1962-10-18

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege in reference to an article in the Albertan of October 16, which reads as follows:
Northern affairs minister Walter Dinsdale Monday night confirmed that Eldon Woolliams, Conservative member of parliament for Bow River, had involved himself in a deal involving the sale of privately owned Banff national park property to the federal government.
This statement is untrue and without foundation. Mr. Woolliams to my knowledge is not involved in any deal with my department nor did I ever say he was involved. The land referred to in the article was expropriated in 1956 by order in council and Mr. Woolliams' law firm of Calgary placed the matter in the hands of Mr. Robinette, Q.C., Toronto, to act as counsel for the owners in a case now before the exchequer court.
(Translation):



MR. CAOUETTE  REFERENCE TO TELEVISION BROADCAST BY MEMBER FOR LAURIER

Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
On the television program "Les Affaires de l'Etat", the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) made a tendentious statement concerning the group we represent in this house when he said:
The Social Credit members from Quebec are betraying the mandate they received from their electors by supporting the Diefenbaker regime to obey orders transmitted by Mr. Caouette but actually coming from British Columbia's Mr. Bennett, their real though secret chief.
The hon. member for Laurier went on to
say:
Mr. Diefenbaker must be laughing up his sleeve: now, he can ignore the French Canadians as he wishes and stay in power, thanks to their Social Credit members in the house.
Mr. Speaker, I challenge such remarks. They are not only untrue, but also false and even perfidious. I declare that to date, I
27507-3-424
never even met with the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Diefenbaker) nor any minister and that our real leader is the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. Speaker, I think that if that is the way the Liberals want to build up their political capital in the province of Quebec, it is dishonest, and I say that the hon. member for Laurier is completely wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: Having heard the observations made by the hon. member for Villeneuve, I think he has expressed an opinion opposed to that of another hon. member, and I do not believe he has a genuine question of privilege under the standing order.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, you were absolutely right in saying that there was no question of privilege, because when a member wants to rise on a question of privilege, he must do so immediately-


David Réal Caouette: Order, order.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I feel that, out of deference, the hon. member for Laurier should be heard since he wishes to give some explanation about the question of privilege. Courtesy requires that he be heard.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I was just saying that when someone wants to rise on a question of privilege, he must do so immediately.
Now, the speech to which the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) is taking exception was delivered on Monday. Today is Thursday and if the hon. member had wanted to rise on a question of privilege, he could have done so Tuesday. Since he is seldom in the house, I can understand why he did not raise this question before now.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the house to the fact that the hon. member for Villeneuve made unparliamentary remarks about me, using such terms as "false", "perfidious remarks" etc.
I maintain that the statements I made on television are true and I shall have the op-

Privilege
portunity in due course, perhaps very soon, to show, maybe more clearly than the hon. member for Villeneuve thinks, that there was an agreement between Mr. Bennett and himself.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Mr. Speaker:: I feel we have heard both sides of the question which, in my opinion, stays unchanged. I believe that there was no question of privilege.



FRENCH TRANSLATION OF CAFETERIA MENU

Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I should like to congratulate those who translated into French the menu posted on the blackboard in the cafeteria. However, I should like to point out that there are several errors of spelling; for instance, in the expression "eper-lan frit", the word "frit" is spelled f-r-i-t not f-r-y-e.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lapointe could offer his gratuitous services as an adviser to the cafeteria staff on matters pertaining to the French language.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Associate Minister of National Defence a question, which could also be directed to the Prime Minister. This question is of the highest importance.
You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is a controversy raging around an exhibition of paintings in Ottawa. I am not thinking of the copies which are being discussed these days, but I should like to know from the Associate Minister of National Defence if it is true that thirty Social Credit still lives were blued recently?
(Text):



MAIN ESTIMATES, 1962-63

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting the revised estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1963, was presented by Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: It might be of assistance to the house, Mr. Speaker, if I had permission to
[Mr. ChevrierJ
make a relatively short statement on the amended estimates which have just been placed on the table.
The estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, were tabled during the fifth session of the twenty fourth parliament. However, they were not finally dealt with during that session of parliament, and estimates for the current year must therefore be introduced again during this session. The original estimates for 1962-63, which were tabled on February 12, 1962, provided a basis for the interim supply which has allowed the government services to operate and accounts to be paid in the normal way from April 1 up to the present time.
Between the last session of parliament and the present session, the government decided upon certain emergency financial measures, including a decision to reduce federal expenditures by $250 million for a full fiscal year. It was anticipated that this decision, which was taken some months after the beginning of the present fiscal year, would produce savings of the order of $200 million during the remainder of the present year.
In the light of these developments, it is not considered appropriate at this time to reintroduce the original estimates for 1962-63. Rather, those estimates have been revised and have been reprinted to reflect the reductions which have been decided upon by the government. Within a few days I will introduce a resolution in this house requesting further interim supply to carry government services forward beyond the end of October, and relating previous supply bills to these revised estimates rather than to the estimates upon which they were originally based.
In the preparation of the revised estimates which have been tabled today, the original blue book for 1962-63 provided the basic manuscript. The current year amounts for more than 300 of the items to be voted have now been reduced, and no new items have been inserted. A small number of items have been increased to reflect necessary adjustments in the cost of certain programs which were specifically provided for in the original estimates. The expenditure and revenue details for 1961-62 which were, necessarily, only forecasts at the time the original estimates were prepared last January have been amended to show the actual results for that year. No adjustment whatsoever has been made in the figures in the 1961-62, that is the old year, column of the blue book.

The revised estimates total $6,048.2 million, a decrease of $228.0 million from the total of the estimates tabled on February 12, 1962. Tables have been prepared showing the distribution of the reductions by department, by the standard objects and also on the basis of administration, capital and other costs, which with the consent of the house I would ask to be inserted in Hansard in order that they may be available to all hon. members who read today's proceedings.
Briefly the tables disclose that $142.4 million of the total reduction was effected in the estimates of the civil departments and $85.6 million was removed from the defence department's estimates. Viewed in another way, $85.9 million of the reductions relates to administration and operation costs, $109.5 million has been taken from the provision for the construction of buildings and other works and for equipment purchases, and $33.2 million has been cut from grants, subsidies and other items.
The reduction of $85.9 million realized in administration and operation costs includes salary and wage cuts netting out to $24.1 million, cuts averaging 5 per cent in travel, publications, advertising, office stationery, and materials and supplies, and reductions of about 10 per cent in the provision for repairs to both buildings and equipment.
The capital reductions totalling $109.5 million are identifiable as $78.7 million in civil departments and $30.8 million in defence departments. From another point of view, about two thirds of the total amount of these reductions were from construction programs and the remaining one third was realized
Statement by Finance Minister from reduced equipment acquisition plans. Among the reductions in construction programs are $18.6 million from the Department of Public Works, $17.9 million from the Department of Transport, $8.1 million from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, $6.6 million from the Department of National Defence and $6.4 million from the Department of Agriculture. The major reductions in equipment acquisition programs are located in the departments of national defence, $24.2 million, and transport, $6.4 million.
There is a reduction of $33.2 million in grants, subsidies and other items, the major components of which are: external affairs- Colombo plan, $8.5 million; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, $5 million; board of transport commissioners, $4.2 million, payment to the railway grade crossing fund; national health and welfare, $3.4 million, hospital construction and other health grants; agriculture, $3.1 million, quality premiums on hogs and lime assistance. There are a number of other adjustments to produce the total reduction in this category of expenditures.
Hon. members will find the tables helpful in tracing all the details of these many changes and will appreciate, I am sure, that these reductions reflect a most thorough review of the government's expenditure program.


Mr. Speaker:: In order to be quite accurate, has the minister permission to have these tables, cited as table No. 1 and table No. 2, printed in Hansard as requested?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables referred to above are as follows:]

Table 1
o*
tn
o
ESTIMATES OF BUDGETARY EXPENDITURES FOR 19G2-G3 (Revised Estimates Compared with Original Estimates)
(in millions of dollars)
Administration	Buildings,	Grants, Subsidiesand	Works and	and	RecoverableOperation	Equipment	Other Items	Items, etc.	Net Total Estimates
Revised Original Revised Original Revised Original Revised Original Revised Original Difference
Agriculture	
Atomic Energy	
Auditor General's Office	
Board of Broadcast Governors	
C.B.C	
Chief Electoral Officer	
Citizenship and Immigration	
Civil Service Commission	
External Affairs-
Department	
Int. Joint Commission	
Finance	
Fisheries	
F orestry	
Governor General	
Insurance	
Justice-
Department	
Penitentiaries	
Labour-
Department	
U.I.C	
Legislation	
Mines and Technical Surveys-
Department	
Dominion Coal Board	
National Film Board	
National Gallery	
National Health and Welfare	
National Research Council	
National Revenue	
Northern Affairs and National Resources
Post Office	
Privy Council	
63.6	66.7	29.5	35.9	62.7	65.8	0.4	0.4	155.4	168.0	-12.628.8	32.3	8.4	6.9	0.8	0.8	-	-	38.0	40.0	- 2.01.3	1.3	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.3	1.3	-0.3	0.4	-	-	-	-	-	0.3	0.4	- 0.11.8	1.8	-	-	80.6	85.6	-	-	82.4	87.4	- 5.00.1	0.1	-	-	-	-.	-	-	0.1	0.1	-52.3	53.7	9.4	13.1	3.5	3.5	-	-	65.2	70.4	- 5.24.6	4.8	-	-	-	-	-	-	4.6	4.8	- 0.221.3	21.8	1.6	2.5	62.5	70.6	_	85.4	95.0	- 9.60.1	0.2	-	-	-	-	0.1	0.2	- 0.1129.7	125.6	0.1	0.2	1,079.0	1,079.1	0.2	0.2	1,208.6	1,204.6	+ 4.018.9	20.0	4.4	5.3	1.5	1.5	0.4	0.4	24.5	26.5	- 2.07.5	7.8	1.0	1.1	8.1	8.1	-	-	16.6	17.1	- 0.50.5	0.5	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.5	0.5	-0.8	0.8	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.8	0.8	9.7	9.8	0.2	0.2	9.9	10.0	- 0.119.4	19.8	7.8	11.8	-	-	-	-	27.2	31.6	- 4.47.1	7.4	105.7	105.7	112.8	113.1	- 0.347.3	49.1	-	-	57.5	57.5	-	-	104.8	106.6	- 1.88.5	8.5	-	-	-	-	-	-	8.5	8.5	-28.1	29.3	7.8	11.3	12.2	12.2	0.1	0.1	48.0	52.7	- 4.70.1	0.1	-	-	17.6	17.6	-	-	17.7	17.7	5.2	5.4	0.2	0.2	-	-	-	-	5.4	5.6	- 0.21.1	1.2	-	0.1	-	-	-	-	1.1	1.3	- 0.244.2	46.0	2.4	3.6	1,053.1	1,056.8	-	-	1,099.7	1,106.4	- 6.726.4	27.6	2.7	3.9	15.4	15.4	4.4	4.4	40.1	42.4	- 2.378.1	80.3	0.3	0.5	-	-	1.0	1.0	77.5	79.8	- 2.335.7	37.0	31.1	39.2	19.1	19.3	1.8	1.9	84.0	93.7	- 9.7188.5	190.1	1.7	1.9	-	-	-	-	190.2	190.2	- 1.83.9	5.0	2.1	3.4	1.0	4.0	-	-	7.0	12.4	- 5.4
*1
o
o
s
o

Statement by Finance Minister
Public Archives and National Library-
Public Archives	
National Library	
Public Printing and Stationery	
Public Works	
R.C.M.P	
Secretary of State	
Trade and Commerce-
Department	
General	
Transport-
Department	
Air Transport Board	
Board of Transport Comm	
Canadian Maritime Comm	
National Harbours Board	
St. Lawrence Seaway Auth	
Veterans Affairs	
0.7	0.8	-	-	-0.4	0.4	-	-	-3.9	4.1	0.1	0.3	-72.0	75.1	61.7	81.4	58.859.2	60.5	3.3	5.0	-5.0	5.2	-	-	-24.7	25.7	0.3	0.3	0.10.7	0.7	-	-	-117.8	124.7	107.1	131.5	39.40.6	0.6	-	-	-1.3	1.4	-	-	12.80.2	0.2	-	-	17.2-	-	6.4	6.6	-1.7	1.7	0.4	0.4	-81.0	82.4	2.6	4.8	267.1-	-	-	0.7	0.8-	-	-	0.4	0.4-	0.2	0.2	3.8	4.261.6	0.7	0.7	191.8	217.5-	-	-	62.5	65.5-	-	-	5.0	5.20.1	25.0	26.2-	-	-	0.7	0.739.4	10.9	12.2	253.4	283.5-	-	-	0.6	0.617.0	-	-	14.2	18.417.2	-	-	17.4	17.4-	1.2	1.0	5.2	5.6-	-	-	2.1	2.1267.1	19.2	18.7	331.4	335.6
- 0.1
-	0.4 -25.7
-	3.0
-	0.2
- 1.2
-30.0
-	4.2
-	0.4
-	4.2
Total, Civil Departments	
1,204.1	1,238.2	292.4	371.1	2,975.9	3.006.1	40.5	41.1	4,431.8	4,574.2	-142.4Defence Production- Department	
Crown Companies	
National Defence	
18.1 	
6.8 	
1,223.6	18.7 6.9 1,274.8	0.3 0.4 348.5	0.3 0.4 379.3	36.2	39.2	17.6	17.6	18.4 7.2 1,590.8	19.0 7.2 1,675.8	- 0.6 -85.0Total, Defence Departments	
1,248.5	1,300.3	349.2	380.0	36.2	39.2	17.6	17.6	1,616.4	1,702.0	-85.6Total, Budgetary Expenditures	
2,452.6	2,538.5	641.6	751.2	3,012.1	3,045.3	58.1	58.7	6,048.2	6,276.2	-228.0
(Details do not necessarily add to totals, due to rounding.)

an
cn
Statement by Finance Minister

Table 2
CTJ Cn to
ESTIMATES OF BUDGETARY EXPENDITURES FOR 1962-63 (BY STANDARD OBJECTS OF EXPENDITURE AND SPECIAL CATEGORIES) (Revised Estimates compared with Original Estimates)
(in millions of dollars)
Civil Departments
Defence Departments
Totals
Standard Objects
(1)	Civil Salaries and Wages	
(2)	Civilian Allowances	
(3)	Pay and Allowances, R.C.M.P. and Defence
Forces	
(4)	Professional Services	
(5)	Travelling Expenses	
(6)	Freight, Express, etc	
(7)	Postage	
(8)	Telephones, Telegrams, etc	
(9)	Publications	
(10)	Exhibits, Advertising, etc	
(11)	Stationery, Supplies, etc	
(12)	Materials and Supplies	
Buildings and Works-
(13)	Construction	
(14)	Repairs	
(15)	Rentals	
Equipment-
(16)	Acquisition	
(17)	Repairs	
(18)	Rentals	
(19) Public Utility Services	
(201 Grants, Subsidies, etc	
(21)	Pensions, etc	
(22)	Other Expenditures	
Special Categories
(23)	Interest on Public Debt....
(24)	Payments to Provinces	
(25)	Family Allowances	
(26)	Old Age Pensions, etc	
Revised	Original	Difference	Revised	Original	Difference	Revised	Original	Difference	650.6	664.6	-14.0	195.6	205.7	-10.1	846.2	870.3	-24.1	(1)13.5	13.5	-	2.1	2.2	- 0.1	15.6	15.7	- 0.1	(2)36.0	36.3	- 0.3	536.5	545.9	- 9.4	572.5	582.2	- 9.7	(3)55.0	50.2	- 1.2	40.6	42.3	- 1.7	95.6	98.5	- 2.9	(4)25.1	26.7	- 1.6	40.6	42.6	- 2.0	65.7	69.3	- 3.6	(5)5.3	5.6	- 0.3	6.1	6.7	- 0.6	11.4	12.3	- 0.9	(6)5.6	5.6	-	0.8	0.8	-	6.4	6.4	-	(7)13.6	13.9	- 0.3	23.0	25.1	- 2.1	36.6	39.1	- 2.5	(8)7.3	8.0	- 0.7	2.7	2.8	- 0.1	10.0	10.8	- 0.8	(9)12.5	13.4	- 0.9	0.8	1.1	- 0.3	13.3	14.5	- 1.2	(10)17.3	18.8	- 1.5	6.4	6.9	- 0.5	23.7	25.6	- 1.9	(11)70.1	73.6	- 3.5	107.5	117.7	-10.2	177.6	191.3	-13.7	(12)243.5	308.3	-64.8	80.0	86.7	- 6.7	323.5	395.0	-71.5	(13)23.5	25.8	- 2.3	32.2	36.0	- 3.8	55.7	61.9	- 6.2	(14)10.6	10.2	0.4	6.7	6.9	- 0.2	17.3	17.0	0.3	(15)48.3	62.6	-14.3	269.2	293.4	-24.2	317.5	356.0	-38.5	(16)13.0	14.3	- 1.3	131.2	141.4	-10.2	144.2	155.7	-11.5	(17)8.2	8.5	- 0.3	-	-	-	8.3	S.6	- 0.3	(18)39.4	40.0	- 0.6	20.7	20.8	- 0.1	60.1	60.8	- 0.7	(19)483.8	507.7	-23.9	36.2	39.2	- 3.0	520.0	540.9	-20.9	(20)73.5	73.6	- 0.1	70.5	70.5	-	144.1	144.1	-	(21)70.0	78.1	- 8.1	24.4	24.7	- 0.3	94.4	102.8	- 8.4	(22)1,925.6	2,065.2	-139.6	1,634.0	1,719.6	-85.6	3,559.6	3,784.8	-225.2	788.2	788.2	-	788.2	788.2	-	(23)264.6	264.0	-	264.6	264.6	-	(24)536.0	536.0	-	536.0	536.0	-	(25)139.3	139.3	-	139.3	139.3	-	(26)
w



*1
o
o
s
s
o
w
Statement by Finance Minister
(27) Veterans Pensions	176.5	176.5	-	176.5	176.5	-	(27)(28) Other Veterans Benefits	88.8	88.8	-	88.8	88.8	-	(28)(29) Government's Contribution to Unemploy-	ment Insurance Fund	57.5	57.5	-	57.5	57.5	-	(29)(30) Hospital Insurance and General Health	Grants	372.6	376.0	- 3.4	372.6	376.0	- 3.4	(30)(31) Trans Canada Highway Payments	50.0	50.0	-	50.0	50.0	-	(31)(32) Movements of Mail	63.2	63.2	-	63.2	63.2	-	(32)(33) Deficits-Enterprises	10.2	10.2	-	10.2	10.2	-	(33)2,546.8	2,550.2	- 3.4	2,546.8	2,550.2	- 3.4	Total Standard Objects and Special	Categories	4,472.4	4,615.4	-143.0	1,634.0	1,719.6	-85.6	6,106.4	6,335.0	-228.6	(34) Less-Estimated Savings and Recoverable	Items	40.6	41.2	- 0.6	17.6	17.6	-	58.2	58.8	- 0.6	(34)Net Total Estimated Expenditures	4,431.8	4,574.2	-142.4	1,616.4	1,702.0	-85.6	6,048.2	6,276.2	-228.0	
(Details do not necessarily add to totals, due to rounding.)


o>
Ln
o
Statement by Finance Minister

Measurement of Radioactive Fall-out [Later:]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the
statement made by the Minister of Finance earlier today when he presented the revised estimates for the year ending March 31, 1963, will the minister inform the house what part of the so-called economies of $228 million might have been suggested or directed by treasury board or by his predecessor prior to the information given to the house today?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have not a calendar in my mind. From memory I cannot recall the dates when certain actions were taken or when certain decisions were made. All of the revisions contained in the revised estimates were, of course, approved by treasury board and it was under the authority of treasury board and subsequently of the cabinet that they were printed.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: In view of the situation which has arisen today in Toronto, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short statement following what the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced yesterday, namely that radiation statistics would now be published once a month instead of every three months. At that time he pointed out that strontium 90 levels were not viewed as high enough to cause immediate concern and that levels of iodine 131 were still substantially below those for which remedial action was considered essential to public health.
The press reports, in so far as I have seen them, reported the minister's statement factually, but it appears that in some instances headings were used which left the public with the impression that there was a present danger in milk from fall-out material. I think it is important that the house and the public should be reassured, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare made clear yesterday, that this is not the case and the nation's milk supply is quite safe.
I should also like to clarify the reason mention is made of milk in reporting fall-out levels. This is simply for the reason that milk is the commodity which is used for the purpose of taking measurements. It is not intended in any way to indicate that there is any particular danger with respect to milk or, indeed, that fall-out material may be present in milk any more than in other commodities. As a matter of fact, in so far as strontium 90

is concerned, milk is one of the safest of foods because the high level of calcium in milk nullifies to a considerable extent the effects of strontium 90.



RAYMOND RODGERS


Mr. J. C. McNuliy (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I would like to present a petition from Raymond Spencer Rodgers, the parliamentary correspondent for the St. Catharines Standard, concerning his application for admission as associate member to the parliamentary press gallery association.


Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether it would be in the interests of hon. members to have the petition read so that we may be made aware of what is before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: This, pursuant to standing order 70, would happen tomorrow.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. Richard A. Bell (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved:: That the house do go into committee of the whole at its next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:-
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of an Indian claims commission and the appointment of its members and staff; to provide for their salaries and expenses; to define the duties of the commission, to authorize it to exercise certain powers and to provide for other related and incidental matters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
That a sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and controlled by the government be appointed to consider the accounts, estimates and bills relating to the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys, and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time, and that notwithstanding standing order 67 in relation to the limitation of the number of members, the said committee shall consist of 26 members.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, this government notice

of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Kon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether it is a fact that negotiations between the Canadian Pacific Railway and its employees have broken down. If so, what steps does the government intend to take now in connection with this very vital matter?
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations between the C.P.R. and the trainmen from time to time have broken off and have been resumed. We have been instrumental in getting them together. We hope to be able to get them together again so they may iron out their difficulties.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the government or the Minister of Justice received any new or amended proposals from the premier of British Columbia with respect to the financing of the Columbia river development?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: No, sir.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government received a submission from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture asking for an immediate halt to all railway branch line abandonment proceedings and the formulation of a national plan and policy on abandonment? What consideration has been given to this request, particularly in view of the fact that hearings before the board of transport commissioners in a series of applications-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think if the hon. member would heed the advice I gave him
Inquiries of the Ministry on a previous occasion, perhaps the question would receive much more favourable consideration and he could get an answer to it if he limited it to the first portion thereof.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your advice, but I wanted to point out that I had used the second part to demonstrate the urgency, namely that the hearings before the board are commencing today. But I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government has had such a submission, and whether it is going to halt these proceedings.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. Discussions are continuing among representatives of the railway companies, the western elevator companies and the ministers of transport and agriculture. When determination has been made following these discussions, the house will be made aware of the results.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would care to comment on that portion of the request asking that the proceedings before the board of transport commissioners should be suspended pending this consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman would be the first to raise the strongest objection if the government interfered in any way with an autonomous body such as the board of transport commissioners.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. P. Ryan (Spadina):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the government plan to construct public bomb shelters in the large cities of Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, matters such as that will be announced when decisions are made in respect thereof.



TORONTO-REPORTED REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE RESPECTING FALL-OUT SHELTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the grave international situation alluded to yesterday by the Prime Minister, may I ask him to explain to the house why officials of this government have continued to refuse to give financial assistance to the city of Toronto in order to build fall-out shelters in the Toronto subway and underground garages.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While the hon. member may have embarked on a proper question, I think he got quite off the rails. Obviously the question is of such a nature as to invite an argumentative answer. For that reason I do not think I should allow it to go in that form.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister be prepared to undertake immediate action to amend schedule 5 of the federal-provincial training program so as, shall we say, to take off the emphasis on English language training? The reason I request this action, which I feel is urgent, is that under the present federal-provincial program for trainees, the very people it is designed to help, namely those of, say, Italian descent who cannot speak English, cannot get the benefit-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While I recognize the importance to the hon. member of the question or the representations he may wish to make to the Minister of Labour, I think he would do much better in getting his point across and getting the necessary information if he put his question on the order paper, when he will get a full reply at an early date.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-While Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the government taken a decision to reduce the status of the catering service at Gander airport, with a consequent reduction in staff?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to find out from my department; I have not got the information available here this afternoon.
(Translation):



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I gave him notice of it.


We learned this morning that two million people will be facing great hardship this winter, as a result of the troubles which have occurred recently in Algeria. As we have in stock great quantities of wheat, powdered milk, eggs and canned pork, stored at present in army barracks, in Lauzon for instance, is it the intention of the government to donate to the Red Cross a portion of those goods in order to ease such hardship?


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that the minister to whom this question is directed and I find ourselves in the same position. The hon. member spoke so fast when he started asking his question that we could not take in its meaning.


Bernard Dumont: Will you allow me to repeat it, Mr. Speaker?


An hon. Member:: Slowly.


Bernard Dumont: We have learned that two million people will be facing great hardship this winter as a result of the troubles which have occurred recently in Algeria. As we have in stock great quantities of wheat, powdered milk, eggs and canned pork, stored at present in army barracks, in Lauzon for instance, is it the intention of the government to donate to the Red Cross a portion of those goods in order to ease such hardship?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer that question later.
(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell the house whether any agreement has been reached with the United States regarding the custody and firing of nuclear warheads which may be used by Canadian forces?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister advise the house whether the policy remains as it was when he announced it on February 26, 1962, that in the event that nuclear war should break out, the government would send a letter to Washington asking for an immediate conclusion of these negotiations?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have
always given the hon. gentleman credit for being able to read. His conclusions have no basis in fact, and while they are facetious, they convey no interest to me whatsoever.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It depends which paragraph you read.
(Translation):



REQUEST FOR MILITARY COURSES IN FRENCH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: I should like to direct my question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Could not the militia courses given in the various areas of the province of Quebec be given in French also?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. member that in the Frenchspeaking units, as well as in the camps where French Canadians happen to be, military training as well as commands and exercises are given in the French language.



REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO ARMOURIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, following the reply given a moment ago by the Associate Minister of National Defence, I should like to ask him whether he could have an investigation made in the various armories of the province of Quebec, and more particularly in Thetford Mines, in order to determine whether the situation is really such as he has described a moment ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe that, considering the fact that such a situation might have existed for some time and the fact that the hon. member has made his representations, the minister could consider the question as a notice.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Carroll Patrick McNulty: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he could give an answer tomorrow to question No. 178, in view of the urgency of part 6 of that question.


Hon. J. W. Monleith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look into the matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry BRITISH COLUMBIA



STANLEY PARK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Nicholson (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether it is too late to include in the 1962-63 municipal winter works incentive program for British Columbia a federal contribution toward the cost of restoring the vast areas in Stanley park damaged in the hurricane which recently swept through greater Vancouver?


Michael Starr: It
is not too late, because the program for this winter only started on October 15. Stanley park is a federal government property leased to the city of Vancouver. Projects under this plan have been submitted by the municipality of Vancouver in former years. Certainly if the city of Vancouver submits other projects to the province for its approval, I am sure there would be no problem in getting approval from the federal government.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and I will try to ask it at a reasonable pace because we cannot expect the translators on either side to translate machine gun style speaking. Will the minister make arrangements for members to obtain from officials or members of the staff of the minister's department any technical information that they consider necessary in their study of any particular problem that is the concern of parliament?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to consider a request for information on any subject which is within the province of this house.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Prime Minister was good enough to say that he would inquire from the royal commission on
658	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry banking and finance whether it was their intention to hear any witnesses in camera, and would communicate that intelligence to the house. I wonder if the right hon. gentleman has had the opportunity to do that yet.


John George Diefenbaker: I have no information on that matter, Mr. Speaker. As soon as I hear from the commission I will advise the house.



ONTARIO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Would and could the minister entertain taking immediate steps to bring a bill before the house embodying either similar or identical terms as those in the unconscionable transactions act of Ontario which was overruled by the court of appeal?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the decision to which the hon. member refers was handed down only 48 hours ago by the Ontario court of appeal. There may or may not be an appeal taken from that decision. The whole subject will receive proper study.


John Carr Munro: On a point of order or as a supplementary question, the import of my question was whether or not the minister could see any harm in having a bill immediately-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With all due deference to the hon. member, he may not comment on the nature of the reply.
(Translation):



CANADA COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I received, last week, the report of the Canada Council for 1961-62. I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister as the letter is addressed to him.
In this report, there is some question about what has been done with the amounts of money supplied by the federal government's Canada Council. At a certain point, it is noted that a great proportion of those amounts has been invested in finance companies.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am very sorry, but
I find, even if the hon. member has not finished asking his question, that it is not in order, because it has not the character of urgency which would justify its being put during the question period, on the orders of the day.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I did not even
ask my question. You cannot know whether
[Mr. Pickersgill.l

it is urgent or not. May I ask my question?


Mr. Speaker:: What the hon. member has in his hands is a report made available to the public some time ago. According to this report, the Prime Minister was referring to a committee. Consequently, discussing the report in detail is not acceptable at this time.
If the hon. member intends to insist upon some information, I would suggest that he put his question on the order paper.



LENDING OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS TO FINANCE COMPANIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that government money is being lent, at interest rates of 3J per cent, to finance companies which, in turn, lend it to the Canadian people at 30 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to remind the hon. member for Lapointe that his question or comments are not in order, since he is giving us information or expressing opinions.
(Text):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport a question which first requires a slight explanation because it involves earlier questions which I directed to him. On October 16 I asked the minister whether he was in a position to reply to questions which I had asked earlier about trains nos. 195 and 196 of the Canadian National Railways and trains nos. 3 and 4 in the western part of the country. The answer the minister gave me on October 16 was that he was going to write me a long letter containing all the information.
I should like to ask the minister now whether he will write me another letter or give me an answer to the question I asked with respect to the safety of the employees concerned, their employment, what the government is doing about it and also with respect to what plans the government has to deal with the proposed discontinuance of trains nos. 3 and 4, none of which information was contained in the letter.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very pleased to carry on such an interesting correspondence with my hon. friend, and I will answer his questions in writing.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question, and it is this. Would the minister be concerned about doing something with regard to the problem and never mind engaging in correspondence.



TRADE AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister give us the reason for the delay in presenting the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for 1961, which I believe was due yesterday?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, for some time I have had copies of the report in English but have been anxiously awaiting the production of the copies in French. However, as they have still not arrived I have today tabled the required copies of the report in English. The copies in French will be tabled immediately they are available.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Finance, in view of the fact that a question which was made an order for return related to the estimates which he brought down today, whether it would be possible for him to expedite the return to question 218 in my name so that the answer might be available in time for the consideration of interim supply.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will check on that matter and try to facilitate the hon. member.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Malcolm Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether any representation has been received requesting federal government
Inquiries of the Ministry assistance in establishing a permanent fishing industry in the New Waterford area.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the question he has asked is one that almost all members whose ridings include on maritime areas could ask, and hence we could spend a good part of the afternoon on some sort of fishing expedition. I suggest that he put his question on the order paper.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would just ask you to consider, with all due respect, that I think there is something of a difference between this question and similar questions from other constituencies in that, in the early part of August, a mine in this town was closed involving the displacement of some 914 men. These people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I fully appreciate what the hon. member has said. However, I do not think that a discussion of a permanent fishing industry in the area of New Waterford is of sufficient urgency to be discussed at this particular time. I earnestly suggest to the hon. member that he put his question on the order paper, where he can expand on it and can get perhaps a fuller answer than he could get on the orders of the day.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister assure the house that the vacancy on the civil service commission will be filled according to the merit system?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all appointments
made by this government are based on merit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he will see what he can do to expedite the early tabling of the return ordered the other day about defeated candidates?



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question. Was a report on plans for a national park presented to a public meeting in Alberta
.k.

Farm Credit Act
two days ago? If so, what responsibility did his department have for this report and is it available to members of the house?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Oberlander report was presented at a public meeting in Banff on Tuesday evening. This is a report prepared by a firm of community consultants. It will be studied by the department and any decision as to making it available to members of the house will have to be made following departmental study.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is the report available to members of parliament at the present time?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: No, not at the moment.



FARM CREDIT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 16, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Hamilton-Mr. Chown in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Credit Act to increase the capital of the Farm Credit Corporation from $12 million to $16 million so as to increase the lending capacity of the corporation from $300 million to $400 million: and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Mr. Roxburgh:: Mr. Chairman, before I deal with this matter I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture has any statement to make first. If not, may I say that I have in my hand the report of the Farm Credit Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1962 and I should like to direct hon. members' attention to the following under the heading "Crop Share Agreements":
During the fiscal year, 354 farmers in the spring wheat area of western Canada entered into crop share agreements with the corporation providing for the repayment of their loans by annual amounts related to the crops grown rather than by fixed annual instalments.
I quite realize that the government have not been given too much credit recently for some of their policies, but at this time I should like to give credit to the Minister of Agriculture for bringing this program forward because it is most important so far as specialized crops are concerned. In the county of Norfolk from which I come, and where tobacco is the main crop, this idea has been in effect for some time in regard to loans from individual moneylenders who take payment from the crop harvested.
I want to bring to the minister's attention that so far only these 354 spring wheat farmers have been covered under the legislation, and in my view every farmer who grows a specialized crop should be able to have the

same plan. We know it is utterly impossible to do this on general farms, but there is no reason why this provision should be limited to any one group of farmers. I suggest to the minister that it should be extended to cover farmers all the way from the east coast to the west; onion growers, the fruit growers of British Columbia, the tobacco growers of central Canada and the potato growers of the maritimes. There is no reason why it should not be extended.
One of the main reasons for this type of financing for specialized farming is that while the farmer has a chance of making a lot of money one year, he also has a chance of losing a lot of money another year. I have known a tobacco grower who has done very well in one year, and for the next two years has been wiped out by either hail or frost. Under the regular plan he still has to meet his obligations, and in some cases he has to go to the bank to finance a loan so that he can at least pay the interest on his mortgage.
By doing it this way it means that whatever the agreement may be, whether it is 25 per cent of the crop return, or 15 per cent, or whatever it may, that amount is taken out. If the farmer has a good crop, then he makes a good payment. If he does not have a good crop, he does not make any payment. Under the old plan, as I explained previously, he would have to meet his payment anyway. I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture, therefore, that he extend this privilege to the farmers growing specialized crops from coast to coast.
There is another situation which I should like to bring to his attention. I refer to the movement of youth from the small farms in Canada, for many reasons I shall not go into now, to the urban centres. The mother and dad are left to run the farm, and today that is out of the question. I know of many cases in which buyers have been interested in taking over these farms, but because of the tight restrictions under the present set-up of the credit corporation, they are not able to get enough money to carry these farms. There are hundreds of people throughout Canada who are in this position, and, as a result, farms are lying idle. I know many of these people eventually go to the moneylenders.
I am going to tell you something right now. I know that in our district many of these people are not charged 5 per cent or 6 per cent, but must pay 7 per cent or 8 per cent, and I have known cases where 9 per cent has been charged. In some instances after the mortgage has been paid off they have to give the gentleman another $1,000 or $2,000, depending on the size of the mortgage. I feel keenly about this. I feel that if the people on the smaller farms were

given the privilege of making use of the lower interest rates available under this plan, many of these farms would be put to good use.
In addition, the human element is not taken into consideration in a lot of these cases. I come from a county in which there are many who we will not call new Canadians, because they are Canadians, but for the purpose of this illustration I will call them new Canadians. They are people who have come to this country and their heart is still with the soil. Many of these people have taken over farms such as the ones to which I have referred and have made a success of them. However, as a result of their inability to acquire money at a reasonable rate of interest, they are having difficult times.
I should like to mention that under the old farm loan board, when an individual made an application to the representative it was passed on to the man who checked the farms. At one time the fee was $10; later it was raised to $15, before the new board took over. I mentioned the fact that the new board is now charging $50, and this was referred to by the hon. member for Assiniboia. If a man cannot raise $50, then what is the purpose of worrying about getting a loan on his farm? I know of one case where a young gentleman has a farm with a certain acreage of tobacco, and cattle. Actually he is a good risk but the unit is not large enough to qualify according to the representative, so he was turned down. However, an individual moneylender felt that he was a good risk so he lent him the money. However, instead of paying 5 per cent he is now paying 7.5 per cent. I should like to point out, therefore, that the human element has to be taken into consideration as well.
I should like to say, too, that in my district under the old board many more farmers were granted loans than under the present set-up. I will admit that more money is being lent under this set-up, but not to a greater number of farmers. In the first full year, which I understand ends on March 31, under the old board before the new board took over there was a profit of $277,938. Then the next year, the new board and old board together had a profit of $240,000. During the first full year of the new board the loss was $202,000, and I understand that in the final full year under the new board which ended March 31, 1962, it was $760,000.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: We are not in the
business of making money on this sort of thing.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: That might be all right, but the old board made loans to more small
Farm Credit Act
farmers and still showed a profit. Then I should like to bring to the minister's attention-


An hon. Member:: They never lent much to the farmers.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Are you finished talking over there? Because I think I have something to say with which, when you hear it, you will be in agreement. I just want to bring this to the minister's attention. You know, there is something we forget about today. It does not make any difference whether it is hockey, the township council, the municipal council or what it is; there is one thing we have in our mind, and that is dollars and cents. There are many things we forget about, but we should think of the moral fibre of the country and what brings it about. I want to say, and I think every hon. member will agree with me, that it was the small farm over the years, before the great cities were formed, that were the very basis of Canada. I would say that a great many hon. members originally came from small farms. They must remember mornings when they were young, mornings when they kicked their feet through the wet grass going after the cows, the times they crawled up a tree to see what was in a robin's nest, and the times they went down to the old swimming hole. There is something about the earth and the sky which brings us a little closer to God, and we must contrast that with the hustle and bustle of city life. Being close to nature we have a little more understanding, and that of itself brings us closer to God.
We in the Liberal party are not seeking donations for the small farmers. As the hon. member for Assiniboia pointed out, they are the best risk in Canada in terms of dollars and cents. All we are asking is that the Minister of Agriculture give them a break; because now more than ever before, with the world the way it is, we need the help of the small farmers in carrying out our work in the Dominion of Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Chairman, as a farmer and on behalf of the farmers in my riding, my province and my country, I am happy to support the program put forward by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) because the purpose of this bill is to increase the lending capacity of the Farm Credit Corporation.
In addition to further extending benefits under the act, the house is now called upon to endorse an increase of the corporation's capital from $12 million to $16 million. This means that the corporation will therefore offer farmers an additional $100 million, or a total of $400 million.

Farm Credit Act
The federal Farm Credit Corporation as reorganized in 1959 under this administration, is made of highly experienced men who have at heart the successful operation of the corporation and the consequent welfare and success of the farmers.
At this time, I should like-on behalf of the government-to reiterate all the confidence we put on those high officials and to remind them that we, as supporters of the government, also wish every application for loan or inquiry submitted by the farmers to be most carefully considered. In my opinion, a farm adviser, can, through his actions, insure either the success or failure of a farm. That is the reason why he must consider each case with the greatest care. If it is a small farm it may be an economical unit-especially if it is a family undertaking-that assures the livelihood of the whole family. Therefore with the help of a good adviser and with a little more money this farmer can organize his farm and draw a better living from it.
Up to now, having had the advantage to see at close range the work done by these officials, I suggest that we cannot but commend them and advise them to continue their good work, putting all their energy and talent to the service of our farmers.
In other words, it would be unfortunate that their work should become a routine; it would be really unfortunate for that group in our society, that I respect and love and that we should help.
Mr. Chairman, before this government took over, the act governing this corporation was under the minister of finance. I notice that some new members find that rather strange. But, through the present government, the act passed under the authority of the Minister of Agriculture, which is more logical.
Moreover, at the time when the act was revised, an advisory committee was set up by the government to represent farming associations. That advisory committee also speaks on behalf of the farmers, who are in a better position to make recommendations to the minister or to the government than the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and who, in my opinion, does not know very much about the Canadian Farm Credit Act.
The function of the advisory committee, Mr. Chairman, is to advise the corporation and make recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture in order that he may amend the administration of the act, as required.

The additional amount of money which the government is asking the house to vote will enable the Farm Credit Corporation to increase the loans granted to Canadian farmers.
In the course of the present 1962-63 fiscal year, nearly as much money will be lent to Canadian farmers by the Farm Credit Corporation as was lent by the Liberals over a period of 22 years.
Loans to be granted this year by the Farm Credit Corporation will amount to approximately $85 million, while the loans granted by the Liberals over a period of 22 years reached only about $102 million.
Moreover, although the hon. member who just resumed his seat said that under the previous act more farmers were granted loans, I find on page 24 of the Farm Credit Corporation's report that in 22 years the Liberals extended credit to approximately
15.000	farmers, while the Conservatives, in five years of administration, lent money to
14.000	farmers. In addition, this year included, the government will have granted over $300 million in loans to Canadian farmers within six years. For instance, in British Columbia, this year, the amount of loans went up by 18 per cent, compared to last year; in Alberta, there was a 22 per cent increase; in Saskatchewan, an increase of 11 per cent; in Manitoba, 22 per cent; in Ontario, 11 per cent, while in the province of Quebec, the increase was of 370 per cent.
The hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin) was quite right in saying the other day that it was not thanks to the Conservatives but rather to the Liberal government of Mr. Lesage that those loans were being granted in the province of Quebec. As a matter of fact, a farmer in my riding applied to the province for farm credit after June 1960. He learned in June 1962 that he was being granted a loan for $5,900. This farmer got angry and said he did not want the loan. He then applied to the Farm Credit Corporation and in August 1962 was granted a loan for $11,200.
Such is the difference between a government which looks after farm people and the other which is reluctant to lend money to farmers. Such is the difference between a party respected in the province of Quebec and the Liberal party which has always sought to sabotage the Farm Credit Act. We had an example of this in 1940; we have a further example this year, in 1961-62.
Mr. Chairman, that additional amount which we are requested to put at the disposal of the corporation will enable them to lend

$100 million more to Canadian farmers, which will help them increase their income.
The other day I heard the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) tell us that the net income per farm in Canada had constantly decreased. All farmers in Canada are well aware of the difference between net income and actual net income. For instance, in 1954, according to the dominion bureau of statistics, the actual net income per farm in Canada averaged $1,902. Now, that amount increased year after year until today, when it amounts to $2,797. It is true that the four western provinces have higher incomes than we have, that Ontario has an actual net income of $2,629, while in the province of Quebec, the income is only $1,946, and that in the maritime provinces it is still lower. That is the average according to the dominion bureau of statistics for the year 1961.


Mr. Drouin:: May I ask the hon. member where he took those figures?


Clément Vincent: Of course; I took them exactly where the hon. member for Assiniboia took his. Those are the figures for the actual net income. There is certainly a difference between net income and actual net income. Anybody who knows anything about agriculture, anybody who is in close contact with farmers can see the difference between net income and actual net income.


Vincent Drouin: May I ask the hon. member where he got his information and figures?


Clément Vincent: The dominion bureau of statistics, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa. You can write to Mr. Chagnon, the deputy minister. Do you also want the telephone number?
Furthermore, we need in eastern Canada, especially since June 1960, farm credits which will really provide our farmers with money. When I look at the amount the Minister of Agriculture will make available to the Farm Credit Corporation, I would say that, normally, were I not sure that important events will happen in Quebec next November 14, we would certainly need even more money.
The hon. member, speaking of agricultural matters on behalf of the Liberal party, asked himself why the federal Farm Credit Corporation had scarcely made any loans in the province of Quebec prior to this year. Well, the answer is simply that the provincial Farm Credit Corporation, in 22 years, under
Farm Credit Act
the Liberals, made loans amounting to $200 million to Quebec farmers, because this act is almost non-existent and inoperative under a Liberal administration. That, Mr. Chairman, explains why the federal farm credit is helping our farmers re-organize their farms into strong units which will provide them with a decent living.
The Minister of Agriculture stated in a speech he gave in Joliette that he was going to do for eastern Canada exactly what he had done for western Canada; those words were heard by the farmers of the province of Quebec.


Vincent Drouin: That is why they voted for Social Credit.


Clément Vincent: We are going to keep an eye on him. We are going to call upon him to work in eastern Canada just as hard as he did in the west.
Mr. Chairman, there is another thing on which I would like to draw your attention, concerning what the federal Farm Credit Corporation has done. We have agricultural advisers throughout Canada, in offices where farmers may go and discuss their problems. These advisers, when they meet a farmer, will fill out an interview form. As the hon. member of the opposition pointed out the other day, the eleventh question on this form is: Is this person acceptable? Does this person or this firm qualify under section 12(1) of the regulations? This is the question which the adviser is asking in order to check whether the farmer meets the requirements of section 12(1). There is also section 12(2). This is not an arbitrary question which can be judged by the agricultural adviser.
That is the difference between those who really know the score as regards the Farm Credit Corporation, who know that this corporation lends money to farmers to help them organize their farm, and those who know nothing about it. In reply to the hon. member for Bonaventure who claimed the other day that the federal government promotes mainly the purchase of farm machinery and forgets the land itself, I would like to refer him to page 21 of the report, where we can see that in 1961-62, 57.8 per cent of the loans were granted for the purchase of farmland while only 1.3 per cent were granted for the purchase of equipment. We have another act under which the farmers can secure assistance to purchase machinery, especially for the organization of the farm.

Farm Credit Act
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to deal at too great length with this resolution but when we hear statements like the ones which were made the other day by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin), when he stated that the corporation lends only to those who need it the least-


An hon. Member:: Which is true.


Clément Vincent: In fact, the hon. member's exact words are recorded on page 198 of Hansard for October 4, 1962. They read as follows:
The fact is that the guarantees asked for in practice are such that most applications are rejected.
The corporation grants loans only to those who need them the least and it asks more in the way of guarantees than any bank would, and that is saying a good deal.
Mr. Chairman, if that was the situation during the 22 years that our Liberal friends were in office, things have changed. As I said, more money will be lent in the year 1962-1963 only, than during the 22 years of Liberal administration.
Consequently, I would ask all hon. members to study thoroughly and seriously the Farm Credit Act. I would suggest that they meet with high officials of the corporation, that they talk with them and, finally, that they get in touch with the officials in their own provinces to see what the corporation can do in each case and how the act is administered. Thus, when farmers come here to complain-because some applications will surely be turned down-they will be in a position to discuss with those officials, to air their complaints and to co-operate more fully with the employees of the Farm Credit Corporation.
I also suggest that the advisory committee -which was set up in 1959 to represent farmers and farm organizations and which does not sit on the board of directors but advises the minister

should meet at least three times a year in order to speak more than it does for farmers and farm organizations and to give the information needed for the continuous improvement of this act, although its present administration is most satisfactory.
We, the Conservatives, are always practical people. We know there is always room for improvement as we knew, when this advisory committee was set up, that they would suggest improvements to the act, improvements which

we continually introduce because we can depend on the co-operation of a Minister of Agriculture who understands the needs of the eastern farmers as well as those of the western farmers.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, it gives me pleasure to rise for the first time in this house, first, to congratulate you and also, to give my views concerning the farm measure before the house.
The riding of Roberval I have the honour to represent is partly industrial, but mostly rural. Therefore, I am quite at ease to comment on this matter.
I thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) for giving us another opportunity at least to discuss agriculture.
For many years, I have been noticing a steady decline of agriculture in Quebec. And that is where I find myself in opposition to the statements of the minister. Indeed, our agriculture has declined and will keep doing so because the more we legislate, the more the farmer is getting into debt. That fact is substantiated by the bill itself. Therefore, you must anticipate again sharp decreases in the coming years because you have to increase the farmers' debt from $300 to $400 million and yet, we, in the Social Credit, maintain that $500 million should be voted to meet the needs of the farmers.
Mr. Chairman, there is certainly something wrong in this chamber; some members have lost touch with the realities. And to prove my point, I refer you to the newspaper Le Devoir which says today that the Minister of Agriculture has warned eastern farmers to reduce their production by one third, otherwise the subsidies will be abolished.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister gave serious thought to the thousands of Quebec children who do not have the six cents they need to buy a half pint of milk.
Mr. Chairman, since when can one become a millionaire by piling up debts?
We, in the Social Credit, are aware of the frightening chaos towards which our agriculture is moving under this system of debt-money. This system does not make sense as any normal man can see right away.
Is it possible, even when talking about agriculture, to be ignorant to the point of taking a debt for a credit?

Mr. Chairman, that is where we have been led by the despicable monetary system we are forced to use.
Our good friends in the old parties remind me of the galley slaves in centuries past. Their slavery has become a way of life, to the point where they now lack the strength to look up and see the immense potential of their country. That means, Mr. Chairman, that we do not have even the hope of a true agricultural reform in our country.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, in the agricultural field, even more maybe than in any other, we have our own financiers. Let us not look in other countries to find the cause of our present problem; let us look at home first.
First they started by grabbing a bag of potatoes, a bag of carrots, one of wheat, then two, three, ten, twenty . . . and this was not serious in the eyes of our small profiteers. But today we have come to the point where they get more money out of the product than the producer himself. And that is precisely at this stage that the situation has become critical for our farming industry. The little financiers of yesterday have become so important that there is nothing left for the producers. And rest assured that the people know it today because we have kept them informed. Besides, I am not concerned about the fate of our Canadian financiers, past or present, because "their country has served them well".
However, if we must choose the lesser of two evils and if we persist in refusing to use the numerous facilities of the Bank of Canada in agricultural matters, which would allow the farmers to get credit instead of getting into debt, we encourage increases of the amounts made available to the Farm Credit Corporation-or even better, of our agricultural debts. But we, from the province of Quebec, claim at least the right to get into debt on a comparable degree with the citizens of other provinces.
And to do so it will be necessary to lower the floor in order to promote the development of our family farms.
We are maybe unique but it must be recognized that we are neither socialists nor government control supporters. We believe in the family industry; we believe in the family farm, and we shall never go for the collective farms Moscow style.
In order to promote family farming in Quebec, the minimum loans should be at least $2,000.
Farm Credit Act
We are absolutely convinced, however, that if our farmers were getting fair prices, under an agreement with the western provinces, very small loans only would be needed to support their efforts.
Therefore, instead of granting only a few large loans for the benefit of only one small group of farmers, the government should put small loans at the disposal of all farmers who wish to improve their family farms.
Mind you, Mr. Chairman, it is not necessarily the few hundred industrial farmers who need those loans, but rather those who by the hundreds must abandon their farms each year, because governments gave more thought to the rich financiers than to the common man. We suggest, in addition to that, that all those small loans be granted without interest, that is at cost.
The former governments disregarded seriously their duties by letting those courageous farmers perish.
Since coming to the house, I have been wondering whether the members favourable to financiers outnumber those who favour our farmers. And yet we were all elected by the people and for the people.
I admit that many members of the old parties did not show their true faces to their electors. We have had proof of it these last few days. While we were discussing certain resolutions dealing with important improvements for our agriculture in Quebec, resolutions entirely favourable to Quebec farmers, we saw the great protectors of finance rise in all their dignity to kill those motions in the bud, without permitting them to see daylight. That is why I declare that as long as financiers control the destiny of our agriculture, we shall have to suffer the logical consequences: debts.
After all that, do not wonder any more why the people voted Social Credit. But do show resoluteness right away because the next time the people will vote in the Social Credit to obtain a new deal for agriculture.
Agriculture is the basis of our economy, the same as the citizen, the worker, the farmer are the basis of our society; and this worker, this farmer, can only find security and freedom in Social Credit.
When Social Credit policies are implemented we will then see a return to the family farm type of operation, with the small homesteader surrounded by his nice large Canadian family. Then will we prove to the face of the earth that it is not the big trusts but the community of large families living in peace and justice which make for a great nation.

Farm Credit Act
There are some slights, Mr. Chairman, that a child cannot forget. Indeed, we are sons of the soil and we are despoiled of our heritage by the trusts, the finance companies which are extensions of the chartered banks. Nowadays, we are reduced to the status of mere slaves, mere leaseholders in a country said to belong to us.
And those same private banks wield a right of life and death over the whole of our farm economy because irresponsible governments have left them entirely free to give birth to that terrible credit-money.
And the more one cries, the more finance tightens the screw, and the more it orders its acolytes, the governments, to punish the people through austerity.
Mr. Chairman, we must today face the dour reality, not to hide our heads in the sand ostrich-fashion, but to send forth a SOS to all people of good will, and to enable the farmer to live a decent and honourable life on his farm, in his country, Canada. (Text):


James Carroll Patrick McNulty: I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to add to his amendment to the Farm Credit Act a clause allowing for an increase in the maximum amount of the standard loan to $30,000 and an increase in the maximum amount of the supervised farm loan to $40,000. This amount may seem like a great deal. However, most of the farmers in our area consider themselves to be small farmers in the sense of property but big farmers in the sense of production. I make this request because there are many independent farmers who are unable to make from their present holdings sufficient profit to provide for adequate family living. Then there are family farming corporations with the same problem only in a broader sense. Both groups are unable to borrow enough money at a reasonable interest rate to extend their holdings so as to make their modern farming hopes possible and reasonably profitable.
Most of the farms in our area have belonged in the same families for a great number of years, many of them leading back to crown grants in 1790 and so on. These people are extremely proud of the fact that their families tend to stay on the farm and they would like, if possible, to preserve that tradition. I know that, in a great many instances, only an increase in the maximum amount of these specific types of loans will make this objective possible for our people.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I have been interested in this legislation for some time. In fact, I spoke at some length on it the last time it was brought before the house in 1961 and I suggested some changes at that

time. I do not intend to deal with those particular suggestions again, although I have hopes that they may be incorporated in the bill when it is before the house. The bill to be based on this resolution in fact will increase the capital of the Farm Credit Corporation from $12 million to $15 million so as to increase the lending capacity of the corporation from $300 million to $400 million. In that sense this is a regular step because, when this government took office, the capital of the Farm Credit Corporation was $4 million, with a total lending capacity of something like $80 million. Certainly under today's modernized system of lending money to farmers, this amount would no longer be sufficient to make it possible to handle the amount of loans outstanding. At the present time the loans outstanding amount to approximately $200 million. They have been made within the last three years.
Actually I was greatly interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Roberval. He dealt at great length with the Social Credit theory of finance. It is interesting, Mr. Chairman, to compare his remarks with regard to capital with those of the leader of his party. The leader of that party said, as found on pages 602 and 603 of Hansard:
I believe the capital for this type of credit, rather than coming from tax capital ought to be available from private investment capital because it is productive capital.
In other words, the leader of the Social Credit party wants private investment capital to do this job and, as near as I could gather, the other member wants the government to print the money. That is quite a difference between two very able spokesmen for their party. So far as private investment capital is concerned, I wonder where you would get private investment capital to make long term loans to farmers at 5 per cent interest. I wonder how this could be accomplished in today's business circles.


An hon. Member:: Not now.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear "not now" from some hon. member over on the Liberal benches. When dealing with interest it is interesting to point out that when such legislation was first introduced in 1929 the Liberal party was in power and there was a 6| per cent interest rate on all money lent to farmers at that time. That remained in effect until a Conservative government reduced it to 5 per cent.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are the only party that reduced the ceiling maximum.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My friend from As-siniboia had a lot to say in this debate. He was waving his arms and doing a lot of shouting.


Hazen Robert Argue: Just another Hornerite.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I realize the hon. member referred to the good Lord in his speech and maybe this classifies him as a Hornerite, but I would doubt it. I think he would have to go further than that in declaring himself. It is interesting to note that in his remarks he urged at some length that this bill should be sent to the committee on agriculture. Oh, it was a must. Hon. members must study it. All of a sudden this party is interested in the small farmer. What did they do when they were in power for 22 years? Could a small farmer get a loan? No, the small farmers got nothing from them. The only people who could get loans when they were in office were those who did not need the loans, those who had the financial backing to enable them to get money from any source. They were the only people who could get loans when the Liberals were in office; but now all of a sudden the Liberals are worried about the small farmers.
Let me get back to where I was. The hon. member spoke about referring the bill to the committee on agriculture. I was a member of that committee in 1958 when this legislation was last studied. The member for Assiniboia was also on that committee. He was present at the first meeting when the committee was set up and the chairman and vice chairman were chosen. Did he attend another meeting? Did he ask any questions of the then chairman of the farm loan board? No, he never attended one meeting. That is how interested he was in this legislation in those days.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was sitting in the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: He was a socialist then.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He was a socialist then.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Who is calling order?


Hazen Robert Argue: A point of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The chairman has to recognize him, not I.


The Chairman:: The hon. member for Levis on a point of order.
(Translation):


Mr. Roy:: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the hon. member has learned his speech by heart, but would it be too much to ask him to speak more slowly to give the interpreters a chance.
Farm Credit Act
(Text):


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Believe me, I was not
trying to upset any record established by any other member. That is the farthest thing from my mind. I am simply vitally concerned about this legislation and some of the remarks made by members who are now all of a sudden interested in the small farmers.
I will start again where I left off. The hon. member for Assiniboia was then with the socialist party. He was the leader of that party and often in the house at that time he wanted various measures sent to committee. Yet he never or very rarely attended committees. But he had a perfect excuse in those days. He said, "I am the leader of the party; I could not attend because I was too busy". He may have more time now.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have, a lot more.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If he was interested in this legislation in 1958, it is strange that he never had one of his eight disciples attend the committee to ask questions on his behalf. Not one of them ever attended or asked a question. I do not know where he was. Maybe he was looking for the leadership that caused him so much disappointment when he did not get it.
The hon. member for Assiniboia dealt at great length with farm conditions today and the dire need of the farmers for a stepped-up program of farm loans. I should like to deal for a minute with farm conditions as they appear to me. There was a great deal of verbiage from the member for Assiniboia. At one time he declared that the act was a dismal failure and he wanted a great many things done about it. He also dealt at great length with the net income figure for farmers. He did not realize that the bureau of statistics net income figure-maybe he does but I will point this out for the benefit of the committee -includes two educated guesses which can lead to a great deviation and variation in the net income figure.
People from some parts of the country may not be aware of farm conditions and if they want to take a quick look at the situation I suggest they should look at the realized net income figure, which is much more accurate. They will get a more accurate picture of the situation in western Canada. What has been the picture in the last few years? In 1950 and 1951 prices were at a high peak. Then they slowly declined until 1956 and 1957. But when the present government took office the prices that farmers received for their crops, wheat, cattle and hogs, began to increase slowly. This can be seen quickly by looking at the bureau of statistics agricultural price index.
What is the condition with regard to farmers in western Canada today and what was

Farm Credit Act
it last fall? Because of this government's aggressive wheat export policy we have sold and exported more wheat in the five years we have been in office than the previous Liberal government did, and if members of that party in the corner want to check the figures I suggest that they get the Canadian wheat board report for the year ending in 1962 because the figures are there. We exported more wheat in the last five years than the previous government did in the last five years they were in office. This created a situation where last fall farmers for the first time were able to sell their wheat at a good price. It created more optimism on the farms last spring than has been evident for years. The optimism that existed last spring on the farms of western Canada is quite evident from the representation here in the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not much optimism out there now.


Mr. More:: You had a tough time getting here.


Hazen Robert Argue: Listen to Regina talking.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Actually, Mr. Chairman, I am rather doubtful with regard to where the hon. member found the farmers to be in such a poor condition. If hon. members will look at table 7 in the 1960 annual report of the Farm Credit Corporation they will see quite easily that a few years ago, in fact, as far back as 1957 and 1958, farmers were spending 60 per cent of the amounts borrowed from the corporation to pay off their debts, including arrears of taxes on their land. Today the direct opposite is the case. Farmers today are spending 60 per cent or nearly 60 per cent to purchase additional land to make improvements so that they will be better able to enjoy a standard of living more comparable to that enjoyed by other citizens in this country.


Hazen Robert Argue: Because the neighbour threw in the sponge, could not make any money.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Norfolk spoke at great length in this house. He spoke' with some degree of authority or what appeared to be authority, and he was telling all hon. members to be quiet while he spoke. We, on this side, must hush up while he was talking. As soon as he finished his speech he left the house. He was not interested in the thoughts of any other person on this particular resolution. Of course, there is always the old excuse that some people believe they have nothing to learn; they know it all. This may be the case.


Hazen Robert Argue: Where are the other Horners today? Where is your brother?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Actually, Mr. Chairman, they are referring to other members in this house. They may be referring to the one who is representing this country over in Nigeria, or they may be referring to some other person. I am not sure. It is noticeable, however, that when a person arouses their interest they try to fight back.
I should like, on behalf of the farmers in Alberta, to thank the Farm Credit Corporation representatives in that province for the co-operation we have received. I am sure I am speaking for most of the farmers in my riding, and most of the farmers in the province, when I say we have received 100 per cent co-operation from the Farm Credit Corporation.
We had a great deal of talk from the hon. member for Norfolk and the hon. member for Assiniboia about this Farm Credit Corporation losing money. It does not interest me whether or not it is losing money; it is the farmer about whom I am concerned. If the farmer is making money, then I am happy. I was shocked to learn through this committee report I mentioned a while ago that in 1956-57 the farm loan board paid $40,000 in income tax. They made so much money they had to pay income tax. I ask for subsidized loans for farmers. I am not interested in seeing this particular board make money; I want the farmers to make money.
It took a great deal of work on the part of rural members to have a 5 per cent interest rate inserted in this legislation. We were guaranteed that the farmers would not have to pay more than that, no matter what the cost of borrowing money might be at any time. All of a sudden, hon. members are concerned that this is costing money; it is a terrible position. Well, I believe their concern is for the wrong party. The farmer is the man in whom I am interested. Actually, this is part of the partnership agreement this government enters into with the farmer. It is a partnership with the government to help the farmer gain a standard of living more comparable to that of his neighbour.
Actually, Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest that when the bill is introduced it should contain some measure of leniency for those farmers about whom I spoke in my last speech on this particular subject in 1961. I refer to those farmers who are perhaps living in an area of well established farms in which it is difficult for them to find room for expansion. However, perhaps they find a quarter section they can buy, or a smaller piece of land, but perhaps it is not large enough to make their farm into what might be termed an economic unit. They would, however, be working towards establishing an economic unit. If the Farm Credit Corporation could

be lenient enough to see its way clear to help these farmers, it would be a good thing. It is my thought that if a farmer is allowed to expand a little today he might see a quarter section or so the year after which he would be able to add, and eventually form what the experts call an economic unit.
There are a few other thoughts I should like to leave with the committee. As I have said, I thank the corporation staff in Alberta for the co-operation they have extended to the farmers, particularly the farmers in my constituency who previously had difficulty in obtaining loans from the old farm loan board, of which hon. members opposite seem to be so proud. Today these farmers in my constituency are able to obtain loans. I hope the corporation steps up its program in this regard a little and perhaps will see its way clear to appointing an appraiser for this area who would be better able to make appraisals of this land.
There is one other point I should like to leave with the committee and that relates to the fees. Much has been said about raising the fees from $10 to $50.1 find that the farmers do not mind the $50 if they get a loan. They are somewhat disgruntled if the corporation takes the $50 and the loan is refused. In my experience this has happened very few times in the province of Alberta. The corporation has been very careful not to take the $50 appraisal fee from any farmers whom they feel would not be entitled to the loan. I think this is a good policy, and I think it should be continued and extended right across the country. I feel that the regulations should be amended so that if a loan is not made no charge is made for the appraisal. This seems only logical because many persons applying for loans find themselves in a difficult financial position and $50 means a lot to them.
I know there are other members who wish to speak about this resolution. While I have some other views on it, I think perhaps they will all come out before this debate is over.
(Translation):


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Chairman, the constituency of Champlain which I have the honour of representing, is an agricultural and an industrial one. It is a first class district, where you will find the beautiful national sanctuary of Cap de la Madeleine, which a number of hon. members have had an opportunity to visit.
What my fellow citizens want above anything else, Mr. Chairman, is to work for a living, so that they may raise their children and provide them with an education and put something away against the financial worries of old age.
Farm Credit Act
All that our farmer wishes is to live off his farm. He is tired, and, if I may say, he is disgusted to be compelled to work in the bush in order to eke out a living for himself and his family, and sometimes to make up the losses incurred by his farming operations.
Moreover, our farmer wishes to live off his farm just as well as the worker, that is to say, with an hourly rate of pay comparable to that of any industrial worker, and proportionate to his investment.
His problems certainly are not solved, unfortunately, by the Farm Credit Act presently under discussion.
The eastern farmer has undoubtedly been cast aside, although he is responsible for the very survival of the cradle of our civilization. A great number of our most prominent men in public life have come from the farm, and the farmer, more than any one else, has learned that work is the road to success.
Moreover, he has acted as a buffer against the influence of the United States. The farmer from eastern Quebec, in particular, who owns a small farm on which he raised his family at great pains is on the verge of extinction if he is not given very special care.
The Farm Credit Act under study is certainly worthwhile and commendable, but it is not an answer to the existing problems facing the farmers in my district and in the whole of eastern Canada.
Ottawa has devised its farm programs and policies mainly for the benefit of western large scale farming. No one here will take exception to that, but for the last 75 years, all ministers of agriculture have been from the west and although they have been doing their best, naturally, perhaps they have not sufficiently understood, in depth, the problems of the eastern farmer.
The present federal loan program has hardly helped our farmers; indeed, since 1960 only six farmers from my constituency have taken advantage of this program, while several of them had applied for a loan.
Each week, I receive anxious requests from farmers in need of assistance. Are we still going to ignore them very long? It is up to the government to answer that question at once.
Small farmers applying for a loan are soon disillusioned when they realize that farm credit requires such conditions that only big wealthy farmers, having a very large farm, can take advantage of it. Small farmers back home-and they are the majority-are in no way assisted by the federal legislation we are now discussing.

Farm Credit Act
Of course, it is necessary to offer greater advantages, more facilities to our small eastern farmers in order that they could take advantage of the act, and also intensify publicity in order to show that the Ottawa government is looking after them.
Those are, Mr. Chairman, the few remarks I wished to make on the Farm Credit Act we are now considering.
A moment ago, I heard the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) and his friends from the Union Nationale. I would have liked eastern farmers, those of Nicolet-Yamaska for instance, to hear their Conservative member publicly display his misunderstanding of the federal farm credit legislation. If he is a farmer himself, he is the more so inexcusable, when he says that the present federal legislation helps small farmers. He should make a personal investigation in his constituency or in mine. Not an investigation among the Tories but an impartial investigation among farmers. He would realize that eastern farmers are forgotten by the present government, and he would be convinced farm credit does not help adequately ordinary farmers.


Mr. Laiulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the government for what has been done up to now concerning loans granted to farmers through the corporation and the Department of Agriculture.
I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) for having given us the opportunity to amend this legislation, so that it can be better suited to the needs of the farmers.
In the county which I have the honour of representing, most of the farmers complain bitterly of the fact that the government takes too much time in deciding whether a loan shall be granted or not, and they wonder why the corporation does not make the payment immediately after the application is approved. In fact, some farmers have to wait several months after the decision is taken.
Mr. Chairman, it is almost impossible for the small farmer to take advantage of this measure. The loans are based on an area of 50 acres of land well developed for farming operation. How can the small farmers, with only a few acres of developed land, extend their unit if they are not given the means to accomplish this? I, therefore, suggest that the responsible farmer should be allowed to take advantage of the act, so that he can make a living out of the income from his farm and be a real farmer at home, and not abroad.
[Mr. Matted
Half of the farmers from my county are working in the United States or elsewhere since they are not able to make a living out of the income from their farms.
The condition of agriculture is pitiful, as 75 per cent of the farmers of my riding very well know. In the last ten years or so, nearly 50 per cent of our farmers have left their farms; we are facing a state of emergency.
However, it must be known that the farmer is the foundation stone on which rests the structure of our social organization. Should the foundation of the building crumble, the whole society will topple.
Mr. Chairman, we conducted an inquiry in my riding with a group of small farmers to find out how much farmers earn per hour, on the average, when the work performed by all the members of the family is included. We came to the conclusion that the owner-operator of a farm would get as little as four cents per hour.
That is a real shame, Mr. Chairman. That is the reason the farmers are no more able to keep their boys on the farm, because everybody knows that farmers' sons are leaving the homestead where they were born.
Farmers are working 15 hours a day in order to be able to survive and not to take on more liabilities, and that because their income is inadequate. It is inconceivable that in this twentieth century, which is a century of progress, no greater consideration is shown to those to whom we owe our very life. The majority of our farmers live in units which are no more comfortable than those of their cattle. That is the reason for the massive destruction of farming in my riding.
Therefore I suggest that the amendment provide loans for all farmers-for the smallest as well as the biggest-so that they may have the financial facilities they need to maintain their families in comfort and, by this very fact, have a right to buy the mechanization required for the efficient operation of their farm, and at a reasonable price. They should, moreover, have the privilege to enjoy the lowest interest rate, that is a rate not higher than the carrying charges.
The government should not have to levy taxes on the other classes of society to pay interest to financiers. The Bank of Canada is at our disposal, as the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) said.
The hon. member told us that the Bank of Canada printed and controlled all this

country's money. If that is the case, let us make use of it to develop our natural resources in the best interest of the community, starting with our farmers. In this way, they will be able to become the owners of their farm without having to pay for their property three times over, at excessive interest rates. Lowering interest rates would contribute to lower production costs, for the benefit of consumers, and help Canadian producers as a whole.
All this would result in lower farm production costs, which would enable our farmers to compete with foreign markets.
That is my suggestion, Mr. Chairman. Hon. members of the house want better days and a more comfortable standard of living for our farmers, and if they are sincere about it, now is the time to prove it.
We should realize that farmers all need loans because they have to sell below cost, or because they cannot dispose of their commodities at all.
It is not by lending them money at arbitrary interest rates, by heaping debts on generations not yet born, that we shall get them out of this depression. Let us take practical and positive action by lending them money at just the carrying charge. I therefore agree with the hon. member who suggested that the charge of $50 be abolished which farmers who are taking on a loan now have to carry.
Mr. Chairman, because of my farming experience, I know very well that if we had had a stabilized economy which would have considered the buying power of consumers as primary factor, farmers would not now be obliged to sacrifice the hard work and the results of experience of generations gone by to be able to remain a little longer on their farm. They would be now property owners, and heirs of the toil, of the discoveries and of the assets of their forefathers.
But, with our dishonest system of debts, taxes, excessive interest rates, a system that is antisocial and adverse to the family, our governments-the servants of financiers- have let a few individuals seize the fruits of the toil of past generations as progress developed.
Mr. Chairman, the farmers want to live with dignity. They want their legal, vital and moral rights to be respected because they form one of the cells of our national economy.
27507-3-43i
Farm Credit Act


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, I have a simple question to direct to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton). Would you permit me one question, one only?


The Deputy Chairman:: Well, I am sorry
but I must, as far as possible, call each member in turn and I believe I must at this time call the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Pascoe).


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, one question only about the measure before us. May I?


Rémi Paul: Order. I think that the hon. member will have plenty of time to put his question to the Minister of Agriculture.
(Text):


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, this is my first opportunity to congratulate you, and through you the chairman of the house committees and Deputy Speaker, on your appointments. I am sure the business of this committee will function very smoothly under your guidance. I also wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for introducing this resolution so early in the session. I hope it will receive quick approval.
Hon. members of the official opposition indicated at the start of the session that their main purpose in parliament is to oppose and find fault with everything done by the government. The newly converted hon. member for Assiniboia finds it easy to follow this policy; he always criticizes and says he is speaking for the party to which he now belongs. But I do not believe hon. members of the official opposition will vote against the measure that is outlined in the resolution when it comes up for final reading. I think they will hesitate-


Rémi Paul: Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills. As there is no business under the heading private bills, the house will first consider notices of motions (papers).

Foreign Exchange Holdings FINANCE



FOREIGN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS

Mr. John N. Turner (St. Lawrence-Sl. George) moved:: That an order of the house do issue for a copy of a table showing the changes in the official holdings of gold and foreign exchange, including United States dollars, held in the exchange fund account and Bank of Canada and showing "the total amount of exchange delivered to the market from the sales of foreign exchange", day by day, from April 9 to June 24, 1962, inclusive.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this being the first time I am on my feet in the House of Commons, may I use the opportunity to congratulate you on the position to which every hon. member of this house has elected you, a position of honour and responsibility unequalled in this house. Mr. Speaker, I will do my best, for my part, to abide by the rules of the house despite the pressures which may from time to time fall on me as a private member, the same pressures I have watched being applied to other hon. members in this house. I can say only that I will do my best to abide by the rules.
I should also at this stage like to recall to the memories and minds of hon. members the gentleman whom I replace in this house, Mr. Egan Chambers. Egan Chambers, as all hon. members who were in the house before the last election will agree, was a respected, a useful and a popular member of parliament. At the beginning of the campaign I knew him to be a gentleman; when the campaign was over I held the same opinion of him. I know him still to be a gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, the notice of motion before you concerns the production of documents, or the production of a certain table, and with the permission of the house I will dispense with reading it since it does appear on the order paper. Might I just say by way of explanation that what I as a private member have sought is a table showing the changes in foreign exchange reserves held by Canada on a day-to-day basis from April 9, 1962, which was the day before the last budget was presented, until June 24, 1962, which was the day on which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) addressed the Canadian people on television, when he announced a government program to relieve the pressure on Canada's dollar.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan), to whom the notice of motion was addressed, under rule 47 of the standing orders had three alternatives. First he could have produced a copy of the table which I sought. So far he has not done so, although I imagine he still could. As the second alternative, on behalf

of the government he could have refused outright production of the table, in which instance I might have had the opportunity to proceed and to call for a vote for its production at that time. The minister had a third alternative, which alternative he has chosen in lieu of the other two. Rule 47 reads:
-but if on any such motion a debate be desired by the member proposing it or by a minister of the crown, the motion will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "Notices of motions (papers) ".
That is what the minister has done. He has, in effect, transferred my notice of motion from a non-debatable one to the debatable one which appears on the order paper today, and for which initially an hour's debate is permitted. The proviso to the rule I have just cited, as I understand it-and I say so with the deference of one who has been in this house for only three weeks-is of two years standing only. In other words, it was sanctioned by hon. members of this house about two years ago.
To the best of my knowledge, the transfer of a notice of motion for production of papers from the non-debatable to the debatable list has been made only on three occasions. On each of the three occasions previous to this particular instance, the motion was transferred by the private member himself, and on the basis of that transfer debate was allowed. This motion today, Mr. Speaker, represents the first instance, to the best of my knowledge, sir, of a motion being transferred for debate at the instance of a minister of the crown.


Mr. Churchill:: What about 1956, the minister of citizenship and immigration?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not under the new rule.


John Napier Turner: With respect to the interjection by my hon. friend, I believe that under the new rule there have been only the three instances I have mentioned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Correct.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if I may, for a moment, draw Your Honour's attention to the type of debate which is permitted under this motion, I should like to refer you to two of the previous instances when the question arose of a transfer of a motion of this kind to the debatable list. I would refer you to Hansard for February 8, 1962, volume I, at page 682. At that time the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) presented a motion for the production of certain correspondence relating to extraterritorial waters. At that time Mr. Speaker Michener had this to say:
Before the hon. member proceeds further-
The hon. member being the hon. member for Skeena-

-with that line of argument I think I should say to him that my view of the scope of the motion is that it is limited to the desirability of the production of the documents. The motion is one calling on the government to produce the documents referred to in the motion. The question in issue is whether or not they should be produced. Production of them has been objected to. It would be relevant to debate whether or not the grounds of objection were sufficient but in my view it would not be relevant to debate what the government should be doing about the breadth of international waters. That is another issue.
Words to the same effect, Mr. Speaker, were again delivered from the chair by Mr. Speaker Michener on March 22, 1962, as reported at page 2071 in volume III of Hansard. That instance concerned a motion for the production of papers made by the hon. member for Bon-avista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) for the latest economic forecast at the time of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Mr. Speaker Michener again said:
The debate is on the issue of whether or not the government is correct in resisting the production of the documents.
In other words, I would respectfully submit that in relation to the particular question before Your Honour this afternoon the issue is whether or not the production of documents is relevant to a discussion which may or may not have taken place before the house. With your permission, I am going to define what I think is the issue.
There has been an argument in this house concerning whether the government, the present Conservative government, had knowledge of the exchange position of the country prior to June 18, which was the day of the general election, and whether this position in foreign exchange was serious enough to warrant the government's advising the country before the election. Mr. Speaker, there have been two sides to the argument. On this side of the house we, the party for which I am speaking at the moment, have taken the position, through the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), that the documents perpetrated what he termed a political fraud on the country. The other side of the argument, that advanced by the Prime Minister and found at pages 109 and 110 of the current Hansard, is to the effect that the crisis blew up suddenly, and that on or about June 15 there was-and these are my own words- a sudden summer June storm, the crisis blew up, and it was only at that time and subsequently serious enough to draw to the country's attention. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister again made that argument last night on television on the program called "The Nation's Business".
The purpose of this particular motion for the production of documents falls, I would submit to Your Honour, within the scope of
Foreign Exchange Holdings that argument. I have asked for an order of the house to the affected minister, the Minister of Finance, to produce a table to show parliament, and thereby the country, what the real position was, and whether there had been a serious loss in foreign exchange reserves prior to June 18. In other words, I am seeking, on the basis of the argument I have put to you, sir, to bring the facts by way of a notice of motion for production before this house and before the people.
The Minister of Finance, when he replies to this motion, may say that the figures I am seeking are privileged because it is the custom of the Bank of Canada to publish these figures on a monthly basis only. Perhaps under normal circumstances that might be a valid argument. However, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister himself broke these figures down beyond the monthly limits when he replied to the Leader of the Opposition. As found at pages 109 and 110 of Hansard, he produced figures for the period from June 1 to June 14 where there was a loss of $128 million exchange; he produced figures for the period from June 15 to June 22 when the loss was $270 million; and he produced figures for the period between June 25 and June 29 when the loss was $115 million.
At that time the Prime Minister said that this procedure was not to constitute a precedent. However, it is my humble submission to Your Honour that it is the Prime Minister who has broken the precedent and that in equity it is fair that the figures should be broken down not only at his choosing but also at the choosing of any hon. member of this house. If the door has been opened by the Prime Minister, then I suggest to Your Honour that the rest of us are entitled to go through and to inspect the tables and the figures in question. If the situation were otherwise the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the government as a whole would be suggesting for this house a double standard, namely one standard for the government and another for the opposition and the rest of the members of this house.
If I may, I should like to review just briefly the procedure adopted by the minister in transferring this motion to the debatable list for this afternoon. The hon. gentleman might say that he has done us all a service in that he has given me and the other members of this house the right to debate the motion, whereas under the standing order without the proviso it is not debatable. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first time under this new rule, now of two years' duration, that this type of motion has been transferred by a minister. The result may be that, if this motion be talked out this

Foreign Exchange Holdings afternoon in the one hour available, not only shall we not have obtained the production of the figures asked for but that we shall have lost our opportunity to vote on the measure. In other words, Mr. Speaker, I say to you that under this procedure parliament would be worse off than previously because at least previously we had the right to force a vote on the production of a document.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Closure.


Frank Howard: Getting close to the truth.


John Napier Turner: If I might do so, Mr. Speaker, I should like to examine the reason and again I do this with deference because of my lack of experience in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I might just here interject a little word of caution. Ascribing motives to hon. members on either side of the house, of course, is not in keeping with the traditions of this house. All I am doing is just issuing a word of caution to the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: So far I have not heard anything that would infringe.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: That is all I am saying. Hon. members may be objecting now but I would point out that on other occasions they have been extremely sensitive when motives have been attributed.


John Napier Turner: May I then examine what I interpret to be the reasons behind the rule for the motion for the production of papers. As I said, I do this with the deference of one in my position. It seems to me that parliament has been so constructed over the years, by way of its traditions and the history of the parliamentary system, that it has its checks and balances. It has checks and balances so that the opposition and the individual members of the house can challenge and scrutinize what the government is doing. There are two primary methods for scrutiny, it would seem to me. The first is the method of questions with which I will not deal; it has had your attention very directly, Mr. Speaker, in these past few days. There is also the method of the production of documents whereby figures in the sole hands of the government can be demanded by opposition members, subject to the ordinary rules of public policy and privilege. What I am saying is that the procedure adopted by the minister could conceivably nullify the purpose of rule 47 for the production of papers by having the debate prolonged to such an extent that no vote could be taken forcing their production.
CMr. Turner.]
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to my French speaking colleagues in all parts of the house that the purpose of the question now being considered is not merely to secure production of figures necessary to the public but also to protect the rights of parliament itself and of every hon. member.
If the debate is protracted, we shall have neither the figures nor the right to put the question to a vote in order to determine whether the government should produce them. To deny the production of documents is one thing, but to deny the right to vote is still worse.
(Text):
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me just a minute or two minutes more, may I say this. In the alternative which the minister has chosen of opting for a debatable motion this afternoon he is entirely, I say with respect, within the rules of this house. However, if this option has the result of frustrating parliament not only by refusing production of figures but by prolonging debate beyond the time available for a vote, motions for production of documents will become a dead letter and the right of parliament to scrutinize and check the government will be infringed. I would therefore urge all members of this house to allow a vote to be taken this afternoon and to support the motion so that parliament and the public can obtain the facts with regard to our foreign exchange position prior to the date of the election and can make up their own minds as to who is right in the argument as to whether or not the government deceived the people.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my first words, of course, should be ones of congratulation to the hon. member who has just made a very effective speech on a very poor subject. I believe that to some extent he could have saved some of his breath, as he will understand before I sit down. I am not going to comment on the new rule. Technically he was correct in what he said about it. However, I might say that some hon. members do not have to recall to their minds the fact that in 1956, under a rule which had the same effect of transferring a debate, when a certain opposition was trying to have a matter brought forward a certain minister of the crown of that day who is now sitting not too far away from me at the moment, had a similar motion carried into debate, with only this difference. Under the old rule, that motion could not come up again during the session and parliament was frustrated. Under this rule we did this yesterday knowing we would be debating it today. That, of course, is just the difference between the two.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Who was that member?


George Clyde Nowlan: I will ask the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) to refresh our memories as to who that minister was at that time. Some of the remarks of the hon. member were largely technical dealing with the rule and I am not going to follow him in that course. With some of the statements of the hon. member I would agree entirely, in that banking procedures and the procedures of the Bank of Canada particularly should not be subjected to the production of detailed information such as requested in this motion.
I am glad that the hon. member said that he was speaking for his party because I thought it might be said that he was speaking only as a junior member without authority. I am glad to know he is speaking for his party when that party takes the irresponsible position of asking that this motion be brought forward and passed at this time because 1 suggest, as the hon. member said himself, that with regard to banking procedures, particularly those of the Bank of Canada, the central bank, in its dealings with other banks, where there are rules and limitations on confidence, the production of material, and so on, is a highly dangerous procedure and one with regard to which the bank should be protected at all times.
Although I am not entering into an argument on the point now, I would also question his statement that all information in the possession of a government should be produced at any time at the request of the house. If the house by a majority at any time ordered the government to produce such information, then that government would either have to resign or else produce the information. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, and I am confident that responsible members of the house, whenever a motion involving the ordering of the government or the bank to produce information which the government or a minister on his responsibility said was confidential and privileged and should not be produced, would accept that statement and would not order the government so to do. However, that does not arise on this occasion.
I take the responsibility for having this motion transferred from the order paper yesterday to the order paper today because I knew it was irresponsible and I knew it had many implications which should be considered. Frankly, I wanted to review it with my officials and I also wanted particularly to discuss it with my colleagues because I felt at the time that that was necessary before one took action one way or the other, knowing as I did that transferring it from the order paper yesterday to the order paper today
Foreign Exchange Holdings would not in any way, shape or form delay or prejudice the house or the hon. member or the Liberal party in acquiring this information, since there was going to be a debate today.
As I said, one could argue that the bank particularly should not be put in the position of divulging the information asked for here, information which is treated as confidential between central banks all over the world. If this house should continue to put the bank in a position where it was compelled to produce information at the whim and caprice of any individual in the house requiring it, it would not be long before the integrity of the bank and its whole foundation would be shaken. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, one can say that technically, although this is only an assumption that it is technical, the information asked for is almost four months old. The reference is to a period including part of April and extending to the latter part of June. Although I would not want my banking transactions of even four months ago revealed to the public sometimes, yet there is a little time lag there which gives some protection, in that information as to current dealings is not being produced.
More important is the fact that the hon. member very frankly put it before the house that there has been discussion and that malicious charges have been made against the Prime Minister of this country. To use the words of the hon. member, which I think I took down correctly, he said there had been charges against the Prime Minister of perpetrating a fraud on the Canadian public. The other day the Prime Minister brought forward facts and figures which I think cleared up that situation effectively but, despite that fact, if one refused to bring down the details asked for now, which supplement and add to the information given by the Prime Minister the other day, the accusation might possibly be made that there must be something about which the Prime Minister or this government is worried or else the information would be produced. There is nothing about which this government or the Prime Minister is worried so far as the facts of the case are concerned. I want the public to know that and I want this to be the end of following trails of innuendo, trails suggesting dishonour on the part of the Prime Minister and imputing motives, all of which are absolutely without foundation whatsoever.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: The rug has just been pulled out from under you.


Lionel Chevrier: My point of order is, Mr. Speaker, that when the hon. member for St.



Foreign Exchange Holdings Lawrence-St. George was discussing his motion you warned him that he should be careful not to impute motives to anyone. The minister for the last five minutes has been imputing motives. I ask that he be called to order in the same manner as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George was.


Mr. Speaker:: With reference to what the hon. member has said, I thought I should caution the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George as a new member of the house with regard to approaching a line of argument or attributing to the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I trust I have the floor-any ulterior motive behind the decision and action of the minister yesterday in transferring this motion to the proceedings today. I think all will recognize that that would have been quite improper. In addition, I felt I should caution him that to attribute to parliament a motive in its determination of the rule would also be improper, and I must say that the hon. member was very careful and very proper.


Mr. Pearson:: Then why caution him?


Mr. Speaker:: It may be that sometimes a word of wisdom beforehand is of some advantage. With regard to the words that the hon. member for Laurier has attributed to the Minister of Finance, as attributing a motive to the Leader of the Opposition, I regret that I did not hear the name of the Leader of the Opposition from the Minister of Finance. I took it that this was a general charge that has been made, and if we go back to the debate on the speech from the throne I do not think that the hon. member for Laurier, who participated in that debate, if I recall rightly, can say that both sides did not make such statements, and without protest. Therefore unless there is a specific motive attributed to the Leader of the Opposition I do not think that the remarks call for a retraction.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall that I referred particularly to the Leader of the Opposition. Hansard will have to speak for itself in that regard. I did say that I understood from the hon. member that he was speaking for the opposition as a party. If I referred to the Leader of the Opposition, naturally I stand on the words I used, but I do not recall doing so. However, the point on which I was basing my statement largely was the statement made by the hon. member himself when he suggested that the party to which he belongs-perhaps I am paraphrasing slightly but I think this was certainly the effect of his words-had accused the Prime

Minister of perpetrating a fraud on the Canadian public. I think this is one statement he has made. It is because of that charge and because of the fact, if we refused to accept this motion, it might be misunderstood, and there could be some element of doubt raised with respect to the situation again, that, on behalf of the government, I am accepting the motion of the hon. member.
We could have saved 15 minutes at least, but I did not want to interfere with his speech. I assure the house that I will have this table brought down at the earliest possible date, I hope by the first of next week. When this table is brought down, sir, we will find that the statements of the Prime Minister are entirely substantiated, and I hope this will conclude this discussion. I want to make this clear, too. In doing this, as I said, we are doing it because of the unusual circumstances surrounding the motion, the charges which have been made heretofore. It is not to be construed as a precedent for producing statistics from the bank at any time in the future. So far as I am concerned, this is an end of the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Frank Howard: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the minutes of all meetings of the national productivity council.
He said: I suggest that the acceptance or rejection of motions of this type hinges upon the question of the desirability of producing a particular document. This puts one, in this instance, at a bit of a disadvantage because when the request was made yesterday to have this motion debated there was no indication from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) as to whether or not he intended to accept or reject the motion. The motion calls for the production of the minutes of the various metings of the national productivity council. I cannot, therefore, go into the question of the desirability or otherwise of producing the minutes because I have no knowledge of the attitude of the minister in respect of this motion.
Since the establishment of the national productivity council, Mr. Speaker, there have been many references to the fact that it is ineffective in its attempt to accomplish the goals which were set forth when it was established. These references have been made in this house as well. Just recently one of the appointees to that council, namely Mr. Claude Jodoin, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, resigned. The reason given

by Mr. Jodoin, as I gathered, was that the council as presently constituted was an ineffective body and he saw no reason why the congress, whose representative he was, should continue to participate in a body which was relatively ineffective.
We have our own opinions as to the uselessness of the council. Perhaps a much smaller group would be more effective in attaining the goals which were set for this body. However, we are now getting into the field of the council itself. It was my thought that, having the various minutes of the productivity council produced for the public and parliament, it would be possible to make a far better assessment of the relative merits of the council and whether or not it should be maintained in its present form. I am sure the minister would like to have this matter cleared up in order that parliament, in looking ahead to the various problems confronting our economy, will be able to make an assessment on the basis of the thoughts and ideas described in the minutes themselves. I hope that we can proceed very quickly to the endorsation of the motion.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my reason for asking that this motion be transferred to the proceedings which take place in this hour today was in order that I could explain to the house why I believe, and the government believes, that it is not in the best interests of parliament or the people of Canada that the detailed minutes of a government sponsored body such as the productivity council should be made public. I am very pleased to learn, as a result of what the hon. member has said, that his main interest is to learn of the activities of the council since its inception. I am very pleased to have this opportunity today to outline what the council has been doing since it came into being.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to outline to the house my reasons for believing it is not in the best interests of parliament or the people generally to make public the detailed minutes of any government sponsored body such as this. As the minister through which the national productivity council reports to parliament, I have been asked to provide the house with the minutes of the council. As the house knows, Mr. Speaker, the national productivity council consists of 25 persons, five of whom are chosen from the field of industry and commerce, five from the field of organized labour, five from the field of agriculture and other primary industries, five who represent the general public, four who are officers or employees of Her Majesty, and the executive director who is a permanent officer of the council.
Productivity Council Minutes Requested
The people who serve on the council are outstanding representatives in the fields from which they are drawn. They serve in a purely voluntary manner and receive no remuneration whatever for the useful and time consuming tasks which they undertake as a public service. To emphasize my point, I should like to name the members of the council, and I am sure that hon. members will agree with me that Canada is very fortunate to have people of this calibre who are devoting their time and efforts to the welfare of the country. One of Canada's prominent industrialists, Mr. George De Young, president of Atlas Steels Limited, has devoted outstanding service to the council as its chairman. Other representatives from the field of industry and commerce are Mr. N. R. Crump, president of Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Mr. George C. Metcalf, president of Loblaw Groceterias Limited; Mr. W. Fraser Bruce, president of Aluminum Company of Canada Limited and Mr. J. Claude Hebert, president of Transparent Paper Products Limited. I am sure hon. members will agree that these are five of Canada's leading industrialists and businessmen.
At present the labour representatives on the council are Mr. Marcel Pepin of the confederation of national trade unions, Mr. Arthur R. Gibbons of the brotherhood of locomotive firemen and enginemen, Mr. Michael H. Nicols-


Frank Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What have the structure of the national productivity council and the background of its various members to do with the desirability or otherwise of producing the documents sought?


George Harris Hees: In speaking to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, the answer is simply that I am outlining to the house who are the members of this council because it is their words in their entirety, every single word that each of these men has said while the council has been in session, that the hon. member wishes to have produced verbatim; and I shall explain to the house that if we are going to ask or demand that every word, every syllable uttered by any man or woman who sits on one of these councils, who is summoned or invited to sit there by the government to help it determine policies that will be beneficial for the country in general is made available, then in the opinion of the government we will not be able to persuade people, particularly those of the calibre I am mentioning from the ranks of labour, management, agriculture and so on, to be willing to sit on these councils and give their time and energies, which are impossible to purchase with money, to the service of their country.
678	HOUSE OF
Productivity Council Minutes Requested
It is for that reason I am outlining who these people are, so that we can judge whether the words of these people in their entirety, every syllable that they have uttered and which have been taken down in the minutes of these meetings, should be produced for public scrutiny.


William Moore Benidickson: Only minutes.


George Harris Hees: Now, if I may continue-


Mr. Speaker:: Having heard what the minister said, and particularly what the hon. member said in proposing his motion, that the issue here was as to the value of the productivity council, and that that was the issue before the Canadian people, one side taking one position and others taking a contrary position, I find that in reply the minister is indicating the personnel of the national productivity council which to me, in considering this issue, would be a most germane point. So long as the minister was not straying off into long biographies about each individual, then I think that nothing I have heard so far is out of order.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might also add that a very strong point in reply to the point made by the hon. member for Skeena is that he believes the productivity council, as it has operated, is not a satisfactory council to handle the work that has been entrusted to it. Therefore in answer to his charge I propose to outline to the house in some detail just what the productivity council has been doing since its inception, so that we can better determine the question that has been brought before the house this afternoon by the hon. member for Skeena.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that what the hon. gentleman is now seeking to do is in most direct and flagrant contradiction of the judgment given by Mr. Speaker Michener, which was read to the house a few moments ago by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner). What we are supposed to be discussing here, as Mr. Speaker Michener put it so succintly, is whether or not it is opportune to produce certain documents, not whether or not a particular agency of government is doing a good job. Maybe the documents would show that, after they were produced; but that is not the issue before us. It seems to me therefore that the minister is ignoring the rule of your illustrious predecessor in embarking upon the course which he now proposes to take.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, before-


Mr. Speaker:: If he is addressing himself to the point of order then I will hear the hon. minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Before you make a decision with regard to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I do not think the house is prepared to accept his idea or his interpretation of the ruling of a previous speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: Why not?


Gordon Minto Churchill: He said Mr. Speaker
Michener used the word "opportune". I think we had better have a direct ruling as against that, because I thought the word used by Mr. Speaker Michener was "desirable", which has an entirely different meaning to the word "opportune".


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am perfectly happy to substitute the one for the other.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Maybe you will not be, by
the time I finish.


Lionel Chevrier: You just want to talk it out until six o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In order to determine
whether it is desirable, or worth while, or advantageous for the house to have minutes produced I think we should know something about the operations of the council to determine how important are its duties. It seems to me that is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce was going to do.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena, if he is on the point of order.


Frank Howard: Just this point, Mr. Speaker. While it is germane to it, we are not seeking a verbatim transcript of words. We are seeking the minutes; and they are two distinct things.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was rather quick, and as a matter of fact his thinking is more or less in line with that of the Chair as a result of the last sentence uttered by the minister prior to the, shall we say, interruption by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I do not think it is germane to this debate, or relevant, that we should go into the matter of what the productivity council has done or what it has not done. The point at issue is a narrow one in this particular debate. It is limited to the desirability of the production of the documents. The motion is one calling on the government to produce the documents referred to in the motion, and the question is whether they should or should not be produced. I admit this is a narrow issue. The minister can state his reasons why he is opposing their production, and those who would support the motion can state their reasons why these particular documents

67S

should be produced. If we proceed on that basis we will carry out the true intent of the motion and of this debate.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the documents that have been requested are the minutes of the meetings of the productivity council. If the minutes had been made in a general way, simply giving the conclusions and the general discussion that went on at these meetings, there would be no reluctance whatsoever on the part of the government to producing them, because the government is very pleased with and proud of the deliberations and the work carried out by these very distinguished people who have been good enough to agree to sit on this council and do this very important work. But I do object to producing these minutes because they specify which of the members of the council voiced certain definite opinions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit me to ask him a factual question, which might speed up this whole matter?


George Harris Hees: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say whether in fact these minutes are a stenographic report of the meetings? We have in the house a stenographic report called Hansard, and we also have minutes, the Votes and Proceedings. I conceive that what the hon. member for Skeena is asking for is something like our Votes and Proceedings. Could the minister say whether or not the minutes are a stenographic report?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has made a useful contribution, because if what is required are the general conclusions and the general discussion which took place at any of these meetings, I will be very glad to have that material produced. What I think is completely unfair, and would be damaging to parliament and to the service people of this calibre perform for parliament and for the country, would be to have the verbatim report of what Mr. So-and-so said, what Mr. So-and-so said in reply, what Mrs. So-and-so said, and so on-


Lionel Chevrier: What about Miss So-and-so?


George Harris Hees: -because people who come here and give their time and very considerable talents free to the government for the benefit of parliament, the government and the people in general would not, we feel, be willing to serve on bodies of this kind if each sentence they uttered at these meetings were produced for the public to examine in detail later.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question? Are there such things
27507-3-44i
Productivity Council Minutes Requested as minutes which do not indicate which people are involved? We do not want a full transcript, word for word, commas and punctuation marks, of various individuals. Minutes are a different thing; they are the result of discussion and decision. If there are such things, we will be glad to have them.


Mr. Marlin (Essex East):: Summaries and conclusions.


George Harris Hees: Unfortunately, the way the minutes of these meetings have been taken has been in the form that Mr. So-and-so said so-and-so, and Mr. So-and-so replied and made this suggestion, and so on. But if the hon. member is willing perhaps to reword his motion and ask that a full account of the meetings be given, without the specific names of who said what at which meeting, we will be very pleased to make that available to him.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable. The seconder of my motion says it is acceptable to him also.


George Harris Hees: Thank you very much. Then on that basis, Mr. Speaker, could I ask that the hon. member reword his motion? If he does so in those terms, when it appears next on the order paper I will be very glad to make this information available to him.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it needs rewording. These motions are accepted many times by ministers on certain understandings and with certain reservations. I am simply saying that a resume, or whatever it is, will be acceptable.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I will accept the motion on those terms.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think we should understand clearly, Mr. Speaker, what the amendment is that we are accepting. I agree very much with what the minister said, because I was a minister once, and I hope to be one again-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: You will.


George Harris Hees: Hope springs eternal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and I also had the dubious advantage of once being secretary to the cabinet. I do not think we wish to have a motion passed by this house-and I am sure my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre who is also the leader of the house would agree with me-in language that would constitute a precedent for the production of the minutes of bodies which really, in the genuine public interest, I am sure every hon. member in all corners of the house would agree, should not be made public.

Farm Credit Act
Therefore I would hope that if there could be an understanding-and I am only too agreeable to the understanding between the minister and the mover-and if the matter could just be stood and the motion reworded, at the beginning of the next time these matters come up we could have the amendment in precise language and I think everyone in the house would be satisfied. Then we would not be creating any dangerous precedent.


Frank Howard: Whatever course is desirable, Mr. Speaker. We can withdraw the motion and replace it. It would then come up on Wednesday.


Mr, Pickersgill:: That would be the best course.


Frank Howard: I am agreeable to doing whatever would be the best course. Then, Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I should like to discharge the order and withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreeable to the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: By consent, the motion is withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The time for private members' business having expired, the house will now revert to the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.



FARM CREDIT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Hamilton-Mr. Paul in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Credit Act to increase the capital of the Farm Credit Corporation from $12 million to $16 million so as to increase the lending capacity of the corporation from $300 million to $400 million; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Chairman, before the committee adjourned for private members' hour I had congratulated the Minister of Agriculture upon bringing in his proposed amendments to the Farm Credit Act so early in the session. I had also expressed the opinion that opposition members would be well advised to vote for the measure when it comes up for

final passage, because the operations of the Farm Credit Corporation are being well received all across Canada. I must admit that I cannot exactly tell from their speeches whether the opposition members are supporting the resolution or opposing it. I think they will hesitate to block this latest government move to help Canadian farmers help themselves through adjustments to a changing farm economy. I know that the minister is anxious to have this resolution adopted as soon as possible so that he can proceed with his amendments; but as a western member representing a very important agricultural area I think it is essential again to draw attention to some of the points the minister brought out in presenting this resolution.


Hazen Robert Argue: Just repetition.


James Ernest Pascoe: I am sure that his statements will be read and approved both by farmers and by leaders of farm organizations. They will note that in the year before this government was elected to office-and I am repeating here for the benefit of the hon. member for Assiniboia what I think should be repeated-a little over $12 million was loaned under the federal farm loan board. In the last fiscal year nearly $69 million was disbursed in farm loans. For this fiscal year hon. members heard the minister say it is estimated that total farm loans will be more than $80 million. As I said, Mr. Chairman, I should like to repeat these figures for emphasis. About $12 million in farm loans under the Liberal government farm policy in 1956-57; nearly $69 million in the last fiscal year and an estimated $30 million this year.
On looking up old records-this has been brought out previously, I think, by the hon. member for Acadia, but I want to repeat it- I find that in 1956-57 under the old Liberal farm loan board only 33.6 per cent of the loans were used to purchase land or to improve farms. In the last fiscal year 1961-62 nearly 65 per cent of loans made by the Farm Credit Corporation were for this purpose. In other words, farmers are now borrowing from the Farm Credit Corporation to extend or to improve their land holdings so as to make their farms into more efficient economic units. This makes it clear that given adequate and well-considered credit facilities, Canadian farmers can be depended upon to put the loans to good and productive use.
I agree with other speakers who have emphasized that Canadian farmers are * good credit risks. Although others have given these figures, I should like to read into the

record one paragraph from the 1962 report of the Farm Credit Corporation:
It is the corporation's policy to encourage borrowers to reduce their outstanding obligations by making prepayments on their loans. At the end of the fiscal year 92.1 per cent of all mortgage loan accounts were in good standing as compared to 92.5 per cent as of March 31, 1961. A total of $15,196,731 of principal was repaid during the year, of which $11,294,011 was received in payment of principal not yet due.
I think it is important that these repayment figures should be stressed during any debate on farm credit. The figures make it very apparent that farming can be operated on a business basis, just like any other business where proper use of credit has always been the normal method of operation. That is what this government is doing under its long range farm policies, helping to put farmers on a modern business basis.
The hon. member for Assiniboia, who I believe harvested a very big crop himself, makes his usual assertions that things are very bad for the farmers.


Hazen Robert Argue: Getting worse.


James Ernest Pascoe: Then he proceeds to contradict himself. Here is what he said as reported at page 598 of Hansard for October 16.
The total Investment in the agriculture industry of our country is some $11 billion. The total outstanding credit, bank credit, credit from the Farm Credit Corporation, credit from credit unions, obtained by the agriculture industry is just over $880 million. This means that the farmers have only some 8 per cent of their assets in outstanding indebtedness.
I agree that the position of farmers can be improved, and in the last few years is being improved. And as we all know, there must be further adjustments upwards in the farmers' economic position. As I said earlier, under this government these upward adjustments are continuing. Last session when we were considering an amendment to increase the lending capacity of the Farm Credit Corporation, one C.C.F. member, now an N.D.P. member, said he feared that farmers were trying to borrow their way into prosperity. I can agree with this statement. The main objective of the measure proposed by this resolution is just that-to provide a greater opportunity for farmers to borrow themselves, as the hon. member said, into a more prosperous farm economy. Other speakers have pointed out that adequate farm credit is essential in modern farming. By lending $80 million this fiscal year on a long term repayment program the government, through the Farm Credit Corporation, recognizes this fact. When properly used credit is a vital means of obtaining and utilizing the farmer's productive resources of land, labour, and equipment. A loan to a farmer after careful
Farm Credit Act
assessment of all the factors involved in his individual operations should not be regarded solely as a debt. The loan, in fact, can be taken as an indication of good farming if it is in reasonable balance, in size and repayment terms, with the "potential" of both the farm and its operator and if it is used to increase farm production through larger acreage, greater efficiency or improved living conditions. As one farmer expressed it to me, Mr. Chairman, modern power farming requires tractor power and borrowing power. That is why we welcome this new move to help meet the requirements of this farm borrowing power.
I referred earlier, Mr. Chairman, to the latest report of the Farm Credit Corporation. It is a well documented statement and I hope that each member of this house reads its carefully. I wish that all Canadian farmers could read it. In referring to this annual report I wish to pay special tribute to Brigadier Rutherford who has had a great deal to do with the present effective operation of the corporation. Brigadier Rutherford has retired as the active head of the corporation, but we are all pleased to learn that he is continuing in an advisory capacity. If I may, I should just like to put on the record this brief comment in the report with regard to Brigadier Rutherford's services:
Brigadier Rutherford brought to the service of the corporation the unique qualities that have carried him through a distinguished career in the public service, first as a soldier in two world wars and then as a senior executive with the Department of Veterans Affairs. It was in this latter capacity as Director of the Veterans Land Act from 1947 to 1959 that he introduced the use of advisory services in the administration of farm credit and demonstrated the advantages of such service in promoting the productive use of credit. In two and a half years as chairman of the corporation, he directed the organization of its administrative structure, the recruitment and training of staff, and the establishment of procedures which enabled the new agency to handle an unprecedented volume of loans. His promotion of the use of credit as an active agent in bringing about the adjustments so necessary to the agricultural industry will have an increasingly significant influence upon the entire Canadian economy.
I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, to read that paragraph into the record as I think we all agree that the services of Brigadier Rutherford were extremely valuable in establishing this Farm Credit Corporation. I am sure we are all pleased that he is continuing in an advisory capacity.
The minister said that the proposed increase in farm credit facilities is designed to fit in with the government's whole long range farm policies. From talks I have had with farmers I know they are beginning to see how the whole agricultural program is now taking shape and is achieving definite results.

Farm Credit Act
The price stabilization act which protects farmers against a sudden drastic decline in farm prices is part of an over-all credit plan because it provides a reasonable assurance of cash income with which to make loan repayments. The net cost of supporting farm produce prices in the past four years totals $148,124,000.
Then there is in existence the program of crop insurance which Ottawa offered to the provincial government as another means of income protection. Crop insurance also fits in with a complete farm credit program. I am glad to see that the Saskatchewan government is following the lead set by the province of Manitoba and is beginning to co-operate with the federal government in this regard.
There is also in existence the ARDA program of rural rehabilitation and development. Saskatchewan members were pleased to witness the signing by the Minister of Agriculture of the ARDA agreement with the Saskatchewan government. I know, Mr. Chairman, that the agricultural prices stabilization act, crop insurance and ARDA are not referred to in this resolution. However, they have an important connection with the success of the federal farm credit program. As the Minister of Agriculture pointed out, amendments in the Farm Credit Act are designed to open the door for closer co-ordination of the Farm Credit Corporation and the ARDA administration. If I may repeat his words, this will mark a new milestone in our attack upon the problem of the low income of an important segment of our farming population.
It appears that there will be greater latitude in the use of the corporation's loans. Such a move will be very welcome because there has been some suggestion that most farm loans so far have gone to the larger farmers. In my constituency there is a big proportion of fairly large farms. However, there are also smaller farmers. I hope the amendments will help them continue their way of family farming.
We shall not know just what amendments to the Farm Credit Act are proposed until the measure comes before us. I would hope that some consideration might be given to off-farm activities when corporation officials are assessing the ability of a young applicant to repay a long term loan. When I speak of "off-farm" activities, Mr. Chairman, I mean extra work carried on by a bona fide young farmer whose main occupation is farming and who seeks to supplement his income during his early years of getting established by work not directly connected with his farming operations. I am sure most hon. members know of such enterprising individuals. I have had them contact me with regard to a possible farm credit loan and they have shown

me how their extra earnings would help them to make repayments on a loan. I consider them to be good credit risks.
I am not suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that I favour farmers taking other work and I should not like to see farmers taking steady jobs in the city. However, I think initiative in this regard should be encouraged in young farmers, at least to the extent of making some allowance for it in loan approvals. Again I wish to make it plain that my remarks in this respect apply to young farmers who are starting out in a small way with a definite objective of establishing an economic farm unit. I might have more to say in this regard when we are considering the proposed amendments.
In speaking of helping to protect the farmer's repayment capability, I wish to commend the corporation on behalf of some of my farmer constituents for the life insurance plan now available and also for the crop share agreement for repayment of loans by annual amounts related to crops grown rather than by fixed annual instalments. I think these policies are a great help in the farm credit corporation program. Again, Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for his quick action in bringing in this resolution and I am very pleased to support it.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Chairman, this is the first occasion that I have had the privilege of intervening in a debate in this house. Permit me, therefore, to say that it is my proud duty to represent the riding of Brant-Haldimand. This is a riding that has a special interest and deep concern in all matters relating to agriculture.
Turning now to the resolution that has engaged the attention of the house, may I put forward three observations. The first observation is that there has been a steady and drastic decline in the total agricultural labour force in this country over the past 25 years. In 1933 the total agricultural labour force stood at 36.6 per cent of the total labour force in Canada and by 1961 it had declined to 16.5 per cent.
The second observation, and this is perhaps even more significant, has to do with the fact that the total number of farm operators has declined in this country at an alarming rate, approximately 19,000 per year over the last 10 years. On the other side of the ledger, however, is the fact that the ever-enterprising and energetic farmers of this country have turned to machinery, new techniques and new marketing methods to maintain and increase their production. It is only right to say that the output per person today has reached an all-time high. This tremendous output, of

course, has been brought about by very substantial investment and the expansion of credit.
It is fair to say that in the riding I represent ownership of a general farm represents an investment of $50,000 to $60,000. Therefore it is abundantly clear that agriculture must advance on the basis of expanding credit and this leads logically and compellingly to the conclusion that, apart from the inherent qualities and natural fertility of the soil, credit is the greatest single factor in increasing the productivity of the soil in this country.
But what are the returns that the farmers are reaping from this great investment? Notwithstanding the gloss put on the situation by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and the hon. member for Acadia, I would point out what the brief filed by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture before the royal commission on banking and finance has to say on the subject of farm income. On page 8 there is the following:
-even ignoring the very good years, relatively, of 1950 and 1951 aggregate net farm income today is running at lower levels than those of 6, 12 or 15 years ago.
As I indicated, is it reasonable to ask a farmer facing an investment of $50,000 to $60,000 and with an average net income in eastern Canada of $2,666 to be able to save sufficient capital, to set aside some earnings for his old age and to maintain his family on a proper standard of living and still have sufficient credit to expand his farm? Time and time again hon. members in all quarters of the house have said that they are interested in the family farm. I would point out, as does the brief filed by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, that while the family farm is still the most desirable unit in our country, 30 to 40 per cent of the income of family farms is still coming from outside the farm.
This leads me to the very nub of the point made rather eloquently and admirably by my colleague, the hon. member for Assiniboia, and which has escaped the attention of every hon. member on the other side of the house. As I understood him, he put this proposition to the Minister of Agriculture. He said that the act in its present scope is not wide enough. He pointed out that the act is designed to help farmers make their farms into economic units but that it neglects those with a lower standard of living who are most urgently in need of credit. Therefore I would earnestly ask the Minister of Agriculture to re-examine the act in order that those who are on the bottom rung of the ladder will at least be given the credit they need so that they can move up a rung or two toward a better standard of living.
Farm. Credit Act
I come now to the very bedrock of the submission I wish to make to the house. What is happening to those who are not getting credit from the Farm Credit Corporation? They are being driven into contractual ways of obtaining the credit. This is leading to what we call vertical integration, as is well known to many members of the house. This is what happens. The farmer who is denied credit by the Farm Credit Corporation has to turn to large corporations or private individuals and he enters into a contract with them whereby they advance him credit by giving him poultry or animals and also supplying him with feed. There may be two or three parties to this contract and one of the creditors may buy from the farmer what he produces at a rate set out in the contract.
I believe that the disadvantages under which the farmer labours under these circumstances are manifest to all hon. members. In the first place, the farmer loses the right to exercise his independent judgment because he is bound hand and foot under the contract-and the independent judgment of our farmers has been one of the greatest assets this country has ever known. The other great drawback is that nowhere in these contracts is the interest rate spelled out that the farmer is being charged for credit. I have examined dozens of these contracts and the interest rates are never mentioned but are conveniently concealed. I have taken occasion to calculate the interest and I find that it runs from 15 to 18 per cent.
That is the situation that those farmers who are being denied credit by the Farm Credit Corporation have to face. Therefore I would earnestly entreat the Minister of Agriculture to give serious consideration to the plea put forward by the member for Assiniboia with regard to those who cannot now qualify under the Farm Credit Act.
May I turn to another aspect of the act which has also been mentioned previously. I understand that at present there are provisions relating to the industrial development bank which permit the advancing of loans by that organization to those engaged in poultry enterprises. I have been approached by a number of my constituents asking that consideration be given to changing the situation so that this credit may be advanced by the Farm Credit Corporation. These people feel, and I think rightly, that those who are administering the Farm Credit Corporation are more sympathetic in their approach because they realize that poultry enterprises are closely allied to other agricultural endeavours.
I have one final comment. I would ask the minister to take up the question of delay in processing applications for loans. I do not

Farm Credit Act
in any way blame the minister or anyone in his department for this delay. In my view the delay may be charged to those in my own profession because I know that applications frequently lie on lawyers' desks without being given proper attention. But I respectfully suggest that the department could bring pressure to bear on those who are delaying the forwarding of applications. I want to thank hon. members for their indulgence toward this, my first speech. May I conclude by once more reaffirming and renewing the appeal so eloquently made by my colleague from As-siniboia and earnestly ask the Minister of Agriculture to review the considerations which the hon. member laid before him.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I am quite pleased tonight to have the opportunity to engage in the rural throne speech for Canada. Certainly the minister is to be congratulated on leaving the resolution so wide open that everything from ARDA to the taxation problems affecting farmers has been discussed. I am sure that the farmers will be very happy to know that their problems have been given such prominence by this discussion so early in the session. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that in the debate that has taken place so far on this resolution we have tried to outbid each other in giving the farmer credit. We all want to maintain the family farm of perhaps 10 or 15 years ago. We want to do this by giving the farmer all the money he can get as fast as he can get it, whether or not it bankrupts him. I think the farmer, himself, would be well advised to be cautious, even if the members here are not, and guard against becoming extended beyond his ability to repay.
In looking at what the credit situation is in rural Canada, we find we have approximately one million farmers at present out of a population of 18 million. These one million farmers owe well over a billion dollars. If we were to give them another billion dollars tomorrow, this would not necessarily solve all their problems, but would probably multiply the ills that are affecting a great many of them today. I am not one of those who hold any brief for the type of credit administered under the old farm loan board. I think that this system was poorly operated. I have been more than pleased to find the government accepting the pioneer work that was done under the Veterans Land Act, and applying that to Canadians as a whole. I believe Canadians across this nation will, for years to come, be paying a great deal of tribute to Tom Rutherford who pioneered in the Veterans Land Act and later became the first official of the Farm Credit Corporation. There are very few people who will disagree

with the things that Mr. Rutherford has tried to do and which, I am sure, the corporation will continue to do.
I believe it would be wise, Mr. Chairman, for many of the members who are new here, and in the agricultural sense I am one of those, to go back into the record of the directions given to the administrative staff of the Farm Credit Corporation when that corporation was set up. If they apply themselves to the booklet setting out the Farm Credit Corporation lending policy, a very interesting document printed in 1961, they will note that the chairman had a number of interesting remarks to make. They are very earthy remarks and seem to me to be sensible suggestions which should be remembered by those who are interested in helping the farmer by extending credit to him.
His first principle was, I think, a very sensible one. He believed that you should lend to the farmer enough money to enable him to solve his problem, because if you did not you would only be creating a situation in which he would buy something without getting a sufficiently large increase in his returns to pay off that particular loan. If you lent him too much money, on the other hand, you would create problems for the entrepreneur that, in many cases, he was incapable of handling. For these reasons, the new credit policy included an advisory staff which would help the farmer in solving his own problems to the satisfaction, not only of the corporation lending the money, but to that of the farmer, who would get the most use out of the credit extended to him.
In his remarks, the chairman points out something that I believe is worth while repeating. He is speaking of the need in these days for increasing the size of the farm unit to make it a more economical operation. He is suggesting that there are techniques that must be used to establish the farm as a business. He points out that the new concept of lending policy is based on the premise that new techniques in agriculture call for the readjustment of the factors in production, in that the amount of capital in the form of lands, buildings, stock and equipment per average gainfully employed farmer must be very materially increased and often readjusted. He goes on to say in what respects this can be done. These directions were given to his staff so that his new officials would be able to do the counselling and so that the farmer would be kept informed of what he was trying to do.
It is very interesting to note that, while it has been true as some of the speakers have mentioned, many of these farmers who have applied for loans have been discouraged in getting those loans. Mr. Rutherford pointed

out they should never go away feeling dissatisfied. If they do, and there are some in my area, this is not necessarily the fault of the directions being given by Mr. Rutherford, but is the result of the inability of those officials to accept the directions which he gave. As long as money is being requested, the people responsible for the lending of that money will have a very close look at the operation. There will, of course, be a difference of opinion as to whether or not the money can reasonably be lent. I think that in most cases this pre-counselling on loans has resulted in a better understanding of the farm operation by the farmer.
I know that in many areas where farmers have been refused loans and the reasons have been pointed out to them most,-not all-but most of them have been very well satisfied that their farm operation would not warrant the type of loan they wanted. In many cases the farmers themselves decided the loan they were requesting was too great, that they were not going into that large a farming operation.
Hon. members can agree or disagree with the decision that was made by the director, but I think it is interesting to note what he had to say on page 6:
The Farm Credit Corporation is now lending "big" money-
I think this is important.
-not just for the reason that the applicant happens to have good security for the loan but with a definite object always in mind-that of assisting Canadian agriculture to reorganize itself into economic family farm units, with all the economic and social advantages and the stabilizing influences which this will have on our whole economy. Remember that each well placed loan brings us just one step closer to the objective set for us. We must keep on keeping on until that objective is reached.
Well, I think some of the members may have neglected to look at this, but I am in agreement that the credit being extended to agriculture must be directed to the agriculture industry itself as well as to the individual farmer. We want to get Canadian agriculture in general, as well as the individual farmer and the family unit, on a sound basis. Both of these aims should be worked at and should be accomplished.
The chairman goes on to say:
Our function is a specialized one. It consists of advancing long term credit from public funds to competent farmers for the purpose of assembling economic family farm units, organized to produce readily marketable products at a profit which will give themselves and their dependents a good standard of living and enable them to pay back the loan to the corporation.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I think in the main this has been done. It is true also that it may be advantageous now to look at where the corporation is going, and to decide whether
Farm Credit Act
or not we should set our sights a little higher by trying to do something more with the credit being extended to the farmers of Canada.
The previous speaker mentioned the fact that vertical integration was being attempted by corporations which provide money for purposes similar to those that a loan of a suitable size would bring about, so far as the farmer himself is concerned. I would point out that this was tried by many very large concerns, and in most cases vertical integration is not now the threat it was four or five years ago. In many instances and in many fields it was a complete failure for the people putting up the money and for the people receiving it. It was a failure for the farmer and the creditor, and the only man who seemed to come out well was the feed mill owner who sat in the middle.
Vertical integration is not the answer. It never was and the attempt to introduce it into agriculture, as I say, does not present the same threat as it did previously. However, if it is not a threat then this means that there is still a vacuum in that field which the government must examine.
Because this is not the throne speech we should not mention the fact that taxes and other things are involved in rural economy. The motion is restricted, although debate on it has not been confined, to the extent that we are asked to increase the capitalization of the corporation. We are asked to add another $100 million to the reserves from which farmers may borrow. This is something in which every hon. member who comes from rural Canada is interested.
I have a list of a number of cases involving farmers in my area who are dissatisfied. In many cases this is probably the result, as Mr. Rutherford pointed out, of the human factor, the personality element which may enter into the granting and seeking of loans; but there are several cases which have made me wonder if we are not being a little too tough with regard to small loans for the small noneconomic units at the present time.
The direction that was originally given was that consideration would be given by the advisory staff to the size of the farm unit and the results that could be expected from it. This resulted in many units being considered too small to obtain credit in a satisfactory manner. I can cite one example. One farmer I know had a piece of property which, to me, seemed much too small to carry the herd of cattle he owned. His problem was the renting of pasture and land to produce the hay and grain necessary for his dairy herd. He attempted to negotiate a loan with the Farm Credit Corporation but his unit was considered too small to be economic. Later he went to

Farm Credit Act
a bank, paid the bank rate of interest, put up the collateral required by the bank, and in his arrangement with the bank he pledged the salary of his wife who is a school teacher. In that way he got the money he wanted.
This example illustrates the fact that enough consideration is not being given to the establishment of people on farms, people who are willing to use salaries from other jobs, including the salaries of their wives and other members of their families. It is absolutely essential that we give some consideration to new people going into agriculture.
In some provinces a great deal of consideration is given to the young people, the junior farmers, but it is very seldom that consideration is given to the man who is 35 or 40 years old, who has worked a few years in a factory, and who wants to get back to farming because he is dissatisfied with urban living. To that category of applicant special consideration should be given. They will be the backbone of agriculture in years to come, and at present their numbers are increasing very rapidly.
When 1 was working in the mines most of my fellow workers were people who had come from farms either in the west, in Ontario, Quebec or the maritimes, and at least 50 per cent of them did not want to remain in the mines longer than was absolutely necessary. They were willing to work hard and save their money, provided they could see their way to getting back into farming. It is absolutely necessary that that type of person should be considered because such people, if re-established on farms, will stay on them. They know what the story is off the farm. Too often many young farmers who buy farms from their fathers or get assistance to obtain their own farms, have not had the experience of anything else and, as everyone knows, distant pastures look greener than those at home.
This is true not only in my riding of Timis-kaming but it also applies in every part of the country. There is a large segment of our population, both young people and those who have worked elsewhere for a time, who will need special assistance to get started in farming. They need this assistance and they also require the advisory assistance which will provide them with the necessary information regarding the operation and the proper size of their farm units. I believe that many times farmers are unable to tell whether they are losing on sheep or making on pigs, whether they should increase their production of milk or whether they should be going into the raising of beef cattle.
I would strongly urge farmers to consider the suggestion that was made here tonight, that they be given an unlimited amount of

credit and that they be given it with no interest charge; because I wonder whether this would not be detrimental to agriculture in general and to many people who got large amounts of money on that basis.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think the time is now appropriate for me to rise in this debate and say a few things about some of the arguments that have been advanced. First let me very sincerely congratulate the new members who have participated in the debate, because not only was it the occasion of their maiden speeches but in many cases their speeches were very constructive. If I may, I would like to include the hon. member for Assiniboia in this group of new members in the official opposition because I think it is but fair and just, after the things I have said about him in this house in the past, that when he does make a constructive speech I should mention it. The greater part of his speech was very thoughtful and helpful, and I shall mention various points as I proceed.
If he is surprised at this remark in my opening words, I do ask him to trust me a little bit. I am not going to throw a fishhook- just yet. I will say, though, at the beginning, so that I get all the bad stuff off early, that as long as the hon. member stays with constructive material, as he did in most of his speech, I think there will be a willingness to listen on the government benches. But he cannot blame the government members for laughing as they did at the first part of his speech when he started to talk about farm income, because when the hon. member talks that way, he talks the way the Liberals talked for years. That is why they are on that side of the house. They never did understand this question of farm income. But, Mr. Chairman, I am not rising to speak on that; I am simply saying that if the hon. member continues with these constructive ideas I will be glad to listen to them and discuss them with him, because every constructive idea should be looked at and examined, and if workable I think we should try it.
We have had a fairly high level of discussion on farm credit. There are one or two smaller points I could mention and get off the table, and then I will move into what I think is the key issue that has been developing. First of all, on the question of the appraisal fees, no person more than myself wonders why appraisal fees are set at all; but in discussing this matter with Brigadier Rutherford and other officials of the Farm Credit Corporation they pointed out very good reasons why there has to be some form of appraisal fee. I am not even going to give those reasons tonight because I think most hon. members realize what they are. But I will say that the

appraisal fee is under consideration and, as many hon. members know, a great many of these appraisal fees that are supposed to be charged, are not charged. This is because many of the people who have been having interviews with the farm credit advisers and field men have, after the interview, talked it over and the farm credit officials has told them, "Don't put in a formal application because your application in this form will not be acceptable, if all the rules and past precedents are followed. So until you can make a little improvement here in your plan of operation, do not submit this plan. Do not submit it until it is improved to meet our standards". As a result, do not feel too sorry for people who are supposed to have paid this $50 appraisal fee, because I would say a great many of them do not pay a dollar. We are giving that service as a free service, but some fee has to be established.
The second point I wish to mention, Mr. Chairman, is this. Several hon. members have made this point. I refer to the question of poultry. This comes under the definitions in the regulations of the act. At the present time poultry are not in the definition of the regulations to allow the Farm Credit Corporation to lend money on a specialized poultry operation. Because of this many hon. members over the last two years have come to me and suggested that we include poultry. But the committee will remember that two or three years ago when the big discussion was going on about integrated farming, it was aimed particularly at this integration in the poultry industry.
At the time of the writing of the regulations it was decided to leave poultry out because it lends itself so much to specialization and certainly lends itself to integration. But now we are reconsidering this matter. I should like to mention not only those hon. members who have spoken in the debate, but the new member from Esquimalt-Saanich who came into the house in the last parliament, the hon. member for Wellington South, who has spoken to me several times about this; and, yes, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yukon, who has raised this question as being a particular type of operation for farmers in that part of Canada. Also, I would mention the former member for Halton, and the Minister of Finance from Nova Scotia, who is not here tonight but who has raised this matter with me.
I have discussed this matter with the advisory committee to the Farm Credit Corporation and I think I can inform the committee that we have decided to make a change in the regulations to allow lending on poultry. I am going to be very frank with the committee, however. We realize that the Farm
Farm Credit Act
Credit Corporation is designed, not to build up a great big factory but to help farm families become established. In those areas of Canada-and I mention specifically British Columbia and Nova Scotia-it is obvious that in looking for opportunities to give farm families a decent living one of the few ways they have at their disposal is the operation of a medium sized poultry farm of 2,000 or
3,000	hens. We have designed and worked with other designers to provide the designs for a very efficient type of poultry farm where a person with a small acreage who cannot make a living in the ordinary, traditional senses of farming, can do so with a specialized poultry operation of this size.
I for one do not want to call him a large farmer because he has 2,000 or 3,000 hens. It requires at least that number of hens to give a family any kind of a living. As long as the Farm Credit Corporation does not give the money of the taxpayer, which is of course subsidized, to the borrower to start him off on a tremendous operation which will end up with 300,000 hens, then I think we can safely go into this type of loan.
But the Farm Credit Corporation will look at it as a way of giving an opportunity to a farm family to make a living only up to a certain point, because the Farm Credit Act prohibits the use of government money being lent to farmers who do not need credit. They have all the assets, the big farmers, like the hon. member for Assiniboia. He could not get a loan even if he was not a member.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am a small farmer.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: He has enough land to get along by himself.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am a small farmer with too many debts to get a loan; I would not be a good risk.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Under this act we are only allowed to lend to the small family farmer. That brings me to the point, Mr. Chairman, that I think is the key issue of this debate so far.
First of all I was amused, and second, I was surprised to hear members of the Liberal party follow the lead of the hon. member for Assiniboia and say that more attention should be paid to the smaller farmers. Listening to the hon. member for Assiniboia, I knew what he was getting at and I support what he was getting at; that you cannot have a fixed definition applied by civil servants acting as bureaucrats trying to establish strict rules; there has to be the ability to accept facts as they are, in this particular case, and make adjustments. The hon. member was quite correct here. There should be a more economic farm unit; there should be that type of approach.

Farm Credit Act
There were some new members who, probably in their innocence, told the committee that we have to give more loans to the small farmers. That is exactly what we have been doing. That makes the difference between what we have been doing for the last three years and what was done under the old farm loan board. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to rouse up this committee by referring to all the bitter memories that we have of the thirties and following the war, when the farmers who had done without capital during the war, and used their machinery till they drove it into the ground. They could not make improvements or expand their holdings; and after the war, when everybody else was expanding they were denied credit by the old farm loan board under the previous administration.
This sorry record of refusals, not just refusals temporarily but refusals permanently, can be shown by this chart which is now on the Hansard record of the House of Commons. If any hon. member looks at that bar graph he can see how it swung upwards in 1957, till this year we are lending at the rate of $80 million. It is even off the top of the graph.


Mr. Teillei:: Big farmers.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, sir.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I can prove it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Small farmers.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the minister would permit a question on this point?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: At the end of my remarks, please. This is very important. I am making a point here.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is on this point that I wanted to ask a question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I want to make it absolutely clear that if a farmer comes into the Farm Credit Corporation office, and he is a small farmer, whether he is a 12 acre farmer in British Columbia, a 40 acre farmer in Nova Scotia, a 100 acre farmer in Quebec-


Mr. Maiheson:: What about Leeds?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: 
of land? There are very few farmers down there who can build up enough assets on their land to warrant a loan. Therefore, we have had to try new techniques. The technique there is to lend money on the character of the person concerned-to lend him money on the opportunity which exists, and not on his having any tangible assets at all in many cases.
When people say that we turn down 55 per cent of the applications, believe me, Mr. Chairman, that it is only after every bit of effort has been made to see how we can help the applicant concerned find a plan which will make it possible for him to make more money. That is the key, and that is the difference in method from that of those people who have been talking about lending to small farmers. We think this is a criminal act of injustice to the small farmer, to lend him money if he cannot pay it back; you put him in a worse position than he was before.
That is where we differ 180 degrees right down the line from the Liberal party. All they asked when they had their farm loan board was: "How many bucks have you got in the bank? How many dollars have you got in bonds? What is the value of your property, your house, your wife's house, your mother's house and everything else?" And their record is shown on this chart I have here: they are barely able to get on the chart from the amount of money they lent us in those years when we needed it so badly.
Today we ask only one thing: Will this loan make it possible for this man to make more money for his family? We are not going to lend money to anybody if it is going to put him in a hole where he is always under this debt. It is better to be honest. I want to thank the hon. member for Timiskaming for bringing that point out tonight, because he does read these reports issued by the Farm Credit Corporation about what we are trying to do. We have never turned a man down because he was small, in the sense of smallness of farm or unit. We have turned the man down only if he has not been able to show a plan that will enable him to give some opportunity not only to pay back the debt but also to give his family a living during the paying back of the debt and to make some money from having borrowed some.


An hon. Member:: How will he do that if he cannot get credit?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, one thing I learned on the farm was that you could tell how full a barrel was from the sound of it. If there was a lot of noise it was empty.
Mr. Chairman, I know my time is about up,
Farm Credit Act
but this is the key point. The definition of a small farmer is not governed by the size of his acreage. The definition of a small farmer is his lack of ability to make money to give his family a living on his farm.
For example, last year we lent approximately 2,500 farmers sums of less than $10,000. So far this year we have lent 1,465 farmers less than $10,000. Those who consider that $10,000 is a large amount are not farmers. I listened tonight to the hon. member for Lincoln, and when I heard him talk of raising the amounts under part II and part III from $30,000 to $40,000 I immediately said to myself: That man must have some knowledge of farm problems. I do not know what his occupation is, but the minute he mentioned the figures of $30,000 and $40,000, that is the type of request we get from farmers. No farmer wants to be given $2,000 and told to go and do what he can with it, because it is cruelty. But if $2,000 would help him increase his income, we will give it to him. That is the way it works.
My point is this; I do not know whether or not I have made it successfully. I agree that the purpose of the Farm Credit Corporation is to strive toward building economic farm units in Canada. Not only should an economic farm unit pay to farmers some of the return on their capital, but it should also pay him something for the labour of himself and his family and raise him to a level where he feels that he is doing just as good a job in society as the man in the city. At the present time that equality is not there. But I hope we never define him so rigidly as to say that this is the line or that is the line, because in some areas to some people a net income of $2,000 or $3,000 per year is an economic living. In other areas and with other people it might be $4,000 or $5,000. So I simply say, let us make it a more economic family farm unit which we are trying to achieve, and I do not think that anybody would argue that. But do not ever accuse the farm credit people of turning down loans to small farmers. Accuse them if you will of asking a farmer in his own interests to produce a plan which will show that he can make more money by borrowing money. If people give me cases like that I will be glad to take them up with the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation and tell him that he is not doing what the directive in the act and the regulations calls for.
In all fairness to the members of the Farm Credit Corporation-and there are not many of them; there are about 200 of them across this country-I must say that they have done a magnificent job. However, that does not mean that as minister I am entirely satisfied with everybody. I have been around to meet

Farm Credit Act
the staff in all the provinces except one and I have driven home as hard as I can exactly what I have been saying here today. I used this type of simple little lecture, that I do not care how miserably dressed a person is when he walks into your office or when you meet on the street; you treat that person as if he were a leading personage in the kingdom because that person is a fellow Canadian and is not going to be given that infamous treatment that was given by the old farm loan officials in the old days. Even though a person speaks in broken English-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -he will get the same treatment in the farm credit offices. I mention these things because they rankle us deeply in certain parts of Canada.
I have now made my point that I wanted to make about small loans. There are many other points here that I think I can let slide or can possibly cover if I am obliged to speak again during the debate. However, I wish to conclude by dealing with one point raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia, namely that this legislation should go to the committee. I would not be at all opposed to taking this legislation to a committee but, as I sense the feeling of this committee I think members of every party here have made it clear that this is good legislation, that they are glad to see it going so well, that they are glad to expand the money being made available and they have put forward constructive ideas. I should like to suggest very sincerely that we do not hold up this legislation any longer than we need to, in order to put our ideas before the house. Let us have the first reading of the bill, and the second reading, and let me get on with the job out across the country. If hon. members will do that, I will appreciate it greatly. This is good legislation. We are fulfilling the promises made by the Minister of Agriculture in 1959 that as soon as we had any new ideas we would bring them in. These amendments can be given to you the minute the first reading is over. We will get copies in both French and English and you will find out that not only is the amount expanded-and it will be expanded whenever the farmers need it-but also it is designed, as I said in my opening remarks, to make it more flexible and to broaden it out. This is aimed particularly at the farmers of eastern Canada, to give us a chance to get in and to make loans on types of operations that you cannot make if you consider agriculture purely from the traditional point of view. Hence we have included off-site or off-farm employment as a type of employment. We

have included new types of operation on the farm which are not traditionally agriculture.
These are the two main changes. I might point out that already there is an interest in this matter. Earlier in my remarks-I refer to my first remarks-I mentioned that I was not satisfied with most of the loans going into certain areas. I am very pleased to get new figures tonight for Quebec. In 1961-62 all we lent in Quebec was 109 loans for $1.7 million. This year, which is only seven months on its way so far, the figure up to October 15 is 316 loans for $4.8 million.


An hon. Member:: Election year.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The estimated business for the balance of the year is about $12 million in Quebec.


Mr. Asselin:: Is that not owing to the rebate of interest by the provincial government?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think this makes clear how all our officials, from the minister on down, are pulling our full weight in meeting what we see is the next great big problem, along with the dairy problem, of getting at the income of what you might call the eastern farmers, and when I say eastern farmers I include the farmers of British Columbia as well.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman-


Rémi Paul: I believe the hon. member for Assiniboia wished to ask a question. Following that I will call on the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Hazen Robert Argue: I had a question that I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture. I thought it might have been more appropriate to get the answer at that particular part of his speech. However, he was good enough to suggest that I might ask the question now. It has to do with the distribution of the various categories of farm loans in numbers for the various years. The minister has put in Hansard a graph which shows a very laudable increase in the aggregate amount of loans and a substantial increase in the number of loans. Tonight he has asserted that under his administration he is emphasizing small loans to the low income farmers. I therefore ask him to put on Hansard the number of loans in each $1,000 range of size, for each of the years in question so that we can see the picture. The average loan was roughly $11,000. I should like to know in each of those years the number of loans shall we say of $1,000 and under, the number between $1,000 and $2,000, the number between $2,000 and $3,000 and so on, so that we can get a complete picture of the range of loans. The

minister says the emphasis is on small loans. My point is that the emphasis has been, to far too great an extent, on the larger loans. I ask the minister to substantiate his own statement.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder whether the hon. member would accept a table that I had worked out today and broken down more roughly into headings of $5,000 and under and $10,000 and under.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not mind any tables going on the record. I am not particular myself. If the minister wishes to put tables on the record, it is all right with me. But they will not show it. I submit to the minister that they will not show it at all, when you have ranges of up to $5,000 and from $5,000 to $10,000. I would ask him to ask his officials-and I am sure they have the figures readily available-to give the committee this information which will show the actual distribution of the loans.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The only thing I wish to point out was that if you want in that breakdown of $5,000 and less, which most of us I think would consider would be the information he was after, and $5,000 to $10,000 as the next grade, then I have it already. If I am obliged to go back and break it down into all these categories he mentioned, the time factor might enter into the picture. I cannot guarantee when it will be ready.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would ask the minister to go back to his officials and ask for a breakdown. This has been a central point. It has been of interest to the members of the Liberal party, to the minister and to hon. members opposite. I think the committee deserves this kind of information. I am sure that his officials will have it readily available in their files.


Rémi Paul: I recognize the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Edmund Tobin Asselin: May I ask a question of the minister?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Rémi Paul: The minister's time has expired. If any questions are to be asked of the minister and we are to have an answer to them it is necessary to have the unanimous consent of the committee; otherwise I would call on the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Rémi Paul: I recognize the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Edmund Tobin Asselin: Mr. Chairman, may I ask-
Farm Credit Act


Rémi Paul: There is not
unanimous consent. I recognize the hon. member for Villeneuve.
(Translation):


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, in the last few days we have been considering- (Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: Not on the table-


David Réal Caouette: Pardon me?
(Translation):


Hazen Robert Argue: Excuse me.


David Réal Caouette: In the last few days, we have been considering the advisability of increasing the lending capacity of the corporation from $300 to $400 million so as to provide further assistance to eastern farmers.
We have always noted, under a Liberal as well as a Conservative government, that eastern farmers were treated differently from western farmers.
When the government suggests that we should increase the number of loans in Quebec and in the maritime provinces, we sincerely believe that this is not the proper way to settle the problem. As a matter of fact, Quebec farmers will go deeper into debt and will not necessarily be able to sell their products.
I am of the opinion that the important thing now for Canadian agriculture is to establish in the east a policy similar to the one followed in the western part of the country. For instance, when the purchase of the wheat production of the west is guaranteed, the western farmers feel more at ease than when the eastern farmers are left without any possibility of selling their products.
And even though farmers from Quebec or the maritime provinces get into debt for $200, $300 or $400 millions, if they cannot sell their production in the fall, it is easy to understand that they will not even be able to honour their obligations, even if at the time the loan is granted it enables them to live a little better than now, and some day, in two, five or ten years from now, they will be in the same situation as today.
What we cannot possibly imagine and what we cannot accept, in Canada, is that, after 200 or 300 years of toil on a farm handed down from father to son, from generation to generation, we should have farmers who are in debt to such an extent that they can no longer operate their farms, and this even after getting provincial or federal loans. Such is the result of a financial system not adapted to our potentialities.
Mr. Chairman, more and more we hear it said that our farms are being abandoned.

Farm Credit Act
The farmer's son is no longer interested in taking over his father's farm. Why? Because at the present time, in Quebec, in the maritime provinces and in some other provinces, a farmer's real income stands barely at four cents an hour, considering the number of hours he devotes to the operation of his farm. And were we to get him deeper into debt tomorrow, I do not believe that would solve his problem. But one solution the government could bring to the Canadian farmers' problem would be to guarantee those of eastern Quebec, Ontario and the maritime provinces that their products would be sold.
Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that if the government offered that guarantee, we would not have to worry about the rest. Then we would have an opportunity to see that farmers in Quebec and in Canada can look after their own business. That policy would bring about the development of farms and would help to increase production. Instead of paying farmers to keep from growing wheat, let us pay for the production achieved in this country, let us build cold storage facilities in eastern Canada to keep food commodities and if we cannot consume our national production, let us go to the international market; that way, we will be helping Canadian farmers.
We are in favour of assisting farmers but at the same time, we fear the consequences of such a policy because of our present monetary system.
It is obvious that the farmer will be in financial difficulties within a few years, just as he is now. We have proof of it in Quebec and in the other provinces where farm credit has been established, because farmers wrack their brains every six months, never knowing if they will manage to meet their obligations or make the instalment on their farm loan. Why? Because they cannot sell their products.
Mr. Chairman, we must see to the establishment of farmers' sons and enable them to have the same standard of living as the other classes of society, because I am of the opinion that Canadian farmers are the most ignored people at the present time, the least recognized and even the most badly treated.
I suggest very humbly to the minister to study the possibility of submitting a measure that would guarantee to the farmer, for instance, the sale of his butter, as is done already in some areas for the sale of eggs, or apples, or even fish in the maritime provinces. Let us guarantee the sale of these products and I am sure that we shall then be on the road to prosperity, not only for Canadian farmers but for all the social classes of our country.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) a question? Would he tell the house if it would not be better to settle present agricultural problems through the media of agricultural co-operatives and organizations, such as the C.F.U.? In other words, would it not be better if the government intervened only indirectly without substituting itself to private enterprise and co-operatives?


David Réal Caouette: I shall be pleased to answer the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon).
You are quite right. We can work through the existing agricultural co-operatives and organizations. There is no question of doing away with them. The government should act through such intermediaries to market our agricultural production but it should do so by getting something better than starvation prices for our farmers. Far from having to sell at a loss, our farmers should make a profit.
I am quite in favour of working through the C.F.U. or similar agricultural co-operatives and organizations. In fact, those farm organizations share my opinion 100 per cent. All they are looking for is the marketing of our farm production at advantageous prices.
(Text):


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on the amendment introduced by the Minister of Agriculture to increase the lending capacity of the Farm Credit Corporation from $300 million to $400 million, I should like to say at the outset that I am much in favour of what is spelled out in the resolution. Looking at the history of the farm loan board as it operated up to November, 1959, I must say that it served agriculture very well but since the Farm Credit Corporation came into being under the amendment at that time it has served Canadian farmers much better.
Much has been said during this debate by hon. members, some of whom have contradicted statements by the Minister of Agriculture and have said that the corporation has not served the economy as well as it should have. Therefore I should like to let another person speak, namely, Mr. David Suderman, Ottawa editor of the Family Herald, who had this to say in an article in the March 8 issue:
If the Conservative government decides to stand solely on its record In this year's federal election, one big vote drawing card in rural ridings will be the achievements of the Farm Credit Corporation. Other farm legislation, such as the Agricultural

Rehabilitation and Development Act, may eventually have greater impact on our rural economy, but the Farm Credit Corporation has already proven itself.
I want hon. members to pay attention to this next paragraph:
In its first 27 months it issued more than $130 million in farm loans-about $9 million more than its predecessor the Canadian farm loan board, had issued in 27 years. The 6,000 plus loans issued during the current fiscal year averaged more than $11,000 per farmer. The final impact such lending will have is still difficult to measure, but it is certain to provide the stimulus for a major overhaul long overdue on many farms.
As I said before, looking at the history of the old farm loan board as it was in operation up to October 1959, and the present Farm Credit Corporation since that time, I must say they both serve Canadian agriculture well. The old farm loan board served the Canadian farmer well, but it never could quite measure up to the other legislation we have in this country, namely, the Veterans Land Act. The Veterans Land Act had some very line features which proved to be so valuable they were incorporated in this new type of farm credit.
There were other new features incorporated in the farm credit bill, one of which was the new type of supervised farm mortgage credit. Many of the failures on small farms and other farms resulted from the fact that some of the farmers were not very efficient and did not have supervised farm credit available to them. This supervised credit was helpful to our young farmers between the ages of 21 to 45.
Another point I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture relates to the clause which provides group life insurance to the farmer who borrows from the Farm Credit Corporation. This group life insurance is very helpful and many farmers have taken advantage of it. There was one omission made in the new farm credit bill, and that is that the farmers who obtained loans from the old farm loan board were not given an opportunity to take out this group insurance on their loans. In my home, in western Canada, many farmers would like the privilege of taking this group insurance, and I would ask the minister to incorporate such a provision in the amendments.
Agriculture today finds itself in a much better position as a result of having the Farm Credit Act amended. I am sure that with the increase in the amount from $300 million to $400 million a great deal of help will be given to the farmers in both western and eastern Canada. There is a new trend today in agriculture and that is to go more heavily into the livestock industry, which has a good future. This increase from $300 million to $400 million in the lending capacity of the
Farm Credit Act
corporation will be very useful to those farmers who would like to diversify and go into the livestock industry.
This supervised farm credit is not a new idea. As I said, many of our failures in the past must be attributed to the fact that some farmers were not able to avail themselves of this supervisory service that is provided now to the farmers between the ages of 21 and 45. A planned program could be followed with the operator which would result in repayment of the debt and tend to keep production directed toward future market requirements. If there are any debts that the farmer cannot pay, then the supervisor will advise him not to go further into debt. Of course, this farm credit should never be given to farmers that are not on an economic unit. Credit should never be extended to support an uneconomic unit. From what I gather, previous speakers have said that the amendments would be improved and, as I said at the outset I am greatly in favour of the amendment which seeks to increase the capital from $300 million to $400 million.
(Translation):


Mr. Rochon:: Mr. Chairman, like all the members who spoke before me, I should like to congratulate you on your appointment as deputy chairman of committees. Judging from your performance so far, it is obvious that you will always be impartial in the debates to come.
The resolution which is before the committee at present and whose object is to amend the Farm Loan Act, is of the utmost importance. As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) stated a while ago, it is proposed to increase the corporation's capitalization from $12 to $16 million so that its lending power may be raised from $300 to $400 million. That is a worth while step and I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for it if only I could be assured that this bill will also benefit the eastern farmer.
It is true that the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) reminded us this afternoon that the minister promised some time ago, in Joliette, that his solicitude would extend to the farmers of both eastern and western Canada.
We heard him tell us that he hoped the legislation under study would bring us better times. But if the past is any indication of the future, I fear that I might throw cold water on his sanguine hopes if I reminded him, as Aeneas did, when he stood before the Trojan horse:
The Greeks I fear in spite of their presents.

Farm Credit Act
Mr. Chairman, like the member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh) I would like the act to apply to our farmers who are engaged in specialized farming.
I have the honour of representing, in this house, a huge constituency of over 110,000 persons. Allow me to greet them, as I bring you their message of understanding and good will. Four thousand of them live on Jesus island which is aptly referred to as the "garden of Quebec". Over 40 young men have started working on specialized farms this year, following the 150 who had done the same, before them, in the last five years.
I envy the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska who managed to secure so much- either him or his predecessor-from this federal agency. Many of my constituents submitted requests which have gone unanswered.


An hon. Member:: To the provincial government or federal government?
Another hon. Member: To both.


Jean-Léo Rochon: To both. Those applications had been made mostly to the federal government, but they were turned down by the Department of Agriculture.


An hon. Member:: You mean the provincial government.


Jean-Léo Rochon: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon you heard the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte). He described the treatment given farmers in his constituency, and what goes on in his constituency is common to all eastern farmers; small farmers who have worked hard to achieve certain results are too often placed in a position where they can no longer face competition, where they cannot meet their obligations and where they have to abandon the fruit of several years of work.
Speaking here on behalf of the farmers, gardeners and market gardeners of my district, I associate myself with the Catholic Farmers' Union which claims that the agricultural class has come this year to a turning point of its history in the province of Quebec. They realize that in order to obtain results, they must join into a professional association of farmers, into a powerful association, counting, of course, on federal and provincial help. I therefore wonder if the bill that will be submitted to us will allow the small farmers to take advantage of it.
At present in order to grant them a loan, the Farm Credit Corporation asks for collateral. Now how can collateral be given by the gardeners of my county, by the market

gardeners of Jesus island, when they have to spend thousands of dollars to prepare the soil, lay out their hot houses and prepare their hotbeds. If even they were sure of selling their produce and did not fear American competition as happened this year. The same situation exists for the dairy farmers, feed producers, in a word, for all our eastern farmers. We are taking care of the western farmers very well, but those in the east also have rights, I believe, which have been overlooked for the last five years.
And yet, Mr. Chairman, the economists of the federal Department of Agriculture are the ones who wrote in a report published in September 1961 that: If emergency steps are not taken immediately in addition to certain subsidies granted either by Quebec or Ottawa, many small eastern farmers, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, will face bankruptcy.
It is time, it is high time that such things are said. Please remember, Mr. Chairman, I am inspired in making such remarks only by my desire to serve my riding, my province and my country.
I do not indulge in petty politics. I wish that we could say like those new Canadians who arrive from Europe and elsewhere: "Now we will see a country where it is good to live and where governments are aware of their civic duty".
It is the first time I have the opportunity of taking the floor in this house and I am proud to do so on behalf of the agricultural classes. They are a minority in my large constituency, but a minority which is an honour to us, a minority which brings the name of our farmers to the far end of Europe, since at the Canadian pavilion of the world's fair held in Belgium a few years ago, where there were demonstrations of vegetable and fruit growing, two gardeners of my constituency were present. In fact, the following year, their early products, be it tomatoes, cucumbers or lettuce, were considered as class A products at American fairs.
If those people can so bear the name of Quebec, the name of our country abroad, let us help them. Let us make credit easier to get than is the case at present.
May I, Mr. Chairman and hon. members, thank you for your kind attention.
It is the first time I have had the honour of taking the floor here, and I shall never forget it.

I am convinced that together, without resorting to political partisanship, we shall fight for the benefit of our constituencies, our province and our country.
(Text):


Mr. Whelan:: It is a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate on the Farm Credit Corporation. As a member of a farm organization which made representations on the type of farm credit body we should have in Canada, I can say that the Farm Credit Corporation is part of what we sought. It is not all we asked for, by far, but it is a part.
The area I come from, southwestern Ontario, has the most diversified farming in the country and we feel the Farm Credit Corporation does not entirely suit the needs of our area. We feel that a system whereby farmers in western Canada can share their crops in order to pay off a mortgage should be introduced in eastern Canada, especially in southwestern Ontario. We have a large greenhouse industry in that area and it should be treated the same as wheat farming in western Canada. We can all have crop failures. I ask the committee tonight, with this loan association the way it is organized now, and pointing to the large loans that are being made, are we creating a modern form of feudalism or not? We see so many of our farms becoming larger and larger. This is the thing that caused most of our forefathers to come to Canada. They wanted to get away from conditions of that kind. With this type of farming, instead of the large castle on the one hand and the mud hut on the other, we have the large ranch-type house and the small cottage on the side of the workers. This is something that we do not condone.
Our area is a wonderful agricultural producing area. However, I would say, with regard to most of our agricultural products, that we would not be producing as much as we are if we were not using so much slave labour. I say this rather broadly, but it is true. In our area, which is made up predominantly of families that originally came from Europe, who are growing vegetables, and so on, every member of the family works but they do not all get paid. This is a factor we should consider when we point to farm income and how great it is. If we did the same thing in our cities and made every child from the age of seven or eight years do some chore for the city and contribute to the welfare of the city, what a burden unemployment would be in the city. But this is what is happening today as far as agricultural production is concerned.
We in the rural areas sincerely believe that we are not treated in the same way as our urban cousins. Some hon. members may won-
Farm Credit Act
der why I make this statement, but it is true. Under this loan legislation you cannot borrow more than $7,500 with which to build a house, and you may have many more assets than your urban cousin needs to buy a home in the city. We feel this is unjust, because all hon. members know what kind of a house can be built today for $7,500. It is not comparable at all to the type of house in which our city cousins live.
The need for increased loans is something I should like to speak about, Mr. Chairman. We in our area, as I said earlier, have a large greenhouse industry. This industry, again, is run mainly by families in the area. But this is an industry that requires a great deal of capital; there is a great deal of investment in it. I would say this is the type of industry we should be promoting in Canada, because this is, again, a deficient industry; we are not producing anywhere near the amount of vegetables that we need in this country. They are being imported and we are spending Canadian dollars in the United States for the same products. There is a continuing demand from people in the greenhouse industry who need more money in order that they may make their units, as we call them, economical. The way this loan legislation is set up now, it does not provide for that.
I would also at this time, Mr. Chairman, like to say that in our area we too can have disasters as they can in the west. We would like to be treated in the same way as they are in the west when they have a disaster and receive assistance in, say, payments on par. I would suggest that some provision should be made in the act to cover this type of thing. If the loan is for one year and the payments cannot be met because of a disaster, a flood or storm that wipes out the crops, into which a tremendous amount of labour has been put by the families, the people affected should be allowed to repay their loans at a very low rate of interest or at no interest at all. This type of benefit should be provided by the corporation. The cost of crop insurance in our country is very high for the type of crops produced. Our province has not entered into any crop insurance program at this time.
I should also like to say that I think the Minister of Agriculture is probably right in asking for another $100 million, if farming in Canada continues on the way it has, especially in southwestern Ontario, where we now have to compete with the United States producers on everything we grow. Nearly everything we grow in that area is deficient in Canada, and we could produce enough for the needs of Canada if we were given the proper co-operation by the government.

Farm Credit Act
I say again that the minister is asking for $100 million, and the rate agriculture is going, he will be back in another year, or maybe before another year, asking for another $100 million or $200 million. Is this good for agriculture? Many thousands of loans have been made to farmers to date. How many million dollars have these farmers borrowed from the country? Is this good for our farmers? Are these the rich farmers that our urban cousins have been made to believe are borrowing these millions of dollars to run their farms? No, they are not. If we are going to continue in this way, the minister will be back again asking for more money for as long as he is minister. I do not know how long that will be, but it will be for as long as he is minister.
We have less farmers now. We have become more efficient. I do not think there is any more efficient producer in Canada than the farmer. I do not think there is any more efficient producer anywhere in the world than the Canadian farmer. He has proved this by his ability to produce more and more with less and less help. We have proved to the agricultural specialists and everyone else concerned that we have the ability to produce. I know what farming is. I was born and raised on what was called in this house tonight a small farm, a 50 acre farm. My operation now is a 200 acre farm and we handle thousands of dollars a year. But at the end of the year, this so-called net income that we hear so much about is not nearly what it should
be for the investment that we have on this farm. We should be growing these products in southwestern Ontario and really making agriculture what it should be in this country, but we are spending the dollars abroad. Agriculture is not what it should be because of the policy this government is carrying out in our part of Ontario and in Canada as a whole.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what the business will be tomorrow and next week as well?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we would like to go ahead with interim supply. Should it be finished early in the day, we would continue with the business we were on today. Alternatively, if interim supply is not concluded tomorrow we would have to carry on with it on Monday, because time is running out for the payment of cheques.
But if interim supply is concluded on Friday, we would then consider moving into ways and means on Monday and the Minister of Finance and other members of the house would deal with economic affairs. Then the Minister of Finance would bring along the budget resolutions which are listed in Votes and Proceedings of September 27.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 19, 1962