to help their hospitals, would they be less moral than we are?
In spite of prohibitions, the Americans venture each year more than $20 billion in gambling, illicit or otherwise.
In Canada, are we exempt from gambling because of that legislation which restricts the authority of the provinces or the federal government in the field of lotteries? Does it give us a better protection against gambling which takes place behind the scenes and secretly at the prejudice of the honest citizens of this country?
I suggest that it would be more advisable for the government to amend the Criminal Code or legislate in this field to be able to stop abuse and control the disbursements made for lotteries.
If it is considered immoral to buy a lottery ticket for $1, I wonder what our morals mean, when the head of a family goes to the races and destroys not only his future but also the future of his children, all that under the protection of the law which permits racing bets.
As my colleague was saying a while ago, is there anybody in this house who has never bought a sweepstake ticket or taken part in the army and navy subscription in Canada? How many of us have not been taken in by those dishonest people who, under cover of the law, print counterfeit lottery tickets and sell them on the market, without even giving the purchaser, however well-intentioned he may be, a chance to win a prize for his money.

Private Bills
That is because the law, in making lotteries illegal, protects those who take advantage of credulous people and use the law to exploit honest citizens.
If we had lotteries, Mr. Speaker, we would keep in our country the hundreds of millions of dollars which, these last few years, are being sent to foreign countries often richer than we are. That money could be put to much better use by our hospitals and our welfare organizations.
In conclusion, I should like to quote from an editorial published in La Presse on January 30, 1962, dealing precisely with morality of lotteries, and signed by Marius Girard:
In the meantime, under the pretext of shielding the virtue of Canadians against temptations, we allow the Irish hospitals to take out of Canada millions of dollars, not to mention the incomes provided to organizers of illicit lotteries which, as we know, have a tendency to proliferate. But by allowing certain lotteries to be arranged under close control conditions, fondness for gambling could be used to the benefit of Canadian institutions, as it was provided for in the legislation voted by the Quebec legislature in 1934 and 1950.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
(Text):


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take only a few minutes. Being no expert on lotteries, I think I should be the last person to take part in this debate, but there are one or two things I should like to say in connection with this bill. First of all, I am aware that the question might arise in the minds of many people whether the government should be getting into the lottery business as such, or whether or not, if lotteries are to be made legal, other associations should operate them within the confines of the regulations set up by the government. In this case the government would not be precipitating lotteries by an act of parliament. I also think that if it ever comes to the point where we do have lotteries-and I do not doubt for one moment that the time will come when that is so, and it may not be too far off-no advertising of any kind should be allowed in order to pressurize or to get people to buy lottery tickets, or in any way induce people to do things. It should merely satisfy the gambling spirit which is inherent in the human being. I think that commissions or advertising should be completely out of the picture, because as hon. members know, individuals who cannot afford to buy a lottery ticket could under pressure be induced to buy one if a commission was offered or there was any advertising.
I think that if we are to get a clear picture of the thinking of people-and I have listened with great interest to the figures quoted this afternoon in connection with polls, plebiscites,

and that sort of thing-the joint committee which might study this question might see fit to find the means of putting the question before the people by way of a plebiscite along with a general election, so that everyone could, without pressure or undue advertising and publicity from pressure groups, and so on, decide for themselves and give a clear mandate to the government to move in a certain direction.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Bill No. C-16, as the hon. member for Calgary South so ably put it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned.
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bill:
An Act to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
Mr. Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private members' business having now expired, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hamilton for the second reading of Bill No. C-71, to amend the Farm Credit Act.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before the house adjourned at five o'clock to consider other business I was mentioning that this particular act, and the amendments that are proposed, are revolutionary in character. I am surprised, after reading the press releases the minister issued, the articles in the Western Producer and other newspapers, to find no emphasis put upon the provision giving the corporation power to make loans when changes in the farmer's economic unit are indicated.

I believe this is a good change, a worthwhile change. I am surprised the minister has not made more of it, that more consideration has not been given to this particular section. I believe that this change is revolutionary enough to warrant sending the bill to the committee on agriculture and colonization. I believe we should have the opportunity of hearing the views of farm organizations on this particular change, as well as other persons who may be interested. In the last few days there has been some speculation in the Ottawa newspapers on this subject. Some questions were asked, according to yesterday's Journal, by various provincial officials as to whether or not there would be a change to beef production in the eastern part of Ontario. Some of the comments that were made were rather surprising and because these comments were made by certain people, I think this warrants an investigation to ascertain whether or not the proposed changes will be in the interests of the farmers concerned.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt at all but that these changes will be advantageous. I believe that farmers will gradually, must gradually, take advantage of this legislation. This provision will mean that the small dairy farmer who is shipping milk to the cheese factory or the creamery and who is getting a small cheque each month will be able to discuss with officials of the corporation whether or not it would be advantageous for him to change his whole program from a small dairy operation into a large beef producing unit. It might also mean that, along with the application of ARDA, a farmer could decide he wished to go into the Christmas tree business, poultry production, hog production or make some other change in his farm unit.
No doubt the criticism of this suggestion will be and must be, as the hon. member for Leeds pointed out, that the federal government and the corporation must not be in a position to tell the farmer he is to go out of dairy production in which he has been for many years, and go into beef production. I strongly suggest that some assurance should be given that loans will not be granted on the basis of a predominant beef production or the predominance of any segment of agriculture. These loans must be granted upon the same conditions as loans granted by the corporation in other categories. The basis must be the operation of a farm as an economic unit operated under the supervision of the corporation. I feel assurance must be given that the government will not use the credit corporation to make changes in our agriculture economy, and that the corporation will take the wishes of the people concerned into consideration.
27507-3-764
Farm Credit Act
I do not envisage these changes coming all at once. If all the farmers in eastern Ontario were to decide tomorrow that they wanted to take advantage of this section to go into beef production, there is no question in my mind as to what would happen to our agricultural program in so far as support prices for beef are concerned. However, I think this is not likely to happen. The officials of this corporation have the experience and the leadership of a person like Mr. Rutherford, who has concentrated on getting the farmer to accept and demand the amount of credit the advisory committee considers would be advantageous to him in the establishment of an economic unit. I do not believe this feature is going to change.
There will be, Mr. Speaker, farmers who will not want to take advantage of this particular section, even if it were good for them. There is no question but that there are farmers who will say: I have made a living, my father has made a living and my grandfather has made a living in the production of milk or cheese and I shall continue to do so. I do not believe the corporation should force a farmer to take advantage of this section against his wishes, because the individual farmer is still going to have to ask for the loan and is going to have to prove that an economic unit can be established.
No doubt there are other changes that will be mentioned. I am not so sure that we have not gone so far that the other fields of endeavour in which a farmer may engage may sooner or later distract him from the farm operation itself. It is and has been advantageous, however, for farmers to have a few cabins on their farms if they are located in areas where this is possible. Some of them have a small motel or garage operation. I am pleased that the minister is considering this as a supplementary source of income to the farm operation itself. I think this is an advantage and will be welcomed by the farmer.
I have always been of the opinion that it was almost impossible for a person to go into farming operations in Canada when he was not in a position to meet the requirements of this act. As long as he was going to maintain a job off the farm and get part of his income from that source, then this appeared to me to be detrimental to the establishment of an economic farm unit. I think this has been wrong. Many of the people in my area are working in mines as a means to supplement their income from the farms. Their wives and families operate uneconomic farm units, and the farmers themselves look upon employment in the mines as a temporary measure to enable them to get enough ready cash to provide the

Farm Credit Act
machinery that will make their farms economic and provide them with a fairly decent standard of living.
The inclusion of other types of income such as this has always been considered in northern Ontario to be an adjunct to farm operations. For many years farmers in the Ottawa valley and the upper Ottawa have used their farm horses in the bush camps during periods of the year when they have little work to do on the farms, and they have done this in order to supplement their farm incomes. However, by doing so it has made it much more difficult for them to establish that they are farmers with economic farm units.
Much credit is due to the minister for introducing these changes. They will be of great value and I see a relationship between them and the efforts being made to help industrial workers faced with the problems of automation. They are provided with retraining programs to enable them to take advantage of new employment, and during their attendance on training programs they have been assisted by payments to themselves and their families. There is a great similarity to that in the redirecting of farmers who will now be able to obtain enough money from the corporation to maintain the operation of their farms during their transition period from, for example, dairy farming to beef production. However the wishes and requirements of individual farmers should be borne in mind, together with the basic agricultural characteristics of the areas in which they live. If these two things are kept in mind I am sure this change will be an advantageous one, not only for the individual who will be placed on an economic farm unit but also for the establishment of a more sound and reasonable form of agriculture.
It is generally conceded that one of the great problems is the inability of a farmer to make a major change in his production schedule. If a man is in dairy cattle and wishes to change to beef cattle then he will go through a period of approximately two years in which no income will flow from his beef production. However if we can allow him enough money to maintain his family and operate his farm during that period, then we will have come a long way toward allowing him to make a change from a non-economic farm operation to one which will be economic.
In any change that is made in the direction of the agricultural economy we should bear in mind that there is a great need for education of the farmer. After reading the statements made by various officials in the province of Ontario, in the 10 counties that were described as being considered for this type of

change-over from dairy to beef production, we have to consider how we are to provide the education that will be necessary in order to make that change.
It has been said by some of the agricultural representatives of the provincial departments of agriculture that this education can only be provided for young people, but I suggest that the change-over can take place much more rapidly, and be more acceptable to the young people in their adult years, if education is supplied similar to that which is supplied to the factory worker who is undergoing a similar transition from one type of employment to another. We should consider the possibility of providing some type of agricultural extension courses for adults which would allow them to have the benefit of instruction given by credit corporation officials and by officials of the various agricultural colleges throughout the country. Such courses could be arranged in the wintertime, and aid for them could be provided by the federal government. I believe this would help make possible the transition we all want, the transition that would result in a more uniform, more productive and much more acceptable agricultural economy.
We should also consider the possibility of providing agricultural training in secondary schools which would help fit our young rural people to accept the advantages that can come to them following on an understanding of the economics of agriculture and the problems facing it. This is a serious problem, because many farmers have consistently resisted change in any form at all, whether it be in credit, in direction, or in the type of farm they are operating. They have resisted change mainly because they are unable to see any advantage in it for themselves and their families, or for the way of life to which they are dedicated.
There are some who will say that this type of education cannot be provided, but I am sure they are the same people who said a few years ago that it would be impossible to provide it in the field of labour. One has only to look at the assistance given by unemployment insurance and the Department of Labour to see the advantages coming from that type of education.
I believe these changes are very radical, in fact sufficiently radical for the minister to refer them to the agricultural committee. These are new ideas and the minister has nothing to be ashamed of in advancing them. On the contrary he has much to take credit for, and it is essential that the country and hon. members of this house know the advantages and know exactly what the minister is trying to do.

When we discuss agriculture in this house we have a tendency-and I am no exception- to cover the whole waterfront. While this may not be quite in keeping with the rules, while it may not have the relevancy it appears to have, there is nothing more complicating to the solution of agricultural problems. For that reason I hope the minister will refer the bill to the committee where the agricultural organizations of the country will have the advantage of discussing the legislation, making recommendations, and being fully informed of its advantageous effects. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, by sending it to a committee I am confident that both that procedure and the legislation itself would go a long way toward helping solve the problems facing agriculture.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, this is really the first opportunity I have had to congratulate you on your election to the distinguished office of Speaker. Within the short time you have held the chair you have shown good judgment, impartiality and patience. I should like also to express the same sentiments in regard to the Deputy Speaker and chairman of committees. The debate so far on this bill has been very interesting. I think very many good ideas have come from all sides of the house. I wish only to review our farm credit facilities during the past 32 years in order that we may see how far we have progressed in this regard, so that some hon. members may be less prone to criticize so severely what we have before us today.
The Canadian farm loans act of 1929, although limited in its scope, its operation hobbled by the restrictive policy of the previous administration, nevertheless has served a useful purpose. Its record was not too impressive. Long before this administration took office there was a general feeling in the agricultural industry that a new farm credit program was necessary for the survival of the Canadian family farm. It was felt that experienced farmers who were raised on the soil, who loved their soil, should be given a chance to stay on it and preserve the traditions of the family farm. It was apparent that this was impossible within the scope of the Canadian farm loans act of 1929.
As usual, representations were made by farm leaders and farm organizations to our predecessors in government. Briefs were presented pleading for a more generous set-up. But, as usual, these representations and briefs were swept under the carpet and nothing was done. True, a few minor amendments to the farm loans act were passed in 1956 and 1957 with the intention of improving credit facilities, but the tight money policy of the
Farm Credit Act
previous administration did not give the industry the services it deserved or to which it was entitled.
This government took office in 1957. It followed a policy of consulting those who were most greatly concerned, and it set up an interdepartmental committee which took into its confidence prominent individual farmers and farm organizations. These people were pleased with the change of policy and co-operated wholeheartedly. They were glad to give their views and were pleased to see that the government did not take a know-it-all attitude, from which they had suffered under the previous administration. The outcome of these consultations was an agreement by all concerned that there would have to be a new farm credit policy with certain basic principles within which the new legislation would function. These basic principles had to be embodied in the new legislation, and I think the Minister of Agriculture has stated the results in considerable detail. But the most striking was that special consideration had to be given to capital requirements of acceptable and experienced young men who wished to establish themselves on the farm. This was probably the most revolutionary idea.
For comparison purposes as between the farm loans of 1929 and the Farm Credit Act that followed it, I should make some reference to what the farm loans act of 1929 provided before I proceed with this analysis. I shall refer to the provisions of the present Farm Credit Act to show that the criticisms we have heard from the opposition benches about this loan policy being discriminatory are best levelled at the previous legislation and at those who administered it before this government came into power. The old act was under the administration of the minister of finance and provided loans on first mortgages on farm lands, with amounts not exceeding 50 per cent of the actual value of the farm lands. Buildings were only considered to the extent that they added to the value of the farm unit. The term of repayment was 25 years, which was amended in 1956. There were no amendments between 1929 and 1956; the legislation was practically dormant. But in 1956 the term of repayment was amended to 30 years. This service, although available throughout the years, as I have already mentioned, had a very unimpressive record up to the year 1957 when the Conservative government took office. Throughout the years this legislation was on the books no serious effort was made by the then administration to expand or improve lending facilities or to encourage farmers to avail themselves of the opportunities this service offered. Barring an insignificant

Farm Credit Act
amendment in 1956 which, as I have already-mentioned, extended the term of repayment to 30 years, raised the maximum amount of the loan to $15,000 based on 65 per cent of the actual value of the land, nothing whatever was done.
In 1957 when the Conservative government took office it changed the tight money policy of its predecessors. It tried, with some success, to expand the facilities of the loan board, and the record tabled by the Minister of Agriculture and found on page 591 of Hansard speaks for itself. In the year 195758 the number of borrowers increased almost twofold, and loans increased to well over $19 million. In the following year, 1958-59, of course, a part of 1959 was under the new legislation. The number of borrowers increased, the amount lent was well over $28 million. I ask the house to compare that with the $3 million lent annually under the previous administration. A new credit plan was in the making. It resulted in the introduction into the house of the Farm Credit Act in 1959 and the repeal of the farm loans act after it had been on the books for a period of 30 years.
Time does not permit me, Mr. Speaker, to quote doubts, misgivings and severe criticism heaped upon this legislation by the opposition when this new act was introduced. I refer, of course, to the introduction of the Farm Credit Act. But it has proved to be a blessing to the industry. If proof of the pudding is in the eating, then in a few short years the loans have increased both in number and size. I would again refer the house to the table put into Hansard by the Minister of Agriculture. For the fiscal 1960-61 the number of borrowers increased to well over
5,000	and the amount lent to over $52 million. In the fiscal year 1961-62 the number of borrowers increased to over 6,000, and the aggregate amount lent to well over $68 million.
I submit, sir, that the estimate by the minister that the 1962-63 loans under this legislation will be well over $80 million is very conservative and will be easily achieved. The new credit policy differs from the old as night differs from day, because it provides for two types of mortgage loans.
In part II, a standard mortgage loan can be made up to $20,000 or 75 per cent of the value of the farm lands given in security, whichever is the lesser, to be secured by a first mortgage on the lands with interest at 5 per cent actually spelled out in the act and repayable in a term of 30 years on an amortised basis. Life insurance on a group basis is made available by the corporation at the option
[Mr. Mandziuk.3
of the borrower in an amount equal to the normal outstanding amount of the loan.
In part HI of the act, a revolutionary step was taken in a package deal mortgage loan designed for capable and experienced young farmers between the ages of 21 and 45 years starting out with limited capital resources. The limit on this loan is $27,500 or 75 per cent of the value of the farmlands, whichever is the lesser, and a chattel mortgage on livestock and farm equipment was accepted as a collateral security for the loan.
The corporation was required to supervise the borrower's farm operation until the loan was reduced to a certain figure, and experienced officials are always ready and willing to help young farmers and guide them in their first years on the farm. This type of loan has been very popular in Manitoba and I am sure that in time these borrowers will establish prosperous farms.
There were some criticisms directed at the insistence of the corporation that in order to qualify for loans, farms should form economic units. Let us bear in mind that these loans are not grants, or a form of relief to farmers. They are intended to assist farmers to make their concerns economic units. An economic unit is a farm which enables its operator to earn each year a decent living for himself and for his family, to pay the operating costs, and, third, to provide for retirement of the loan. The aim here is to establish an economic unit. The amount of the loan is fairly large, but the borrower is compelled to carry life insurance provided by the corporation.
These loans have kept many farmers on the land when otherwise they would have drifted to the cities because of lack of capital with which to start farms. Borrowers have taken advantage of these facilities and there is every indication that they are a success.
During the resolution stage some opposition speakers were severely critical, and they spearheaded their attacks by saying there had been discrimination against the small farm. This does not appear to be true. I have not had a single complaint in my constituency against the corporation on the ground that the size of a farm was the reason for the refusal of a loan. However, we did not hear from opposition critics any definition of what constitutes a small farm, or a large farm, and this is understandable because no definition is possible. The effective size of the farm does not depend entirely upon its area in acres, and even in this latter respect standards differ from province to province. For example, a large farm in my constituency would be considered a small farm in Saskatchewan or Alberta, while a small farm in my constituency would be considered a large

farm in some of the eastern provinces. The average size of the loans has increased, but that is no indication that loans have been withheld from small farmers. If hon. members glance at the table put on record in Hansard at page 591 by the Minister of Agriculture they will see that the number of borrowers has doubled and, in some cases, tripled and that the average amount of the loan is around $11,000. So there certainly must have been smaller loans. This rise in the amount of the average loan seems to shock some members of the opposition and, in particular, the hon. member for Assiniboia. That is understandable, because the Liberals while they were in power held down the size of the loans, hobbling the farm loan board to such an extent that in some years the amount lent to farmers was less than $2 million. They suppressed the desire of farmers to expand their holdings and never gave them enough to enable them to take advantage of the opportunities which existed. This is not the case with the present government.
We have to admit that the family farm, out west at least, is becoming larger in area. The horse days are over and these faithful animals have been replaced by mechanized farm equipment. This is expensive and the farm unit must become larger to enable the farmer to pay for its cost. In other words, it must be set to work to pay for itself.
Another criticism that we heard from the opposition was that the eastern farmer was not getting benefits of this loan policy to the same extent as the western farmer, and the blame for this situation is tagged on to the Minister of Agriculture and on the corporation. This, in my opinion, is unjustified and without foundation. Such criticism could best be levelled against the previous administration which, for almost 30 years, administered the act. I should like to know what they have done to boast about which entitles them to talk about unfairness in the service to the eastern provinces. As a proof that this charge is groundless, may I refer this house to the schedules put in Hansard by the Minister of Agriculture and appearing on page 595 under the heading "Statement by Provinces of Farm Loans approved during Fiscal Years." All hon. members need to look at are the figures for the province of Quebec. They will see that in the nine months of the present year to the end of September, 262 loans have been processed to a total of almost $4 million compared to 109 loans amounting to $1,750,000 in the fiscal year 1961-1962. Does this not show that the eastern farmer is realizing that these facilities are always ready and available to him and that all he has to do is to act? One can hardly expect the Minister of Agriculture
Farm Credit Act
to go around from place to place asking farmers to take loans. That has not been done in the west; every farmer knows these facilities are available.
I am glad to see that one of the amendments provides the corporation with additional lending capital, and I am sure these facilities will be welcomed by the agricultural industry. I am really pleased by the amendments which have been put forward. I believe they will expand the facilities which are now available and, in particular, that they will provide greater opportunities for the smaller farmer. As I have said, the size of a farm in itself is not an indication of its economic importance. I am glad to note that greater weight is to be placed on the value of equipment for specialized projects-greenhouses, for example and the special buildings required to raise poultry or hogs. Farmers engaged in such operations are not expected to hold large acreages. They will be able to take advantage of the lending provisions by reason of this proposed amendment. I was also happy to see that the amendments which are proposed will permit the making of loans to farmers on the basis of secondary incomes. Until now, the corporation took into consideration only income deriving directly from the farm, as a gauge of the ability of a farmer to repay. At the present time, any secondary income which a farmer may possess is taken into consideration, and his chances of qualifying for a loan are improved.
As I said at the outset, I was very pleased with the many good ideas, good addresses and flattering remarks about this legislation. I was to a certain extent surprised at the lambasting that the hon. member for Assiniboia gave this bill. It was a repeat performance, practically verbatim, of what he said on the resolution stage. He called this bill a farce. He said it was not far-reaching enough and was too technical. I wish to draw to his attention that it is not so technical that the Western Producer in the news item to which I referred was able to analyse the bill very carefully, and to say that more farmers stand a chance of loans. The hon. member also said it does not give the small farmer a chance. The only authority he relies upon is that of himself. He bemoans the fact that 55 per cent of those applying for loans did not get them; but he does not say that he would just open the door without regard to the farmer's credit, or without regard to the farmer's operation, or without regard to whether it is an economic unit and will give him a reasonable standard of living, pay his living expenses, and the opportunity to pay the loan back. That is the only measure which a business corporation can use.

Farm Credit Act
This is public money which is involved. The Farm Credit Corporation is one which is not intended to make money, but on the other hand it is not intended that the public treasury should replenish its funds because of maladministration, careless financing, or carelessness through making laws. All in all, I would suggest that the hon. member for Assiniboia take a few tips from the hon. member for Leeds. He was more reasonable. The only point with which I would agree with the hon. member for Assiniboia is in his complaint against the $50 charged as an inspection fee. I personally think that that is high. The minister has promised that the regulations will be revised, and I hope this fee will be reduced. I would not do away with it altogether. I like the suggestion which was made by the hon. member for Leeds, who said that it could be levied by way of a graduated scale, because to some of these farmers who apply for small loans, $50 really is a deterrent.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that I have not taken up too much time, but I wanted to give a review of our farm lending facilities over the last 32 years or so and to show this house that we have made progress. There is always room for improvement. I know that the minister does not feel that this legislation is perfect, but it is as near perfect as it is possible to make it at the present time.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, at the resolution stage of this legislation some weeks ago the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) gave a comprehensive outline of the Liberal party's farm policy, which was ably supported by several members on this side of the house. This afternoon the hon. member, in his speech on second reading of this bill, made some very worthwhile suggestions, not the least of which was that this bill should be referred to the standing committee on agriculture so that the committee might be able to summon before it expert advice from those organizations which are directly concerned with the welfare of agriculture in this country. Therefore, I shall confine myself to one or two aspects of the problem encountered by comparatively small farmers operating in districts such as northwestern Ontario.
To begin with, the effect of the amendments to the Farm Credit Act is to provide a greater range of financial assistance to the small farmers, and if it is to be of any assistance to those in greater need, then I suggest that the farmers of northwestern Ontario should share in the benefits of this legislation. A change in the regulations governing the appraisal of small farm holdings,

such as small dairy farms, greenhouse operators, poultrymen, woodlot farmers and others, whose operations require relatively high investment in buildings on small areas of land, will be an incentive to the get-back-to-the-farm movement, if this financial assistance could be provided, which could attract many from the ranks of the unemployed.
This bill is designed to meet the needs of Canadian farmers with long term farm mortgage credit, the operations of which are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture. It provides an increase in the lending capacity of the corporation by $100 million. That is, of course, welcomed by all concerned. The Farm Credit Act was enacted in 1959 and succeeded the old Canadian farm loan board. The difference, my friends, which distinguishes the new from the old is that the Farm Credit Corporation, in addition to the five members of the board, has an advisory committee composed of 11 men representing all the provinces with the exception of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. It can readily be seen that the adviser who assesses the farmer's application is indeed the most important person in the organization. He is the one who interviews the applicant and decides whether or not the loan is in the farmer's best interests, or whether in his opinion the farmer can expect a sufficient income to pay operating costs, provide himself and his family with a reasonably good living, and permit repayment of the loan.
The latest available report of the corporation for the year ending March, 1961 contains the following outline of the duties of the farm credit adviser.
It is also a duty and responsibility of the farm credit adviser to make known to his farming community the services and benefits available under the Farm Credit Act, and to promote the use of these services where they will further the object of the legislation.
To fulfil all of these essential functions and to earn and retain the confidence and good will of the farming community requires not only technical competence but integrity, fairness, good judgment, a keen sense of responsibility and devotion to duty. It must therefore continue to be corporation policy to maintain exacting standards in the selection and training of its farm credit advisers, since the success or failure of the legislation is very much in their hands.
By and large this corporation has filled a great need and has also made a creditable contribution to the development of agriculture in certain areas of the country, notably in the prairie provinces. Unfortunately, however, it has not been of the assistance expected in areas where, for the most part, farms are of the small dairy type, with mixed crops and woodlots, such as those which are in the majority of cases found in northwestern

Ontario. The result has been that not many farmers in my constituency have been able to obtain loans under the act.
The principal reason for this neglect is that the nearest credit adviser is located in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and the Ontario member is located in the vicinity of Toronto. This is a definite handicap, as northwestern Ontario is a very large territory, and farm conditions there are vastly different from those confronting the wheat farmers of the west and the opulent land squires of southeastern Ontario. The result is that while these men are charged with the responsibility to make known to the farming community the services and benefits available under the Farm Credit Act and to promote the use of these services, their assessment of the merits of an application is invariably downgraded.
I wish to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the size of the fluid milk market and the quality of the farms involved deserve greater consideration on the part of the corporation.
Encouragement should be given to the development of beef enterprises. This is a field which could very easily transform the meagre resources of the farmers of the Thunder Bay area into an industry of national importance. The soil is particularly good for potato growing. Moreover, district farmers on several occasions have won honours at agricultural shows in Toronto and in other cities.
The figure for approval of farm loans in the lakehead area is approximately 20 per cent of all applications, while in the rest of the province of Ontario the figure is about 50 per cent. Manitoba enjoyed the approval of nearly 70 per cent of all applications, a circumstance which leads me to believe that there must be something wrong with the appraisal of the agricultural potential of northwestern Ontario.
I also submit that those charged with the responsibility of administering the act should consider the appointment of an adviser from the lakehead area who would have an understanding of local land values and be fully conversant with the market possibilities of the district which, in the opinion of many of our pioneers and experts in the assessment of soil, has plenty of productive acreage with which to supply its own needs and to have a sizeable amount for export.
I have already indicated that the district offers excellent opportunities for the expansion of production of dairy products. A few years ago a thriving cheese factory was operating in the village of Stanley, some 12 miles from the city of Fort William. Unfortunately, however, the promoters were forced to close down the operation because they lacked sufficient capital with which to expand. At present some people are interested in 27507-3-77
Farm Credit Act
starting a modern cheese making establishment, using European processing methods. If the participants in this enterprise should require capital I hope the Farm Credit Corporation will not be stingy in approving an adequate loan.
In areas where the establishment of a woodlot operation is more suitable, the Farm Credit Corporation should not hesitate to give assistance to worthy applicants even though their collateral may not be in line with their needs.
The ever growing needs of farmers for capital and credit for farm operation and for contented family living in all parts of Canada require a wider acceptance of responsibility by the government in recognizing that the general health and growth of the Canadian economy is linked up with the workers of the soil and that therefore it should be good business to encourage a high level of production and capital investment.
The submission of the national farmers union made to the government on February 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 went on to use these words:
We do not subscribe to the theory that the activities and institutions of men are determined solely by technology and economics regardless of human and social values, but hold that technological developments can and must he 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 workers in a factory in the field instead of workers on a happy family farm. Canada's best interest will be served in the end by a large number of mixed farms rather than by a few large, specialized farm units.
According to the 1961 census, the farm population of the district of Thunder Bay in northwestern Ontario has decreased since 1956 from 1,486 to 850, a decline of 46 per cent; and in the same five year period the cultivated area has shrunk from 33,993 acres to 25,614 acres. This is an alarming situation. I hope these amendments will help to attract more people to the land and will make those now on the land more contented and prosperous.
The statement of the minister that this government will settle for nothing less than adequate assistance to the farmers is good news, provided it is meant to help all the

Farm Credit Act
farmers in need of a loan to consolidate and to develop their holdings, however small their cultivated area may be. The establishing of a policy by which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would provide loans for housing on farms, without the requirement that the farmer mortgage his land, one which would prevent the obtaining of credit for other needs, should be given favourable consideration.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the success of the legislation before the house will be measured-and I wish to point this out specifically to the minister-not by the intent but by the number of loans made to those in need of assistance whose collateral or holdings may not meet the strict requirements, the observance of which has characterized the methods of approval under which the corporation has operated in the past.


Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on being elected Speaker of this House of Commons. Coming as I do from Alberta, I know you will perform your duties with dignity and wisdom. To you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that, having known you over the last few years, I am sure you will perform your duties in a like manner. I also extend my congratulations to the deputy chairman of committees.
In rising to speak tonight for a few moments on this bill, I do not wish to take up too much time. However, I should like to say that this Farm Credit Corporation has worked very well since its introduction three years ago. A great deal of credit goes to the Minister of Agriculture, and also in the last couple of years to T. H. Rutherford who has just retired from work and who, I am sure all will agree, put a great deal of work into this corporation.
I should also like to say a word about the way this measure has worked in Alberta. It has worked very well and we have had a very capable superintendent in Alberta by the name of Mr. George O'Brien. He has put a lot of work into the administration of this act. I do agree, to a certain extent, that the $50 appraisal fee is rather high. I should like to see an amendment introduced by means of which we would have a $20 appraisal fee which would be gradually raised according to the size of the loan obtained. Reference was made to the fact that in one constituency several people had forefeited this $50 fee. This is not the case in Alberta. The farm is appraised and if the loan is not granted the $50 fee is not required.
Since this Farm Credit Corporation has worked so well I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we are getting so much criticism from the Liberal party in the last
[Mr. Badanai.l
few days. It seems to me that they are embarrassed when a comparison is made with the legislation that they adopted in former years. It is interesting to note that this criticism is coming from the new members who have come into the house during this session, or those who have joined the Liberal party from other ranks. It is interesting to go back to the 1959 Hansard at a time when this Farm Credit Corporation was under consideration. I should like to read to you some of the words spoken by the hon. member for Assini-boia at that time I quote from page 5933:
The corporation set up under this measure will replace the Canadian farm loan board.
Now, the Canadian farm loan board was introduced by the Liberal party.
Over the years I have bitterly complained about the narrow concept of the board in processing applications.
He was complaining then and he is complaining now.
I have been pleased to observe that in recent years some improvement was made in its administration and a larger number of loans have been made under the act. I have, however, a substantial file of letters from people whose applications for loans have been turned down by the board. I think that in substantial measure the criticism made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture before the banking and commerce committee in 1956 is still valid, that this board has taken a conservative attitude in the processing of applications.
I would like the minister to tell me when he replies if in actual practice the board has denied large areas of western Canada loans under this act. I also want to know if the new corporation will have a more efficient system of filing than the board apparently had. I have received letters from people in my constituency complaining that their application for loans were turned down although they felt their financial position would encourage the board to grant them a loan. I have suspected that large areas of western Canada have been declared areas where the board will not grant loans.
This was his criticism of the Liberal government when he sat as a C.C.F. member. Today he is criticizing again. I agree with the statement of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) when he said that the hon. member for Assiniboia just likes to hear himself talk.
Then, we have the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh). He said in the house a while ago that in his district, under the old board, many more farmers were granted loans than under the present set-up. Then, he went on to preach us a little sermon, and then he disappeared. I am glad that he is here tonight and that I may be able to put him back on the right track with a little information. Later, we had the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), who was around here before supper, and he came up with another statement to the effect that the westerner was getting more money from this corporation

than the easterner. These are a few of the things we have heard within the last few days.
Just let us look at the record in order to be fair about the situation. In Ontario during 1960-61 there was $19,151,700 lent to farmers, the highest for any province in Canada. Then, these people in Ontario say they are not getting their share. We hear these people from the Liberal party talking about a board that is not working well. What happened? Well, in 1952-53, under the old board there were 1,685 loans granted for a total amount of $5,852,300. During 1960-61 the credit corporation that this government introduced granted 5,597 loans for a total amount of $60,704,050. What a difference over the last few years. Then, we are criticized. I do not know what they want. They seem to be embarrassed. Let us keep politics out of good legislation like this. They are trying to get this measure sent to a committee in order to hold it up. This is good legislation; let us put it before the people who can make use of it.
I should like to say a word to those members who spoke from that corner of the house with reference to the problems of Quebec. I sympathize with them because they have problems in that part of the country. My parents came from New Brunswick. A couple of years ago I travelled through that part of Quebec and northern New Brunswick. I saw these people, and they have problems. They have a few acres, and they are trying to make a living from them. I recall that my father used to talk about taking a team to haul logs all winter and living off salt pork. They will not be able to do that today. We will try to meet these problems with the amendments we have introduced. Let us get on with this good work and not play politics here, in the house.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I have just two or three points to mention that were raised by speakers in the opposition. Two of these points were raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), and I see him in the house now so I should like to give the answers in his presence. He asked if I could give him a breakdown of the farm loans in the maritimes by provinces because the figures I gave in opening the debate just listed the Atlantic provinces. I have the figures here. Hon. members should recall that the first 27507-3-77i
Farm Credit Act
figure is for the 30 years from 1929 to October 1959 and the second figure is for the three years since 1959.
The figures are: New Brunswick, $3,720,899.43 under the farm loan board and for the last three years, $2,305,650; Nova Scotia, for 30 years, $3,573,293.17, the last three years, $1,299,000; Prince Edward Island, $5,041,426.59, the last three years, $2,010,030; Newfoundland, for the full 30 years from 1929 to 1959, nil and for the last three years, $26,100.
The hon. member also asked that we should have a similar long term mortgage arrangement for fishermen. When he raised this point I was rather surprised because I used to read very extensively the debates in this house many years ago and, on looking up the records, I found out that in 1935, under the Conservative government, the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act was passed, which provided long term credit for fishermen. It was administered by the Canadian farm loans board, and in the 20 years up to 1955, 81 loans were granted totalling $41,650. Then in 1955, after 20 years of this long term credit legislation being available to fishermen, the previous administration in which the hon. member himself was a minister, passed the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, in December of that year, which provided under section 13 that-
-no loan shall be made to any person under the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act on or after the day on which this act comes into force.
So, in effect, a Conservative government made long term mortgage loans available for fishermen, and the Liberal government took them away. Now the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate wants them re-introduced and one can only suggest that since he was in the cabinet in 1955 there must have been a split between the then minister of finance, Mr. Harris, and himself, and one can only assume that he lost the battle.
The third point I want to raise is on a question brought up by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) and again tonight by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai), namely that we should have some form of credit supervisor in the Fort William area. I am very sorry, but apparently my office forgot to remind those hon. members that a representative was appointed in Port Arthur in February, 1962, and since that time he has processed 29 loans in the area he services.
The following figures show the loans made in northwestern Ontario since 1959; in the district of Algoma, 14 loans totalling $165,000; in the Manitoulin district, 13 loans totalling $127,000; in the Thunder Bay district, 12

Farm Credit Act
loans totalling $141,800; in the Kenora district, 3 loans totalling $20,500; in the Rainy river district, 17 loans totalling $167,000, making a total of 59 loans and a lump sum of $621,900.
I think this point makes it clear that in examination of the work of the Farm Credit Corporation I have been frank with the house in bringing out the good points which that legislation has accomplished and showing how there has been a tremendous increase in the loans granted over the last three years. In fact there were more granted in the last three years than were granted by all governments in the previous 30 years.
The amendments before us are designed to broaden the basis for loans and make the terms more flexible so that good work can be done in all districts of Canada. In saying that I am not only including British Columbia, parts of the prairies, northwestern Ontario, and the eastern parts of Ontario but also Quebec and the maritimes where, with this new type of broadened legislation, we can do a better job.
I do not need to tell the house that the Farm Credit Corporation does its most useful work during the winter months when the officials have time to talk with the farmers and discuss their programs for the next year. This is why I am anxious to have this legislation passed as soon as possible, and this is the reason why the government introduced it as the second piece of legislation since parliament assembled. We are now hopeful that the legislation will be passed quickly so that we can then take under advisement the backlog of applications for loans which were not successful because they had not met certain criteria under the act as it existed up to now.
I would be very glad, when the standing committee on agriculture and colonization meets, to bring the officials of the Farm Credit Corporation before that committee where hon. members may question them as much as they like. But, in view of the long debate on the resolution lasting over several weeks, and the fairly long debate on second reading I would like to suggest very sincerely that we give the bill second reading and have it enacted because I am sure there is not much controversy over the actual amendments. By doing that we can get in a position to deal with other forms of legislation which the country is asking for at this time.


Hubert Badanai: May I ask the minister a question? In his statement the minister referred to a regional adviser at the lake-head, but the report of the Farm Credit Corporation for 1961 does not list an adviser in

the lakehead area or anywhere in northwestern Ontario. There is a Veterans Land Act agent in the area but not an adviser. One adviser is listed in the vicinity of Toronto and the next closest to the lakehead is in Winnipeg.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Capital.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on scoring a really very good debating point tonight. I well remember when, as he so generously said, the Liberal government put the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act on the statute books in 1955, or at least asked parliament to do so, and I well remember the decision taken at that time to stop the loans that were made under the farm loan board.
Contrary to the minister's surmise I did concur in that or I would not have stayed in the government. It was not forced on me. We were quite well aware of the fact that the loans under the farm loan board were not working very satisfactorily, and the idea was that loans made under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act would do the job better than it had been done under the other legislation. In taking this view we took the same view that the present government took about the farm loan board itself, namely that it should have a wider scope.
After a few years experience of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act it was found that, while it was a very useful piece of legislation, in the same way as the farm improvement loan legislation is a useful piece of legislation, it appeared it should be supplemented by an agency similar to the farm credit agency, and I think the very success of the farm credit agency, which I have never sought to disparage in any way, is the very best argument for duplicating it in this other field.


An hon. Member:: What happened to the fisheries act?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
Hazen Robert Argue: Before clause 1 carries could the minister give the committee some information that I asked him for a couple of weeks ago as to the number of loans made according to size and the various categories? While I was away the minister may have made this available, but I have searched Hansard and I do not believe he has. My question was as to the number of loans from zero to $1,000, from $1,000 to $2,000, and so on, broken down on that basis. The minister has a table in his hand. I would hope-I do not think this was part of the question at the time-it could be included by provinces, which would then give us a very complete picture. However, I would be satisfied this evening to get the table in the categories I have mentioned, even if the minister does not have these figures-and I hope he has -broken down also by provinces. I think this would then give the members of the committee and the public generally an opportunity to assess the distribution of these loans of various amounts.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I have the figures requested by the hon. member, not only for the items he mentions, such as up to $1,000, and $2,000 to $3,000, but also by provinces. At the direction of the committee I can send a copy across to the hon. member and leave it to him to decide what he wants to do with it; that is, to keep it for himself or put it on the record.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to see it myself now. I would also be very pleased to have it printed in Hansard. I certainly have no objection to that, if that is the minister's wish. I think it is the kind of table that would be most useful.


The Chairman:: That document will have to be tabled later, if the minister so desires, before third reading. Shall clause 1 carry?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister just one question on this clause. Can the minister inform the committee how long he thinks the provision for $400 million will last the corporation, at the present rate of loans?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is a very important question, Mr. Chairman, because I think there is a little misunderstanding among some members of the committee as to how the
Farm Credit Act
loan fund operates. As you know, the amount the Farm Credit Corporation can borrow from the Minister of Finance is limited to the amount of $16 million as its share capital. However, I think it has been overlooked that this is a revolving fund and that, in addition to getting the right under this new amendment to raise the capital by another $4 million; which gives us the right to borrow another $100 million from the Minister of Finance, we have another type of credit item, which is the money being constantly repaid under the act. I hope the hon. member from Assiniboia will take note of the fact that this is a revolving fund. The amount borrowed is just part of it. The amount that comes in is increasing every year to $17 million, $20 million, $30 million, and so on. We hope that some day the amount coming in will make it unnecessary to raise the level of the fund any more. I think I should make that quite clear.
At the present time, as I think I have mentioned already, the amount we have will last until June of next year, 1963. With these two factors at work, the additional amount we have now-the right to lend under the amendments if they carry-and the revolving fund principle, it is estimated that this amount should last us until March 31, 1965. That is assuming that we go on lending at about the rate of $80 million a year.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the question just asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia. The intent of the question is probably to try to establish that the small farmer does not get a square deal under the Farm Credit Act, whereas he did get a square deal under the old farm loan act. This is a fallacy. I do not know what is contained in the answer the minister has given, but it will be obvious from the answer that there is a greater percentage of larger loans under the Farm Credit Act than there was under the farm loan act. The reason for this is that under the old farm loan act all the board was concerned with was the security. I maintain that under the Farm Credit Act the small farmer has a better chance of getting a loan than he had under the old farm loan act. In the first place, under the farm loan act the loan could not exceed 65 per cent of the value of the land. The administration of the old farm loan act was such that in practice the loan never exceeded^ 50 per cent of the market value. All they were concerned with was security. But under the Farm Credit Act the credit advisers actually encourage farmers to take larger loans, and it is not the size of the unit that the farmer has that determines whether he

Farm Credit Act
will get a loan. What determines the eligibility for a loan more than anything else is the size of the unit that will be created.
In my experience, Mr. Chairman, under the Farm Credit Act the small farmer has a better chance of getting a loan, and certainly with the recent admendments to the regulations this is much more the case. Certainly in the areas of the west coast of British Columbia and Vancouver island, where we have a large number of small, specialized farmers, under the new amendments they will all be eligible, whereas under the farm loan board they were certainly not eligible.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the table that has been handed to me very adequately substantiates the charges I and other hon. members on this side of the chamber have been making, namely that small loans were not being considered in any adequate number whatsoever. As I read this table, it goes up to loans of $10,000, by categories, and ceases at that point. But the total loans of $10,000 and under for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962 were 2,552 out of a total of 5,885. When you take the number of loans under $10,000, which is fewer than half the loans made, you find that when you get into the smaller figures there are very few loans. Loans up to $1,999-that is, loans under $2,000-number one; loans between $2,000 and $3,000 number 31; loans between $3,000 and $4,000 number 114; between $4,000 and $5,000, 205. Then the number increases at quite a substantial rate and you get, as I have said, a total of 2,552 loans out of 5,885 being under $10,000, and the balance above. So obviously emphasis is being given to the larger type of loan.
I can appreciate that for certain people applying for loans, with the need for economic units, and so on, this is fully justified. I realize that. But I think this does demonstrate that in addition to these larger loans there is a real need for giving adequate emphasis to making loans of the smaller size. With an adequate aggregate sum of money to make loans there is no need to say there should be fewer larger loans, but there is a very definite argument and a very definite case for asking the corporation to give more sympathetic consideration to applications for smaller loans.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, is this not exactly what the legislation seeks to do?


Hazen Robert Argue: I think there are some parts of the legislation which tend in that direction; I think that is true. But I think it would be a lot more satisfactory to the committee if the minister would assure us that the administration will in the future give more sympathetic consideration to the applications of farmers

who want smaller loans. I am not arguing against the value of some of these amendments; some of them are good. I presume that most of them-probably all of them-will pass unanimously. But that still does not, in my judgment, remove the necessity for administering this act in a more lenient fashion than has been the case heretofore. I think it is just preposterous that 55 per cent of those who have had documented interviews for loans should have their applications rejected. I think it is too high a percentage. If hon. members on the opposition side of the house think it is fine, that is their business; but as far as we are concerned the number of rejections is too high. Suppose, for instance, a farmer comes in and says: "I want a loan of $3,000. It will not make me an economic unit; it will not put me up among the big boys, but it would give me a better income." I think applications of that kind should be given a much more favourable reception than they have been given up to now.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the hon. member was away last Friday when I raised this matter on the resolution stage.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have read the speech.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am sorry the hon. member was not able to understand it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I cannot understand what was not said.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I made it clear that there are short term loans which are handled by the banks. Second, there are intermediate types of credit which are handled under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I pointed out that, as the hon. member already knows, in 1960 there were approximately 68,000 loans made for a total of some $102 million, the average size of those loans being $1,400. In 1961, if my memory is correct there were
70.000	loans made amounting approximately to $108 million, the average size of the loan being about $1,500. If a farmer comes to us and asks for a loan of $1,500 or $3,000 for livestock improvement, for example, we should not ask him to go through the expensive procedure of mortgaging his farm in respect of a loan which is available at the same rate of interest under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I venture to suggest, in all fairness, that we are trying to do the things which help the farmer; we do not want him to go through an expensive mortgage procedure in order to secure a relatively small sum. I might add that in 1961 there were
70.000	loans made, the average of which was $1,500, and this will further illustrate the point I am making.

I do not blame the hon. member for As-siniboia for harping on the question of the small farmer. It must be a very difficult point for the hon. gentleman to get around now that he belongs to the party he does. He has to accept the record of their shortcomings, and I do not blame him for trying to get out of it. But do not let him presume upon our Christian hospitality too far.
Now, I think in all fairness to one of our public servants I should refer to a matter which was brought up on the resolution stage and which it was necessary for me to look into before I could give an answer. The hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes on October 4, as reported in Hansard, on pages 198-199, implied that a member of the staff of the corporation had misled a farmer into believing that he would get a loan because of impending federal elections. On October 19, as reported in Hansard at page 724, the hon. member said the inspector from the corporation had been replaced in his district, and left the impression that this was because he had "fallen in with the former member's petty political manoeuvre". Investigation revealed that at the request of the former member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, the inspector visited the farm on April 28. He did not indicate that it was probable that the corporation would make a loan and, in fact, advised the farmer that he should not apply because it was unlikely that the corporation would approve a loan.
The corporation's inspector at that time was located at Hull, Quebec. Because of the increasing demand for farm loans, it became necessary to open an office in Joliette. The experienced inspector from Hull was transferred to that location, retaining responsibility for the counties of Argenteuil and Two Mountains, while a new man was assigned to the Hull office. On September 1, in an effort to equalize the work load between the new inspector located at Hull and the man at Joliette, the county of Argenteuil was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Hull office. This change was made strictly for purposes of administrative efficiency and was not related in any way to dissatisfaction with the work of the original inspector.
As the good faith and integrity of one of the inspectors of the corporation has been questioned, it seems worth while to set the matter straight. I thought the committee should be given this statement in view of the implication that an inspector had acted improperly.
(Translation):


Bernard Dumont: I have a few comments to make, but, most of all, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton).
Farm Credit Act
You have all seen that the four inches of snow which fell here, in Ottawa, have disappeared. But, in eastern Quebec, the snow has not melted. I know the minister is surrounded with very good advisers. These gentlemen can tell him that the snow which has just fallen back home will not go until spring and that, for this reason, it would be useless now to send inspectors in Quebec, for, this autumn, no more request for loans can be examined there. That is the question I should like to discuss.
Incidentally, let me congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for having appointed a competent and distinguished deputy minister in the person of Mr. Chagnon.
Now, as far as the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue)-one of the 118 socialist members in this house-is concerned, let me ask him not to be over-critical anymore because we no longer need loans of $3,000 only, which would be hardly enough to pay for ten heads of cattle. We rather need loans of around $10,000 so that we can have economic family farms. Also the hon. members who are trying to cue him on should remind him that eastern farmers need small loans, although larger than $3,000. And then we could say that everything is going fine in Quebec. We absolutely need those loans.
Coming back to the question I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture, I should like to know whether we may expect to have inspectors in Quebec and whether we will have an opportunity to get farm loans this fall, although we are anxious to complete the discussion on this bill tonight.
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer to that question is, yes. Appraisals will be carried out as long as it is possible, which depends, of course, on the depth of snow which has fallen. This is one of the reasons why I appreciate the fact that the committee has helped me get along with the resolution so well today.


Mr. Asselin:: It seems to surprise some hon. members opposite that Notre Dame de Grace is on this side of the house.
It is not my intention to prolong this debate unduly. However, there was something which I did not understand as fully as I should, and I wish to ask the minister a question. It is my understanding that the object of this legislation is, among other things, to increase the amount available for the Farm Credit Corporation to make loans to farmers. I believe the principal aim is to make the farm a more economic unit and that the corporation will pay special attention to some areas of Canada such as eastern Canada and Quebec which have to some

Farm Credit Act
extent been disregarded up to the present time.
I should like at this point to commend the minister for one thing he did: when he gave us the latest figures regarding loans made by the corporation in the province of Quebec, he did say that most of the credit should be given to the provincial government because of the per cent rebate. He did not labour this point but he did mention it.


An hon. Member:: What about the provincial government?


Edmund Tobin Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I will answer any questions which any hon. member would care to address to me after I have finished my remarks. At the moment I am doing my best to ask the minister a question. However, there is with these aims a seeming paradox or contradiction, because recently in the Montreal Gazette I noted an article entitled: "Dairy farmers warned. Cut production or face lower price supports". The dateline is Ottawa, and it goes on:
A blunt warning to cut production or face lower price supports was given Ontario and Quebec dairy farmers yesterday by agriculture minister Hamilton.
Apparently it was the minister's third warning. The article goes on to quote the minister as saying:
"The government may quite properly tell producers that the time has come when they must choose between voluntary agreement to restrict production and to reduce price supports."


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are now discussing the Farm Credit Act, not price supports and other allied information.


Edmund Tobin Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to quote too much on this matter, but I want to question the minister on a seeming paradox or a seeming contradiction in government policy involving agriculture. On the one hand we are asked to adopt a bill to increase the amount of capital so as to provide more loans to farmers, and, we are told, particularly to the farmers of eastern Canada. And here we are-


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I do not think we should go on talking about price supports and all these other things when discussing the Farm Credit Act.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I think I can anticipate what the hon. member is coming to. I have the "para" and I am just waiting for the "dox" now. If we can get them together I am sure the remarks of the hon. member will be relevant.


Edmund Tobin Asselin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the hon. member opposite for his help. The question I should like to have the minister explain to me is why we want to increase the number of loans and the amount of money to be lent principally to the farmers of eastern

Canada-Quebec and further east-where the number of loans, as has already been mentioned often enough, is very low, and yet at the same time the minister is publicly stating that farmers must decrease their production. I am unable to see in this day and age how you can make a small farm into an economic unit without increasing production. Does this mean that we are going to refuse loans to the small dairy farmer who wants to turn his farm into an economic unit? I think I am right in saying that this warning was given to the dairy farmers of Quebec and Ontario; at least, according to the newspaper report it was. There is probably some very simple explanation for this, but I should like to hear it from the minister.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I am glad you used the word "paradox" to describe this intervention in the debate by an hon. member from probably the most solidly urban riding in Canada. I can give him a very short answer, Mr. Chairman, and that is that he consult Mr. Lemoyne, who knows something about this matter of stabilization of prices and support prices. He also knows something about farm credit. If the hon. member does not know who Mr. Lemoyne is, he ran as Liberal candidate for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot but did not make out very well because our party whip looked after him too well. He went on public record in the last few days as coming out and supporting the leadership which I am giving to the small farmer, and my efforts to give him justice. I would advise the hon. member, in the interest of his own political future, to go to people who know something about it, and they can explain it to him.
The hon. member has asked me one question concerning the extension of the amount of money which is being lent, and that is a serious question which I shall try to answer. The answer is very simple. Farming today needs credit. But in any modern business, and that includes farming, you do not continue pressuring farmers into a type of operation yielding a product of which there is a surplus and the future of which is not bright. You try, in discussing the possibilities for the future with them, to direct them to where returns are higher. That is why I say that there is no paradox. The farmers need more money to enable them to get at things which are possible, and into things where they can make money. If any farmer comes in and asks for money for a dairy operation, and he has a plan which will meet the criteria of the act, then he will get a loan. The Farm Credit Corporation have no right to decide what the farmer is to do. It is a free enterprise society. But as I mentioned in opening the debate today, we do put down all the alternative uses which we see for his land, and we put down the value of the returns under each type

of operation and let him choose. However, at the present time, with present cattle prices and the floor price of cattle being what it is, and the future market for cattle being so well assured, if he can see more money, a surer income and a higher return for many years and shifts to beef cattle, we think that is in the interests of the country. But he makes the choice.
So, Mr. Chairman, there is no paradox at all. Farming today is in desperate need of capital, but not capital to spend on things you do not need. The hour is late and I do not want to go into a long description of this matter. I can put it in one sentence. Fifty years ago we used to spend much of our time and a great deal of our acreage growing brome grass to feed horses. There is no use growing brome grass today because we use tractors. The same applies to any section of the farming industry. We put the money into where the need is.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question. There seems to be the impression that we have a $50 appraisal fee charged for all types of loans to farmers, whether they are made by the Farm Credit Corporation or under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The Farm Credit Corporation has money for larger loans, and the Farm Improvement Loans Act provides for smaller loans. Is there any appraisal fee charged to an applicant under the Farm Improvement Loans Act?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As I understand the question, the hon. member is asking whether appraisal fees are applied on all types of loans? The answer is no. An appraisal fee is applied only on loans which are made on long term mortgage under the Farm Credit Act, through the Farm Credit Corporation. Out of the ones who do apply for the long term credit loan-and the turn-downs are roughly one half, 55 per cent-very few of the 55 per cent, I hazard the guess almost none, pay the $50. There is another type of credit, an intermediate type of credit, where you walk into a bank without any appraisal fee or any charge at all for a lawyer. You put down your request for the loan, sign the paper, and get the money without any cost to you, and the interest rate is the same. For the great majority of loans there is no appraisal fee whatsoever. It is only with loans which are substantial and where we have to do a lot of work. I have already told the committee that we have under advisement a new type of appraisal fee; but I will not say
Farm Credit Act
anything about that until the corporation announces or tells me what they are going to recommend we do about it.


David Vaughan Pugh: One further question. There has been a good deal of discussion about the size of loans, and from what the minister has said before, these intermediate loans have taken the place of the small loans formerly granted by the Farm Credit Corporation. Is that so?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman. I do not think the Farm Credit Corporation has gone into that small type of loan since 1959.


David Vaughan Pugh: I am sorry; I meant the Canadian farm loan board.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The farm loan board were supposed to deal with long term credit and to give fairly large loans. They gave a moderate type of loan which had ceilings of $4,000, $9,000 and $15,000 at various times. Therefore their loans were smaller. As I understand it, their policy was to clamp down and give as few loans as possible. There is no connection at all between the two. You might describe the farm loan board as a small loans operation. They did not have a very large ceiling.
(Translation):


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture tells us that the Liberals might understand something about farm credit if only Mr. Jean Baptiste Lemoyne had been elected, the Liberals would have had an expert on agriculture.
For the moment there is no Liberal expert on agriculture in eastern Canada. However, the actual problem is caused by the strait of Belle Isle which brings glaciers into our area and, as a result, our agriculture is two, if not three weeks behind, compared to the Montreal district. We, on this side of the house, limit ourselves in our remarks, but the Liberals keep on asking questions and making speeches, delaying the passage of this farm credit legislation until they get Social Credit.
(Text):


Edmund Tobin Asselin: I do not wish to labour this point, Mr. Chairman. However, as the minister made reference to my riding being an urban riding-and I may say I am very proud of it-I would point out to him that consumers in urban ridings and in all other ridings are vitally interested in the future of agriculture and in the cost of agricultural products. I should also like to point out something else, since he mentions Mr. Lemoyne, a Liberal candidate. It is possible that I will

Farm Credit Act
have the pleasure some day of addressing this type of question to Mr. Lemoyne in the same seat the minister temporarily holds.
In the answer to my question we have gone from 50 years ago and brome grass to tractors, but he did not answer the question I asked. In all sincerity I wish the minister would tell me how he is going to help the dairy farmer in Quebec and in eastern Canada, the small farmer who needs to expand his operation in order to make it an economic unit, and at the same time threaten him-because to me this sounds like a threat; it looks to me like government by threat-that he is going to have his price supports removed if he increases his production. To me that is a contradiction. I should like to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that this question is not unknown to the minister as I informed him of it several days ago. In all sincerity I say that I should like to have what I consider to be a reasonable answer on this subject. Let us leave aside the fact that I represent an urban riding and that I am proud of representing an urban riding. I should like to have an answer to this question.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 1 carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, Mr. Chairman. The minister said, "Well, 50 years ago we used to grow a lot of brome grass because there were a lot of horses". He says that now there are not so many horses and therefore we do not have to grow brome grass. I do not know about that matter. There are many beef producers in this country who are apparently living in bygone days, as they are under the impression that brome grass is a very good feed for beef cattle and that it is recommended by all the agricultural authorities for grass mixtures all across this country. If the minister had been talking about timothy, what he said might have meant something. However, I am afraid that his knowledge of brome grass is exceedingly limited since today it is not mainly a feed for horses, but for cattle.
The minister seems to agree that the legislation now under discussion is not to provide smaller type loans for the small farmers. This fact seems to be clear. The minister said it, as he himself pointed out a few days ago, and he repeated it tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, the table his department has prepared demonstrates that the small farmer asking for a relatively small loan does not get it under this act. The answer is no.


Mr. Jorgenson:: He gets it under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


Hazen Robert Argue: The parliamentary secretary says that he gets it under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Who brought in the Farm Improvement Loans Act? The Minister of Agriculture says, "Oh, the Liberal party is terrible; when they were administering the farm loan board they were not giving enough small loans". The Farm Credit Corporation has taken them off and has quit them. However, the minister says that the Liberal act is working out well and is doing such a wonderful job-I refer to the Farm Improvement Loans Act passed in 1945-that we do not have to do it under this legislation. We suggest, Mr. Chairman, that under this legislation there is room for more small loans. We suggest that it is not good enough even for this minister to say, "Well, the Liberal act was so good and so much money can be obtained under this act that it provides for all the credit necessary to the small farmer". There is a distinct difference between the kind of loan provided for under the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the kind provided for under this act. I merely point out that under the Farm Improvement Loans Act the limit is 10 years. This limit is much higher and therefore on this score this legislation is preferable.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
Clause 1 stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the house leader could indicate to us what the government wishes to have taken up tomorrow and if, as is customary, this being Thursday evening, he could give us a preview, as he sees it, of next week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As I mentioned once before, Mr. Speaker, we are in the hands of the house. We had hoped earlier this week to have completed general debate when we were iii committee of ways and means. That is something that did not happen. However, there has been considerable consultation today. Our proposal now is that we go back into committee of ways and means tomorrow, which is Friday. Then if the house completes the general discussion in committee of ways and means and is prepared by five o'clock to restrict discussion to the first resolution, or to the other resolutions if we reach them, then we will proceed with a supply motion on Monday and Tuesday. Otherwise, if the house finds it cannot complete the general discussion on the ways and means resolution tomorrow, it seems to me we would have to go into ways and means on Monday and

Tuesday. However, if we make that headway which I suggest, we would have a supply motion on Monday and Tuesday. What would follow during the balance of the week I am not prepared to say at the moment. However, we would perhaps endeavour to complete any unfinished resolutions in ways and means.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister would permit me to make one observation, and it
Business of the House
is this: So far as my friends are concerned, I think I can assure him we are prepared to co-operate with the government in any endeavour to complete the general debate in committee of ways and means by five o'clock at the latest.
It being three minutes after ten o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Friday. November 2, 1962