1962-03-06

Hon. J. W. Monleiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house that live oral polio virus vaccine of the Sabin variety has now been licensed under the Food and Drugs Act for use in Canada.
This new vaccine represents another great medical breakthrough and one which may in effect result in the almost complete eradication of paralytic polio in this country. I know that hon. members will take satisfaction, as I do, in the fact that Canada is among the first nations of the world to license all three strains of the vaccine. Our regulations in this regard set a very high standard, and I think it is a tribute to the excellence of Canadian scientists and Canadian producers that full approval has now been possible.
I might say we have taken this step only after long and careful study. There are many special problems associated with a vaccine of this type, and considerable time has been required to solve them. In addition to the information provided by research and field trials in other countries, a good deal of work has been done in Canada, in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The results of these efforts have confirmed that the Sabin strains of live oral polio virus vaccine are safe for community use in Canada and that they are also valuable immunizing agents.
Because of the really outstanding success achieved with the Salk vaccine and because it is now built into child immunization programs across the country, we do not expect that the oral vaccine will replace the Salk at least at the outset. Rather it will be used as a supplementary or booster dose for the majority of persons who already have been immunized with the Salk, as well as for a primary stimulus for those who have not. In the case of immunized persons, the initial approach is that a single dose of the oral vaccine will be sufficient. Several doses may be necessary for those not previously immunized with Salk.
I might add that evidence to date suggests that the most effective method of using oral vaccine in our present state of knowledge is by community immunization programs. For this reason, and in order to make the best possible use of supplies available, distribution for the time being will be through provincial and federal health authorities.
As in the case of the Salk vaccine, the costs of providing the Sabin vaccine will be shared on a fifty-fifty basis by the federal and provincial governments. Also as was done with the Salk, production in Canada will be handled by the Connaught medical research laboratories of the University of Toronto and the institute of microbiology and hygiene of the University of Montreal.
As I have mentioned, careful preparation has been made for the use of this new weapon against polio, and in view of this I have every confidence that we will achieve a record with the Sabin vaccine that will match our outstanding success with the Salk vaccine in terms of safety and effectiveness.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, there will be general satisfaction in the house and throughout the country with the announcement that the department has decided to license three strains of the vaccine of the Sabin variety, which is to be orally administered. It is interesting to note that this does not mean the replacement of the Salk vaccine, in the initial stages at any rate.
It is also a matter of satisfaction that the Connaught laboratories at the University of Toronto and the institute of microbiology at the University of Montreal, under Dr. Armand Frappier, will continue to provide the production of this new orally administered vaccine as they did in the case of the Salk vaccine.
The minister, however, has said nothing about the tests to be employed both at the Connaught laboratories and at the institute of microbiology, as well as in the department here in Ottawa, to make sure that doses of this vaccine meet the standards of safety laid down by the Department of National Health and Welfare in co-operation with the provincial departments of health. The minister will recall that in the case of the Salk vaccine, Canada was privileged to escape some of the abuses and dangers which attended the administration of Salk vaccine in the United States because of the great care which was taken in Canada in testing various batches of the Salk vaccine.

Inquiries of the Ministry
I hope the minister can give the house some assurance that every possible device will be employed in Canada to make sure that doses of this vaccine in this country are tested by the production centres as well as by the department's laboratory here in Ottawa.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Following the oral treatment on the part of the hon. member for Essex East, as opposed to his usual insertion of the needle, I wish to say that this group is pleased that the government has seen fit to take action in order to give Canadians the opportunity to take advantage of the skills of Canadian scientists, manufacturers and technicians for the further protection of their health against disease.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I wonder whether I might be permitted to add one word, Mr. Speaker. The Sabin vaccine will be handled on exactly the same basis as that on which the Salk vaccine was handled, namely on an individual batch release basis, and it will be examined in our laboratory on that basis.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it a fact, as suggested in today's Gazette by its financial editor, that the losses of reserves in the exchange fund in January and February have been of such a magnitude that the Minister of Finance has used up all his opportunities for further conversion into Canadian dollars?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that is rubbish.



ROYAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can he inform the house whether the royal commission on banking, which was established in October, 1961, I believe, has held any public hearings yet?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the commission has held a number of private meetings and has organized its work quite extensively. The public hearings are expected to commence quite soon and it is the intention of the commission, I am informed, to hold hearings in different parts of the country.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of press reports that Premier Khrushchev stated today that the United States decision to resume nuclear testing in the atmosphere will inevitably lead to a new Soviet round of tests; and in view of the fact that, as Premier Khrushchev points out, the U.S.A. has always insisted that its nuclear stocks excel those of the U.S.S.R., would the Prime Minister consider appealing to President Kennedy to reconsider his decision which is fraught with peril for all mankind?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government's decision with regard to President Kennedy's announcement of March 2 was set out in my statement of March 3, which was fully reported in the press. I have nothing further to add.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the importance that the Prime Minister and his government attach

and rightly so, as do we all-to the 18 power disarmament conference that is to take place on March 14, does he think he can say anything useful with regard to the announcement that France does not propose to participate in the conference?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the manner in which the question was phrased indicated that the hon. gentleman would not expect any direct answer to that question. However, I am sure I express the views of Canadians generally when I say that we still hope France will be able to join with the other 17 members in attending that conference.



LOTTERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschaleleis (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. My question has to do with a statement made by the minister at a press conference in Joliette over the week

end. Will the minister say whether a federal-provincial conference will be called before the dissolution of parliament in order to discuss an amendment to the Criminal Code in respect of a national or provincial lottery?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker, the minister will not say.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Another smokescreen.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I regret that I have not been able to give him notice of it, but if he is unable to answer today perhaps he might take the question as notice and reply tomorrow. Has the minister's attention been directed to an editorial in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of February 27, to the effect that the icebreakers of his department are neglecting to carry out an agreement between Canada and Newfoundland to maintain a passage for the William Carson, to the benefit of other ships in various parts of the gulf of St. Lawrence? If so, would the minister care to comment?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the editorial, but I can assure the house that the icebreakers of the Department of Transport are extremely busy at the present time carrying out their duties, which involve giving assistance to Canadian shipping and also giving effect to all agreements and undertakings for which the government is responsible.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the government giving consideration to the early twinning of any of the single locks of the Welland ship canal?
Hen. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of policy and if and when any decision is taken it will be announced in due course.



ADVISORY COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare relating to
Inquiries of the Ministry the annual $5 million fund for the national advisory council on fitness. What consideration is the minister giving to the reasoned argument of a member of the council, Mr. Ted Reeve, in last Saturday's Telegram that the funds for the fiscal year 1961-62 should be spent and not allowed to lapse?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. I have read the article and would simply say that Mr. Reeve is, I believe, unduly pessimistic.
Already three grants recommended by the national advisory council on fitness and amateur sport have gone out to organizations with emergency needs. In addition, a recommendation concerning the setting up of a scholarship-fellowship scheme is being developed, and it is our hope that a program agreeable to the provinces will be ready shortly. We are also concerned with the question of direct aid to provincial programs and with the development of fitness research and technical information services. I hope to be able to make an announcement in the near future with regard to these matters. In other words, definite proposals for further outlays under the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act during the current fiscal year are going forward with all possible speed.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Port Arthur asked whether the consideration to be shown to recipients of war veterans allowances following last month's increase in old age security payments is being shown to those receiving disability and blindness allowances.
Old age pensioners do not also receive assistance under the Blind Persons Act or the Disabled Persons Act, so I assume the hon. member is thinking of a situation where one member of a married couple is over 70 and the other is not. The recent changes in the acts provided for this and made sure that the benefit would actually be received.
As well as increasing the maximum allowance by $10 a month, we increased the permitted income of the couple in federal-provincial sharing programs by more than the corresponding $120 a year. This means, for example, that even though a husband is receiving $10 a month more through his old age security cheque his wife will also receive the extra $10 a month under the Disabled

Inquiries of the Ministry Persons Act where a federal-provincial agreement has been signed, and a greater income from other sources is also permissible. (Translation):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence.
In view of the answer he gave yesterday to my question concerning the percentage of French speaking and English speaking officers of the Governor General's Foot Guards, and following the comments given to the press by the colonel indicating that while 50 per cent of the n.c.o.'s are French speaking, only two of the thirty officers are French speaking, does the parliamentary secretary think this proportion of French speaking officers is adequate?


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the hon. member for Peterborough asked this question because the commanding officer of the regiment informs me that there are some vacancies to be filled at present among the officers of his regiment and that he would be very pleased to receive applications from qualified French speaking candidates.
(Text):



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the thought provoking speech of the minister last night before the optometrists in Toronto, in which I detected indications of the minister's delaying tactics-


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about the member's delaying tactics?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -can the minister say when we may expect the report of Chief Justice Hall which would enable the minister to bring down a program of medical care insurance before dissolution of the present parliament?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I thought the hon. member for Essex East would have been better informed as to when I delivered this speech. It was yesterday at noon. I was just wondering whether his own party, which was invited to speak to the optometrists today at noon, would


be represented. Apparently the hon. member is not very well informed. In any event, the Hall commission is sitting and will report in due course.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister received representations from citizens' groups at Reserve Mines, Nova Scotia, to the effect that the proposed location of the new post office is a poor one and is dangerous for children? Will the minister delay construction until an alternative site can be considered?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minisier of Public Works):: This is a repetitious old chestnut that has been thrown around the Commons, first by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and then a few others and now, of course, by the gullible member for Trinity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David James Walker: There was a protest meeting called against this site, with great advertising, in the town of Reserve Mines, which has a population of 3,000 people, and 18 people turned up. I suppose my hon. friend is acting for the 18. In any event, this matter has been given careful consideration. The site which has been picked is the most popular site, the safest site, and the site that pleases most of the people of Reserve Mines, in spite of the interference of politicians on the other side.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I ask a supplementary question on behalf of the minority, even if there are only 18? Has the minister satisfied himself that the site chosen is the best one, and also that it is safe for the population?


David James Walker: I shall have to speak French to the hon. member.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, and ask whether he has had an opportunity to look into the question which I posed on Friday, I believe, of last week, having to do with the Dominion Tar and Chemical Company announcing its intention to build a plant in the United Kingdom. Is there a reply to that question?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall have to inquire to find out; I was away myself on Friday. I am now informed that the minister will be here tomorrow and the answer will be given then.



FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 5, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Fleming (Eglinton)- Mr. Martineau in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act to provide for the making of guaranteed loans during the period July 1, 1962 to June 30, 1965, and to establish $400 million as the limit of guaranteed loans that may be made during the new loan period.
(Translation):
Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, concerning the resolution put forward by the Minister of Finance to extend the loan period in the Farm Improvement Loans Act, there are just a few words I should like to say.
The measure has nothing new to offer. Its purpose is simply to extend the period for making loans from July 1, 1962, to June 30, 1965, and to increase the limit of guaranteed loans to $400 million.
It does not bring any real change and contributes nothing to improve the farmer's lot. The situation, for the farmer, remains the same. Nothing is done to provide him with a better income for the good of his family.
Such is the policy of the present government, no general plan to improve conditions for the farmers. Since 1957, confusion has prevailed in our country's farm policy. There is no program, no planning.
The pamphlet called ARDA has often been mentioned. For the past four years, there has been some talk about the establishment of a food bank.


Mr. Pigeon:: The hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) is out of order. He should not read his notes so fast.


Samuel Boulanger: I should like to say a few words on this point of order. Each time I speak in the house, the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) claims I read my notes. I should like the hon. member to come and take a look at this sheet of
Farm Improvement Loans Act paper. I am not in the habit of reading my speeches and I might add that I am not a plagiarist. I wonder if the hon. member knows the meaning of that word.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member's statements are entirely false. He should stop reading and discuss the bill under consideration instead. He should not speak about agriculture in general.


The Chairman:: The hon. member has raised two points. With respect to the first one, I think that the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska gave a satisfactory explanation. He said that he had some notes to which he was referring, and I have nothing more to say about that. Everything is in order.
As to the second point concerning the relevancy of his remarks, I would ask the hon. member to make an effort to keep within the subject of the resolution.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I had not yet strayed from the subject. I know that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm is very touchy because he himself never speaks about agriculture himself, even though he represents an agricultural riding. All he can do is to make interruptions.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is entirely false.


Samuel Boulanger: I was dealing with the amendment to the act announced in the resolution, for the purpose of increasing the loans guaranteed by the government. I was making a few comments about this act which will not improve in any way the lot of farmers. Yet, farmers were promised a fair share of the national income. After this government has been in power for five years, farmers have never been worse off than they are today. We had thought that the government would put forward a farm policy likely to increase the farmer's income.
Far from it, instead of helping him, the government sees the farmer going deeper into debt year after year, to the great satisfaction of the Minister of Finance.
And I shall prove what I am saying. The Minister of Finance said the other day that the farmer had borrowed more, in 1961, than in any previous year, and that is true.
Mr. Chairman, since 1957, the farmer has been borrowing more and more. This proves that he is in poor circumstances; and yet, the Minister of Finance boasts that the farmer borrows more and more.
In 1961, the loans totalled 70,000 and reached $108 million; last year, $101 million; in 1959, $98 million; in 1958, $90 million.

Farm Improvement Loans Act
In 1957, after the Liberals had been in power for 22 years, farmers had borrowed only $60 million.
The fact that farmers borrow more and more clearly indicates that their situation is getting worse instead of improving.


Mr. Tremblay:: On the contrary. They want to borrow money to pay old debts.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) wants to make a speech, I would ask him to wait until I am finished. Besides, it would be the first time that he would speak about agriculture, the second time rather, because the first time he said that the situation of Quebec farmers has been improved, that they are satisfied. That is what prompted the farmers' association-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I have never said what has just been suggested by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska. I stated once that the farmers' situation is excellent now as compared to what it used to be and I am ready to repeat it. Besides, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska should not worry; when I have something to say in this house, I do not need this former undertaker's invitation to speak up.


Samuel Boulanger: I know what the hon. member for Roberval means when he says that he can speak his piece in the house. That is why I should like to quote what he said here.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Go ahead, my friend.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In my opinion, there is no point in discussing further the question of privilege since it has already been dealt with. It would be useless to insist on that and I feel that the hon. member should continue his remarks on the resolution under consideration.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I am quite willing to abide by your ruling, and I shall not repeat what the hon. member for Roberval has said. But I would ask him just one thing, and that is to keep silent for a few minutes. Then, when I am through, he shall have his chance to speak and I can assure him that I shall listen to him.


An hon. Member:: That is too much to ask of him.


Samuel Boulanger: Now, Mr. Chairman, the farmer, as I was saying, has increased his

loans from year to year. Nevertheless, as I mentioned a moment ago, he still finds himself in a precarious situation because, among other things, his cost of goods and services has gone up from year to year.
If we examine the figures published in VEconomiste Agricole of December 1961, we find that goods and services bought by farmers had increased, from 1956 to October 1961, from 247.6 to 287.8, a 40 point rise, while the sales price index for the farmers' products had shown but a 7 point increase. That is why the farmer borrows more all the time.
What does the government intend to do to meet the situation? I should like the Minister of Finance to tell us if he feels that the 61 per cent of eastern farmers whose yearly income is less than $2,500 earn enough to support a family of five or six children.
This is the only question I am asking the Minister of Finance. Does he find the $2,500 gross income of 61 per cent of eastern farmers reasonable?
(Text):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: He does not know the answer.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: I shall expect the answer from the minister when he has an opportunity to take the floor in a few minutes.
We have heard some wonderful promises from our friends and we will probably hear some more before the end of the session.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Lesage's promises.


Samuel Boulanger: Lesage's promises, yes, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lesage did make some promises.


Paul Raymond Martineau: It is not in order to discuss here what is done or not done by Mr. Lesage.


An hon. Member:: He was asked the question.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, there is a limit to what an hon. member can do. If the hon. member who has the floor is invited to do so, as he was, a while ago by all kinds of interruptions attacking the premier of Quebec, surely, he is entitled to answer the questions directed to him.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The Chair did not hear the interjection. However, even if there was one, it was certainly out of order and I do not

think an hon. member could take advantage thereof to start a discussion on an irrelevant matter.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I submit that you should call the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to order, when those on this side of the house are making their views known to the house.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have done so many times, and I would once again ask all the members not to interrupt. As the hon. member just said, there is no reason for it, and I would ask the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska to remain strictly within the limits of the measure under discussion.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I shall end my remarks by asking the government to let us know its agricultural policy as soon as possible so that farmers, and particularly dairy farmers, may know what to expect up to April, 1963. Besides, that was another promise made by the government, which said that the farmer would know, a year beforehand, where he stood with regard to the sale and price of his agricultural products.
Today, in the dairy industry-
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, the hon. member has been engaged for some time in talking not about this bill at all but about agriculture in general. This is not a debate on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. This is not a debate on agriculture in general. This is a discussion on a resolution contemplating the introduction of a bill to extend one particular statute. This does not give any ground for any hon. member to embark upon a wide ranging discussion on agriculture in general. Surely it is possible to have a debate in relation to the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, the matter before the committee deals with two things. First it deals with the extension of guaranteed loans and, second, it deals with the ceiling on guaranteed loans. My hon. friend has been dealing with loans throughout his speech, and with the effect of those loans upon the income of the farmer. Surely he has a right to do what he is doing. I submit that it is because what the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska is saying has struck the government right between the eyes insofar as its program with reference to agriculture is concerned-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I trust the hon. member will not go beyond the point of order
Farm Improvement Loans Act which has been raised. He has rightly stated that this is a matter concerning the extension of the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the ceiling on loans. When the minister rose to make his point of order the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska was embarking on a discussion of the Agricultural Stabilization Act. In doing so he was definitely out of order, so I would ask him to return to the item under discussion.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I am quite willing to confine my remarks to the item which is now before us. However, I should like to see the same rule applied to the hon. members who will take part in this debate.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Hear, hear.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: We will not talk about the same things.


Samuel Boulanger: The member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) will, no doubt, not talk as I did because his conception of the needs of the farmers differs from mine. I even believe I shall have to go in his riding-


An hon. Member:: You will go help him.


Samuel Boulanger: -to explain the present situation in the province of Quebec, more particularly as concerns the dairy industry.
Mr. Chairman, since the Minister of Finance is so sensitive to my remarks on agriculture, I shall not discuss it further; but I shall bring up the subject again, for there is much to say on the matter. In fact, I could spend two or three days dealing with agricultural questions, particularly as concerns the province of Quebec.
I am convinced that the members to my left who are now whispering will have something to feed their thoughts during the next election campaign.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I did not expect to take part in this discussion because I consider this legislation a great improvement on the act which we had under the former government. The fact which strikes me most, and I am going to prove it-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot understand.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -and I shall prove it, Mr. Chairman. When I see the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who, like an outraged maiden, rises on a point of order to defend the Quebec farmers-


Mr. Bourgei:: Order, Mr. Chairman.
1520	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I think it would be preferable for the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) to keep to the resolution before us, as he, indeed, wanted the member who spoke before him to do.


Maurice Bourget: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I only wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Laurier should not speak on farming. He puts his foot in it every time-


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -and to prove that this government has improved the legislation, I should like to point out that, under the former government-the government of the hon. members for Laurier and Drummond-Artha-baska (Mr. Boulanger)-the maximum loan for farm improvement was, for each farmer in this country, $5,000, whereas this government has increased it to $7,500.


Samuel Boulanger: The farmers did not need any more at the time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is an improvement, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, rose a while ago again like an outraged maiden, to tell the hon. member for Roberval not to interrupt his remarks. Look at him, Mr. Chairman, he is the first to interrupt, to break the rules of this house and to burn what he adored. Be fair not only as regards the rule of this house but also as far as the farmers of this country are concerned. Stop talking nonsense.
Here is another proof, Mr. Chairman, of the way in which farmers were treated. Under the previous government formed by the party to which the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska belongs, the total amount of loans to farmers-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm is wandering from the subject under discussion.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I feel that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm deals with the resolution when he discusses the maximum amount of loans, which is relevant to the resolution; but I would ask him to stick to the resolution now under discussion.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I am doing. I am discussing the resolution mentioned in the order paper of this house concerning loans for farm improvements.

When I say that a maximum loan of $5,000 was granted, under the government of which the hon. member for Laurier was a member, to farmers of this country who wanted to borrow, I am talking about the act related to the legislation now before us, and I join with the farmers to commend the Minister of Finance for having improved the act and having increased the loan to $7,500. That is what I am discussing.
As I said a moment ago, under the previous government of the hon. members for Laurier and Drummond-Arthabaska, the maximum set aside for those loans was $300 million, and the Minister of Finance has now raised that maximum to $400 million. It is certainly an improvement over what we had then.
I note from the statistics that the farm revenue in this country was good last year and that economists forecast an excellent year for 1962. And if a decrease is expected in the province of Quebec, it is perhaps due to the provincial government, because there is a decline in the province of Quebec under the present administration which is fouling up farm legislation in that province and refusing to give the Montreal area a school for advanced studies in agriculture.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. If the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm wishes to speak about agricultural colleges, or about farm revenues, I am quite prepared to talk about it also.


An hon. Member:: There is no point of order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I hope that hon. members will not be too sensitive because everyone will have the opportunity to speak on the resolution. However, I wish to remind the hon. member who has the floor to keep to the question before us. I feel that he has done so quite successfully until now; but just the same I should like to ask him to make a special effort not to wander away from the question under discussion.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I simply wished to draw the attention of the house to the great improvement brought about by this government, through the Minister of Finance, in regard to that policy of farm improvement loans.
Before concluding my remarks, I should like to tell hon. members, and most particularly the hon. member for Laurier-


Samuel Boulanger: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Has the hon. member something to say? If so, let him rise in his place and say it.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. Is the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska raising a point of order?


Samuel Boulanger: As regards the point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Fit for the circus.


Samuel Boulanger: -the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm wanted to put words-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Have I done so?


Samuel Boulanger: -in the mouth of the hon. member for Laurier. Therefore, he is out of order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I am of the opinion that the hon. member for Laurier is quite able to defend himself if he feels he is attacked.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: The hon. member for
Laurier has to rely on the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska to defend him. How sad.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, you will appreciate that the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska is not serious, because he raises a point of order as soon as I mention the name of the hon. member for Laurier. He thought I would report what he said, but I simply wished to advise him not to take the farmers of the province of Quebec for a bunch of idiots, especially when he comes to that province to talk about agriculture, while he does not know a thing about Quebec agricultural problems.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I say that as an agronomist, and as a farmer's son.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think the statement just made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm does make sense in a way, and it is that there is no greater idiot in the House of Commons than the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman-
(Translation):


Mr. Fortin:: You are forgetting yourself in that statement.
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance on a point of order.
Farm Improvement Loans Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier has just used language which is a clear offence against the rules of this house, and I ask that you call on him to withdraw the remark he has made concerning another hon. member of this house.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, in the first place the Minister of Finance should be the last person to rise in this house on a question of that kind because he has repeatedly said that we on this side of the house engage in blatant lies.
With reference to the point itself, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has got exactly what he has asked for. He has been inviting interjections all along. He has repeatedly used language which apparently I am supposed to have used elsewhere but which I have no recollection of having used. I simply put to the hon. member that perhaps the language applies to him far more than it applies to me.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On the point of order, let me say this.
(Translation):
I believe that in the heat of the discussion, the hon. member for Laurier went farther than he should have towards the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. In my opinion, he should be given the opportunity to change the word he used regarding the hon. member.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I fail to see the difference between the term I used and the word "obstruction" which the Minister of Finance-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. What the Minister of Finance might have said previously has nothing to do with the matter involved at present. What we are now dealing with is the word "idiot" directed to an hon. member. I suggest that such a word is not consistent with the dignity of the house, and I am convinced that after due consideration, the hon. member for Laurier will agree to change his expression.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the word was used adequately and properly. When the hon. member interrupted me-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Wait-


Mr. Flynn:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a point of order. I would ask the minister to resume his seat and I will tell you why.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
1522	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order, order.


Lionel Chevrier: I am speaking on the point of order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Everyone is familiar, I think, with the elementary rule that when the Chair has something to say, all hon. members must take their seats. That is the first point.
Second, I feel that the remarks made by the hon. member for Laurier are contrary to the dignity of the house and I would ask him to reconsider.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to raise two points of order in that connection. First of all, you said that all members are supposed to take their seats when the Chair has something to say, and you are perfectly right. I did not resume my seat immediately because of the minister's attitude. He should not try to give us a lesson as he did yesterday evening.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think that only one point of order should be raised at any one time. Questions are settled one by one.
As regards the remarks addressed to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm by the hon. member for Laurier, I think that is liable to throw ridicule on an hon. member. There are several precedents to the effect that an hon. member should not indulge in such practice. I know that the hon. member has great experience in this house and is probably aware of the rules better than I am. I would therefore ask him to cooperate and to use his usual good judgment in making the necessary correction.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I accept your suggestion and instead of the word I used a moment ago, I shall say he lacked intelligence in making such observations about me.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think the question has been settled to the satisfaction of the Chair and of all hon. members. I think we can now proceed with the debate.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I finish, Mr. Chairman? In closing, I should like to pay tribute to the present government and especially to the Minister of Finance, who has substantially improved this act. What a change compared to the inaction we had before, to the little consideration shown to the farmers of this country under the previous government.
I hope that our friends opposite, even if they know nothing about people on the farms, as is obviously the case with some of them, will be careful when they come to speak in 

certain Quebec constituencies with which they were not familiar before, owing to the fact that they have temporarily taken up residence in the province of Quebec only a few months ago.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Again?


Lionel Chevrier: A little while ago, I used a word which apparently I did not have the right to use but which fits the hon. member well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lionel Chevrier: A member is not allowed to raise in this house such a personal matter. But that is exactly what the hon. member has done. If an hon. member has charges to make, and it is the Prime Minister himself who established this basis, he must make a complaint himself and put his seat at stake. If the hon. member has enough courage to do that, let him make a complaint. He has no right to do so by devious means.
He attacked me in my private life. This is a strictly personal matter. It does not concern him.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I did not mention your name.


Lionel Chevrier: That is no concern of his. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to call him to order as you did me a moment ago.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am glad to ask that of the hon. member. Besides, I think he has finished his speech.
He did not have the right to raise such a personal matter concerning the hon. member for Laurier. As the hon. gentleman pointed out, a procedure has been established in such cases. It is not customary to proceed in that manner in the house.
In this instance, the subject matter of the debate is the resolution. If the hon. member has concluded his remarks, I recognize the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I did not name the hon. member, but if the cap fits, let him wear it.


Mr. Habel:: Just like the Union Nationale: insinuations.
(Text):


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, once the Union Nationale speak they are apt to continue all afternoon. You cannot tell when they start and when they stop. I am also surprised that they make the statement which they make about this particular legislation. This is not

a great improvement over anything existing previously. There has been an improvement, but this improvement does not need to stop. Certainly if there was any foresight in the Conservative party they would be considering the extension of this particular act at this particular time, in addition to the increases that have taken place in the amount of money available over the period of years. I suggest that this should happen with regard to the maximum amount of money permitted to a particular farmer.
We endorse this type of legislation. We are very happy that it carries the present interest rate. We believe that this act has served a purpose. Certainly the Minister of Finance went to great lengths to point out this fact. I agree that it has done so, but I think now is the time to quit playing with this type of legislation and make it permanent. We amended this act in 1948, 1951, 1953 and in 1956, when we made an additional change by putting in $5,000 as the maximum allowable loan per farmer. In 1959 the act was again amended and the maximum amount was raised to $7,500.
When we are amending it now for a period from 1962 to 1965 I suggest that the minister should give some consideration to the farmers' request on numerous occasions to raise the maximum amount to $10,000. I make this suggestion because I think it is in keeping with the original concept of this act. Farmers at one time would consider $3,000 on a 10 year mortgage to be a sufficient amount of money.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: The machine companies.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, as the hon. member from Alberta mentioned, the machine companies would have considered it a suitable loan in 1948. But in 1962 I would ask the hon. member from Alberta this question. Farmers in his part of the country, as in other parts of Canada, must extend their operations and their capital expenditures. Is it possible for a farmer with $7,500 to go out and buy a new tractor and a new combine, or is it possible to buy either one for $7,500?
I suggest that the amount of money now available under this act is not sufficient. I think that statement applies to western Canada and also, though more recently, to the dairy industry in Ontario. That amount of $7,500 is not sufficient to buy a bulk tank and bulk cooler for handling whole milk in Ontario. A few years ago you could go out and for several thousand dollars could buy a cooler plus milking machines. It has become increasingly difficult to pick up for
Farm Improvement Loans Act $7,500 a bulk cooler and the tanks and the piping that are necessary. I think it is impossible to do so.
I therefore suggest that if the minister is being progressive he will consider increasing the amount. Oh, there is one member who says it is not true. This may be so. He may rise in his place and say it is not true, if he wishes to do so. He may even point out that $3,000 was too much for the farmer to be able to borrow in 1948. But I think it certainly was not more in 1948 at $3,000 than it is now when we allow $7,500. I suggest that the maximum amount should be $10,000. I should hasten to add that most of the farmers will not borrow $10,000. They are very good businessmen and they know, as the Household Finance people tell the Canadian public, that one should never borrow needlessly. It is foolish to borrow money when you are not obliged to do so. I think the farmer has always been in this position. He is not going to borrow money except when it is absolutely necessary in order that he may stay in business; and in some cases it is going to be necessary to have more money available than $7,500 under this particular act.
There is one last point I wish to make, Mr. Chairman. I would think the minister should give some consideration at this time to the necessary amendment in order to permit farmers to combine to buy farm machinery. This would mean they could get together and co-operate in securing the machinery necessary for their operations. For example, the potato producers in an area may find it necessary to put in a small grading plant and storage facilities. If they could do so cooperatively under the terms of the act by pooling their resources or their ability to borrow, they would then be able to establish their own facilities to handle their own product. There are certainly hon. members here who represent Ontario farmers and who know that if an amendment of this kind were made the pork producers of Ontario would be able to establish on a localized basis small plants for the slaughtering and packing of pork which would make it possible for them to handle the product more economically than at present.
I believe everyone supports this legislation, but I think we should be moving forward and not standing still. There was good reason in the first place to set the maximum amount of loan at $3,000 and later to increase it to $5,000 and subsequently to $7,500. However, this legislation will not be applicable only to 1962 but will apply right through to 1965, and the first hope that Canadian farmers can expect for any alleviation of the problem that has been brought to the attention of the government by the farmers of western Canada

Farm Improvement Loans Act and by the dairy farmers of Ontario will be in 1965. Therefore I think now is the time for the minister to make the change I have suggested. I hope the minister will take this matter into consideration before the bill is introduced and raise the maximum amount of loan to $10,000 per farmer in order to meet needs that appear to be growing day by day. Certainly such an increase will be a necessity by 1965.


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, I consider this resolution to be of sufficient importance to my constituency to make a few observations at this time. A similar resolution was introduced last year which had the effect of raising the ceiling from $300 million to $400 million for the period ending in June, 1962. As I recall, the bill was given first, second and third readings on May 15, 1961.
According to the Minister of Finance, as found on page 4860 of Hansard for May 15, 1961, 80 per cent of all loans cover the purchase of farm implements. This allows the farming community to adapt itself to technological advances in farm machinery, but there is far less effort being devoted to the social impact of the mechanization of farming. Mr. J. C. Gilson, associate professor, department of agricultural economics, faculty of agriculture, University of Manitoba, presented a paper entitled "Strengthening the Farm Firm" to the resources for tomorrow conference held last October 23 to 28. In it he had this to say:
-there appears to be a serious gap between the technological possibilities of the agricultural industry and the corresponding economic and social adjustments required. This fact, however, does not seem to be fully appreciated. There is an urgent need for research into, and evaluation of, the economic and social aspects of technological progress in the agricultural industry. There is an accompanying need for an education or extension program to help farm people, and society in general for that matter, to understand the implications and consequences of technological change in agriculture. It makes little economic or social sense, for example, to replace labour with machinery in farm production, and then to leave the technologically displaced families or labour resources stranded in agriculture with little hope for productive employment. The creation of the agricultural adjustment centre at Iowa state university is an example of what might be considered for Canada.
I should like to ask the minister to what extent this credit is supplemented by supervisory technical assistance, especially for the young farmers. What does it accomplish? Does a loan made by a bank just become a bookkeeping entry in the government's books, or are such loans actively supervised and technical advice given as to how the new machinery can best be put into the farm organization?
The extent to which farm automation is becoming highly capitalized, aided by this type of legislation, raises the question of how

the farmer is going to get his money back out of his investment in his farm. The problem of refinancing the farm every year becomes more complex as more machinery is added. It cannot be solved under this act, but some solution must be found. In this area I think the Minister of Finance should examine every possibility and every avenue in order to find a solution.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is he not aware that he has strayed into another statute entirely? That type of assistance is available to farmers, particularly young farmers, under the Farm Credit Act, as it is available to veteran farmers under the Veterans Land Act. But here we are dealing with the Farm Improvement Loans Act, which is in a different realm entirely. This is a matter of the government guaranteeing bank loans to farmers for the purposes designated by the act, and that is all that we are asking should be extended. The matters the hon. member is discussing lie under a different statute.


Hubert Badanai: I appreciate the minister's explanation. I was merely pointing out that 80 per cent of the money lent under this act is being used for the purchase of machinery. That is the only reason I brought in the question of the automation and mechanization of farms. I realize that the government has agencies with facilities that are devoted in part to this problem.
However, I have complained on a number of occasions in the past about the lack of consideration given to the farmer, particularly the small farmer, such as those engaged in farming in the district around Fort William. I have said previously, and I say again, that unless a farmer in our district has sufficient collateral it is next to impossible for him to secure a loan to enable him to develop efficiently and economically the agricultural potential of his holding. What I have said about obtaining loans is true also in connection with the purchase of farm machinery. The farmer goes to the bank and tries to negotiate a loan with the bank, but this legislation notwithstanding, on many occasions the farmers in my district are turned down.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I hope I will be permitted to say this because it is relevant to the question we are discussing. The total population of the Thunder Bay district is approximately 140,000, of which less than 6 per cent are farmers compared with an estimated 12 per cent for the whole province of Ontario. With a distinct federal and provincial farm policy, supported by long

term loans, this region could be developed into one of the most desirable farming areas of Canada. Although grain production in the area is very limited, with the great source of livestock feed at local terminal elevators, the area could become a No. 1 livestock producing area in Canada. The distance from marketing facilities could be overcome by the adoption of an equitable freight rate structure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is doing exactly what he did yesterday. He is off on the subject of freight rates. What on earth has this to do with the extension of the Farm Improvement Loans Act? Surely there must be some regard for the rules of the house and the simple rule of relevancy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That rule ought to be imposed on members sitting behind the minister.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I thought the hon. member was getting off on another subject. This is a very special resolution, and it is not too broad in its terms. The hon. member's remarks should be confined to the terms of the resolution.


Hubert Badanai: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I shall adhere to your wise counsel. Nevertheless, freight rates have something to do with the welfare of our farmers.
It is true that the area of improved farm land is comparatively small in the district of Thunder Bay. It is approximately 70,000 acres. The reason this area is no larger is the freight rate discrimination, as well as many other difficulties, one of which is the inability of the farmers to obtain loans from the bank. At the moment the farmers of the district are concentrating on dairy products, poultry, eggs, potatoes and so forth. Of course other products are grown, but in the main these constitute the bulk of the products from which our farmers make a living. There is a great potential for expansion of production of fluid milk, potatoes, vegetables, greenhouse products, small fruits and berries of all kinds, mushrooms, poultry, eggs, turkeys, honey and feeder cattle. The establishment of feeder plants for cattle and hogs near our terminal elevators should be considered as a distinct advantage to the area.
Contrary opinion notwithstanding, in the Thunder Bay district we have thousands of acres which could be under cultivation now but which, as a result of lack of promotion and interest, is worthless bush. About 70 per cent of the total farm area is unimproved land, and this percentage compares with 39 per cent for the whole province of Ontario. Only about 20 per cent of the total occupied
Farm Improvement Loans Act land is under crops, and this is roughly one half of the provincial average. The lack of development in the farming communities of our district results from an inadequate system of providing funds, without which a farmer cannot expand nor can new farms be developed. Up to the present the experience with the farm loan board has not been of the best.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is talking about a statute relating to the farm loan board, and there is no provision for such a board under this statute. He is talking about the farm loan board which was under a statute parliament repealed several years ago and replaced by the Farm Credit Act. He is in an entirely different field. Surely the hon. member knows by this time that we are supposed to be discussing the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Could he not confine his remarks to that?


Lionel Chevrier: May I bring one thing to your attention, Mr. Chairman. Surely the minister should not be rising to his feet continually and objecting to the discussion of a measure such as this when the minister asks for the extension of this measure and certain additions to the ceiling. Within these two tests, if I may use that expression, the hon. member has been within his rights in proceeding in the manner in which he has been proceeding. It seems to me that the minister should not be objecting to the hon. member discussing the matter in the manner in which he has been speaking.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think I have been following the hon. member who has the floor fairly closely. I hope he will make the necessary effort to stay within the ambit of the debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, may I just-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order; I have not completed my remarks. As has been explained to a few members here, this debate is concerned with the extension of the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The hon. member should have ample scope within the confines of that subject matter. I hope he will not embark on a discussion of other statutes, because that would not be pertinent.


Hubert Badanai: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have talked about nothing else but farming and farm loans which would help the farmers of my district. That is all I have been talking about. I have expressed the same opinion on several occasions. All we need is more money for our farmers, and the extension of this legislation for an additional three years will be of some help.

Farm Improvement Loans Act
However, the difficulty which I wish to point out to the minister is this, and I have pointed it out on several previous occasions. The farmers cannot obtain money from the bank, notwithstanding the legislation which we are passing. Of course I am in agreement with the resolution, and I feel the act should be extended. However, provision should be made to enable the small farmers to take advantage of it. Not all small farmers can go out and buy machinery. I should say this in closing, because I do not want to irk the minister too greatly-in fact I am just trying to help him along-


John Whitney Pickersgill: He needs it.


Hubert Badanai: I am trying to help the Minister of Finance with his responsibilities. He is responsible for this farm policy because it requires money to implement it, and that is his department. I suggest the minister should be just a little more generous in his attitude toward the extension of credit to farmers. I have a great deal of regard for the farmers of Canada, the small farmers of Canada who have not been taken care of under this legislation. There are quite a number of people who would like to establish themselves on farms but who are unable to borrow the money necessary to purchase a farm. Where can you find a better place to raise a family than on a farm? There is plenty of space if you wish to have a large family, and there is a place to grow the things people need.


An hon. Member:: I don't believe you ever saw a farm.


Hubert Badanai: I have never been a farmer, and I am free to admit it. I can see that hon. members over there appreciate this. Nevertheless I admire the people on the farms, and I envy them sometimes. They are so peaceful, and there is so much land around them. All they need to make them happy now is enough money to improve their holdings and establish them firmly on the land. Up to the present we have failed to establish an equitable policy of farm assistance in areas such as northwestern Ontario. This is the crux of the question so far as I am concerned.


William Hector McMillan: Yesterday the minister said that $58 million or slightly over half the amount of loans made available to farmers was used for the acquisition of farm machinery, for tractors, combines and hay balers. I think last year when the Farm Improvement Loans Act was being amended in a similar manner one of the members of this house, I cannot recall which one but I think it was the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, called the attention of the minister to the fact he
was aware of a number of cases in which farmers had incurred debts for farm machinery and the machinery had been destroyed by fire before the debts could be retired, but there was no insurance to cover the machinery in question.
Two or three such cases have come to my attention, where the farmer had to retire his debt with depleted resources because of fire. A farmer might have a blanket insurance policy on machinery, and I have been told- I am not absolutely sure that this is the case -that with a number of these mutual companies with which farmers place their insurance, machinery such as a combine or a hay baler would not be included unless it were specifically stated in the application or unless an application to have these particular machines included were filled out later and sent in to the company. Some of these farmers are not aware of this aspect of their insurance. They may have been aware of it but they have forgotten about it. There are also other reasons why a farmer would not have this machinery covered by insurance.
I do not know how often this occurs but I know of two or three cases, and I think the hon. member for Grey-Bruce said he was also aware of some of these cases when this matter was up for discussion last year. I think some provision should be made by which banks could see that new machinery bought on credit is covered either by the farmer's own insurance company or by some sort of blanket policy.
I am not raising this matter as any criticism at all of the operations of the farm loan board. I do think, however, that some consideration might be given to this question, and I would like the minister to make some reference to it when he replies. It is often quite difficult to get the minister to reply to any questions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is impossible sometimes.


William Hector McMillan: I know that last year-


John Whitney Pickersgill: He does not know the answers.


William Hector McMillan: -he did not reply to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, a member of his own party, unless he did so outside the house. I would appeal to the minister to reply to these observations.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce always got an answer.
(Translation):


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate-


An hon. Member:: Another farmer.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: -very warmly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) for the bill he has introduced.
Since I am not a mortician by profession, I can talk about agricultural policy. However, I am not posing as an expert, but I should like to make a few remarks about this bill. I do so in order to clarify a situation, because as I interjected a few minutes ago, in the course of an hon. member's remarks, I am not shy about participating in discussions on agricultural problems; it is just that, not being an expert, I am always reluctant to deal with matters with which I am not technically familiar.
However, I feel ill at ease in the face of that easy demagogy being practised on the theme of agriculture as applied to the province of Quebec.
I see Liberal members who are now bent on proving that the Conservative government is putting eastern farmers in an unfavourable position as compared to western farmers. That is easy demagogy, and I do not intend to follow the previous speakers on that ground. But I should like to point out a statement made by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, to the effect that the Minister of Finance is boasting that the government is putting more money at the disposal of farmers under the form of loans.
From that, he infers that it is a sign that agriculture is in a bad situation in this country.
I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that the fact that farmers may borrow more money and that more money is being put at their disposal is a sign of a bad situation; on the contrary, it is a sign that the Conservative government wishes to correct by this means a situation which had gone on for several years, I would even dare say a situation which had gone on for about 20 years, and which had been kept so by the Liberal government.
If farmers, when the Conservative government put greater amounts of money at their disposal, hastened to take advantage of this measure, it is that they were in urgent need of it, considering the situation in which they had been placed in the past.
That is why I am glad to congratulate the Minister of Finance for having put more money at the disposal of our farmers.
It was pointed out earlier that larger amounts are now being granted in loans. In addition to this, the provisions have also been 26207-1-97
Farm Improvement Loans Act extended to other groups of farmers, such as poultry farmers and beekeepers.
In my opinion, that is one of the beneficial aspects of the farm legislation implemented by the Conservative government.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that speeches delivered in this house in season and out will not improve in any way the situation of farmers. It is not the demagogic statements made in and out of season by those who, for 22 years, did not care too much about Quebec farmers, that will improve the situation; it is rather by making representations, by taking efficient steps and by bringing pressure to bear on members of the government that hon. members will call the latter's attention to the needs of our farmers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Is the hon. member for Essex East rising on a point of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is not discussing the matter under consideration.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have been following quite closely the remarks made by the hon. member for Roberval and it seems to me that they are quite related to the matter under consideration. If he wanders away I will try to call him to order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He seemed to be wandering away.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, because of his timidity, the hon. member for Essex East has been unable to make his point.
I can assure you that I have no intention of entering upon a general debate on agriculture. I merely wish to make a few desultory remarks on this bill.
Before I conclude, there is one point on which I should like to insist. The entire farm policy of Canada should be reconsidered. As the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska stated a while ago, there has been a lack of planning in that field. He was right of course in saying that, because from 1935 on, there was a real lack of planning in the field of agriculture-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think that if the hon. member embarks on a discussion of that matter of planning or of farm policy in general, he is not speaking to the point.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I merely wanted to point out that there was no planning. But the legislation that the Conservative government introduced these last few years, along with the bill he puts to the house today, are an effort to solve that problem and to use sound planning
1528	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act as more important aspects of our farm problems are brought up. And, as I said, I do not think, as far as I am concerned, it is necessary to rise at every turn in order to discuss farm problems in this house.
Every time farmers in my area, in my constituency, made representations, I lost no time in discussing the matter with the government authorities. In this respect, we obtained things for which farmers in my constituency, in our area, had been waiting for 22 years. I could mention, in passing, for the information of the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska, subsidies for the transportation of feed grains which they had been expecting for years under the Liberal regime.
To come back to the point I had in mind, once again I wish to thank the Minister of Finance and to convey to him the appreciation of the farmers in my constituency. I have had the opportunity, in the house, to point out that, since the Conservatives came to power, our farmers' lot had improved. At that time, however, I had underlined the fact that all was not perfect, far from it.
Our friends in the Liberal party have delicate feelings that are not far removed from guilty feelings; that is why they pounce on any argument to go into their familiar demagogy. I think that the policy followed by the Conservative government, under the guidance of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton), is an effort towards a practical, efficient and dynamic solution of the whole problem facing the agricultural community in my constituency, in our province and in our country.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member for Roberval a question. Can he tell us if the farmers in the Lake St. John district are satisfied to get one half cent less than the Ontario farmers for their cheese.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That bears no relation to the legislation now under discussion.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I will not allow the hon. member for Roberval to answer that question because it is irrelevant to the resolution being studied.
(Text):


Mr. Maiheson:: The remarks of the hon. member for Roberval demand that the problem posed by this bill be shown in better perspective. I refer to the report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, better known as the Gordon report, which points out that farm output between 1935-39


and 1940-1944 increased by some 30 per cent as a result of much more intensive cultivation. The rapid mechanization of Canadian agriculture since the end of the war has involved larger cash outlays for a great many things, particularly machinery, and there has been a considerable technological revolution in farming, with heavier purchases of commercial feeds, seeds and fertilizers. This has resulted in a substantially increased capital structure on even the small farm. The commission found that in every province farming had become much more highly capitalized and that the capital is increasingly concentrated in machinery, implements and livestock rather than in land and buildings.
This is the most spectacular change we have seen in Canadian agriculture. The mechanical revolution has come to the farm and made a great many changes. This has been so in all walks of Canadian life and it is certainly so even in eastern agriculture, the depressed area of agriculture today. The Gordon commission said it appears likely that the technological changes of most importance over the next 25 years will be those designed primarily to increase the productivity of nature rather than the productivity of labour. It will be seen that much mechanical equipment has gone on to the farms; that there is less labour used, while the units of land are larger. There has been a rapid trend toward fewer farms, and this trend is likely to continue. The commission came to the conclusion that the number of farms in Canada, which in 1951 numbered 623,000, might decline to
570,000	by 1965 and to 540,000 by 1980. The conclusion was reached that the size of the average farm in 1980 would be 326 acres compared with an average size of 279 acres in 1951.
Following this study which, the committee will remember, took place in 1956, the chairman of that commission, Mr. Walter L. Gordon, wrote a book called "Troubled Canada". In it he said that in the ten years since 1950 employment in agriculture had dropped by one third. He concluded that the agricultural industry was going through a period of drastic change amounting almost to a revolution. He says it is important that this transformation be as gradual as possible and that it should be facilitated by capital changes whenever this can be done, so that the hardships that are bound to occur when people leave the land may be eased to the greatest extent of which we are capable.
The really serious problem is this. As these farmers across Canada are readjusting themselves to an extent never known before in our agricultural experience, they are caught by the squeeze between the rising prices

they must pay for the goods they require and the falling prices received for the goods they have to sell.


Mr. Palleii:: What is the date of the article the hon. member referred to?


Mr. Matheson:: The book was published, I believe, in 1961.


John Cameron Pallett: The author is a Liberal candidate now.


John Ross Matheson: It is a fact that the author of that book feels it to be his duty to enter practical politics today, but I think the evidence of figures supplied by the dominion bureau of statistics will substantiate precisely the claims he makes. With respect to the cost-price squeeze referred to by the author, the index of farm prices of agricultural products stood at 231.3 during 1956, the last full year of Liberal administration, as compared to 243.3 during 1961. This represents an increase of approximately 5 per cent in the prices received by farmers from the sale of their products.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, another hon. member opposite is treating this debate just as though it were a general debate on agriculture, saying anything he pleases on the subject of agriculture in general. Again I urge that the rule be enforced. We are dealing here with a resolution respecting one particular statute, the Farm Improvement Loans Act. We are not dealing with agriculture in general, and this is not a debate on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish to say something on the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance. I would draw your attention to the fact, sir, that you yourself on three separate occasions had to call the hon. member for Roberval to order because the Minister of Finance did not take the trouble to direct your attention to the fact that a follower of his who was licking his boots at the time was paying no attention whatever to the measure.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I trust the hon. gentleman will confine his remarks to the point of order that is presently before us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I intend to, sir. I merely suggest that since hon. members on the other side of the house have been allowed to range widely and wildly on this subject, the same treatment should be given to hon. members on this side of the house.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I trust that the hon. gentleman did not really intend to say what his remarks appear to convey, because the 26207-1-97^
Farm Improvement Loans Act Chair has devoted much effort to attempting to be fair to all sides of the house. As far as the point that has just been raised is concerned, I believe the hon. member for Leeds will wish to relate his remarks to the matter under discussion. Probably he is just laying a foundation for remarks that are pertinent to the resolution, and I trust he will deal with the resolution before long.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I would not wish Your Honour to think I was attempting to reflect on the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I may be permitted to continue. I realize that Your Honour was making a valiant effort to treat both sides of the house in the same way. What I was drawing attention to, sir, was the partiality of the Minister of Finance.


An hon. Member:: You are a fine one to talk.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Blabbermouthing from Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: One law for one side of the house and another law for the other.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, I hope to draw my remarks to an early conclusion. At precisely the moment of change to which I referred the cost-price squeeze is more significant than ever before. The index of farm prices of agricultural products stood at 231.3 during 1956 as compared with 243.3 during 1961. This represents an increase of approximately 5 per cent in the prices received by farmers from the sale of their products. On the other hand, the price index of commodities and services used by farmers increased from 230.3 in 1956 to 258.3 in 1961, or by about 12 per cent. Thus while the price of products sold by farmers increased by only 5 per cent, the prices of products bought by farmers used in production increased by 12 per cent. The farmer's costs have thus gone up twice as fast as the prices he receives.
The problem of the rising prices of machinery and other farm costs is sufficiently serious that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture as recently as February 7, 1962 made the following submission to the government:
Farm improvement loans.
In view of rising prices of machinery and other farm costs, and the continuing technological advance that is increasing the capital investment in machinery and equipment needed for efficient farming, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture believes the present loan limit for farm improvement loans of $7,500 should be raised, perhaps to $10,000. The raising of the maximum loan limit

Farm Improvement Loans Act only makes possible such loans where they are reasonable and necessary for good farm business and investment practice.
A valuable study group called the Ontario farmer-labour conference met at Port Elgin on June 18-19, 1960, comprising representatives of labour and farm organizations. One of the guest speakers was Hon. W. A. Good-fellow, minister of agriculture for Ontario. I was impressed by his remarks, which are set out in the report of the conference at page 35. Referring to farm production Mr. Good-fellow said:
But in spite of the fact that we have a much smaller area in production, we are producing approximately 34 per cent more than we did in 1946. From 1941-1956, the number of Ontario farms reporting motor trucks and tractors nearly tripled. The number reporting grain combines increased 20 times. At the same time 38,000 farms had ceased to operate in the province of Ontario. Those are rather revealing figures. In 1900 a farmer fed, including his own family, nine people. A farmer in the province of Ontario this year through mechanized equipment, better farm management, better productive methods, will feed approximately 36 people
This illustrates the startling change to which I have referred. An interesting study of the province of Ontario is reported in the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce commercial letter No. 2 of February, 1962. Referring to the situation of Ontario farmers the report states:
Coincident with the rising production of Ontario farmers there has been a gradual decline in the total farm acreage and in the number of farms, and a fairly marked increase in the average size of holding.
The report goes on to speak of the improvements technology has made possible and the decreased labour requirements. These factors have left a large problem. That is, how is the farmer, particularly the farmer in the east, going to survive? As a previous speaker on this side has indicated, it is not good enough for the government to assist only the farmer in the west.
The annual report for 1960 relating to the Farm Improvement Loans Act published by the Department of Finance contains some interesting figures in a table set out at page 13. The table reveals that there has been a decline in the number of people in the province of Ontario obtaining loans under this act from 12,874 in 1959 to 11,881 in 1960. The value of these loans in Ontario has declined from $19,109,964 in 1959 to $18,737,174 in 1960. In Ontario there has been a substantial drop both in the number of applications and in the amount of loans. There has been a substantial increase in the loans extended in the province of Saskatchewan, but in the national picture we find that in 1960 as compared with 1959 there has been an increase in the total amount of money lent under the act of less than
[Mr. Matheson.l
$3,500,000. It is difficult to examine those figures and have them make much sense in the light of the comments made by the hon. member for Roberval.
Recently the constituency of Leeds was honoured by a visit from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Recorder and Times of February 22, 1962 carries a report of the minister's address which indicates that he devoted his attention particularly to the problem of eastern agriculture. The article is entitled "Hees Would Help Leeds Farmers".


Paul Joseph James Martin: My goodness.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a joke.


John Ross Matheson: The article states:
A program of rehabilitation and development of now useless farm lands in Leeds county is planned by the federal government, Hon. George Hees, Minister of Trade and Commerce, told Wednesday's Progressive Conservative nomination meeting in the civic auditorium.
The minister is reported as having said:
In the county of Leeds, one of the great historic agriculture counties of Ontario, it is well known that many of our farms are abandoned because of lack of opportunity to survive in traditional agriculture.
The minister then went on to refer to the A.R.D.A. program.
It is recognized that eastern farmers must go into greater capital development as a means of survival. Many farmers are equipping themselves with milk sheds, not because they want to nor because it will increase their returns, but because they are compelled to. The dairy farmer may have to instal refrigerated storage tanks which cost approximately $2,500; otherwise a milk plant may terminate its contract. We are already beginning to experience this in Leeds county. I have received a number of complaints from my constituents indicating that they are worried lest they may have to make further capital outlays not to increase their returns but simply to maintain the minimum standards of return they are receiving today.
A highly qualified expert in dairy matters is a new Canadian by the name of Pieter C. D. Toxopeus, who recently addressed himself to the question of the amount of return the farmers in Leeds are receiving per hour. This ranged from 30 cents an hour to approximately 80 cents, which is unreasonable on the basis of any computation. Today we find there are organizations being formed such as the Protection of Eastern Canadian Agriculture Incorporated of St. Hyacinthe in which we are participating because the situation in my area has become extremely critical. We know that the dairy situation is more serious than it has ever been previously. In the case of mill feeds, we have prices skyrocketing at the end of January and yet-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I think the hon. member is now discussing eastern agriculture in a general way and is not relating his remarks at all to the resolution which has to do with the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I would therefore ask him to confine his remarks to this particular resolution and not to enter a wider field as he seems to have been doing in the last few minutes.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, I should certainly like to address myself to the key problems. We have tried to put these problems before the house and before the committee. We are concerned that the simple policy of lending more money to people who are going deeper and deeper into debt is not really getting at the heart of this problem at all.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. The hon. member will have on other occasions an opportunity to raise these matters. However, at this particular juncture we are considering a specific resolution. The limits of the discussion were touched upon and explained not very long ago. I would ask the hon. member to cooperate with the Chair so that the rules of this House of Commons may be observed.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, I shall do so. There is a Chinese proverb which says that one learns to itch where one can scratch. We are grateful for anything that will add in any small way to the possibility of declining eastern agriculture at least surviving over these very difficult years.


Mr. Danforth:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Ross Matheson: Certainly.


Harold Warren Danforth: I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Leeds giving his essay on agriculture. However, I failed to understand whether he is or is not in favour of this resolution. I wonder whether he would care to answer that question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He just said so in the last minute. He cannot give the hon. member understanding.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This debate has ranged far and wide, and I do not intend to contribute or add to your difficulties in trying to control it, Mr. Chairman. However, there are a few remarks I should like to make on this subject. The matter of farm credit is one that concerns all farmers. Being a farmer myself, this matter really concerns me. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska talked about everything. He said specifically that he could talk about farm problems for two days. However, he failed to talk for one minute on this particular measure. Whether or not that fact was owing to some problem
Farm Improvement Loans Act he had in understanding it, I do not know. However, I tried desperately to gather some of the thoughts he might have on this particular resolution and failed to do so. Possibly it was my fault; I do not know.
The hon. member for Timiskaming stated that he thought the loan maximum should be increased in amount to $10,000, complained that the government was continually bringing in measures such as this one, and expressed the opinion that it should be put on the statute books permanently so that the money would be there whether the government appropriated it or not.
This measure is similar to others which have come before the house in past years. Its purpose is to establish $400 million as the limit of guaranteed loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Previously, the limit was $300 million. Actually last year $101 million were lent under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. We are again establishing the act to take effect from 1962 until 1965. One good reason for doing this is that if loans continue to be made at the rate at which they were made last year, namely at the rate of $101 million a year, for the next three years, they would possibly exceed the $300 million limit that was established under this act. We are therefore increasing it in order to allow farmers to borrow without any halt under this act for purposes which they feel are feasible.
With regard to the $10,000 limit placed on each farmer may I say this. Actually in the west today we are seeing a trend away from heavy capitalization of equipment. I firmly believe that most western members here will agree with me on this matter. Perhaps the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska and the hon. member for Timiskaming do not realize that fact. The farmers are looking around and are buying better combines that are not self-propelled. They are buying them with power take-offs. With the advent of the power take-off being a common thing in large tractors, farmers are going back to the power take-off combine rather than the self-propelled combine. Therefore 1 think it is quite feasible for a farmer to buy a new combine and a new tractor, provided he has some down payment; and most farmers are trading in a tractor. I think it is quite feasible for him to buy under the limit to which we have increased, namely $7,500. While there are no doubt a number of farmers who would like to see the limit established at an even higher figure, may I say that those are large farmers. As has been pointed out in this debate, the average loan under the Farm Improvement Loans Act is something like $1,497 or about $1,500. The average farmer would likely be paying on three or four loans

Farm Improvement Loans Act at one time. It has been customary for the banks in western Canada particularly to lend on a three year basis amounts under $4,000. If a farmer borrows more than $4,000 on a new combine, building, repairs or a new tractor, the banks generally try to work it out over five years and so on. The number of years bear a relationship to the amount of money lent. I feel, of course, that this bill which will increase the amount will have an effect and will allow the farmers to continue to borrow money.
We had from the hon. member for Fort William a talk with regard to farm credit. However, I think his whole speech dealt with the farm credit corporation rather than with this particular Farm Improvement Loans Act. I think there is evidence under that particular piece of legislation that this government is making major strides forward in increasing loans and in increasing the money available to farmers for the purpose of establishing themselves as an economic unit. I think the interesting thing about this particular measure and the operations under it last year is that 42 per cent of the borrowers obtained money for the first time under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. To me this is a very surprising thing. I was under the impression that most farmers in western Canada have been using this particular piece of legislation for years in order to buy their machinery. However, under last year's operation 42 per cent of the borrowers used this legislation for the first time. I think this is a very encouraging thing. This is a worth-while piece of legislation and one which will enable the farmers to become more mechanized at a reasonable cost to them.
Another very encouraging thing is that more farmers borrowed money last year under the Farm Improvement Loans Act in order to purchase livestock. Here again 1 think they are moving in the right direction.
The hon. member for Leeds made a scholarly speech about agriculture. He relied on some more of his scholarly colleagues to deal with the agriculture problem. I would suggest to him that if he relied on a few more farmers in the future, he might get the facts a little bit straighter. He discussed farm prices but I do not intend to go into that matter at all. However, he quoted some figures from the dominion bureau of statistics which are as yet not up to date. He was confused about table 13 in the annual report as to why Ontario farmers had taken out fewer loans this year and Saskatchewan farmers had taken out more loans than last year, and so on. This depends to a great extent on when the machinery wears out. I do not think we should encourage farmers to take loans unless

they need new machinery. It has been a common fault of a lot of farmers over the years to borrow money and buy new combines when it was questionable whether or not they needed to do so. Without a doubt the reason why Saskatchewan farmers borrowed more money last year by taking advantage of this legislation was the fact that the cycle of use of given machines was running out.
One can go back into the history of farm machinery purchases and see that in the case of the province of Saskatchewan 1952 and 1953 were heavy years with respect to the buying of machinery. This machinery has now lasted eight or nine years. It is wearing out and the farmers are purchasing similar machinery. That is why there were more loans in Saskatchewan last year than the previous year. I think the same thing may hold true for Ontario farmers who are no doubt operating on a somewhat different cycle.
The hon. member suggested at one time that farmers were not borrowing enough. He was disappointed that in Ontario loans had gone down by approximately $1 million. However, just before ending his speech he said that we cannot lend the farmers money thus increasing their debt and expect them to get out of their troubles. The hon. member left me confused with respect to whether he was in favour of more money for the farmers or less money for the farmers.
He spoke at some length about the dairy farmers in his area needing new milk plants and suggested that this would not increase their net earnings to any great extent. Certainly it would increase the efficiency of their dairy operations and this should be their guide in deciding whether or not they will take out loans. I sincerely support the resolution because I feel it is a very necessary one, having in mind the fact that farmers are taking advantage of this legislation in increasing numbers.
(Translation):


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, the house is now considering a resolution for the introduction of a measure to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act to provide for guaranteed loans during the period July 1, 1962 to June 30, 1965, and to set at $400 million the limit of those guaranteed loans.
Under the existing act, only chartered banks are allowed to make such loans. On different occasions, when this act was under consideration in the house, and especially when it was amended in 1959 and 1960, representations were submitted to the Minister of Finance urging him to include the caisses populaires.

As the Minister of Finance knows, in most agricultural centres credit unions lend more and more to farmers of their respective areas, and in a large number of agricultural centres, there are no chartered banks where farmers could do business. Since the bank managers do not even know them, farmers cannot secure loans under this legislation.
The minister will perhaps reply that the caisses populaires come under the provinces but I should like to know just the same if he intends to include them in this resolution and, if not, I would ask him to tell the house his reason for not doing so.
(Text):


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks I should like to make on this measure at this time. It is one of those measures that have come before parliament periodically throughout the years and it has been of very great benefit to the farmers of this country. It is a type of act that has been based on co-operation between the federal government and the chartered banks and it has been a very useful measure indeed. Farmers have obtained the necessary credit for many aspects of farming at a nominal rate of interest and the banks, encouraged by the government guarantee and by the present Minister of Finance and his predecessors, have been very active in the lending field.
When the act was first placed on the statute books in 1945 the maximum loan was $3,000.


An hon. Member:: 1944.


Hazen Robert Argue: The maximum loan now is $7,500, which maximum was placed in the act some three years ago. I should like to ask the minister to indicate when he comments whether any consideration has been given to increasing the maximum guaranteed loan from $7,500 to $10,000 as has been requested by a number of farm organizations. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in their submission to the cabinet on February 7, 1962, had this to say in appendix N entitled "Farm Improvement Loans":
In view of rising prices of machinery and other farm costs, and the continuing technological advance that is increasing the capital investment in machinery and equipment needed for efficient farming, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture believes the present loan limit for farm improvement loans of $7,500 should be raised, perhaps to $10,000. The raising of the maximum loan limit only makes possible such loans where they are reasonable and necessary for good farm business and investment practice.
The main use made of the legislation has been in the purchase of farm implements, and
Farm Improvement Loans Act I think it is correct to say that machines that could be purchased for a total of $3,000 in 1945 now cost very nearly $10,000. Today's machines may be somewhat larger and more efficient, but there has been a tremendous increase in the price of farm implements and I think the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has made a reasonable and sensible request, namely that the maximum be increased from $7,500 to $10,000.
Farmers have demonstrated that they are very excellent credit risks. Under the act they have borrowed more than $1 billion up to the end of 1960, the last year for which a report is available, and the claims paid by the government have amounted to only one tenth of one per cent. This demonstrates that farmers are a very good credit risk. It also demonstrates that the banks have been prudent in making these loans, and it is an indication that this has been farsighted legislation on the part of government, legislation that is valuable and should be improved. I would hope that the minister will consider the suggestion of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Farmers are caught up in a very rapid technological revolution at the present time. The mechanization of farms is continuing at an ever accelerated rate. I think that to increase the maximum to $10,000 would merely recognize this existing fact.
I should like to ask the minister for some information if he has it, either at this stage or at a later stage, as to the number of repossessions of farm implements made under the act, the disposition of those farm implements and the personal claims on the borrowers following the disposal of these implements.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Over what period?


Hazen Robert Argue: The last three or four years would be satisfactory. I want to be quite frank with the minister. I have not had this matter brought to my attention in recent days, although a year or so ago there were a number of complaints by farmers that bankers were unduly pressing collections in the light of poor crop conditions and adverse market conditions. I would hope that a reasonable amount of discretion is being used by the bank in the collection of loans and that the repossession of farm implements takes place only as a last resort. One of the complaints of the farmers is this, that when a banker repossesses a combine, shall we say, he very often sells it rather quickly. In the opinion of the farmer the banker often does not get the full resale value of the machine and this, of course, means that the farmer who borrowed the money in the first place has to repay a larger sum.
I am not putting this forward, Mr. Chairman, as something that is a very serious,
1534	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act widespread or aggravated problem. It is a problem which crops up from time to time, and I should like any information the minister can provide on this point. Before I sit down, I should like to repeat that I feel the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is fully justified in asking for an increase in the maximum guaranteed loan.


William Arnold Peters: I was interested in the comments made by the hon. member for Acadia. I wonder if he has given consideration to the fact that money borrowed for the purpose of purchasing livestock, unless it is for breeding stock, is usually borrowed for a short period of time. I wonder if he has considered the fact that the $400 million available is to cover losses guaranteed by the government and the guarantee covers 10 per cent of the amount borrowed under this particular section.
In so far as farm machinery is concerned, the other day I inquired of a farm organization what they considered the average would be for loans under this act for the purchase of farm machinery. They were of the opinion it would be fair to say that the borrowing period would not be 10 years but would be somewhere between three and five years. Under normal circumstances, the farmer would be able to make repayment in that period of time. Obviously if a farmer were to use the loan for the purchase of livestock the period of the loan would not run to ten years but would probably be closer to three years. I would think, therefore, that the amount of money being borrowed would have very little relationship to the $400 million. In my opinion, it is not correct to say that the $400 million will be used up after three or more years because this year we will be using something over $100 million. I would suggest that, at the end of three years, most of this money will have been repaid and the banks will no longer be requesting the 10 per cent guarantee from the government. I suggest that if this is true, then the money can be used as a sort of revolving fund and the amount used would continue to average about $100 million a year.
If this is the case, perhaps the government should be asking for a larger sum of money now. When the minister replies, I think he should bear in mind what the hon. member for Acadia has said. What the hon. member has said may be true in western Canada where other factors are involved. If the loans are not repaid in the normal period of from three to five years, it may be necessary to have more money available. I know of a farmer in western Canada who has been looking for a sizeable amount of money with which to buy livestock. He has the opportunity of going into this business on a fairly large scale. His desire is to borrow the 

money for three years because, in his words, if he has not made it in three years then he will be carrying his cattle at a loss.
I would suggest that the minister give consideration to this, as well as to the other matters mentioned. I compliment the hon. member for Acadia upon his restraint in asking his own minister to meet this additional request. However, I certainly will make it on his behalf because of his modesty.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order; I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it is five o'clock. It is my duty, therefore to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private member's business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Straihcona) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-6, to incorporate Cochin Pipe Lines Ltd.
He said: Mr. Speaker, by this bill a group of Edmonton people ask parliament to incorporate them as a body for the purpose of undertaking a study and building a pipe line between the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I wish to assure the house that the owners of this company are all Edmonton residents and Canadian citizens. The pipe line company is going to be completely owned and built by Canadians, operated by Canadians, and in so far as forseeable plans are concerned it is strictly for carrying petroleum products between the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
At present the actual construction plans are not complete because in order to finalize their plans it is necessary to carry out a marketing and feasibility study. The pipe line will run roughly between the area of Hugh-enden, Alberta, and Melville, Saskatchewan, a distance of 300 or 400 miles. It will connect a couple of natural gas reservoirs, and it is intended that they should carry what are called the light ends of gas, the butane, propane-the l.p.g's in other words. The pipe line will not interfere or compete with any other existing pipe line.
The bill as it now stands is in the usual form, with the usual powers that a pipe line body seeks, including the power to export, because they feel that with the development of the uses of these types of gases and their marketing there may well come a day in the not too distant future when there may be a market in the northern part of the United States, and they would not want to come back to ask for that power if at that time it was found good business to go further.

I wish to point out to the house that before they could undertake the construction it would be necessary to have the approval of the conservation boards of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and that all this house is being asked to do is allow them to become a body which can invest the necessary moneys to carry out feasibility studies to see if they can do it, and to carry on further with their plans.
This bill will be referred to a committee and we will have the opportunity of questioning the proposed president of the company, and all technical questions will be answered at that time. I can answer a few of the questions, if any hon. member has any. I hope that the house will encourage these enterprising Canadians who are keeping Canadian money at home and putting it to work on Canadian products, which I think will greatly benefit our part of the country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton) asking leave to move second reading of this bill for the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) ?


Mr. Morton:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that this is at the request of the hon. member for Parkdale?


Murray Douglas Morton: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house consent to the hon. member for Davenport moving second reading of this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Murray Douglas Morton: the second reading of Bill No. S-7, respecting Muttart Development Corporation Ltd.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to convert Muttart Development Corporation Ltd., which was incorporated by letters patent issued by the Secretary of State for Canada dated August 21, 1958, into a loan company so that it will have all the powers, privileges and immunities conferred by and be subject to all the limitations, liabilities and provisions of the Loan Companies Act. The name of the company is to be changed to Muttart Mortgage Corporation.
There is also a provision in the bill to increase the capital stock to $6 million; it is now $2 million. There is also a provision to convert the 2 million shares with a par value of $1 to 200,000 shares with a par value of $10. This is brought about because of an amendment last year to the Loan Companies 26207-1-98
Private Bills
Act which restricted the objects of the company as it stood. As a result of that amendment and in order that it may continue the purpose for which it was originally incorporated, it must now be brought under the Loan Companies Act.


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

Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) is asking leave to move second reading of this bill on behalf of the hon. member in whose name it stands, with his consent. Is it agreed that the hon. member may move the motion on behalf of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Asselin (for Mr. Lafreniere) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-8, respecting Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
(Translation):


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this bill is to change the French name of the company from Compagnie canadienne d'assurance sur la vie dite du Soleil, to Sun Life du Canada, compagnie d'assurance-vie.
As may be seen in the bill's preamble, such change in name shall not in any way impair, alter or affect the rights or liabilities of the company, nor in any way affect any suit or proceeding now pending, or judgment existing, either by, or in favour of, or against the company, which, notwithstanding such change in the name of the company, may be prosecuted, continued, completed and enforced. (Text):


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


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-17, to amend the House of Commons Act (internal economy autonomy).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I mean nothing disrespectful to Your Honour by this, but I think it is a fact that, contrary to common

Private Bills
opinion and common understanding, you are not a free agent in the discharge of your duties and responsibilities, to the extent that you have along with you in the exercise of some of your duties a number of ministers of the crown who participate with you in coming to some decisions.
The house and its environs are supposed to be under your authority Mr. Speaker, but I submit that by virtue of the House of Commons Act which this bill seeks to amend, such an understanding is, in reality, a Action because there is working with you in connection with some matters a group called the commissioners of internal economy sometimes referred to facetiously as being the commissioners of infernal economy-yourself excluded from that facetious reference. Section 18 of the House of Commons Act provides the following:
All sums of money voted by parliament upon such estimates or payable to members of the House of Commons under the Senate and House of Commons Act, are subject to the order of the commissioners, or any three of them of whom the Speaker shall be one.
We see from this that even after parliament approves the estimates of expenditure with regard to certain matters which come under your jurisdiction, the money voted is still subject to cabinet interference and influence as to the manner in which those funds are to be expended.
As was transmitted to the house by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on opening day, the commissioners of internal economy are the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Veterans Affairs who is also the leader of the house, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I say that in effect this allows for cabinet dictatorship and cabinet control over certain functions of the House of Commons and certain activities of ours. I say this is not compatible with our sense of democracy and is not compatible with our desire to have a Speaker free and unfettered by cabinet dictation.
The background to the establishment of the commissioners of internal economy is referred to briefly in the Audit Office Guide put out by the office of the Auditor General. On page 95 of that publication for 1958, reference no. 347, the following appears:
Unlike the case in the Senate, the Speaker is elected by the House of Commons and has financial responsibilities before and after the grant of supply, because sections 16 and 18 of the House of Commons Act provide that-
Then the text goes on to recite sections 16 and 18. I shall go on to quote the reference in the Audit Office Guide, which reads as follows:
By way of explanation of the origin of the requirement in section 16 that the commissioners be members of the privy council: At the time of confederation sessions were relatively short and transportation facilities restricted, therefore it was felt desirable that the members of the board of internal economy should live close to Ottawa. A risk was that this might place the members of parliament in the Ottawa area in a preferred position; moreover, they had a special interest in appointments. The solution was to select ministers of departments who represented different parts of Canada but necessarily spent most of their time in Ottawa.
The indication, therefore, is that this board or group of commissioners came into being to meet a particular set of circumstances prevailing at that time in order to provide for the more expeditious despatch of this sort of business. I submit that those circumstances no longer exist and that we should move away from a situation where the internal affairs of this house are being run by a minister of the crown, usually the Minister of Finance, to a situation where the house has control of its own activities.
The bill in this regard seeks, therefore, to repeal section 16 of the House of Commons Act which provides-I shall not read it in detail-that the governor in council shall appoint four privy councillors who, along with yourself, Mr. Speaker, would be members of a commission for certain purposes. The bill before us also provides for the repeal of section 18 which sets up these commissioners who may approve or disapprove of the expenditure of certain sums of money. By repealing these two sections we leave the way open for the House of Commons, without interference either from the Senate or from His Excellency the Governor General, to establish standing orders to deal with this matter, because it is purely a matter with which we as members are concerned.
I think that in our consideration of what standing orders should apply to such a commission as the one over which you now preside-and I still think that one should exist- we should take into account the necessity of having, certainly, yourself as a member of that commission. It should be representative of all the parties which might happen to be in the house and, as well, of the government itself as an element distinct from parties. Naturally, I think that Mr. Speaker should, without question, continue to be chairman of this commission and that the others would work with him and advise him on certain matters. I think the Leader of the Opposition, by virtue of his office, or his deputy, should be a member of the commission also, as well as the house leaders of other parties which may be represented from time to time in the house. I think the Minister of Finance or his parliamentary secretary should likewise be

a member of the commission because there is a certain financial interest here involving the preparation of estimates. I think the Minister of Public Works or his parliamentary secretary should be a member of this board because there are certain activities affecting the area around the House of Commons and in the house itself which come under the jurisdiction of that minister. In addition, I think there should be a number of other members, perhaps five or six, who would be selected on the basis of their experience in the house.
This commission, which would be established by our standing orders and thus become directly an arm of the house itself should, I think, be set up afresh with each parliament and continue in effect for the duration of that particular parliament. I think the commission could continue to perform some of the functions carried out by the present commissioners of internal economy with respect to staff and so on. Certainly it would advise Mr. Speaker on such questions as the preparation of the estimates, the location of accommodation, office supplies and the like, including the provision of office equipment and secretarial services to members-all those things which may be considered necessary to allow a member of parliament to discharge his functions and responsibilities in the most effective manner.


Mr. McGee:: Would the hon. member permit a question? He referred to the preparation of estimates. I wonder if he would elaborate and tell us just what he means.


Frank Howard: Yes. I had in mind that the commission could advise Mr. Speaker in the preparation of estimates.


Frank Charles McGee: Would the hon. gentleman permit another question. Is the hon. gentleman in his proposal suggesting that we take away from the Minister of Finance control over the ways and means and put this control in the hands of the parliamentary group referred to by the hon. gentleman?


Frank Howard: Control over the expenditure of public funds is in the hands of parliament and will remain there by the consideration and passage of the estimates and the authorization to spend certain sums based on the estimates. It is a question of making sure that the expenditure of the money is not subject to interference and that the operation of the house comes under the control of the Speaker. Once parliament authorizes expenditures for salaries of employees of the public service those funds are paid to civil servants on a 26207-1-981
Private Bills
monthly basis. There is no question of derogation of responsibility. It remains the responsibility of parliament to pass on the expenditures. It is merely a question of taking into account all the factors that should be considered in preparing estimates for the coming year. The house will be the main element concerned. Each department prepares its estimates and pares them down to the bare minimum expected to be spent in the coming year.
The commission should continue to make an annual report to parliament concerning what is going on. Wages, hours and working conditions should be reported on to ensure that the staff of the House of Commons does not suffer through being underpaid or not having a channel through which to air their grievances.
I hope that no one will interpret my remarks as being disrespectful of Mr. Speaker or Your Honour's office. This merely represents an attempt to bring these provisions relating to the operation of the house up to date to ensure that Mr. Speaker will remain free and unfettered from cabinet dictation, as I said earlier, with respect to the operation of the house, this chamber and the buildings. I seek to assure that the operation will be within the control of parliament and not something the cabinet runs to suit itself.
I will close by quoting from a reprint of an article by Professor J. R. Mallory of McGill University which appeared in the February 1, 1957 issue of the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science. Professor Mallory writes:
Cabinet government and the modern party system have placed the executive in a position of effective mastery over the House of Commons. When it is pushed to its extreme limits the ascendency of the cabinet goes somewhat against the grain of the constitution, so that certain transparent fictions must be solemnly perpetuated in constitutional doctrine. One of these is the doctrine that the House of Commons is master of its own procedure- a notion which in practice does not disturb the peace of mind of the government or its party whips. Another polite and harmless fiction surrounds the appropriation of funds for the internal administration of the House of Commons.
I am eager to ensure that there is a lessening of cabinet control over certain of the activities of the House of Commons.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member who introduced this bill is under a misapprehension with regard to the operation and function of the committee on internal economy. Throughout the course of his remarks he iterated and reiterated that there was cabinet interference, cabinet domination and cabinet control of this committee. Actually, the members of the committee act as

Private Bills
an advisory council to Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker in due course reports to parliament as to the action taken by the committee on internal economy during the course of the year. That report is subject to scrutiny by the House of Commons and is subject to debate thereon. Questions may be asked of Mr. Speaker with regard to the activities of the committee during the course of the consideration of the estimates of Mr. Speaker when they are before the House of Commons, so that there is nothing concealed with regard to the activities of the committee. Energetic and active members of the House of Commons who wish to do so can read the reports of that committee and question Mr. Speaker when his estimates are before the house. There is no cabinet domination or interference with the activities of Mr. Speaker in this regard.
The hon. member suggests we should bring the situation up to date. Actually what he is suggesting is that we turn back the clock approximately 95 years because it was in 1878 that the committee on internal economy, as we know it, was set up. It succeeded an earlier committee which was called the committee on contingencies. That committee which normally consisted of 21 members functioned during the time when the legislative assemblies were active in the governmental life of our country prior to confederation. The committee was appointed after confederation and dealt with problems concerning the House of Commons. In 1868 the prime minister of the day, Sir John A. Macdonald, introduced a bill based on British precedents to establish the committee on internal economy. It has functioned from that day to this without, to my knowledge, any suggestion that it has not been a competent and responsible body, responsible to the House of Commons.
I am at a loss to know why the hon. member has seized upon this opportunity of bringing to the house this particular aspect of the statutes. I do not know whether or not the hon. member was inspired to do so simply on the basis of a magazine article by Professor Mallory. The portion the hon. gentleman quoted seemed to me not to be conclusive evidence that a change should be made. In fact, as I followed his discourse I could not find any argument in favour of change except the unfounded allegation as indicated in some of the words he used that there is undue cabinet influence and interference with the spending of the money voted.
The hon. gentleman said he wished to make Mr. Speaker free and unfettered from cabinet dictation. This, too is an unfounded allegation. There is no evidence to support a statement of that nature. If it were true it would

logically follow that every speaker from 1878 to the present day has been unfree and fettered by cabinet dictation. It is a rather strange thing that in 1962 the hon. member for Skeena whose experience in the House of Commons is relatively limited should fancy that he suddenly discovers that something has been wrong for well over eighty years. The hon. gentleman is now riding off in all directions in an attempt to correct something which he thinks is wrong. I think he should examine the history of this committee, lay the facts before the house and support his allegations with evidence before he comes here to give information which is, to say the least, a bit misleading, and to launch an accusation against members of the government who happen to be on the committee on internal economy, charging them with undue influence with regard to the Speaker. As a matter of fact, I thought the hon. member was quite out of order in making accusations of that sort with regard to members of the house who are on that committee. However, I did not rise on a point of order as I realized that I would have an opportunity to speak, as has happened.
If the hon. member would look back at the Journals of 1867-68, he will find that a committee was appointed in that year. As I have said, there were 21 members. I have not had time to check and ascertain whether they were representative of all parties in the house. However, perhaps they may have been of that character.
The hon. member throws out the suggestion that all parties of the house should be represented on this committee to advise the Speaker and that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) or his deputy-I do not know whether he has a deputy now unless it is the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue)-should be a member of that committee; and for some reason or another he would be prepared to give the Leader of the Opposition a prominent position there. Then he suggests that house leaders of other parties represented here in the House of Commons should be on that committee. For what purpose? Every member who has some difficulty or complaint with regard to the internal management of the House of Commons is perfectly free to go to Mr. Speaker and to suggest to him that some changes should be made. I am quite certain that over the years that has been the practice of the House of Commons. I well remember that when I was sitting in the opposition I often called upon the Speaker of that day in order to suggest certain changes in the general operation of the House of Commons, with regard to the matter of supplies and things of that nature. At the present time there is

no particular reason to judge that the same opportunity is not available to every member of the present House of Commons with the present Speaker. Alternatively, members could draw to the attention of the named members of the committee on internal economy suggestions, if they have them, for improvements in management.
I have not had time in which to discover why, in 1878, the prime minister of the day thought it wise to change from the method of a large committee to a statutory body, namely the committee on internal economy. The librarians have been working hard to find that information but it has not yet come to light. However, there must have been some good reason for making the shift. It may be because of the financial obligation that is imposed on the Speaker. In Bourinot, the fourth edition, at page 197, I notice that the learned author of that work states the following:
The commissioners of internal economy of the House of Commons is a statutory body having definite powers and responsibilities with reference to the expenditures of that body. Formerly, certain expenses of the legislative assembly of Canada were regulated by a committee of contingencies. appointed at the opening of each session. On its report the salaries and other contingent expenses were provided for. The committee was re-appointed in 1867-8, and made several reports, which were acted upon, but during the same session, the premier (Sir John Macdonald) brought in a bill respecting the internal economy of the House of Commons, which was unanimously passed.
I draw the attention of the house to that quotation. The house of that day had lengthy experience with the committee on contingencies and members of the House of Commons of that period who had formerly served in the assemblies of Upper Canada, Lower Canada and the other provinces had similar experience. Yet when Sir John brought in his bill setting up the committee as we know it now, the house unanimously passed that measure. I therefore suggest the implication is that the house found the committee on contingencies was not a suitable method of dealing with problems affecting the members and the organization of the business of the house and thought it would be better done by having a statutory body appointed.
Mr. Bourinot on the following page goes on to indicate some of the work of that committee and he ends one of his paragraphs with this sentence:
The commissioners regulate with the Speaker all salaries not fixed by statute and all expenses of the house-in fact assist the Speaker as an advisory council with respect to the staff of the house.
Then he goes on to state that provision was made for an audit of the accounts and
Private Bills
that the Auditor General in his annual report would give the fullest information with respect to the expenditure of the two houses.
Why should we make a change at this time? If the hon. member wishes to have a change made and wishes to go back to an outdated system, I suggest that he must put forward much more valid arguments than those he has adduced this afternoon. I reject entirely the accusation that there is interference with the Speaker or that there is cabinet domination. I reject his accusation that the cabinet steps in and takes action to suit itself, again using some of his words. This is an atrocious accusation against members of the cabinet. The article which he quoted from the Audit Office Guide of 1958, gave an explanation of the Auditor General of that period as to why the commissioners were appointed by the privy council. I do not know where the Auditor General of that day obtained his information. However, it has been reprinted in the explanatory section of the bill. Apparently the suggestion made there is that instead of just appointing members who were living close to Ottawa because of transportation difficulties of 100 years ago, it would give better representation countrywide to appoint to the committee members from the cabinet who would be living in Ottawa anyway but who would be representing other parts of the country. So it was not in order to ensure or make any provision for so-called cabinet domination, but merely to make the committee widely representative of the various areas of Canada that members of the privy council were appointed to the committee. There was no plot in those days and there is none at the present time to bring about domination by members of the cabinet. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that members of the cabinet are also members of the House of Commons and should be entitled to the same consideration as other members of this august body.
It is interesting to read the report of the committee that was set up in 1867 and 1868. I judge this was the last time that the committee of contingencies operated prior to the bringing in of the bill of Sir John A. Macdonald. The House of Commons dealt with 17 resolutions which were put forward in the third report of the committee of contingencies. It is interesting to note that they were concerned with matters of financial economy to be observed in the House of Commons. They dealt with the number of translators and the number of extra clerks that should be employed. They considered such things as the reception and distribution of the printed bills and other documents. They dealt with the subject of the post office and its management. They suggested

Private Bills
that no clerk be stationed in the reading room, that there should be but two messengers and one labourer in the joint department on routine and printing, that there be but one messenger in the library and that no messenger be attached to the office of the Speaker's secretary or to that of the assistant clerk of the house.
They set the salaries of various people employed by the House of Commons. They suggested that the nine pages, which was the number they had working in those days, should receive $1.50 per day during the session. They suggested that the salaries of the two night watchmen be fixed at $400 per annum, that the stationery supplied to each member of the house should not exceed in cost the sum of $15 for each session and should be delivered in a box on the first day of each session, and that no more be issued. They were dealing with matters of internal management with regard to the House of Commons.
I suggest that those matters are being dealt with effectively and efficiently at the present time through the committee on internal economy under the able chairmanship of the Speaker with the assistance of his very able staff, and that the House of Commons has full opportunity during the course of a session to examine into the activities of that committee and to question the Speaker when his estimates are before the house with regard to how his duties have been carried out. It follows from that that there is no concealment in this committee, no pressure applied by members of the committee who happen to be members of the privy council, and that the Speaker is completely free and unfettered in the performance of his duties.


Frank Howard: I wonder whether the minister would permit a question before he resumes his seat. Inasmuch as the minister is not only Minister of Veterans Affairs but house leader, as well as being a member of the committee to which we are referring, would it be fair to classify his speech as a vested interest type speech?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have heard some foolish questions in my day but that ranks high on the list.


Frank Howard: Just as foolish as your argument.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: It would be a case of vested interest if you got on the committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief remarks on this rather intriguing bill. The explanatory notes state that the purpose of the bill is to abolish statutory rule by members of

the Queen's privy council over the internal economy of this house, the reasons for such rule no longer having validity, and thus permit the Speaker and members chosen by the house to govern the affairs of the commons.
I must say before proceeding with my remarks that the minister did not deny that the purpose of the bill is properly stated in the explanatory notes. The purpose of the bill is to assist Mr. Speaker and members. It is quite obvious to one who has knowledge of the management of the internal affairs of this house that Your Honour reigns but does not govern in all respects, and the purpose of the bill is to assist Mr. Speaker to govern with the assistance of members of this house, to introduce a greater spirit of democracy, shall I say, in the administration.
I thought that the minister was rather sharp with the hon. member for Skeena. He will admit that the member has provoked discussion on a somewhat obscure and complicated question. Practically the whole of the minister's reply to the arguments of the member for Skeena was a defence of the status quo. He showed a rigidity and inflexibility of mind that is so common among persons of Tory mentality. He did not even suggest to the member for Skeena that there was something in what he had said and that the matter should be looked into because the subject warranted investigation. I think that would have been a much more progressive approach on the part of the minister. I trust that he really and finally has been influenced by the arguments of the member for Skeena and will change his mind. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, good precedents for his doing so have recently been established in the house in that the minister has been influenced by arguments put before the house by members of this group and has changed his mind. I do hope he will return to that former flexibility and give this matter further consideration.
I thought that the minister rather censured the member for Skeena somewhat unduly. This is a most complicated and obscure question and the member for Skeena demonstrated absolutely his fitness to be placed in the shadow cabinet which we hope to form in the very near future. On page 32 of the publication, Organization of the Government of Canada, I read the following:
In the House of Commons, when the language of the Speaker is English, the language of the chairman of committees, who also acts as Deputy Speaker, is French. In addition to presiding at aE meetings of the house, the Speaker enforces the observance of its rules, maintains its rights and privileges and acts as the official spokesman of the house as occasion may require.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that you do that to the great satisfaction of all of us.
He is also responsible to the house for the management of its internal affairs and the operation of its branches and services.
That is not quite an accurate description of the circumstances that prevail at the present time with respect to Mr. Speaker, and the purpose of the bill is to make that statement a matter of fact so far as the management of the affairs of the house is concerned. I must compliment the member for Skeena on his exposition of a somewhat abstruse and to the public, I am sure, mysterious administrative problem concerning the management of the affairs of this house. It is not a subject that would be easily understood outside the house and I think there is too little knowledge among members within the house. Although there has been a very unsympathetic approach on the part of members of the government party, I trust that this discussion will cause members to do some reading and find out the exact circumstances that prevail at the .present time.
However, he has provided an opportunity for members to discuss the improvement of what I consider, in some respects, to be our out of date way of doing things, our out of date system of internal management. What the hon. member is aiming to do is to improve the management of this house so that there will be greater satisfaction amongst members with respect to offices, secretaries and things of that sort. Mr. Speaker does the very best he can for us under the present circumstances, but there is a sort of limiting hand behind the scenes when it comes to finances, staff and so on. This method would improve the control of expenditures and the application of those expenditures. It would improve the circumstances of the staff and give them a sense of security to which they are entitled and which does not prevail at the present time because of this hidden hand behind the scenes. I am not suggesting for a moment that these gentlemen do not perform their duties to the best of their ability, but under present circumstances we have a variety of pre-Victorian management which is out of date.
I am sure that even the discussion of this problem will inform members, and the passage of this bill provide greater satisfaction to members in the performance of their duties, establish fair rules for the staff and introduce improvements and efficiency in the management of the internal affairs of the House of Commons. In saying that, I am not reflecting upon any person. The hon. member for Skeena is seeking to improve a system which we believe, in some respects, has become somewhat outdated.
Private Bills


Frank Charles McGee: must admit to some surprise that the question of principle involved in this bill is urged by a private member of the particular group to which the hon. member for Skeena belongs. Implied in the whole suggestion is the fact that presumably the hon. member's group is being hard done by in terms of facilities in this house. In other words, there is something that they have not got now which they want. I would ask any member of this house to examine historical records to see if he can find anywhere in the history of our parliament a like situation where eight members representing a rather twisted political persuasion, have had such lavish facilities made available to them. As an example of these facilities, I cite the number of secretaries in the leader's office, a special messenger, and each member with an individual secretary. Surely, the position of the private member, particularly within that group, is better than it ever has been in Canada's history.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Because of their increasing burdens.


Frank Charles McGee: As I said, I am astonished that these suggestions should come from that particular corner of the house. Presumably the hon. member would like to return to the days of the pork barrel when the members of the committee for contingencies exercised influence over the hiring, firing and other aspects of patronage. I can assure the hon. member that with the current examples of C.C.F. patronage in the province of Saskatchewan, we have no wish whatever to return to those days.
There is another question here, and this bill provides me with an opportunity of making a comment which I have not had the opportunity of getting on the record for some time. It pertains to the position of the Speaker, himself. Certainly, in this debate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; before the hon. member goes too far in referring to the position of the Speaker, I think he should be warned that he may be out of order.


Frank Charles McGee: Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is not out of order to suggest that the limitations upon the Speaker are particularly binding at this moment. You, sir, are prevented from answering the implied allegations that you have been knuckling under from some pressure from the cabinet. As the house leader mentioned, this suggestion is implicit in the bill which is before us. Domination implies that the cabinet is dominating somebody, and the only other person who could be dominated in this situation is the Speaker.


William Arnold Peters: They are sure dominating you.

Private Bills


Frank Charles McGee: I had hoped that the hon. member might have put forward some suggestions as to the individual items which he felt should be brought into effect, that he might have brought forward specific grievances. As I said in the beginning, the position of a private member in this parliament has improved tremendously since 1957. Obviously the physical facilities have been expanded and extended. The whole of the west block operation testifies to the willingness and encouragement of the Speaker and other members of the committee concerned with the role of the private member, in improving the facilities. I would be tempted, Mr. Speaker, if time permitted, to go beyond this bill and discuss the increased role of the private member, to say something about the opportunities for participation in parliament by the private member as a result of the recent changes in our procedures. Clearly, the limitation of time prevents this.
Perhaps I might come back to the point that I am surprised that this suggested restriction on private members should come from that corner. In the first 50 minutes of this debate during private members' hour, we heard from two N.D.P. members and we heard from only one other group in the house. The thundering silence from the Liberal benches is perhaps understandable and most easily explained by the fact that they did not have any contribution to make to this debate.
May I call it six o'clock.



WATERLOO SOUTH-NICOLET-YAMASKA- ANNOUNCEMENT OF DATE OF BY-ELECTIONS

John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the leave of the house to revert to motions?


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister asks the leave of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of making an announcement. Has the Prime Minister leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to announce that by order in council, by-elections will be held to fill the vacancies in the federal constituencies of Waterloo South and Nicolet-Yamaska on September 10. There will be one vacancy in the House of Commons, the Mackenzie River constituency. The hon. member for Yukon has introduced a bill which has passed this house but has not yet received the attention of the other place, under which the name of the constituency would be changed to "Northwest Territories" and the area increased in size. No reference has been made
[Mr. Peters !
to that vacancy, nor will there be until the bill finally receives the attention of the other place. If it becomes law, then an announcement will be made at that time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On
behalf of the absent front bench members of the official opposition and our group, I thank the Prime Minister for making this announcement at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the hon. gentleman, who has recently become a leader and whose leadership seems to have gone a little to his head, and say that it is unfortunate that these constituencies are going to go unrepresented for the whole of this session.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the hon. gentleman that it was once said, "Physician heal thyself", and if he will look at the record of the government of which he was a member, he will have an answer to his own problem.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, but we were going to have the rights of parliament restored.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Fleming (Eglinton)-Mr. Martineau in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act to provide for the making of guaranteed loans during the period July 1, 1962 to June 30, 1965, and to establish $400 million as the limit of guaranteed loans that may be made during the new loan period.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the resolution carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I assume the minister intends to reply to my hon. friend from Welland, to my hon. friend from Assiniboia and to my hon. friend from Gloucester who raised an important question about credit unions.


Mr. Milligan:: I should like to make a few remarks in connection with this amendment to the Farm Improvement Loans Act based



B, 1962

[Stage Direction]
on some of the experience I have had in assisting farmers in my area to obtain loans under this measure.
I am very much in agreement with those who have spoken about the importance of this measure. Indeed, it is becoming difficult for those engaged in agriculture to obtain credit, when they need it, from any other source. I do know of some people in my own area who have attempted unsuccessfully to obtain assistance. Finally, they had to borrow from individuals at the rate of 10 per cent plus a bonus before they could get a loan. There is no doubt that the act has been very helpful to a great many people.
However, I have some reservations about increasing the amount available for these loans from time to time. I think that at some point we must take a realistic look at where we are heading. I noticed in tonight's Citizen an article suggesting that there might be two new provinces in northern Canada and that the possibilities for agriculture in those areas were terrific. It seems we have a lot of people who are doing research directed towards increasing production without a corresponding effort being made to find markets to dispose of the products we have on hand at the present time. I think this aspect is important.
I do know it has been the policy of the farm loans board to suggest for example, that a certain farmer with, say, 20 dairy cows should have 35 cows. To my mind that is not the right approach, because we are encouraging farmers to increase dairy production at a time when we are faced with a surplus of dairy products. Again, we should not encourage western farmers to buy more machinery so as to produce more wheat when we do not have a market for all the wheat we are producing at the present time. The same remarks apply to producers of sugar beets and to a great many others. It seems to me there should be some way of controlling the amount of loans going to those who are producing today just about what the market demands. In my experience it is not hard for a farmer, especially if he is doing well, to go to a bank and receive favourable consideration of an application for a loan under this measure. On the other hand, a small farmer, or a farmer who is really pressed and in need of assistance, would find it difficult to get such a loan through a bank.
There is another aspect which concerns me. I believe that when a farmer applies for a loan to buy cattle the bankers interpret the loan as being made in respect of purebred cattle. I know of one person in my area who paid between $450 and $500 apiece for cows, though he was selling his milk to a manufacturing plant. It seems to me that purebred herds may have their advantages but
Farm Improvement Loans Act that we are certainly placing many of these farmers in a position where they are going to find it difficult to repay their loans. These people would be in a better position, it seems to me, if they were allowed to buy good quality dairy cattle and were not confined to purebred stock. I have talked with three bankers in my town in connection with this situation and they tell me that this practice is followed for the purpose of identifying the cattle; were it not for the registration number they would have no way of identifying these cattle. That seems ridiculous to me, because when they make a loan they know how many cows that farmer should have, and the farmer is bound to maintain his herd at a certain level.
Although I am in favour of seeing these loans increased, I think there should be some changes made in the regulations so that a farmer should not be able to borrow to increase his herd or buy more machinery merely to produce something which is already in surplus. I feel this is what is happening in some cases under the provisions of the act. It seems to me that our officials, when approving loans, should be encouraging farmers to get into lines which are not already overproduced-something that they can market. I am afraid that if we continue the present policy we shall find ourselves in the future in a more difficult position than we are at the present time.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank hon. members for the support they have expressed for this resolution. I shall try to deal with several points which were raised by hon. members who sought information.
First of all, one hon. member asked why the act is being extended for a three year period. That has been the history of this legislation since it was introduced in 1945. As I understand it the purpose has been to retain parliamentary control so that parliament would have the opportunity of reviewing the legislation once every three years.
There is a substantial amount of money placed by way of guarantee at the disposal of this legislation. The view has commended itself to parliament that on this account as well as for other reasons that form of control should be retained in the form of a limited life to the legislation.
Second, I was asked by the hon. member for Gloucester in regard to the position of credit unions and caisses populaires. We had an extended debate on this subject in 1960 and there has been no change in the position since that time.
Reference was made to the limit on the individual loan. May I remind hon. members that the original amount of an individual loan under this legislation was $3,000. That
1544	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act was increased to $4,000 in 1953, to $5,000 in 1956 and to $7,500 in 1959. That last increase was, of course, the largest increase to date. It was an increase of 50 per cent in the previous total and I think under present conditions it can be regarded as reasonably adequate. Conditions, of course, could change and one recognizes that both with respect to equipment and to other investment in agriculture, today the stress is on an increase in investment.
The hon. member for Assiniboia asked me for certain information of a statistical nature in relation to the experience with repossession of machinery. I am told on inquiry that that information is not at present available. Whether or not it could be made available, I do not know. It will take some considerable time. I shall make inquiries in that regard. I cannot say that that information could be made available before this legislation has passed through its various stages. I can tell the hon. member, however, that the administration of this legislation so far as the Department of Finance is concerned has been thorough and systematic as well as sympathetic.
In the calendar year 1961 the total of loans made was 70,615. The number of claims made in respect of the guarantee given under the legislation was only 232. In the calendar year 1960 the number of loans was 68,041 and the number of claims was only 209, so the experience of administration of this legislation is in keeping with what I said last night concerning the record of losses. It is an enviable record. I think it points to the sound policies that have been followed in relation to lending under this act as well as to the sturdy reliability of the Canadian farmer.
Finally, the hon. member for Welland asked me about the position of fire insurance on farm equipment. It is quite obvious to hon. members that no bank manager is going to make a loan on farm machinery unless he has reasonable fire insurance on the particular equipment. The hon. member said he knew of several cases where there had been loss by fire and where evidently there had not been insurance. In that case I must express my surprise. I can only surmise that there has been some slip up on the part of the bank or on the part of the borrower in that case. Perhaps there was fire insurance on the equipment at the time the loan was placed. It may have lapsed later or for some reason or other may have become invalid. It would be sheer speculation or surmise to attempt to account for it. Sound banking practice will dictate on the part of the bank


manager firm insistence on having fire insurance placed on equipment which is the subject of a loan under this legislation.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-73, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


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


Hazen Robert Argue: Next sitting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting, agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act to extend the period during which guaranteed loans may be made to the 30th day of June, 1965.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Martineau in the chair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this resolution, as I am sure hon. members are aware, is a kindred resolution to the one which has just been passed. This one relates to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act as the former one did to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to extend operations under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act for a further period of three years by establishing a new lending period to run from July 1, 1962 to June 30, 1965.
This legislation offers to fishermen credit facilities similar to those provided under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Thus, it will be sufficient, I think, to recall at this time some of the main features of the act. The essential purpose of the legislation is to facilitate the provision of term loans to fishermen. To this end, credit is made available to finance a broad range of investment projects including the purchase, construction or improvement of fishing vessels, fishing equipment and shore installations. The maximum amount that may be borrowed by a fisherman is $4,000 and repayment of the loan may take place over a period as long as eight years. Under the provisions of the act, the government undertakes to reimburse individual lending institutions for losses of up to 15 per cent of loans aggregating $500,000. A guarantee of

10 per cent is applicable in respect to loan funds exceeding $500,000. There is an over-all limit on the total amount of guaranteed loans which may be made by all lending institutions and this has been set at $20 million.
This legislation was enacted by parliament in 1955 and was made effective for a period of three years. In 1959, an amendment was passed which extended the period during which guaranteed loans might be made from December 12, 1958, to June 30, 1962. The amendment which is now proposed will establish the third lending period since the inception of the act. In this brief review of the history of the legislation, I might also point out that another amendment was enacted in 1959 which extended the definition of a fisherman to include a person who intends to acquire an interest in a fishing vessel, as well as a person who already has an interest in one.
In recent years a fairly stable although modest amount of lending has taken place under this legislation.
From the inception of the act in 1955 to December, 1961, a total of 981 loans was made amounting to $1,237,328. Of this total, $813,717 was repaid and currently an amount of $423,611 is outstanding. The most recent annual report on operations under the act shows that during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1961, an amount slightly in excess of $217,000 was lent to fishermen, comprising 142 individual loans. During the succeeding nine month period to December 31, 1961, a total of 127 loans was made amounting to $187,454.
In summary, the proposed amendment is simple and brief. It will extend the period during which guaranteed loans may be made and, as a result, fishermen will continue to have available intermediate term credit facilities for borrowing, on reasonable terms and conditions, to meet their capital needs. I believe that this measure, together with other action taken by the government, will enable fishermen to take advantage of more efficient methods of operation and will help to ensure the sound development of this important primary industry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising to express disappointment at the resolution. The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, as the minister correctly pointed out, was enacted by the previous government in the year 1955 in an attempt to meet a part of the credit needs of the fishing industry. The minister is right in using the term "modest" to describe the results under the act, notwithstanding the fact that, unlike the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act recognized credit unions and caisses populaires as well as the chartered banks. I may say
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act parenthetically that it is hard to understand why that should be so in the one case and not in the other, except that one was done by a Liberal government and every opportunity to do the other has been turned down by a Tory government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, no, that is ridiculous.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister can speak when I have finished.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would ask that the minister take his seat. I have the floor.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member denies or refuses a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is trying his favourite trick of trying to rise and make a speech when another member is speaking and it is not going to work.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was asking
whether I could ask a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister can ask his question when I have concluded my remarks. We have all evening before us on this measure. I suggest to the minister that, if he does not wish to take all evening, he sit patiently and listen instead of interrupting. I shall be very happy to answer all his questions when I have concluded my remarks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do not make misstatements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am recommending to the minister that we need not take much time over this legislation and that if he would show a little bit of courtesy to the house he would get this legislation through a great deal faster. I may say that I do not expect my advice to be taken. The minister is above advice.


Mr. McGrath:: Keep on the subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for St. John's East says "Keep on the subject". May I say that I was on the subject when I was rudely interrupted by the Minister of Finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a question of privilege. I did not interrupt the hon. member. I followed the practice of the house. I rose and asked him whether I might ask him a question. There was no rudeness on my part. The house can judge whether or not there was any rudeness on his part.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope the minister is happy now that he has stated his question of privilege. I suppose I might get two sentences out before he rises on a point of order.

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act It will be interesting to see whether or not I do so. Then perhaps I might get a couple more sentences out before he says that what I am saying is a "blatant lie", a favourite phrase of the minister which is used almost every time he speaks outside of the house and of which I have many examples right here, if the hon. gentleman wishes them put on the record.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you say something?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I was saying, if the minister would show the house just a little bit of courtesy and exercise just a little bit of patience, I do not think it would take very long to deal with this measure. However, if the minister wishes to behave in his usual fashion I think it will probably take the usual time. He may have his choice.
If I may now come back to this measure, Mr. Chairman, I may say that the legislation which we are now seeking not to amend but merely to extend was put on the statute books by a Liberal government. Though it has done some good, the minister was quite right in saying that the results have been very modest in comparison with those under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I suppose it would be easy and demagogic to blame the chartered banks, but I do not do so. It is quite obvious that there are difficulties about getting, in the case of loans to fishermen, the same kind of security as that which can be secured in the case of loans to farmers. After all, the farms are there whether or not the farmer is there. However, if the fisherman himself is not there, there is not much to be secured except boats and gear which themselves, of course, are rather perishable as we know all too well. The inherent difficulties are very much greater. But just because the inherent difficulties are very much greater it seems to me that in this industry, the oldest and the most historic industry of our country-an industry older even than the fur trade-ought to be receiving even more sympathetic consideration than any other industry in the country. As everyone knows, we have on our coasts the greatest fishery in the world which is being prosecuted successfully by the fleets of almost every European nation, and even those of some nations beyond Europe who come thousands of miles across the seas to prosecute the fishery, and who seem to be able to do so successfully when our own fishing industry is steadily declining.
As I say, we had hoped that in this field of credit-and I do not intend to go beyond that field; I assure the minister that I have plenty to say that is relevant without going into any irrelevant field-we hoped this government might do something, particularly in


what some people think is going to be a year when they appeal to the country, although there are others who are not so sure, or that those considerations that seem to be more appealing in the minds of hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches than does the welfare of the country might induce them to do something similar to what they did three or four years ago in establishing the farm credit corporation which, after all, was merely a revision of the farm loan board, its predecessor.


An hon. Member:: And what a revision it was.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. The hon. gentleman says, "What a revision it was." I think the revision was a very successful one. I have never attempted to take any credit from anyone for any good he did. I do not think it is necessary to do that, even in public life. I say that if this government would establish a fisheries credit agency similar to the farm credit agency which they established two or three years ago, I would give them full credit for it. Both ought to have been done at the same time. We said that at the time. Just so that I can anticipate the customary retort of hon. gentlemen opposite who react almost like Pavlov's dog in this matter, by repeating "Why did you not do it in your 22 years in office?"-


An hon. Member:: Why did you not do it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will tell you why we did not do it in our 22 years in office. We did not do it in our 22 years in office because we thought the first step to take was the one we took in 1955 to establish this particular legislation. All this government has done is to extend it. Oh, it is true that they did a little bit more than that. They said that somebody who was not a fisherman could borrow under this legislation in order to become a fisherman. It would be interesting to know how many of those people have actually obtained loans.
Notwithstanding the fact that most of the provincial governments in the fishing provinces do have provincial loan agencies for fishermen, I am sure the hon. member for Royal, the Minister of Forestry, would agree with me when I say that the plain fact is that this is not something that ought to be left to provincial governments. Under the constitution fisheries are the exclusive responsibility of this parliament and the federal government. Surely if farm credit, when agriculture is a joint responsibility of parliament and the legislatures, is largely assumed by parliament, credit for fishermen should be the responsibility of this parliament. But let me say, sir, that if there is any industry that has been totally forgotten, totally neglected

and totally ignored by the present government it is the fishing industry. The only thing that the government ever claimed it did tor the fishing industry was to put fishermen under unemployment insurance, something that was done in the spring of 1957 before this government came into office.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I think the hon. member will admit that he is going beyond the scope of the resolution now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I will admit, sir, that I was illustrating a point having relation to the resolution in the customary fashion in this house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Customary Liberal fashion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I was pointing out, sir, was that we are disappointed. After all, what we are discussing is whether it is expedient to do this. Those are the governing words. I think it is expedient to do this but I am saying that it would be expedient to do very much more indeed than this.
It does seem to me that the present government, even in this period of death-bed repentance through which they are going at the present time, might go beyond this. They might produce another little speech from the throne in which they would announce that they were going to provide a credit agency to provide longer term credits for fishermen and to provide them on a basis on which I do not think we can reasonably expect the chartered banks to make loans under this legislation.
Before we actually pass the resolution I think it would be helpful if the minister could give us, in addition to the information he has already given, a geographical distribution of the loans because my recollection is that the last time I saw one it was perhaps the most disappointing feature of the whole legislation. I do appeal again to that great heart, that generous understanding, that broad vision of the Minister of Finance and suggest to him that the government should treat fishermen in the same way they treat farmers, as we appealed on another occasion already this session, and that in the field of credit for fishermen there should be an agency parallel to the farm credit corporation.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, those of us who have expressed a degree of interest in the fisheries for a variety of reasons are indeed disappointed, I am sure, at the limited extent of the resolution before us. However, perhaps we should not have expected too much, having in mind past activities, and perhaps we should have really appreciated the degree of mental ossification that exists
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act on the treasury benches with regard to a matter so important as this. I cannot help but make a slight reference to some of the indelible words of the Minister of Finance when the original bill presented to the house was before the banking and commerce committee in 1955. We find that in the minister's gentle way he made some comments with respect to two or three clauses of the then proposed bill, which incidentally are still in the act. On page 87 of the proceedings of the committee I find these words of the minister with respect to clause 5:


Donald Methuen Fleming: X have a question on clause 5. The power is given by clause 5 of the bill to the governor in council to terminate the crown liability in respect to these loans in any locality-
And so on. Then he asked why this was necessary and the answer given him at that time was that this section was taken from the Farm Improvement Loans Act and if it was good enough there it should be good enough in this instance. The minister's casual comment at that time was:
If that is the case it strikes me that it is not a good enough reason.
Then there is some additional explanation after which the minister said:
On clause 5 if there is no better explanation to be given than we have heard, I want to say that I am against clause 5.
Seven years ago he was against clause 5 but clause 5 is still in this act. Is the minister still against it or has he come to the conclusion that it is better for him, as one participant in the activities of the governor in council, to have this degree of authority? I have given only one selection from the 1955 committee proceedings in which the present Minister of Finance as a private member played a prominent part and used a variety of expressions about the legislation not being good enough. He said that the explanations that were given to substantiate the legislation were not good enough and he was opposed to certain sections because they were not protective enough.
He has been in office now for four years and on two occasions during that time he has piloted bills amending this act through the house but nevertheless he seems to have forgotten the great words he used in 1955. If we go back to 1959 when the minister piloted an amending bill through the house, a number of members presented ideas to the minister at the resolution and other stages of the bill and suggested changes in order to make the legislation more effective, provide greater protection for the fishermen, give them a better opportunity to participate in the economic life of this country and in order to make sure that their livelihood would be protected

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and they would have the opportunity to prosecute the fishery to the best possible advantage. At that time the minister protected himself with his cloak of ministerial authority and said that naturally he could not do anything or make any pronouncements about the future, but that these matters would be given very careful study. He almost went so far as to say by implication that sympathetic consideration would be given to the ideas that were propounded at that time.
We now have another proposed resolution before us and all of the very worth-while ideas put forward by members of the house in 1959 in order to ensure that the fishermen would have full opportunity to participate under this act have been discarded by the Minister of Finance. He thinks it is not worth his while to spend his time to prepare such amendments for passage by the house in order that fishermen will have a proper opportunity to participate. The number of loans that have been made under the act is certainly disappointing.
Why would it not be disappointing when there is a $4,000 limit on such loans? One reason the result is disappointing is that some fishing vessels cost more than $4,000. This is a rather low cost type of boat, so far as the west coast is concerned. I do not care to engage in any guesswork about the cost of fishing vessels on the east coast. I leave that to those who are more familiar with that area. In so far as the west coast is concerned, $4,000 would not buy a rowboat that could be used for fishing. When you get into the region of $15,000, $20,000 and up, then you are in the area of the amount of money necessary to build a boat to participate in this industry. The limit of $4,000 on a loan under this act excludes persons who want to become fishermen by reason of the fact it costs more than that to either become involved in the fishing industry or to make repairs to a boat if one is engaged in that industry. I believe this argument was presented to the minister on a number of occasions.
I see no reason why there should be reluctance to accept an increase in the limit. Certainly, there was no hesitancy, so far as I can gather, about increasing the limit under the Farm Improvement Loans Act on two or three different occasions in the past few years. In fact this government, in 1959 I think, speaking from memory, increased the limit under the Farm Improvement Loans Act to $7,500. Why not increase the loan limit under this act to ensure that fishermen will have a full opportunity to borrow money? So far as my knowledge goes there have never been any defaults in payments on loans. The most recent report I have been able to obtain points

out that there were no claims submitted to the government for payment under the guarantee provision of the legislation. The fishermen who borrowed money under this act met their commitments to the bank and paid off their loans before they expired. One would think that the same conditions would prevail with an $8,000 as have prevailed in connection with the $4,000 loan, and the advantage to the fishermen would be equally great.
The act now prohibits a person who does not own a fishing vessel from borrowing money. We know there are many commercial fishermen who, for one reason or another, will remove themselves from the fishing industry for a period of a year or two or perhaps more. If they have an interest in a boat, they sell it. If they own a boat, they sell the boat and take up some other form of work. Perhaps two or three years later they may decide to enter the industry again. They are definitely prohibited from borrowing under this act because they do not have an interest in any vessel. This is one type of amendment that should be made in order to help people who want to borrow money to get back into the fishing industry. However, as I have said, you cannot borrow money unless you have an interest in a fishing vessel.
In any event, in the final analysis it is the lending agency that decides whether or not to lend money to these individuals. It is not the Minister of Finance. He is not lending money to anybody. Why should there be this restriction that prevents some people from getting back into the fishing industry? We went through this process before, and the minister seemed to listen carefully and sympathetically. Perhaps he did not pay any attention but just looked as if he were listening sympathetically. What about the situation where a person starts to build a boat and gets it partly completed? He gets the hull completed on the ways, but he cannot borrow money under this legislation to enable him to complete that boat by reason of the fact that he is not considered to be one who has an interest in a fishing vessel. This is another amendment that should be made in order to assist people in the fishing industry.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, when I am suggesting an increase in the limit of $4,000 on loans to $8,000 or $10,000, I am treading on dangerous ground because the section of the act which contains this provision is the same section which provides for 5 per cent simple interest on the loans. Perhaps if the minister could get into that field he would treat the fishermen with the same contempt he treated the small businessmen by having a wide open interest rate inserted in this legislation. However, I feel we should be willing to gamble that the minister will not be quite so

callous to the fishermen and will maintain the 5 per cent interest rate, even though he does open the section for one other purpose.
As I have said, we went through this procedure once before. The minister filled up a number of pages of Hansard during the debate on the amending bill in 1959, saying that he was going to study these proposals and perhaps later on something would be done about them. Before we proceed beyond the resolution stage, perhaps the minister could indicate to the committee what consideration he gave to those studies and his reasons for rejecting them. Like the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I feel that this is a piece of legislation which, inadequate though it is, the house could put through with a minimum amount of controversy. Certainly, so far as I am concerned, that could be done. However, Mr. Chairman, I feel we have a right to insist upon an answer from the minister concerning the conclusions he came to about the very worth-while suggestions made in 1959, the very worth-while suggestions which have been made to him directly by way of correspondence and the very worth-while suggestions which were reiterated today. Perhaps the minister has been too busy with other things and has not got around to drafting these amendments. I am sure if he has studied these proposals he will have a worth-while explanation to make to the committee, and we can go on from there. I do not believe we should allow the resolution to pass without some clarification from the minister.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The resolution which is before us for discussion now has to do with nothing more than a minor amendment to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act to extend to June 30, 1965 the period during which guaranteed loans may be made. In introducing this resolution, the minister said this act was similar to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. As stated by my colleague, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act contains a definition of "lender" which includes credit unions, caisses populaires and other co-operative credit societies designated by the minister as lenders for the purpose of the act. I would say this is the major difference between this act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act which we discussed this afternoon.
Now, the minister has put on the record some of the figures relating to the application of this act. When we realize that the amount authorized for lending under this act is limited to $20 million and the act has been used only to the extent of $1,200,000 by 614 fishermen in a period of six years, we can state that it has certainly been used in a very modest way. At the moment the
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act amount outstanding under loans made under this act is in the vicinity of $600,000. As was stated by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, out of the total number of loans made, 474 or about 50 per cent have been repaid for a total of $660,000, and there were no claims paid during the year. One claim amounting to $237.64 has been paid. This clearly shows that the fishermen are meeting their obligations.
In 1959, when an amendment to this act was introduced, representations were made to the minister to the effect that there was not enough publicity given to the act, not enough fishermen knew the act existed, and there was a definite reluctance on the part of the chartered banks to make loans under this act.
I think that some major amendment should be effected to make this act more practical and more adaptable to the needs of the fishermen. The act should be amended to assist fishermen in the case of disaster. If a fisherman, for example, loses his boat and fishing gear he is in no position to make the down payment which is required by the chartered banks. If the act were amended so that the amount guaranteed by the government were 25 per cent instead of 15 per cent in the case of a major loss by a fisherman, I am convinced that more fishermen would take advantage of this measure.
I would therefore suggest that before the bill is introduced the minister gives further consideration to it and includes in it some major amendment which will be of some assistance to fishermen.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add my voice to hon. members who have already spoken urging the minister to give consideration to extending the scope of this legislation. As the minister told us, this legislation was set up in 1955 to fill a specific need. Now, after more than five years experience with it, we know it is not doing the job it was intended to do and is not coming anywhere near filling the need that has to be met.
The minister told us that the amount lent under this act has been very modest. In a parliamentary return that was tabled in this house some time ago it was shown that since the inception of this legislation only 854 loans have been made from December, 1955 right up till the end of March, 1961. That has worked out to less than $200,000 per year.
In my own province of Newfoundland, during that time only 10 loans have been made, one in 1955-56 for $750; two in 1956-57 for $1,000 in total; in 1957-58 and 1958-59 there were no loans at all; in 1959-60 there were two loans totalling $2,448, and in 1960-61
15S0

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act there were five loans totalling $8,065. Altogether in the entire period from December 12, 1955 right up to the end of March, 1961 only 10 loans were made, for an aggregate of $11,753.
The minister told us when he introduced this legislation that its purpose was to enable fishermen to acquire vessels, to acquire shares in fishing vessels and to modernize their equipment. How many vessels can you buy for $11,000, or for an average of $2,000 per year; how much equipment can you get?
This is vital to our province because the fishing industry is one of the mainstays of our economy. We have about 18,000 fishermen making a livelihood out of the fishery, and the fishery is one of the industries that is self-perpetuating and is certainly capable of being expanded and modernized to compete with the fisheries of other countries.
The fisherman is a small operator, for the most part, and he needs more assistance than he can get under this legislation. The hon. member for Skeena has pointed out some of the difficulties, and I am not going to repeat what I have said on so many occasions in this house, that it is impossible for the ordinary fisherman in my province to get loans from the banks. I think that is amply proven by the fact that in six years only 10 loans totalling under $12,000 were made. For a vital industry of a country, this kind of lending cannot have any impact at all. There is just as much need-I would say, an even far greater need-on the part of fishermen as there is on the part of farmers. This legislation is not meeting the need that has to be met, and that must be met if we are going to modernize our industry and put it on a sound economic basis. For these reasons I should like to add my voice to those of hon. members who have already urged the minister to either change this legislation or set up some other means of filling this need.


Mr. Batten:: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before us is:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act to extend the period during which guaranteed loans may be made to the 30th day of June, 1965.
Obviously if this act is going to be used at all, the payment period would have to be extended, but after all it is a very minor amendment to a piece of legislation which I would have hoped would have been a greater advantage to the fishermen and would have been used more readily.
I think the experience we have had with this act over the last few years shows that it has not had the appeal to fishermen that we all wished it would have. I think one
of the things that should be done in amending this act is to make a study to determine why the act has not done for the fishermen what it was intended to do, and why it has not received the attention and use by the fishermen that we would normally expect. I think an effort should be made to find out why.
There can be no doubt about the need as far as my province is concerned. There are three or four areas in my constituency where, if men are going to make a living, they have to resort to the fishing industry. They now do not have the boats, they do not have the gear, they do not have the inshore fishing property that would allow them to make a living which is compatible with our cost of living today. Perhaps years ago, under the conditions which existed at that time they were able to make a living of sorts. Today their needs are greater, and if they are going to make a living out of the fishing industry they must be able to fish earlier in the year. They must be able to carry on their fishing activities later in the year, and all this demands bigger, stronger and better equipment. If these men are going to need bigger, stronger and better equipment, as they do, it means a larger investment, and the only way in which these people can get funds to improve their equipment is by getting loans. Our Newfoundland fishermen for some reason or other are finding it difficult to get loans under this act. As my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo has just stated, very few loans have been made to Newfoundland fishermen under this measure. I feel there is some reason for this, and an investigation into those reasons would be very worth while in order that the act might be amended in such a way as to give our fishermen the loans they need to continue to make a living in the industry.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are several points raised by hon. members on which I think it was desired I should make some comment. I was asked about the geographical distribution of these loans. I can give the information for the most recent nine month period from April 1 to December 31, 1961. This is the number of loans, by provinces: Prince Edward Island, 67; Nova Scotia, 27; British Columbia, 23; New Brunswick, 4; Newfoundland, 2; Quebec, 2; Ontario, 1; Saskatchewan, 1; total, 127.


Chesley William Carter: Is that for last year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is for the
most recent nine month period, April 1 to December 31, 1961.
I can give the hon. member the figures for the same period in 1960 for comparison:

Prince Edward Island, 58; Nova Scotia, 7; British Columbia, 16; New Brunswick, 8; Newfoundland, 5; Quebec, 9.
Reference was made to the part that credit unions and caisses populaires are entitled to play in the administration of this act. When this measure was enacted in 1955 the original definition of lenders was written, and it has remained unchanged. According to a provision in section 2 of the act "lender" means, first, a bank, and second, a credit union, caisse populaire or other co-operative credit association designated by the minister as a lender for the purpose of the act. Of course, the reason given at that time by the government which introduced this legislation for including the credit unions and caisses populaires as lenders under this legislation, whereas they were not admitted to that status under the terms of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, was that in certain areas of Canada, and particularly in Newfoundland, branch bank facilities were so limited that it was felt it was necessary to include these other institutions in order to afford opportunities to the fishermen.
There have been very few loans made by credit unions in pursuance of this legislation. They have a status of lender under the act, but the total number of loans made by credit unions and caisses populaires since the legislation came into effect is just 59.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Out of a total of how many?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I gave the total in my first statement-981.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not a bad percentage.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was asked about the effect of section 5 of the act, that is, the section which provides for the termination of liability by order in council on proclamation in any locality for any of the purposes specified in this act. No use has been made of that power at any time to my knowledge, and I can assure hon. members that I have no intention of making a recommendation at any time that I can foresee for the exercise of any such power.
I was asked also about the number of claims there had been, or cases of default. The record here is again remarkable. The annual report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1961 showed that no claims had been paid during the year. One claim amounting to $277.64 has been paid. That is, indeed, a record which can be interpreted in various ways: first of all that the fishermen who have been borrowers under this act have been very prompt in their payments; it also could be interpreted as indicating that the banks have followed a cautious policy in lending
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act under this legislation. I have already indicated that the use which has been made of the facilities of this act has been, in terms of volume, modest.
Next, I was asked concerning the terms of the loans permitted under this act and, in particular, as to the present ceiling of $4,000 on an individual loan. It may surprise some hon. members who have spoken on the subject to learn that experience has shown that there has been no crowding of that ceiling. We have received, to my knowledge, no representations from fishing organizations on this subject nor have we been told by the banks that there has been any pressure on that ceiling which might be relieved by an increase. In this respect we should be glad to examine any representations which may be made in the light of experience.
Finally, some reference was made to the disasters which overtake fishermen in respect to their equipment and gear. I remind hon. members that such cases are taken care of under an altogether different provision. This present legislation was not intended to cover cases of disaster. We have a plan to deal with that, and it is known as the fishermen's indemnity plan. Provision is made for that, as hon. members know, under the Department of Fisheries, and parliament will be asked later to appropriate a sum of money to cover the administration of that plan.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On that last point, is the minister aware that claims on the fishermen's indemnity fund can only be made with respect to certain types of gear, and that these are the types of gear covered by an insurance policy bought by the fishermen? There are many types of gear which are not included under that scheme but which can be included under loans to fishermen.


Frank Howard: I should like to indicate that we appreciate the clarity with which the minister has dealt with the various questions which were raised earlier.
It is surprising to me that we intend to retain in statute form a provision which no one has any intention of using. The minister talked about section 5 of the act, the section to which he was opposed in 1955. He says it has never been used and that he himself has no intention of recommending to the governor in council that it should be used. It seems to me we are going to a lot of unnecessary trouble by reprinting statutes from time to time which contain provisions we do not intend to use.
I commend the minister for his own attitude. I think we should not decide that the act should be applicable to certain areas of the country and not to others. As I say, it seems strange to me that we should not do

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act a thorough job and toss unwanted sections out so that the act may read more clearly. What probably happened is that the minister forgot what he said in 1955 and said what he said a moment ago about section 5 as an afterthought to cover up his failure in this regard.
The minister mentioned that the banking institutions said there had been no crowding of the ceiling of $4,000. I understood him to say he received no representations asking for an increase or extension of that ceiling. If the minister reviews his correspondence, voluminous as it may be, he will find that in 1959 he did receive a communication in this regard. The united fishermen and allied workers' union, spokesmen for the largest group of fishermen on the west coast, at their fifteenth annual convention passed the following resolution:
Whereas the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act has been of benefit to some fishermen but is not altogether satisfactory particularly on the west coast of Canada where costs of boats and materials are higher than elsewhere
Therefore be it resolved that this fifteenth annual convention of the united fishermen and allied workers' union request the Minister of Finance to make the following amendments to the above act.
The second point of the resolution reads:
2. Increase the maximum amount of a single loan from $4,000 to $8,000.
I know for a fact this was forwarded to the minister. I do not know what answer he gave. Following my receipt of the resolution I wrote the minister forwarding the resolution. I do not have a copy of my letter available and I do not recall whether he replied. This was in 1959. Here in fact is one organization which communicated with the minister asking for an increase in the ceiling.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member would permit me to interrupt, I was speaking of the period since this subject was last discussed, the time he was speaking of when he spoke earlier, since 1959.


Frank Howard: Perhaps we should clear this up. We can still say the minister got that before the period of time he was talking about. The letter I have forwarding the resolution to me is dated May 8, 1959. The debate on the last amendment to the act commenced just before six o'clock on March 10, 1959. The dates coincide. It is difficult to say whether this was communicated to the minister before or after but it was around that period of time. This means the minister has had a couple of years in which to think about this. He has stated that he has received no requests and intends to do nothing about it. He said the banks have indicated there is no crowding, as he put it, of the $4,000 ceiling.

That is understandable for the following reason. My examination of the record indicates that the fishermen of British Columbia have taken greater advantage of the act than those in other provinces not with respect to the number of applications but with respect to the total value of the loans, which indicates that loans on the west coast are higher in value than those in the maritimes. Some fishermen who have knowledge of this act, knowing they can borrow money, make inquiries and discover the amount they can borrow is limited to $4,000. Knowing that, even though they may need $8,000 or $9,000 they realize they would be wasting their time trying to get that much from the bank. They therefore arrange their finances in such a way as to permit them to operate within the loan they will receive or try to curtail expenses and skimp on what they could do if they received a larger loan.
As is the case with the increases in the ceiling under the Farm Improvement Loans Act the minister will find the increases in the ceiling under this act will be beneficial to fishermen on the east and west coasts. I urge the minister to take into consideration the other matters I have raised.
While listening to the minister I examined Hansard of 1959. The debate on the amendment introduced at that time covers only a few pages because the bill was rushed through all stages by unanimous consent in view of the urgency of the situation. In approximately eight pages, from page 1804 to 1813 of Hansard of March 10, 1959, the minister on at least three occasions indicated that a continuing review would be made with a view to introducing amendments to the legislation as required. At page 1805 the minister was reported as having said:
Several suggestions have been made with respect to amendments to this bill, all of them, I think I may say, designed to enlarge the scope of the bill. When the previous resolution was before the committee I said that these would be taken under study and they will be taken under study. The one that is before the committee now is one that readily commended itself and had some general support in the discussion, and it seemed to us to lend itself to early decision.
This indicates that perhaps decision on other matters required some study over a period of time, perhaps two and a half to three years as apparently is the case now. The minister went on to say:
That is the reason why the house is being asked to permit the amendment of the bill, in the course of its passage, to permit this enlargement in the provisions.
Throughout the debate the minister indicated that the matter would be under study and possibly changes enlarging the scope of the act would be introduced. That was in

1959. Almost three years have elapsed since then. The minister indicated that proposed changes would be studied and discussed with the banks and at a later time he would come before the house asking for additional amendments. I am not admitting there is any validity in the minister's reasoning but apparently he has not felt prepared to make a comment with respect to enlarging any other features of the bill. In the three year period that has elapsed the minister should have reached a decision on these proposals and should have introduced changes to this extremely important piece of legislation instead of coming before us, diddling around by making extensions because of emergency conditions such as the expiry of the act.


Mr. Creaghan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this rather unimportant piece of legislation. I say it is unimportant because it has been of little or no benefit to the fishermen in eastern New Brunswick.
I believe the minister deserves to be commended by hon. members of this house for having the patience and determination in bringing forth amendments to this legislation on two occasions within a period of six years. I believe he is obligated by law to do so because of existing loans and to carry forward in perpetuity a piece of legislation that was no good even when it was first introduced. I heard the minister give his statement earlier tonight. I believe he said four loans were made in the province of New Brunswick between April and December 1961. I do not know whether the loans were average or below average. However, I think that is ample evidence that there is very little need for this act. As has been said by people who represent the fisheries, what we need is definitely some sort of a fishery credit corporation such as that which was introduced for agriculture a year or two ago. I refer to a corporation under the Department of Fisheries, an organization that is in contact with the fisheries.
From time to time I hear of fishermen going to the bank. The bankers themselves hardly know of the existence of this legislation, let alone the fishermen. Many of the fishermen feel that it is up to provincial administrations to make loans, and some of the eastern provinces have set up minor departments of fisheries in order to try to give assistance. However, Mr. Chairman, this is a federal problem.
I commend the government for taking the time of the House of Commons to keep this statute alive, as that is all we are doing. It is obvious that the limits are high enough. Only a few complain about it or use it, except perhaps in the province of British Columbia.
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act I congratulate the minister for his courage and his perseverance and patience. I hope that he and his colleagues will soon be able to bring in a fisheries credit corporation which will perform an adequate service for the fisheries.


Chesley William Carter: I just wish to ask the minister a question. If I heard him correctly he said that since the end of March, 1961, to the latest date he has, two loans were made in Newfoundland. Can he give us the aggregate of those two loans?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. Two loans made in Newfoundland between April 1 and December 31, 1961, were for an aggregate sum of $4,800.


Mr. MacLellan:: I should like to take a moment to express my views with regard to this piece of legislation now before the committee. Coming as I do from a riding in which there are a great number of shore fishermen, it has been my experience that this act has been of very little use to the people to whom it was intended to be of assistance. The shore fishermen are by far the greatest proportion of people engaged in the fishery in the Atlantic provinces, though it is quite true that the largest proportion of the catch is landed by people fishing from larger boats and operating out of the modern processing plants. Some
15,000	families are dependant directly upon the shore fishery in the province of Nova Scotia.
These are the people who need some special new type of credit facilities. They have found the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act to be of very little use to them for the simple reason that the bankers for some reason or other will not extend sufficient credit under the act. Since the act provides a guarantee of 15 per cent of a portion of any loans made under it and ten per cent of the balance, one would think that this type of loan was one which would recommend itself to the banks. However, it has been my experience and that of a great many of my constituents who have got in touch with me from time to time with regard to this matter that the act is of very little use in practical effect. I wonder whether the minister would make some inquiry to ascertain whether there is not some way in which the act could be of more use to the shore fishermen for whom it was designed. It may be that this is only a matter of bringing to the attention of the banking community that this act could be of great benefit to the shore fishermen if it were applied with more flexibility.
I notice that in 1961 very few loans were approved in the province of Nova Scotia. I suppose that next to Newfoundland, it is the province which has the largest number of

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act shore fishermen in Canada. In 1961 in Nova Scotia, only some $21,691 of loans were approved, yet the record of loans made under this act so far has been that these loans were repaid. The department has suffered little loss, I understand, in claims made under this legislation. It is too bad that some way could not be found to make more credit available to the shore fishermen. I am sure that some other method is needed rather than this particular type of legislation. My colleague from Westmorland a few minutes ago mentioned that he thought the best idea would be to set up a credit corporation for fishermen similar to that used for farm credit. I think this would be a very good idea. It may well be that this whole problem of credit for the shore fishermen and the rural dweller in general should be examined by a royal commission or some other type of inquiry. I am sure no other section of this nation is more in need of rejuvenation or rehabilitation than are the people engaged in the shore fishery. There are some fishing districts in the province of Nova Scotia-and I am sure this is so in the other provinces in the Atlantic area as well-who are as much in need of redevelopment as are some areas receiving aid under the Colombo plan.
I should like to see an inquiry made towards setting up some sort of credit system which would encompass the wider needs of the people in rural areas, particularly in the maritime section. I find that it is impossible really to say that very many fishermen subsist by their shore fishery alone. Shore fishermen usually are part time fishermen, part time lumbermen and part time farmers. Yet there is no one agency to which this group of people can go to seek over-all credit. They either must qualify as full time fishermen as under this act, or as full time farmers under other legislation. I should like to see some sort of rural assistance program set up which would allow a man who is receiving part of his income from the fishery, part from farming and part from lumbering, to go to one source where he would get adequate credit to help him to carry on his entire business operation, which requires him to look to the fruits of the sea, of the land and of the forests at once. The problems of the people in rural areas, particularly along our sea coast who rely chiefly upon the fishing industry for their livelihood and who turn in other seasons to other parts of the economy, needs special attention now, ahead of any other sector of the Canadian community.
I would sincerely recommend to the Minister of Finance, whom we have found to take our suggestions very readily in matters of this kind, that he see whether there is some way in which an adequate system of

credit for the shore fishing industry could be set up. I can tell him that it would be a great boon to a section of the population which badly needs some help in this sector.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the resolution carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just before the item carries may I say this. I am naturally very pleased to have these latter day supporters of the policy which I have advocated every time this matter has been before the house and every time the fishery estimates have been up for consideration in the last three years. It is encouraging to find that certain hon. members who support the government are now supporting the policy which has been advocated for three or four years by the official opposition and which would merely be carrying out for the fisheries the same policies which the present government has for the farmers. I should like to ask the minister whether he can offer any hope that any such policy will be carried out during the life of the present parliament.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Before the minister
answers, Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. If the last speaker was referring to me, I might say that ever since I have come into this house I have supported every move or every proposal of any member of the house for a better system of credit for the people in the rural areas, particularly in the maritime areas. I believe the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will admit that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not deny it. I was hoping the minister would say something.


An hon. Member:: Two flag Jack.


James Aloysius McGrath: He has three flags, one for blow, one for show and one for Joe.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, we can all
appreciate that conditions in the fishing industry on the east coast require at least some extra degree of consideration with respect to action by this government or any government for that matter. Earlier this session we spent a considerable amount of time discussing the question of subsidies or payments or whatever they are called to western grain producers on the basis of $1 per cultivated acre up to a maximum of $200 for some nebulous purpose. No one hesitated to say that it was necessary or merited support.
I believe that over three years the total amount payable on the basis of $1 per acre exceeds some $120 million. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance is agreeable to paying $1 per cubic mile of fished ocean up to a certain maximum to assist the fishermen to get by in the world, but this situation is one that we should attempt to bring into

some balance. If it is equitable and correct to pay western grain growers as primary producers of food a subsidy on an acreage basis, surely in order to bring about some balance with respect to government assistance to primary producers of other foodstuffs, and especially in view of the deteriorating condition of the fishing industry on the west coast as well as on the east coast, we should be considering some means of payment to fishermen in order to bring their incomes into balance and afford them a better opportunity to participate in the economic life of the country.
As I say, I do not know whether it would operate on the basis of $1 per cubic mile of ocean fished, on the basis of so many cents per mile for the mileage that fishing vessels travel to and from port or whether a subsidy would be paid at least to the fishermen on the east coast who have to fish outside the 12 mile limit whereas foreign vessels can fish inside the limit. I do not know what the basis would be but the government should be searching for some plan.
The proposal of so much per cubic mile of ocean fished may sound like an idea taken from outer space, but surely it is within the realm of the imagination of the government to accept the idea and develop it, particularly in view of the fact that there is going to be an election shortly.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the resolution carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the resolution carries, could I ask the hon. member for Skeena a question? Does he really believe that the present government has any imagination?


Frank Howard: Oh, certainly. They had the imagination to demote the former minister of trade and commerce a few years ago when he got into difficulties. They had the imagination almost to fire the Minister of Finance because of things he said in another country.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I think the hon. member will have enough imagination to know that he is getting out of order.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-74, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.
Crown Corporations CROWN CORPORATIONS



PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF CERTAIN PROVINCIAL TAXES AND FEES

Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment of certain provincial taxes and fees by crown corporations on or after the 1st day of April, 1962.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Martineau in the chair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the measure referred to in the resolution is another step in the efforts of the federal government to strengthen the fiscal position of the provinces and through them to aid the municipalities also. It will subject 28 named federal crown corporations to the payment of provincial sales taxes, gasoline taxes and automobile and truck licences, waiving their constitutional immunity from such taxes. It will achieve approximate equality of treatment as between provincial crown corporations and agencies in relation to federal sales and excise taxes, on the one hand, and federal crown corporations and agencies in relation to provincial retail sales taxes and gasoline taxes, on the other.
The bill will implement one of the Prime Minister's proposals to the federal-provincial conference of February 23-24, 1961. At that time the Prime Minister stated:
We have given further thought to the means of achieving reciprocity of treatment in the position of provincial crown corporations and agencies under federal sales and excise taxes and the position of federal corporations and agencies under provincial direct taxes on purchases. We are prepared to waive federal immunity from taxation and instruct federal corporations and agencies to pay provincial purchase taxes and other similar taxes on the understanding that provincial corporations and agencies will be subject to federal sales and excise taxes. We think that this is an equitable arrangement, being in accordance with the general principles followed in regard to the payment of federal taxes on purchases by federal departments. We think it is better than reciprocal exemptions as an administrative and accounting arrangement, preserving as it will a fairer relationship between crown corporations and agencies in general and private businesses.
The federal government now enjoys a constitutional advantage over the provinces in the imposition of taxes because of its exclusive right to impose indirect taxes. Neither level of government has power to tax the other directly. The provinces have no power to impose indirect taxes. The federal government, having such powers, could collect sales and excise taxes from manufacturers and wholesalers selling to the provinces and the manufacturers and wholesalers could pass the tax along to the provincial governments in

Crown Corporations
the form of increased prices although there would be no actual levy of tax on the crown in the right of the province. The provincial governments, on the other hand, lacking the power to impose indirect taxes, cannot so easily impose taxes which are passed on to the federal government, although undoubtedly certain provincial direct taxes become elements of cost and are in this way passed on to the federal government.
In actual fact, the federal government has never pressed its constitutional advantage to the limit and has voluntarily provided a statutory exemption in respect of goods purchased for use by provincial departments, with the result that its sales and excise taxes impinge upon the provinces only through their crown corporations and agencies.
It is therefore apparent that the federal government, by instructing its own corporations and agencies to pay provincial sales taxes, is making a unilateral concession which will have the approximate effect of placing the two levels of government on the same footing. I have stated only that approximate equality of treatment would be achieved by the proposed bill. It is, frankly, difficult to make a more precise claim because of the real problem, at both the federal and provincial levels, of distinguishing between departments and agencies. Lest any hon. member should under-estimate the importance of this concession, however, may I call the attention of the committee to the fact that the bill actually goes the extra mile by providing that federal corporations shall expose themselves not only to retail sales and gasoline taxes, but also to automobile and truck licences. The latter, of course, are a provincial tax with no federal counterpart so that federal corporations will actually be exposed to provincial taxes of a greater variety than the federal taxes to which provincial agencies are now exposed.
The 28 federal crown corporations which will be instructed to pay retail sales taxes, gasoline taxes, and automobile or truck licences imposed by the provinces, are listed in the schedule to the bill. These corporations were selected after a careful scrutiny of all branches of the federal government. Essentially, they consist of all but three of the crown corporations listed under the Financial Administration Act plus those unlisted corporations which seemed comparable in function or legal status.
Concerning the corporations listed in the Financial Administration Act, these come entirely from schedules C and D since the bodies listed in schedules A and B are defined, by section 2(f) of the act, to be departments. Three corporations listed in schedule C of the act have been excluded on grounds

of principle. These agencies, Canadian Arsenals Limited, Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, and Defence Construction (1951) Limited, differ from the other schedule C and D corporations in that they operate almost entirely to provide what might be described as internal services for federal government departments. The corporations outside of the Financial Administration Act which will be covered by this bill are the Bank of Canada, Canada council, Canadian wheat board, industrial development bank, national productivity council, and the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation.
No recent estimate has been made of the cost to the 28 crown corporations of complying with the provisions of this bill. However, on the basis of a survey made in respect of the 1958 taxation year, it is estimated that the approximate cost will be $3 million. The cost would be substantially greater except for the fact that many of the crown corporations listed in the schedule are already voluntarily paying all or some of the taxes with which this bill is concerned. The effect of the bill, therefore, will be to place all 28 corporations on the same footing concerning the payment of sales taxes, gasoline taxes, and automobile or truck licences.
These are the main features of the proposed legislation. It represents an important concession to the provinces and marks the first time in history that this federal immunity has been waived for their benefit. It will accordingly contribute to the fiscal strength and independence of the provinces.


Mr. Benidickson:: We have before us a very interesting resolution which will be followed by a bill that we will read with great interest. As I recall the circumstances in perhaps the largest province of Canada, Ontario, which had a government favourable to the present government in so far as its political inclinations were concerned, the government of that province went on strike. The government of Premier Frost decided that it did not intend to permit its crown entities to pay sales taxes to the federal government. The government of Ontario felt that there was a difficulty here and stopped, as I say, paying these taxes.
The Minister of Finance indicates that the federal government has decided, out of great generosity, to pay something that it was not being pressed to pay. I want to say that if the Prime Minister, on the basis of reciprocity told an interprovincial conference in February, 1961, that he was prepared to do something along this line, he was just 12 months behind the times. I think the reason he is doing something is that the province of Ontario, a relatively friendly government to the present federal government, stopped

paying sales taxes to the federal government in respect of the purchases of such big provincial crown corporations as Ontario hydro.
Before proceeding too much further, I think we should hear from the Minister of Finance as to whether or not he has been receiving sales taxes levied by the federal government from Ontario crown corporations. I should like to know how long there has been a default in the payment of sales taxes with respect to Ontario hydro. I should like to know if there is no default at the moment, whether there was, in fact, a default a year ago and for how long that default existed. How many millions of dollars were involved in the payments withheld by Ontario hydro and other provincial crown corporations? It is all very well for the Minister of Finance to suggest that this is something that was proffered to the provincial government. I say it was not. This government resisted and complained about the fact that the province of Ontario felt it should not pay sales taxes to the federal government.
Now, the federal government, through its crown corporations such as Polymer and many others with almost similar commercial operations, refuse to pay the Ontario tax on gasoline purchases or the normal licence fees for vehicles operated by the corporation within the province. I say that we had an impasse between two Conservative governments, the government at Queen's Park and the government at Ottawa. There may be other provinces in which similar difficulties have been experienced. I expect that during this debate we will hear from British Columbia members as to what their feelings are with respect to this proposal, particularly in so far as the purchase of the British Columbia Electric Company is concerned, which until recently was not a provincial entity. I hope we will hear more about that.
I want to say that the Minister of Finance has gone far out of line in suggesting that this is an act of generosity on the part of the federal government, proposed by the Prime Minister of this country in February of 1961 at a federal-provincial conference. I say, on the contrary, that the Minister of Finance, those associated with him and the Prime Minister were met with a strike on the part of the government of Ontario, who refused to pay taxes imposed by the federal government, and this is a concession to the stand that was taken by their friend Premier Frost.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, it sounds pretty reasonable.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the minister's explanation of
Crown Corporations
this very interesting legislation which he described, I think, as an act of generosity on the part of the government, and I have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River in which he discounted that generosity. He implied that there are other motives for the introduction of this resolution, and I suppose that in every sense of the word he considers it expedient. That is a lovely term that we use in the introduction of resolutions.
However, we are not sufficiently informed on this question at the present time to speak with confidence and therefore the members of this group intend to reserve their remarks until they have had an opportunity to read the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, it does seem to me that before we can accept the resolution we need a little more information than the minister has given us about the background of this matter. Some of us have had quite a long experience of federal-provincial financial negotiations-the Minister of Finance has had a pretty bitter experience of them-and we do know this, that it is a rare enough thing for ministers of finance or even prime ministers simply to hand something as a concession to the provinces unless there is some historical background for it.
We all know, of course, that immense, almost encyclopedic knowledge of finance that is possessed by the Prime Minister who made this offer, and I think the minister should disclose just a little bit-lift the curtain a little bit-of that background for us and tell us why this particular concession should suddenly have been decided upon.
I think the minister should also tell us how the provinces are apt to benefit from this relatively, and if it will not turn out that this is no concession at all to the provinces that most need bolstering up financially, and that the bulk of any advantage that will come from this will be, as everything seems to be that is done by this government, to that province which financially is in the best position. I think perhaps the minister might give us a breakdown, as well as a little historical background.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I gave the essentials of the historical background. This matter was discussed at the dominion-provincial conference, to which I have made reference. The provinces, of course, were interested in receiving some opportunity of levying their commodity taxes on federal crown corporations. There was some discussion as to whether in seeking something approaching equality of treatment of crown corporations federal and provincial, in respect

Crown Corporations
of taxes provincial and federal respectively the expedient should take the form of mutual immunity or mutual taxation.
The view of the federal government was that the sounder course was mutual taxation, and this view has been accepted and it is embodied in the present bill.
I indicated in my earlier statement the difficulty of making any precise reckoning of what this will mean in the payment of taxes by these 28 crown corporations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You must have made an estimate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did, and I referred to it in my statement. I am sorry the hon. member did not follow what I said on that point. But I am not in a position to make any breakdown on this as among the 10 provinces. No one can do that at this time.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, we are approaching ten o'clock and it is obvious that we will not conclude this debate tonight-


An hon. Member:: You do not want to.


William Moore Benidickson: -but overnight I am confident that the Minister of Finance will consult his colleague the Minister of National Revenue and will be able to inform this committee when it next assembles whether or not there are now any outstanding claims on the part of the federal government against any crown corporation such as exists in my own province, let alone the other nine provinces. I refer to the Ontario hydro. Had the Ontario hydro any outstanding liabilities to the federal government prior to the passing of this legislation; and if so, how much, and for how long has the Ontario hydro been neglectful of its obligation to pay what might be in the opinion of the Minister of Finance a due debt under our Excise Tax Act?
Perhaps there are some other obligations of crown corporations in other provinces. Could we have, before we reassemble, a statement from the Minister of Finance as to any claims that the federal government has been advancing up to this time against crown corporations incorporated under provincial jurisdiction? Could we know what those crown corporations are, what the taxes are that have been asked for and have not been paid, and for how long have those debts claimed by the federal government remained unpaid?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the resolution carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. I think that when the minister is doing the research my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River asked him to do, he might do a little research
and find out so that he can tell us just what the estimate of the benefit will be to each of the provinces. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister would have made this extraordinarily generous offer and that it would have been discussed at a federal-provincial conference at some length without some of the premiers wishing to know how they were going to fare as compared with others.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not think it was in the published minutes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is straining our credulity a little bit, because we all know that provincial premiers are very interested in practical questions of this sort. We in this house who represent the different provinces are also entitled to have this information; we ought to know what we are doing.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You seldom do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are giving away money that is collected from the federal taxpayers and putting it into the provincial treasuries. That is what this measure is seeking to do, and we ought to know in what proportions it is going into the treasuries of the various provinces before we accede to this resolution. Mr. Chairman, it is ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I wonder if the house leader could, if possible, indicate in a general way what the business will be for the rest of the week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will commence with the second reading of the bill to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, then second reading of the bill to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, followed by the committee stage of Bill No. C-67 dealing with a proposed railway line in the Gaspe peninsula. The fourth item would be the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with crown corporations; item 5, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act. The next item would be the resolution in the name of the Secretary of State dealing with the universal copyright convention.
The work for the balance of the week depends upon the progress we make in connection with this legislation.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 7, 1962