1962-03-07

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table three copies of an interim agreement between Canada and the United States relating to rates of duty, signed today at Geneva. This agreement embodies the results of negotiations between representatives of the two countries during the multilateral tariff conference which opened at Geneva in September, 1960, under the auspices of the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
In recent years the value of the two way trade between Canada and the United States represented by the items contained in the two schedules to the interim agreement has been about $130 million to $140 million per annum. All of the items in the United States schedule provide for reductions in rate, and they apply to Canadian exports which averaged about $65 million in the three year period 1958-60. The Canadian schedule provides for reductions in duties applying to imports from the United States averaging about $63 million per annum in the same three year period. In addition, Canada bound existing free entry provisions relating to a considerable number of farm implements and other items of production equipment which had not previously been bound, and for which import statistics are not separately available.
In addition to this agreement with Canada, the United States has entered into similar agreements with several other contracting parties to the GATT, including Britain, the European economic community, Japan, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal and Switzerland.
Indirect benefits of very considerable significance to Canadian exporters will accrue to Canada under the operation of the most favoured nation principle by virtue of these interim agreements between the United States and some of the third countries I have just listed.
The multilateral effect of these agreements between Canada and the United States and between the United States and third countries will be to open greatly enhanced prospects 26207-1-99
for Canadian exports. Reduction in duties arising from this series of agreements will provide benefits to almost every sector of the Canadian economy.
The interim agreement tabled today relates to the bilateral tariff negotiations between Canada and the United States under the so-called "Dillon round" of the multilateral tariff conference at Geneva. The results of Canada's bilateral negotiations with countries other than the United States, some of which are not yet concluded, will be announced in due course and will appear as part of the official conference protocols.
The interim agreement between Canada and the United States takes effect as of the date of signature. The textual part of the agreement as tabled is in English and in French, as is the schedule of tariff concessions granted by Canada.
The schedules setting forth concessions received and granted by Canada will enter into force 30 days after exchange of notification between the two countries or at a date to be agreed upon, and will later be incorporated into the official conference protocols which cannot be issued at Geneva until the conclusion of the series of bilateral negotiations. On issuance of the conference protocols the interim agreement will cease to have force or effect.
I now table a further document which summarizes in English and in French the two schedules to the interim agreement. Hon. members will find in the summary of concessions received by Canada under the agreement three figures in brackets. The first is the duty levied at present by the United States; the second is the duty leviable after the first stage of the reduction; the third is the duty finally leviable, that is, the fully reduced rate.
The reductions in United States rates resulting from the negotiations will, almost without exception, come into force by two annual stages, the first such reduction resulting in what is described in the U.S.A. schedule as the "intermediate" rate, and the second as the "final". Precise information is not yet available as to the exact date or dates on which the President of the United States will, by proclamation, bring the reduced rates into force.
Full details of the benefits accruing to Canada under the most favoured nation principle from the series of bilateral agreements

Tabling of Agreement
between, the United States and third countries will be made public when the provisions of the numerous schedules of concessions to these agreements have been analysed.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that in relation to the coming into effect of these mutual tariff reductions hon. members are aware that the governor in council possesses power under section 10 of the Customs Tariff to make such reductions in duties on goods imported into Canada from any other country or countries as may be deemed reasonable by way of compensation for concessions granted by any such country or countries. It will therefore be open to the government to bring these reductions in the Canadian tariff into effect on the date to be agreed upon following exercise by the President of the United States of the powers conferred on him by congress under existing legislation in that regard.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's announcement would appear to cover a substantial section of our export trade in the agreement he has referred to between, initially, Canada and the United States and, by the application of the most favoured nation clause, to other countries as well. It certainly will warrant the most careful examination. In so far as this agreement removes obstacles to multilateral international trade and increases our own export trade on a mutually advantageous basis, it will be greatly welcomed on this side.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, our group naturally welcomes any move that is being made by the government to reduce tariff barriers hindering trade between our country and other countries. We are, of course, in the position that we will have to study the minister's announcement with great care before we will be able to express our opinion as to the eventual benefits or otherwise that our country will derive.
I was a little surprised at the bias toward bilateral agreements in the announcement by the minister. I noticed that he made reference to multilateral advantages that might be derived as a result of the agreement. We were very interested in a Reuters news dispatch today emanating from Geneva to the effect that the United States has arrived at a sweeping agreement with the European common market. No one in the middle of winter, especially a Canadian winter, likes to be caught outdoors in the nude. We are hoping that it is the intention of the government to follow through and do as the United States government has done, and reach a mutually beneficial agreement with the European common market at a very early date.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is going beyond the scope of the initial announcement.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BELGIAN MINISTER

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the house will allow me I should like to welcome to the diplomatic gallery the Belgian minister of external trade and technical assistance, Mr. Maurice-Paul Brasseur, who is spending a few days here to discuss with our ministers trade matters of common interest. His presence bears further witness to the close and friendly relations between Canada and Belgium which were sealed in service in two world wars.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the Prime Minister in the welcome he has extended to our friend from Belgium, not only because of his own personal distinction in the government of his country but because of the country he represents, an old and valued friend of Canada.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of this group and as one who spent quite a number of months on Belgian soil in defence of common interests, we wish to associate ourselves with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the remarks of the official opposition. I trust that the visit of this distinguished gentleman will be to the mutual advantage of both of our countries.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Last May my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and I met with United States Secretary of Agriculture Freeman and Secretary of the Interior Udall in Ottawa to discuss various agricultural and renewable resource problems affecting Canada and the United States. Discussions included the possibility of joint action to deal with the declining migratory water fowl population, particularly the ducks and geese, which use the international flyways.
A committee with members from each country was appointed to consider the problem. Since last May this international migratory bird committee has met twice in Washington and once in Ottawa. At the request of the committee, the United States fish and wildlife service and the Canadian wildlife service

have undertaken special studies to provide information basic to the committee's deliberations.
The committee has prepared an interim report which I wish to table at this time for the information of hon. members. The report contains several specific recommendations for action, involving pilot projects in the multiple purpose use of lands for the maintenance of water fowl population.



BANKING AND COMMERCE


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for York North wish to revert to presenting reports? Has the hon. member leave to revert to presenting reports?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. C. A. Cathers (York North):: I have the honour to present the first report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, in English and in French, and by unanimous consent I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that under the statute the Bank of Canada presents an annual report prior to March 1 of every year-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; there is no motion before the house at the moment. The report is not debatable until a motion is made for its adoption. Perhaps the hon. member would like now to revert to motions. Has the hon. member leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Cecil A. (Tiny) Cathers: By unanimous consent I move that the first report of the standing committee on banking and commerce presented this day be now concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to make his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Moore Benidickson: I was not previously in order, but I want to point out to the House of Commons that we have a new governor of the Bank of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Moore Benidickson: I suggest that under the laws governing the Bank of Canada the governor must submit a report to the Minister of Finance within two months after the end of the calendar year, and I assume he presented his report prior to March 1. Within two weeks afterwards, I understand- 26207-1-99i
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member again, but I fail to see the relevance of what he is saying to the motion before the house, which is that the house adopt the first report of the standing committee on banking and commerce relating to a quorum, printing and leave to sit while the house is sitting. I fail to see anything about other matters.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Like the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, I am a member of this committee and this morning attended a meeting of it. At that meeting the hon. gentleman made a request that we have the governor come before the committee, and that his report be tabled. The report now before the house does not contain that suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member proceeds any further, my recollection of the procedure, the proper procedure or the allowable procedure, on the presentation of a report or motion to confirm a report is that the house is only seized of the matters that are reported on, and it is not only irrelevant but contrary to our practice to discuss proceedings in the committee itself which are not brought forward in the report. The hon. member has rights in the committee with respect to what he seeks to raise now, and if he cannot exercise those rights there then he cannot complain about it at this time as part of the discussion on the committees report.


William Moore Benidickson: Surely we can ask the
Minister of Finance whether he has received the report from the new governor of the Bank of Canada?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-75, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The amendments proposed are to extend the powers of the board in various particulars, including the termination of various powers and so forth.


Mr. Pickersgill:: That is a fine explanation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Questions



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Mcllrailh: 1.	On what date was the long term agreement between the Canadian wheat board and the China Resources Company with respect to the sale of wheat and barley signed?
2.	How many individual contracts have been signed under this agreement, and what is the date of each?
Answer by: Mr. Harkness:
1. Apart from the information with respect to volume and credit terms, it is contrary to
government policy and not in the public interest to reveal details of the commercial sales contracts entered into by the Canadian wheat board.
2. Five contracts have been signed under the long term agreement negotiated by the Canadian wheat board with the China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation and its accredited agent, the China Resources Company. As indicated in the reply to question (1), the details are considered to be privileged. The volume and shipping period for these contracts are as follows:
Quantity (million bushels)	Shipping Period	Ports1.	16.8 wheat	Aug.-Nov. 1961	Pacific11.2 wheat	June-Aug. 1961	St. Lawrence16.8 barley	June-Nov. 1961	Pacific2.	6.0 wheat	Aug.-Sept. 1961	St. Lawrence3.	30.6 wheat	Jan.-May 1962	Pacific8.9 barley	Jan.-May 1962	Pacific4.	1.3 wheat	Dec. 1961-Jan. 1962	Pacific5.	3.0 wheat	Feb.-May 1962	St. Lawrence-Atlantic.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE INSPECTORS, ASSINIBOIA CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Argue: What is the name and address of each prairie farm assistance inspector who took crop reports within the Assiniboia constituency since August 1. 1961?
Answer by: Mr. Jorgenson:
The name and address of each prairie farm assistance inspector who took crop reports within the Assiniboia constituency since August 1, 1961, is as follows:
Name	Address
Blanchard, J	 Galilee, Sask.
Campbell, W. B	 Milestone
Cranfield, M. K	 Limerick
Aust, Chris	 Bengough
Ferguson, F. J	 Radville
Ferris, Wm. E	 Yellow Grass
Hoath, J	 Willowbunch
Schmidt, N	 Buffalo Gap
Panzer, Reynold	A	Lisieux
Bod, Wallace	 Lake Alma
Griesser, Chris	 Minton
Schneikart, E	 Crane Valley
Watson, Harvey	L	Avonlea
Stewardson, Willis .... Bengough
Johnson, A. H	 Congress
Johnson, Ralph		 Beaubier
Joynt, Garnet A	Rouleau
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
Name	Address
Lethbridge, E		Limerick
Lindskog, Sydney 		Neptune
McCombs, W. B		Yellow Grass
McFadden, G. M		Weyburn, Box 847
Mclver, A. S		Colfax
Myles, J. A		Coderre
Rainey, Dan 		Pangman
Shain, F		Big Beaver
Smith, W. C		Bengough
Michel, P. R		Weyburn
Kaufman, J. C		Gladmar
Howe, Morse 		Lewvan
Lackey, Herman F		Weyburn
Riviere, Paul 		Radville, Box 220
Crossman, D		Assiniboia
Hordenchuck, J		Flintoft
Bishop, Keith 		Assiniboia, Box 596
Thompson, John R		Congress
Stuart, Wayne 		Bengough
Rude, Chris		Lake Alma
Hind, Robert 		Gladmar
Clark, Les 		Rouleau
Blackmore, Leonard ....	Minton
Grajezyk, Albert 		Courval
Mainwaring, Samuel M. .	Coderre
Robinson, W. J		Palmer
Townsend, Jim 		Mazenod
Erfle, BiU 		Assiniboia
Moore, Willard 		Limerick
Frost, A. H		Mitchellton

Name	Address
Paterson, John ....	
Bennett, Tom 		
Pond, Roy 		
Gilles, R. T			 Coronach
Poile, Oliver L		
Smith, A. L			 Cardross
Mossing, Bruce ....	
Dersch, Glen		
Evans, B. E			 Morse
Fessler, J		
Howard, Guy		
Irvin, John 		
Miller, H. W		
Schafer, E. G			 Rockglen
Mossing, Melvin E.	
Andrews, J. P. ...	
Batty, Harold 		
Mitchell, John ....	
Wangen, Lindsay ..	
Miller, Sam B		
Kessler, Walter J. .	
Peterson, Mel 		
Otterson, Elmer ...	
Labatte, Clifford E.


DISCUSSIONS ON INDIAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT
Mr. Howard: Have the recommendations of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Indian affairs presented to the house on July 8, 1961, been discussed with any interested parties other than members of the cabinet and civil servants: and, if so, what is (a) the name and address of each such party (b) the date or dates upon which each discussion took place (c) the opinion of each such party (d) the action contemplated with respect thereto?
Answer by: Mrs. Fairclough:
(a) and (b). Discussions of a purely informal nature have been held, in the course of regular departmental business, with various individuals and groups across the country. These have involved numerous individual officers of the Indian affairs branch and interested persons outside the department and it would not be practical to attempt to list them in detail. However, among the major organizations who have either made representations or discussed various aspects of the recommendations informally with departmental officers, or considered them at annual meetings, are the Indian association of Alberta, the federation of Saskatchewan Indians and the Indian-Eskimo association of Canada. In addition, the recommendations of the joint committee were discussed fully at the Indian superintendents' national conference held in British Columbia in 1961.
(c) and (d). It is not possible at this stage to state the opinion of the parties or groups concerned, since the discussions were of a purely exploratory nature. Nor is it possible
Questions
to state what action is contemplated with respect to those discussions, beyond making it clear that the department intends to pursue them with interested groups at every opportunity and to arrange more formal consultations at the appropriate time.


WRITS OF ASSISTANCE, R.C.M.P.
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1958, has any writ of assistance been obtained by, of, or on behalf of, any member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and, if so, how many?
2.	Are any members of the said police force currently in possession of such writs of assistance and, if so, how many?
Answer by: Mr. Fulton:
1.	Yes-175 writs of assistance were issued to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under authority of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act between January 1958 and September 15, 1961. On the latter date, the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act was repealed and re-enacted as the Narcotic Control Act and all writs issued under the former act were cancelled. From September 15, 1961, to date, 118 writs of assistance have been issued under authority of the Narcotic Control Act.
On September 15, 1961, part III of the Food and Drugs Act was proclaimed in force and 118 writs of assistance were issued to members of the R.C.M. Police under authority of that act since September 15, 1961 to date.
462 writs of assistance have been issued to members of the R.C.M. Police under the Customs Act since January 1, 1958 to date.
504 writs of assistance have been issued to members of the R.C.M. Police under the Excise Act since January 1, 1958 to date.
2.	Yes-118 members of the R.C.M. Police are in possession of writs of assistance under the Narcotic Control Act, and of writs under the Food and Drugs Act.
836 members of the R.C.M. Police are in possession of writs of assistance under the Customs Act.
975 members of the R.C.M. Police are in possession of writs of assistance under the Excise Act.
In many cases the members in possession of writs under the Customs Act are also in possession of writs under the Excise Act.


FRASER RIVER SURVEY RE FLOOD CONTROL
Mr. Hicks: Are any steps being taken to have a competent firm of engineers make a survey of the Fraser river, 100 miles inland from its mouth, having in view control at flooding time as well as permanent repairs to dykes?
Answer by: Mr. Dinsdale:
No.

Questions


MEETING OF PRIME MINISTER AND YUGOSLAV FOREIGN SECRETARY
Mr. Marlin (Essex East): Did the Prime Minister have any meeting, officially or unofficially, during the month of March, 1961, with the foreign secretary of Yugoslavia, Hon. Koca Popovic; and, if so, when did such a meeting take place?
Answer by: Mr. Diefenbaker:
I was introduced to Mr. Popovic on March 28, 1961, but no discussions took place.


MIDDLETON, N.S.  ASSISTANCE TO HOSPITAL
Mr. Hellyer: Has the Department of National Defence assisted financially any hospital located in Middleton, Nova Scotia; and, if so, which hospital; and what form, and in what amounts did such assistance take place?
Answer by: Mr. Chambers:
The Department of National Defence made a grant totalling $135,587.76 to the Soldiers Memorial hospital in Middleton, Nova Scotia.


JAPANESE PLYWOOD QUOTA
Mr. Garland: 1.	What criteria, if any, does the government take into account in setting a quota figure for the import of Japanese plywood into Canada?
2.	Is this quota determined to any extent by housing starts and construction activity?
3.	Is the government actively seeking, in current negotiations, a reduction in this particular quota?
Answer by: Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):
1.	The quota for the export of Japanese plywood to Canada is not set by the Canadian government; it is set by the Japanese government following consultations with the Canadian government. In these consultations the Canadian government takes into account a number of criteria, including the economic outlook and the state of the market for this particular product. This includes consideration of the probable demand for hardwood plywood, which of course is influenced by such factors as housing starts and completions as well as other construction.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	It would be improper to reveal the specific positions put forward by the government while the consultations are in progress.


LOAN FOR MILL CONSTRUCTION, SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. Cardin: 1.	Has the federal government presently before it a request for a loan for the construction of a rod and bar mill at Sydney; and, if so, who has requested the loan, and in what amount?
2.	What decision, if any, has the government reached on any such request?
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
Answer by: Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):
1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Caron: 1.	Has the government received any representations to the effect that industrial non-contributory pensions have been reduced by the amount of the recent increase in old age security?
2.	Is there any regulation that would prevent a company from making such a reduction in its pension payments?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 2-Mr. Chevrier:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Justice and the attorneys general or other provincial ministers since July 1, 1960, regarding the method of amending the constitution of Canada.
Mr. Fulton:: May I ask that this stand. I hope it is the last occasion I shall have to make this request. We have now heard from seven of the 10 provinces.
Motion stands.


RAILWAY SERVICE, SPRINGHILL JUNCTION- SPRINGHILL, N.S.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Pickersgill:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, since July 1, 1961, between the Minister of Transport or any officers of his department and the premier of Nova Scotia or any other person, regarding the railway between Springhill Junction and Springhill, Nova Scotia.
Mr. Martini:: This is acceptable with the usual reservation, subject to the consent of the province.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 25-Mr. Peters:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal government and any other government or any agency, department, or branch thereof, since January 1, 1959, relating to an economic or feasibility survey to examine the possibilities of establishing a salt water port at Moosonee.
Mr. Walker:: Accepted, subject to the usual reservations about confidential and privileged documents and also subject to the consent of the province concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 26-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the study by an interdepartmental committee into the recommendations of the commission of inquiry, appointed on June 25, 1959, to inquire generally into all matters arising out of unfulfilled provisions of treaties 8 and 11 as they applied to Indians of the Mackenzie district.
Mrs. Fairclough:: Since this matter is now being considered by the government the relevant papers, I am informed, are considered to be privileged documents. I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot agree to produce them.


Mr. Howard:: Inasmuch as the report of the commission of inquiry was made public, I see no reason why this should not be treated in the same way. Perhaps it would be better if we were to call in the members, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE


BANK OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, could I address a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the Minister of Finance received from the governor of the Bank of Canada a report respecting the 1961 activities of the Bank of Canada? Second, would the minister undertake to refer the report to the banking and commerce committee, with the governor present before that committee, which was set up this day?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer to question No. 1 is yes. The answer to question No. 2 is that I think it will be proper to await the tabling of the report in this house in accordance with the statute and the procedures of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. Will the minister place any objection in the way of the committee expressing its wish to do what the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has asked?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. member to my answer to the second question posed by his colleague the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.


BRITISH COLUMBIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister in view of reports from Nelson, British Columbia, that a 300 ton steel tower was blasted into Kootenay lake last night, thus creating an area wide power failure which will leave 500 to 1,000 men out of work for weeks, if not months. Has the Prime Minister received a telegram from the mayor of Trail stating that, as in wartime, the government must consider the blasting of this vital power link an act of sabotage and take steps to end these dastardly deeds of this minority group? If so, would the Prime Minister inform the house of the government's response to this appeal?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the telegram in question, but I know that representations have been made. The attorney general of British Columbia discussed this whole problem with the Minister of Justice and made a number of suggestions which are being considered. Any that might lead to a

solution of this long continuing and recurring problem will be given the fullest consideration. All the co-operation we can provide to that end will be given.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question, as this is a matter of great importance to the district which I have the honour to represent. Has the government had any communications with representatives of the Brazilian government with respect to the emigration of this sect to Brazil?


John George Diefenbaker: Ever since my early days there have been prospective migrations of the Doukhobors to various parts of the world. I have not heard that Brazil has expressed the desire to have the Sons of Freedom. However, I will have the matter looked into.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the Prime Minister give the house an assurance that a budget will be introduced into this house before the Easter recess?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there has been no determination yet as to the date of the Easter recess.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There has been no determination of the date of the budget either.


NORTHERN ONTARIO
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I was able to notify his office this morning of my intention to ask this question. In view of the heavy snowfall and the high moisture content of the snow this year in the lake Nipissing watershed, will the minister use his good offices at once to encourage Ontario hydro and the Ontario department of lands and forests to lower their reservoirs at this point in order to ensure maximum winter lows, and thereby reduce the dangers of flooding during the period of spring freshet and avoid a recurrence of the situation of 1960?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, it is the department's practice to open all the French river dams as soon as possible at the close of the navigation season to permit the emptying of

the lake prior to the coming spring freshet. This has been done; the lake level is already below the recognized "empty" elevation of 638.0, and it would appear that we may be able to lower it still further to possibly elevation 637.5.
The water content of the snow cover on the watershed is about 10 per cent greater than normal, and all dams are still fully opened. These will remain opened as long as possible.
It is too early to make a firm forecast on the magnitude of the coming spring freshet. The general picture is, however, not too reassuring at this time. Much will depend upon the amount of snowfall still to come, the duration of the break-up and the amount of spring rainfall. While we expect a heavy run-off, the course of events of the next three weeks can alter our forecast considerably. Our reasons for expecting a heavy run-off are the higher than average water content of the snow cover and the lack of a pre-spring thaw this year.
Our officials are also in close communication with officials of Ontario hydro and of the Ontario department of lands and forests, who have storage dams on the rivers emptying into the lake, and up to date information on the condition of the watershed is known at all times.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue in his capacity as spokesman in this house for the C.B.C. Will the minister convey to the C.B.C. the general and widespread desire throughout the country that a program called "Inquiry" which featured the Minister of Public Works be repeated?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that viewpoint has been communicated to the C.B.C. by thousands of listeners throughout the country.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in his capacity as a member of the internal economy commission. Has the 26207-1-100
Inquiries of the Ministry minister drawn to the attention of the other members of the commission the recommendations of the civil service commission that certain employees attached to the House of Commons be given salary increases retroactive to July 1, 1961? If so, what has resulted from his drawing this matter to the attention of the commissioners?
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I think such a question should be directed to the chairman of that committee.


Frank Howard: May I ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I myself think the question is out of order.



RENOUS, N.B.-PROTEST RESPECTING CHANGE IN PAY PERIODS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norihumberland-
Miramichi): I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Today I received a telegram from the national defence employees association of the Renous, New Brunswick, naval ammunition depot, protesting a change in the weekly pay periods to twice a month for prevailing rate employees. The telegram also states that similar classifications at Halifax and Esquimau are remaining on the weekly pay period. Will the minister take this protest under consideration toward retaining the present pay period?
Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member was good enough to send copies of his question jointly to my colleague the Minister of National Defence and myself. The question is properly directed to my colleague.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for sending this joint notice of his question. I can assure him that the employees association is under a misunderstanding with respect to this matter. There is no intention to change the pay periods at the Renous naval ammunition depot on April 1, as suggested in the telegram received by the hon. member.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received any letters containing allegations that contractors in Kapuskasing, Ont., are attempting to avoid

Inquiries of the Ministry giving winter employment on contracts granted under the technical school program to promote winter work in the area? If so, has the minister anything to report on this matter?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention. As he knows, we have approved a composite high school for Kapuskasing in the amount of $578,000, with a federal contribution of $433,000. The hon. member is also aware of the fact that the actual administration of the program remains within the hands of the provinces, and that the way in which the work is carried on is a matter for the provincial authority.
I might mention that a cut-off date of March 31, 1963, was established on all these projects in order that the work would be performed as expeditiously as possible, and certainly we are in favour of as much of the work as possible being carried on in the winter months.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has his department or any agency of the federal government to his knowledge made representations to the Ontario government with a view to ensuring that some effective means can be found so that those members of the Italian community who were unable to take vocational training can be accommodated within the scope of the federal-provincial program?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, we are always prepared to participate in programs of this kind that upgrade the skills of our working force. Jurisdiction with regard to actually undertaking such education lies within the provinces, but I can assure the hon. member that we are prepared to co-operate in every respect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Because the federal government pays 75 per cent of capital costs and provides other grants, does the minister not think that in view of the good relations that prevail between this government and the government of Ontario he could persuade the government of Ontario to take affirmative action?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, we as the federal government endeavour at all times to have good relations with all provinces, particularly

in this field where everybody benefits as a result, and we at all times encourage the provinces to undertake these projects.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Italians are good Canadian citizens.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister make inquiries to ascertain whether Canadian National Railways are planning to close the C.N.R. freight office and C.N. express office at Chatham, New Brunswick, as reported in the Chatham Commercial-World; and will he make representations toward offsetting any such proposed closing?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minisier of Transpori):: I will be pleased to do so.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peiers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the statement yesterday by the minister of agriculture of Manitoba to the effect that a dangerous shortage of feed will develop before next month because of last year's drought, and is the minister in a position to indicate what negotiations are taking place with the federal government to eliminate this situation by assistance with regard to fodder and seed? Can the minister indicate to the house what steps have been taken in this regard to assist in the seed problem of western Canada?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, as acting minister this has not yet been brought to my attention, and I would have to inquire into the matter before I would be in a position to give an answer.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
Minister of Trade and Commerce when he expects the uranium contract with the United Kingdom to be signed?
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Just as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How soon is possible?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another question to the Prime Minister. In view of the visit to parliament today of an important delegation of the Voice of Women, and in view of their urgent plea to the Prime Minister to declare Canada's refusal to join the nuclear club and to intercede with President Kennedy to forgo atmospheric nuclear tests, would the Prime Minister care to report to the house the gist of his answer to this most commendable plea?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I met with this very large and representative delegation for a short time and the matters in question were not dealt with, other than being read by Madame Casgrain as part of their presentation. The Secretary of State for External Affairs remained with the delegation.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister yet learned officially of the effort of the United States to equip its NATO allies with a new atomic missile and, if so, can the minister say what the attitude of the Canadian government will be toward this proposal?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had any official word on that matter.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works or the Secretary of State a question relating to an order of the house made a month ago today with respect to a question of mine. The question sought information about the proposed plan of the province of British Columbia regarding financial participation in a second trans-Canada highway. I 26207-1-1001
Farm Improvement Loans Act would ask whichever hon. gentleman deals with these matters to make inquiries to see what progress is being made toward satisfying the order.
(Translation):


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I shall make inquiries and give an answer to the hon. member as soon as possible.
(Text):


FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT
Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. C-73, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, during the discussion at the resolution stage there were three questions raised to which the minister did not make a particular reply. The first question was whether he had considered raising the maximum loan available to an individual farmer to $10,000. The second was with respect to what consideration he has given to utilizing the tremendous resources of credit unions, because this legislation is restricted exclusively to the banks. Third, he was asked whether he is still convinced that $400 million up to the summer of 1965 is an adequate provision by parliament, having regard to the growth in lending that we know has taken place under this legislation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has asked three questions. I dealt with the first two at the resolution stage yesterday, and my remarks are to be found at page 1543 of Hansard. With regard to the third question, I may say that $400 million appears to be adequate to meet the needs that can be foreseen at this time over the three year period in question. Of course if the volume of lending should increase materially and that aggregate should be found insufficient, presumably it would be in the third year and the matter could be brought back to parliament in the light of the situation then prevailing.


William Moore Benidickson: I know that the minister gave the house information as to the total amount of lending in 1961. I was not sure of that when I spoke prior to his statement. In advance of the printing of the report for

Farm Improvement Loans Act the 1961 calendar year, has the minister information as to the average loan made under the act in 1961?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thought I gave information on that subject last evening, Mr. Chairman. I pointed out that the total of the loans for the 12 month period in 1961 amounted to $108 million, in round figures.


William Moore Benidickson: And $101 million the year before?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, it was $102
million in round figures for the calendar year 1960. The average size of the loans in 1961 was $1,531, and the average in 1960, $1,497.


Frank Howard: There is one thing I should like to have cleared up. While this thought has not been communicated to me by people who have borrowed under this act, the same thought has been asked of me by fishermen with respect to loans under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. The principle is the same. Perhaps if I ask the question of the minister now, the answer will be equally applicable to both acts.
During the resolution stage, the minister indicated that this was the fifth or sixth extension of this particular act and that the extension contemplated now is for a three year period from July 1 of this year to the end of June, 1965. I have been unable to answer the question asked of me, except to say that past experience has shown that extensions are put into effect as the expiry date approaches. However, this does leave some doubt in the minds of individuals who are contemplating borrowing money under this legislation, and I am sure it may leave some doubt in the minds of lenders as to their position following the expiration of this piece of legislation. I realize that this procedure permits a review of the legislation every two or three years instead of dealing with the matter during consideration of the estimates.
I wonder whether or not any thought has been given, and undoubtedly it has, to placing legislation of this sort on a more permanent basis. I realize that once you put things of this nature into effect, especially when the legislation is renewed five or six times before the expiry date, you establish a practice and thus put the act on some kind of permanent basis. I just want to pose this question: Has consideration been given to a more equitable way of dealing with legislation of this nature, that is giving it a more permanent basis, rather than having the possibility of its cancellation become a reality every two or three years?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think hon. members will appreciate at once that parliament can make this legislation permanent if it

chooses to do so. This would, however, immediately raise the question of the permissible aggregate of the guarantees. It has accorded thus far with the views of parliament that legislation of this kind should be given a three year life. This method assures parliamentary control and discussion of the legislation every three years, and thus the establishment of an appropriate ceiling on loans being made for the ensuing three year period.
Now, if we are to change the whole scheme of the act and withdraw the expiry date of the legislation, that would immediately present a problem as to what should be established as the aggregate or ceiling in perpetuity. I think hon. members will appreciate that this would not accord with the established conception of parliamentary control.
In so far as the position of borrowers or lenders under this legislation is concerned, the expiry date has no effect whatever on the validity of obligations incurred under the terms of the act before the expiry date. Even if the legislation expired at the next expiry date, it would have no bearing whatever upon the valdidity of obligations incurred or undertaken under the provisions of the act prior to that date. There is, therefore, no difficulty whatever about borrowers or lenders entering into their transactions under the terms of the legislation in that regard. The three year life does not deter any borrower or any lender under the act for that reason.


Frank Howard: I appreciate the latter part of the minister's remarks to the effect that, even if the act expired, the loans would continue in effect and the guarantees would continue in effect, although the force of the legislation would be gone in so far as new loans were concerned. It seems to me that there was one year in which the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act almost expired before an extension was granted. When the matter reaches this stage, I know fishermen have expressed the view to me that they feel they rush into doing contemplated work in order to participate in these loans and make sure they are able to borrow money before the legislation expires. If they had some degree of assurance the legislation was going to be extended, then they could plan their borrowings more easily so that they would fit into the economics of the industry.
These are views I have had expressed to me. As I said, the only answer I could make, and perhaps I will have to continue to make it, is that so long as the present Minister of Finance is minister he is too nice a fellow to cancel this legislation out. You can rest assured from past experience he will introduce a measure before parliament to secure an extension. However, I have to qualify this by

saying that I have heard some doubts expressed as to whether or not he will be minister when this legislation is under review in 1965, regardless of the fortunes of his party. I doubt very much whether he is going to be in that position in 1965 when this legislation is reviewed.


William Moore Benidickson: I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that there has not been too much growth indicated by the minister from 1960 to 1961. We have official information with respect only to the lending in 1960 to the effect that nearly $102 million was lent under this act. We advanced in 1961, and the amount was $108 million. Now, this act contains a provision that the borrower will not be charged more than 5 per cent interest. We have other legislation under which there are government guaranteed loans to other types of borrowers in Canada such as small businessmen, house owners and others, which does not contain a ceiling on the interest rate.
I want to ask the minister whether during the past year, 1961, even though the volume increased from $102 million to $108 million, he received objections from the banks indicating that credit was denied because the interest rate was not adequate, even though this legislation involves government guarantees.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not now recall whether I received any specific representations on that subject during the past year, which is the period mentioned in the question put by the hon. member. However, I know I have had such representations previously.


Erhart Regier: I am sure all of us are happy to welcome the growing use that Canadian agriculture is making of the help available under the terms of the bill which it is now proposed to amend. I also notice there is a greater use being made by farmers of the institution that used to be known as the Canadian farm loan board. Against that I witness the very desperate need of agriculture for capital assistance, and I would point out that when anyone wants to sell a program that he believes is good, then he undertakes a selling program on its behalf.
Despite the increasing degree to which agriculture is taking advantage of the good will shown by the people of Canada towards agriculture, I believe the need far outstrips the amount of aid that is being granted. At this stage I believe it would be useful to place on the record a number of statistics prepared by the Department of Agriculture, and which are contained in a pamphlet designed to sell the ARDA program. These statistics are most alarming and although we are happy that the government has undertaken the ARDA pro-
Farm Improvement Loans Act gram we realize its implementation requires the active co-operation of the provincial governments concerned.
I would like to see much greater advantage being taken of the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the facilities of the Canadian farm loan board by those engaged in agriculture, but I note that the Department of Agriculture advises us that in 1956 there were 21 per cent of Canadian farmers who had a gross annual production of less than $1,200. In a number of provinces the problem is even more severe. In Newfoundland 78 per cent of the farmers had a gross income of less than $1,200 per year.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am having difficulty relating these statistics to clause 1 of the bill that is before the committee, and I would ask him to assist me in this regard at his earliest convenience.


Erhart Regier: I am attempting to outline the urgent need for massive financial capital assistance to Canadian agriculture. I welcome the amendment now before us but I am attempting to ask what efforts are being made by the government to make Canadian agriculture aware of the opportunities available.
As I indicated in my opening remarks a program can be idealistic and wonderful but unless one undertakes a selling program it may fail in effectiveness. Here we have a province in which 78 per cent of the farmers produce less than $1,200 gross income per year and I would like to ask the minister what efforts have been made, publicitywise or otherwise, to inform the farmers in Newfoundland of the facilities or possibilities existing under the terms of this legislation and other government sponsored measures to supply capital aid for the needs of Canadian agriculture.
If we believe in the continuation of the family farm as a unit, then we must recognize that the problem is urgent in view of the growth of virtual disintegration in the field of agriculture. The capital needs of Canadian agriculture stagger the imagination. Agriculture in the Atlantic provinces alone could absorb hundreds of millions of dollars of capital in order to develop efficient and economical family farms. What effort has the government made to sell its facilities and its offer of help to agriculture?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This legislation has now been on the statute books for almost 17 years and I am sure that throughout the agricultural section of the population these facilities are very well known. Along with its other services to the agricultural population it has been the task of the Department of Agriculture to make these facilities known.

Farm Improvement Loans Act and I have no doubt at all that the facilities of the Farm Improvement Loans Act are well and widely known to the farmers of Canada.
The hon. member asked me a question specifically with regard to Newfoundland. He is aware that the proportion of the population of Newfoundland engaged specifically in agriculture is not as large as in some of the other provinces, but the same effort has been made in that province to acquaint those who might be eligible for loans, and who wish to make application for loans, of the facilities available to farmers under this legislation.


Erhart Regier: I wonder if the minister could give us a report on exactly what are the measures undertaken by the government to make the farmers aware of them?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think that question would be more appropriately directed to my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, when his estimates are before the house, but I am sure the hon. member must be aware of the pamphlets issued and distributed on that subject. As I recall it, the banks themselves distribute a number of these pamphlets in rural areas served by bank branches. Then, of course, there are advertisements that are published in agricultural journals across the country. No effort has been spared to make these facilities known to those for whose benefit they are intended.


Mr. Smallwood:: As usual we have heard the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam speaking about something he knows nothing about. If he would look at the statistics he might not get up and ask the questions which he is putting. The Farm Improvement Loans Act has been in effect for a great number of years and is well used by the farmers. They can now get loans up to a total of $7,500, and if the hon. member cares to look at the figures supplied by the Farm Credit Corporation, readily obtainable by all hon. members in the house, he will find that in the first 25 months after it was brought into effect the farmers of Canada borrowed $131 million, as compared to $121 million borrowed by them in 28 years under the previous government from the Canadian farm loan board.


William Moore Benidickson: But this is a $1,100 million program based on legislation introduced by a Liberal government.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: The figures are before us, if hon. members want to look at them; and I must repeat them for the benefit of my friends of the Liberal party so that they may know what is going on. We lent $131 million in 25 months under the Farm Credit Corporation compared with $121 million in 28 years-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order. I think it is a very rare occasion when I rise on a
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton)
point of order while a private member is speaking but I do think the hon. gentleman is not even talking about the bill which is before us, much less about a clause of that bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: When
shall the bill be read the third time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave, now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT
Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. C-74, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Time within which liability may arise.
Frank Howard: I should like to reiterate what I said on a previous occasion and ask the minister, once again, to consider altering another section of the act, perhaps even at this time, by unanimous consent, or by a subsequent amendment later this session.
The section to which I refer is the section of the act which we discussed last evening, and I am asking the minister to consider an amendment raising the limit on permitted loans from the present statutory ceiling of $4,000 to at least double that amount. The figure of $8,000 has been suggested by the united fishermen and allied workers' union to the minister and others, and I assume that would be a reasonable ceiling to have. In the bill the house has just dealt with, the ceiling there has been increased from $3,000 to $7,500, I believe, and the same principle applies to the act which the bill now before us seeks to amend.
Despite what the minister said last night, fishermen have told me they do not make plans to enter extensively upon repairs, acquisitions or alterations by borrowing under the terms of this act because they know the present limit is set at $4,000. Even though

the minister told us last night that there is no pressure on the present ceiling-and I do not doubt for one moment that this is what the lenders have said-I submit that if this is the position it is primarily because fishermen do not go to the banks asking for, say, $6,000 only to discover at that point that the permissible loan cannot exceed $4,000. Of course, they generally know this beforehand, and in connection with this act they do not plan on the basis of borrowing more than $4,000. Consequently we find that the average amount lent is considerably below $4,000. I think hon. members will find that a considerable proportion of the borrowings are in respect of such things as radio telephones or depth sounding equipment, or for repairs to engines, or new engines-something of that sort, all of which would cost less than $4,000. It is when you get into the field of buying a boat or buying a share in a fishing boat that you exceed the $4,000 limit. As I said last night, $4,000 would not even buy a gill-netter, and a gill-netter is a one-man boat used for fishing salmon on the British Columbia coast. That is, generally, the lowest cost vessel which a man can buy, and a good gill-netter costs in the neighbourhood of $8,000 anyway. When it comes to trollers and seiners we find that the cost is far in excess of $4,000. I do not presume to apply my remarks to the Atlantic provinces, because different circumstances prevail there-there are different methods of fishing, different species of fish and the like-but as far as the west coast is concerned I am sure the minister will find that an amendment of the kind I have suggested will help the fishermen to take advantage of the principle of this act and enable them to borrow sufficient money to enhance their position in the industry.
We placed on record last night correspondence and resolutions in this regard. We know the minister is aware of these things. I think it would not be good enough to wait until 1965, when this legislation might be further extended, before getting around to considering whether or not the limit on the loan should be raised. I feel sure that if the minister were desirous of taking action along the lines I have suggested we could hold up this legislation and find some way of putting the suggested change into practice. The rules are intricate and I do not know whether raising the limit from $4,000 to $8,000 would constitute another money bill and thus require a resolution stage, or whether, now that we are in committee following a resolution stage, we could take the action I suggest without further delay. I have some doubts about that.
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
Perhaps the minister could at least give us an indication that this question will be given serious study. In 1959 he said the question would be given serious study, that it would be discussed with those concerned. Last night he said nobody had told him about it; nobody had brought this matter to his attention since the last time it was discussed. We showed that the minister was not accurate in this regard. However, if the hon. gentleman can indicate that this is a matter about which he is really concerned, if he would consult with his colleague the Minister of Fisheries, who knows at first hand the effects of this legislation, I am sure the committee would be satisfied. The fishermen concerned would certainly be satisfied to obtain from the minister some indication that this matter was being seriously studied. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources tells us he has files labelled "For active consideration". Perhaps the Minister of Finance could open a couple of files under the same heading and give the fishermen an opportunity of participating fully in the benefits of this act, as the original legislation of 1955 intended them to. This would go a long way toward making them feel happier about this measure. I do not say they are unhappy about the provisions which exist at the moment or about the extension which is proposed here. I speak of those who are able to borrow under the terms of this act. However, those who are not able to borrow- and they include the majority of fishermen- are not happy about the fact that they are not able to prosecute the fishery to the fullest possible extent because of the limitation placed on the loans which may be made to them.
I therefore appeal again to the minister to indicate that this matter is being given sympathetic or active consideration and that he hopes to introduce legislation on a subsequent occasion, perhaps next session or even this session, to remedy the situation. I urge the minister to ask unanimous consent to amend the act again, which would be most helpful to the people concerned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member spoke in the same vane on the subject at the resolution stage yesterday. I commented on the matter in my reply at that stage. My remarks will be found at pages 1551-52 of Hansard of yesterday's date. I do not think I can usefully add anything to what I said yesterday.


Frank Howard: Yesterday as reported at page 1552 I reminded the minister that he received a resolution from the united fishermen and allied workers' union requesting an increase

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act in the ceiling from $4,000 to $8,000. The minister rose and made the following comment: If the hon. member would permit me to interrupt, I was speaking of the period since this subject was last discussed, the time he was speaking of when he spoke earlier, since 1959.
I charitably gave the minister the benefit of the doubt and went on to deal with the matter. I was under the impression last night and my impression is strengthened today that the minister indicates he has received no representations since the act was last amended. That is not the case because the minister has had representations.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not aware of having received representations on the subject since 1959. The matter was discussed in 1959 when the legislation was before us. The hon. member reminded me that shortly after the amendment of 1959 became effective there had been a letter sent to me on the subject. But that is nearly three years ago.
What I was endeavouring to convey was that in the succeeding period, in the last two and a half years, let us say, I am not aware of having received representations on the subject from fishermen's organizations or indeed anyone else. I referred to the fact that so far as the banks were concerned, there had been no indication given to me by the banks that there had been any pressure on the existing ceiling.
It is quite true that the existing ceiling has been in effect for some six and a half years since the legislation was introduced in 1955. It is also true that the ceiling has not been increased. It was not increased when the ceiling under the Farm Improvement Loans Act was increased; but I gave the reasons why, according to my understanding, whether under our predecessors in office or under the present government, no steps had been taken to ask parliament to increase the ceiling.
The hon. member has argued very earnestly on this subject. I have listened attentively to his arguments. I simply pointed to what I said on the subject last night. I do not think there is anything I can usefully add this afternoon to what I said on the subject yesterday.


Frank Howard: I take it what the minister really meant last night was that he received no representations since the debate in the house on March 10, 1959 when the bill was last amended.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Frank Howard: Let me see if I have it clear. With the exception of the resolution I mentioned last night the minister has received no representations from organizations since that time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said, Mr. Speaker, and my words are to be found at page 1552, I am not aware of having received any representations on this subject since 1959.


Frank Howard: The minister made some
comment about the interest of the banks in this regard. I may be operating under a misapprehension but I thought the legislation was to benefit fishermen and not the banks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is quite true. The banks do not regard this as legislation which benefits them. This legislation was enacted by parliament for the purpose of assisting fishermen. That is its purpose and that is the way it has been administered, and will be in the future as long as I have anything to do with it.


Frank Howard: One way of assisting the fishermen would be by increasing the ceiling.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance is piloting this legislation through the house. It involves solely an extension of the time in which parliament gives authority for a maximum amount of guarantee to the commercial banks.
The minister comes from Ontario. I noted that yesterday as reported at page 1550 of Hansard he said that on a geographical basis only one loan had been made under this legislation through the commercial banks to a fisherman in Ontario.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the last nine months.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, in a nine month period, not a full year, that is true. The minister is very knowledgeable about Ontario and I give him credit for that. He knows that in that province we have the great lakes and the great water system extending from Montreal to Toronto. Surely people engaged in the fisheries industry all through that territory in this large province would have occasion to take advantage of this legislation. I am rather astonished to find that only one application has been made in Ontario to take advantage of this assistance which parliament has provided.
I believe that unlike the assistance given to farmers under the Farm Improvement Loans Act which we discussed very recently there is no fixed ceiling as a rate of interest under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
On the Lake of the Woods, lake Winnipeg, lake Manitoba, lake Dauphin and other places we have a large number of families that depend on fishing in inland waters for a livelihood. Why do the statistics not indicate that more people in these territories take advantage of this legislation which was introduced by the former government and which the

minister is now amending? If it does not cover the fishing industry in inland waters, why is provision not made for this in the amendments presented to us today?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the legislation that denies these benefits to fishermen on fresh water of the great lakes. I share the hon. member's surprise that so little advantage has been taken of the lending facilities of this act by fishermen in inland waters. But there is the fact. The facilities are there.
There are many bank branches in Ontario. I have given the hon. member the record. He will be in as good a position as I am to draw conclusions from it. It is a matter, I think, of some surprise that more advantage has not been taken of the facilities of this act by fishermen in Ontario. Indeed, one might say the same thing with respect to the fishermen in some other provinces as well.
On the other point mentioned by the hon. member may I draw his attention to the fact that section 3, subsection 1 (f) of the act provides that the rate of interest charged by the lender on a loan under this act shall not exceed 5 per cent per annum.


William Moore Benidickson: 
Donald Methuen Fleming: 
William Moore Benidickson: The minister and I reside in Ontario. The minister knows there are a great many people in Ontario who earn their livelihood from commercial fishing. The minister has held that portfolio since 1957. What correspondence has he had with commercial fishermen who operate on inland waters?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the hon. member mean with respect to this legislation?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes. Can he tell me why only one applicant obtained a loan from the commercial bank in the province which he and I represent in this House of Commons? I am not saying that this perhaps was not the situation before he took office. However, we are interested in trying to improve things.
Canadian National Railways Why is it that only one loan was made, if this legislation is for commercial fishermen? I know that today they need capital to advance themselves in the competitive life in which they are engaged. Why is it that in the province of Ontario only one loan was made?
Ontario is an inland province, admittedly. However, we have tremendous waterways and tremendous resources in fishing. I think of the Indian population in my own area. I should like to see that there was a possibility that they would be assisted. From my own observation I can say that they have been advancing markedly in the last few years. I think of the Indians around the tremendous waterways of lac Seul and the Red lake area. The other day I had something to do with trying to make available to 30 Indian families fishing rights on Lake of the Woods. They did not ask for very much. They assured me that if certain things developed with regard to licences and financing, perhaps not under this act but through the department in other directions, 30 families would be satisfied with an income from fishing on Shoal lake which you know very well, Mr. Chairman. They did not ask for very much. They asked for a maximum income of perhaps $130 a month. This impressed me very greatly. However, I am concerned that the commercial banks have apparently not been utilized very much in Ontario with respect to this legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave, now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just before the bill passes, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reiterate in one sentence the hope that before the dissolution of this parliament the government will see fit to bring in for fishermen another measure parallel to the Farm Credit Corporation legislation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Léon Balcer: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-67, to authorize the construction and operation on behalf of Her
1576	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways Majesty of a line of railway in the province of Quebec between Matane and St. Anne des Monts.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Construction and operation of railway line.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to repeat what I said on second reading of this bill or what I said while the bill was before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. All I wish to say is that this bill was referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines before which witnesses were called. We had there Mr. Scott, the assistant deputy minister of transport and Messrs. Dingle and Johnston of the Canadian National Railways. Hon. members had the opportunity to ask questions. I think that all members of the committee had a very good idea of what is involved in this bill the purpose of which is to authorize the construction and operation of a branch line between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts in the province of Quebec. This railway branch line is going to be built on behalf of Her Majesty by the Canadian National Railways. I recommend the adoption of the bill by the committee.
(Translation):


Mr. Bourgef:: I do not think it is necessary to repeat what the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) said at the resolution stage preceding this bill, since he stated that we are in favour of this project.
Now, I find that on February 13, at the resolution stage, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) promised to table the draft contract between the government and the C.N.R. I tried unsuccessfully to obtain that document. Could the minister tell us whether he tabled it or whether he intends to do so?


Léon Balcer: I have this document here, Mr. Chairman. With the consent of the house, I would be pleased to table it.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, the document is being tabled a little late, because we are at the committee stage of the bill, that is the stage preceding the third reading. Anyhow, I wish to thank the minister.
There is another question I should like to ask him. In reply to questions put to him by the hon. member for Laurier and speaking of the Canada and Gulf Terminal railway, the minister stated the following on February 13: -the railroad in question obtained a federal grant. At that time, and as a condition of that 

grant, the government had required the railroad to guarantee a right of way to any other railroad which would claim one-
This is the question I want to ask the minister. Was a written agreement made or an order in council issued at that time, and, if so, could the minister tell us the terms of such an agreement or order in council?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, there was an agreement signed by the railway company and the federal government. Unfortunately, I do not have this document with me, but I can inform the committee that, at that time, the government granted a subsidy to the company provided other railroads be given a right of way.
Of course the terms of this right of way and the rates to be established were not specified then. These rates shall be established by agreement between the Canada and Gulf Terminal Company and the Canadian National Railways. Should no agreement be reached, the matter would be referred to the board of transport commissioners, which would set the rates.


Maurice Bourget: The minister has just said that there was an agreement signed at that time between the federal government and the Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway. In that case, could he table that document so that we can have a look at it? Could the minister also tell us whether discussions took place with the Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway concerning the price it might ask for allowing another railroad to use the right of way? Could the minister give us that information?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, a meeting was held between the chairman of the Canadian National Railways, the chairman of the Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway and other officers of both companies. On that occasion, a complete agreement could not be reached, since it was a preliminary meeting. Both parties have agreed to meet again within a few weeks, after this bill is passed.


Maurice Bourget: Would the minister tell us also whether that right of way is included in the $14 million?


Léon Balcer: No, it is not, Mr. Chairman. The cost of $14 million covers only the building of the railroad. Now, as for the rate to be charged by the Canada and Gulf Terminal Company, it will be established by agreement between both railways or by an order of the board of transport commissioners.


Mr. Denis:: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell us whether the erection of fences is also

included in the cost of building that railroad?
I understand that the building of another railroad was discussed in the other place and that the cost of fencing had been left out of the biU.


Léon Balcer: Well, since there is no exception in this case concerning the building of fences along the railroad, the general rule applies and the railway company has to build the fences.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, will the federal government submit the application to the board of transport commissioners or will it be made by the Canadian National Railway Company acting, in this case, as agent for the government?
Furthermore, could the minister tell us under what section of the Railway Act the application can be made?


Léon Balcer: The application will definitely be made by the Canadian National Railways. However, I could not say under what section.
Does the hon. member mean under this bill?


Maurice Bourget: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Léon Balcer: In that case, it would be under section 1 of this bill. I have in hand the English version of the bill and I will read section 1:
(Text):
-the governor in council may provide for the appointment of Canadian National Railway company ... as agent of Her Majesty for the construction and completion .. . and ... for the company to continue to act as agent of Her Majesty in the maintenance, management and operation of the railway line.
(Translation):
I think the question asked by my hon. friend is about the management and operation of the railway line and, consequently, this section provides that it is the responsibility of the Canadian National Railway, in this case, to apply to the board of transport commissioners to have them establish the rate that will be paid to the Canada and Gulf Terminal Company.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, that does not answer the question I asked the minister. I asked him under what section of the Railway Act, that application could be made, and if it had to be made by the government or by its agent under the circumstances. As I am not a lawyer, I would ask the Minister of Transport to clear that point.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, there is certainly a general section in the Railway Act which
Canadian National Railways allows the Canadian National Railway Company to appear before the board of transport commissioners to make such an application. Now, that is a general section, and I think I have answered my hon. friend's question in reading an extract from section 1 of this bill.
If the Canadian National Railway Company is to act as agent of the government with regard to maintenance, management and operation of this railway line, there is no doubt that it has certain rights which go with the role it is called upon to play, and which is defined under section 1 of this bill.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, all I wished to know was the procedure that was to be followed and the general section of the Railway Act on which the application is based, because I understand the national railway company is acting only as an agent. That is why I put that question to the minister.
(Text):


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, in 1962 the railway industry of North America is at a time of complete reappraisal. The Americans are the latest into the field with a presidential report which goes into the question of operating costs, particularly of railway labour. But there are ramifications of that report which suggest that one of the main troubles and difficulties of United States railways is the question of consolidation of lines.
Recently in Canada we have had the long, long hearings of the royal commission on transportation and after a considerable time a two volume report which in essence, it seems to me, has a message for us that we should be vigilant and very deliberate in our scrutiny of any extensions of railway service in this country, particularly the building of new lines. I think hon. members who have read volume 2 of the report of the royal commission-I know that members from the west will be conscious of this because there has been considerable reaction on the prairies -will agree that the main advice of the royal commission is that the railways, particularly in western Canada, be allowed to get out of the operation of unremunerative branch lines as much and as quickly as possible. The theme of the report of the royal commission on transportation is surely that we must be extremely critical of any extension of lines unless there is a tremendous, almost bona fide case of a prosperous service, and I mean prosperous not only to the region concerned but to the railway.
In recent months a two volume history of the Canadian National Railways has been
1578	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways issued which in some ways makes interesting reading to go along with the two volume report of the royal commission on transportation. This two volume history by Colonel Stevens sets out a long and almost terrifying record of mismanagement on the part of the railway builders of this country. You are left with the impression, after reading the two volumes, that generations to come as well as this generation will be paying for the tremendous over optimism connected with the construction of railway lines. Certainly, it makes interesting reading to put Colonel Stevens' report in juxtaposition to the report of the royal commission on transportation which underlines again and again the need to make the railways more competitive. One of the ways to do this is to get the railways out of a situation in which they cannot possibly get a reasonable return on their investment.
I give this preamble, Mr. Chairman, because some of the evidence that was revealed before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines would seem to indicate that this proposed line has a rather shaky economic basis. In order to make the point, Mr. Chairman, I want to touch on some of the evidence that was revealed. I think the first point one should acknowledge in relation to this is that the conception the minister and the government are bringing forward in connection with the extension of this line along the south shore of the St. Lawrence is a fine one in that it is conceived as being a means of improving a section of the country that has been passed by in the general economic growth. In this sense, it is impossible to criticize the intention of the bill. We support that intention and anything that will help the more backward parts of the country, in an economic sense.
When we come to look at the arrangement that has been made, the expenditures that are going to be made, and the facilities that now exist, very grave doubts about the whole project come to our mind. I think the first point that has to be very clear is that the Canadian National Railways would have no part of this enterprise on its own. In other words, the Canadian National Railways would not take this project and make it their own.
I am sure this proposal must have been made to them at some time or other and they turned it down. Therefore, the government had to come up with the proposal that they would provide the money for the construction of the line, they would look after the debt side of it and the Canadian National would merely be the builders and operators. There would be a separate fiscal division. This is the first 

thing we need to know about this project. It seems to me that Canadian National, in its considered judgment, turned this line down on an economic basis. I believe that is a fair statement, and I do not think the minister would disagree with it.
The next point it seems to me that we need to look at is the facilities that already exist in this particular region. As has been noted, this region is not like the area that is going to be served by the Pine Point railway or some of the other railways that are being built, such as the Chibougamau road to the north. This railway will be an extension into an area that has been settled for a long time and into which there are highways. It is a general area in which there is some rail traffic on the south, but this is not so from Matane to Ste. Anne des Monts. It is an area with a traffic-carrying complex built into it in the form of roads, water carrier services and other associated means.
It has been the experience of most of us who have looked at the development of railways, that railways cannot compete in so far as passenger traffic and high revenue freight traffic are concerned where there are roads established and where the haul is relatively short. This is one of the reasons, as most members know, that the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National have gone in so heavily for trucking. It is because they cannot by rail alone really cover this very remunerative field of high revenue traffic. In this particular region, we have these services already provided through the truckers and through the highways that now exist. The main reason railways are built today, and the minister brought this point up in committee as did his advisor, Mr. Scott, is that railways are carriers of bulk tonnage at very low cost. This is the main reason railway lines are built today. Almost invariably they are tied in with the sort of contract mentioned in committee, Mr. Chairman. We had problems in our own area connected with bulk contracts for the shipment of iron ore.
I was in Montreal this morning, Mr. Chairman, to see how the negotiations were going, between the iron mines and Canadian National Railways in our own part of the country. The Canadian National is insistent that it will not give any easement in the rate that they are now putting into effect for this-iron ore unless they have some guarantee of tonnage. This is something they regret very much not getting years ago when they originally entered into the provision of ore dock facilities and other things for the ore mines at Atikokan. This point needs to be-underlined.

The minister says the railway is ideally designed for bulk traffic of the low revenue kind, at least that low revenue traffic is involved. Here is a situation where several million tons are being carried and the railway is trying to nail down the mine to even higher incentive figures.
I refer hon. members to the evidence which came out in committee. The estimated tonnage given to us by Mr. Scott, the economic adviser to the minister, was 75,000 tons of outbound traffic and 65,000 tons of inbound traffic. The revenue on inbound traffic would be $2 a ton and for outbound traffic $1.50 a ton, which gives approximately $240,000 of estimated operating revenue. This $240,000, Mr. Chairman, is set against, as near as we can judge it, a capital expenditure of $14 million.
Now, this is almost fantastic when we realize the operating revenue in sight. Of course, this is only the first year, and according to the minister the traffic future would be much brighter after that. What evidence did the minister give us in regard to the expansion of traffic? He told us that there would be a possibility of more pulpwood being shipped. I can paraphrase the evidence given by the adviser to the minister, and I do not think it is unfair, that the railway line would mean more suitable cutting in the area. He pointed out that there would be more even depletion rather than so much emphasis on the western end, and I suppose he was referring to the western end of Gaspe. What a purpose for a railway. Any information one can gather about the pulp and paper industry, Mr. Chairman, has led me to believe that it is generally agreed that shipping by log boom tends to be cheaper than by any other means, provided it does not cost too much to provide the waterways and flumes. In this particular case with the location of the mills across on the north shore at Baie Comeau, and at Gaspesia Paper in southern Gaspe, and the mills in Quebec city and Three Rivers, because of distance there is not much chance of booming pulpwood from the Gaspe to these mills. But there can be water movement by barge. It is cheaper to move pulp by barge or some kind of ship movement during the very long summer season in that area, rather than by truck or rail.
At the present time out of Matane into Quebec city and the Three Rivers area there is only a movement of 50,000 cords, and I wonder if hon. members realize how small
50,000	cords are. In northwestern Ontario, which is not much more populated than Gaspe, we have a cut of 2.5 million cords and that cut gets to the mills in various ways.
Canadian National Railways The point there is that the cut through Matane is only 50,000 cords at the present time.
We might favour the proposal more if the minister could come and tell us that his officials of the C.N.R. had been to any of the pulp and paper companies and they had given any indication of the volume that was going to be secured of pulpwood haul on the railway. There is no evidence of that whatsoever and even Mr. Dingle indicated that the C.N.R. had not bothered to talk to anybody about this as yet.
The minister's economic advisors came up with a figure of 25,000 tons, possibly rising to
35,000	tons, of wood chips to be transported on the railway; but I would point out to hon. members what a pittance this really is. It will barely keep the average size mill going for 15 or 20 days in the year and it certainly is not an economic basis on which to build large bulk, small revenue traffic for a new branch line. Furthermore there is no suggestion by the economic advisors that this pulp rail haul to the Quebec area could be at a price which would be economically feasible, and there is no indication that the pulp and paper companies are really interested in it.
The only indication presented by the minister and his advisor to our committee was that one corporation, the St. Lawrence corporation, had indicated a volume of wood chips that might be shipped out from the Gaspe area in association with the waste from the saw mill enterprises, but no indication was given of where there might be a possibility of bulk traffic that would bring something to the railway in terms of bulk pulpwood. The minister says that the cut is 50,000 cords, but even 200,000 cords is a pittance in terms of revenue as a haul from Ste. Anne des Monts to Quebec city or Three Rivers.
The argument in so far as the pulp and paper industry is concerned really does not stand up to close examination. It must be taken into consideration that the crown lands in this area are held by a number of large paper pulp corporations, and smaller lots are held by small contractors. When we look at this particular situation we have no pattern to indicate where any attempt is going to be made to consolidate these holdings. We have no indication that the government and the railway have got together with the provincial government that controls these crown lands to say "maybe we should build a pulp mill on the north shore of Gaspe". Yet the government is prepared to put $14 million into this particular line.
That shows an economic faith that I find almost unbelievable, but let us turn to the

Canadian National Railways other part of wood production where there is an indication of some kind of volume shipment. That is the indication that at the present time in the Gaspe area there are 75 saw mills with a capacity of 85 million board feet per year. Now I accept the fact that the building of this line will enable some of this wood, but not all of it, to compete more effectively in the Montreal market, but we are given no indication as to the relative amount of this wood which comes by water from the Gaspe area.
The minister further has indicated that he is going to improve the ports, including the port at Ste. Anne des Monts. How does he know when he improves it that it will not be a more effective means of providing cheaper transportation for the lumber from Gaspe into the Quebec and Montreal city areas? It is usually the case that water shipment is cheaper than rail for a bulk commodity such as raw lumber, or even dressed lumber, and it must be remembered that the port facilities at Montreal and Quebec city have distribution facilities. Therefore it is hard to see where, in respect of a product such as lumber, one which really has some large substance on the market at the present time, it is going to gain so tremendously from a railway line 57 miles long.
The situation in so far as products of the forest, particularly pulpwood, are concerned is not a very attractive one and we have no indication of a real economic survey or any real research having been done by the minister's department with regard to future prospects in this particular regard. In effect we are given a number of pious statements, and all I can say with regard to these pious hopes in so far as forest industries are concerned is that I come from an area which depends for its real life blood upon the products of the forest-and this is an area where the railway lines have been paid for a long time ago-these railway lines cannot compete with other forms of transportation.
Over the last 10 years we have been seeing a revolution in transportation in the woods, and this applies to other commodities as well, where an increasing emphasis has been placed on trucking. Now the Gaspe area has trucks and highways, so again we begin to wonder about the whole story of this $14 million expenditure for a railway line that apparently the minister's economic advisors cannot really indicate has any substance in its immediate future. When I say "immediate future" I am thinking in terms of five or 10 years, because to create a pulp and paper mill usually takes five or 10 years. To create the kind of operation that would make it economical to


ship wood and paper pulp by this rail project would probably take much longer than five years.
The other will-o'-the-wisp, beacon, or siren that the minister put forward to justify the building of this line is the fact that there are large mineral deposits lying just to the south of Ste. Anne des Monts, an area to which this line will go. Why is it that in almost all the other railroad projects we have heard about in recent years, when a mine wants a railway the railways are willing to put in the line? We struck a hot base metal find in our area at Geco and we got two railway lines there.


William Moore Benidickson: And they are not paying.


Douglas Mason Fisher: They are not paying at the present time. The C.P.R. and the C.N.R. both dived in; they were both anxious to get the right to carry the concentrates from that area. That was only five or six years ago; but here in this case the government seems prepared to put in $14 million primarily to move mineral resources for which it has no hard or firm contract.
May I call it five o'clock.
Clause 1 stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: 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, notices of motion and public bills.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of providing comprehensive income payments to farmers in time of crop failure by giving consideration to amending the Prairie Farm Assistance Act so as to provide: (a) an increase in the schedule of payments as follows: (i) an increase in the maximum payment from $4 per acre to $8 per acre; (ii) an increase in the present $3 per acre payment to $6 per acre; (iii) an increase in the present $2 per acre payment to $4 per acre: (b) an increase in farmers' contributions from 1 per cent to 2 per cent; (c) an increase in the maximum cultivated acreage on which payments may be made from 400 acres to 600 acres; and should give consideration to the provision of other appropriate amendments required to assure adequate income support in time of crop failure.
He said: I am pleased at this time to move this resolution for the consideration of the house. It is designed to extend the scope of an act which has been on the statute books of this country for a long time. I refer to the

Prairie Farm Assistance Act which was placed on the statute books for the first time in 1939. This act has been of great benefit to farmers in western Canada during years of crop failure.
It is an act to which farmers themselves as well as the federal treasury make a contribution. Over the years, payments of approximately 50 per cent have been made by the producers and 50 per cent by the federal treasury. This act has been improved from time to time over the years. When it was first placed on the statute books it required an area in Saskatchewan with a crop failure in some 135 townships, or 100 townships in Alberta or Manitoba before payments could be made. Since that time the area has been reduced, and now the basic unit for the operation of the act is one township. This means that in any year when there is a crop failure in any real sense the act becomes operative, and while it does not work on an individual basis-while there is still a great measure of rough justice in its administration -nevertheless the vast majority of producers who experience crop failure do receive some benefit under the legislation.
To sum up the purpose of this resolution in a nutshell, it is to double the benefits and double the contributions. The wording in the last section of the act "400 acres to 200 acres" would probably better be spelled out by saying "one half of 200 acres up to 600 acres". Of course, half of 400 acres is the basis on which the wording is put into the act. This act, over the years, has cost the federal treasury a good deal of money. It is estimated that over the last 21 years the total benefits paid out have been in the neighbourhood of $261 million until this year, and the farmers have paid $127 million of that amount. This means that year in and year out the federal government has, on an average, contributed some $6 million.
The proposals in this resolution, if they were implemented, would mean an additional burden on the treasury of perhaps $6 million to $10 million a year over a long period of time and would double the contributions made by the producers under this act.
The Prairie Farm Assistance Act was brought into this house by the late Hon. J. G. Gardiner and it is one of those acts which he fostered and which he supported. He was able to amend it in a beneficial way from time to time. It has stood the test of time. It is a good act, and what I say in favour of this act today I have said on many occasions in the past. All I am saying now is that the time has come when there should be further improvements made to a very good act.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
We have a crop insurance scheme which deals with the same general field of crop failure. The present Crop Insurance Act has many shortcomings in my opinion. When it was before this house I criticized the fact that the federal government was prepared to assume only 20 per cent of the estimated premium cost over a period of years, that the federal government was not prepared to assume any part of the losses themselves, and that if there were a series of serious losses under the Crop Insurance Act the provincial treasuries would become bankrupt. I contend that the Crop Insurance Act as it has been placed before this house is not a substitute for the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and that the Crop Insurance Act has been found wanting in many respects. It is used rather extensively in the province of Manitoba. It has been used in a very limited way in Saskatchewan. It has not been used at all in the province of Alberta.
The province of Saskatchewan, so I understand, is prepared this year to continue the operation of the Crop Insurance Act in co-operation with the federal government but in order to protect the provincial treasury the provincial authorities are saying that they are prepared to pay losses only to the extent of $5,000. This very seriously limits the application of the crop insurance scheme in that province. I asked the Prime Minister a few days ago whether there had been in consultation between the federal government and provincial governments with respect to providing a system of reinsurance so that the provincial treasuries would be protected in times of severe crop failure, particularly while the fund was being built up. The answer given by the Prime Minister was that no consultations had been held between the governments-there had merely been individual contacts between officials of the federal department and the provincial departments. I submit that this is not good enough. I submit that the federal government has failed to take the lead in encouraging the operation of a crop insurance scheme adequate to protect the farmers of western Canada. I submit that the government has promoted in this country a crop insurance scheme which is largely impracticable, one which is largely inoperative and which does very little to protect western producers. If the federal government would pay a sum larger than 20 per cent, if the federal government would take the initiative in bringing about a method by which there would be co-operation in reinsurance between the federal government and the provinces, then the crop insurance plan might have a much

Prairie Farm Assistance Act greater application and be of much greater benefit. But until that is done, the crop insurance scheme will be of very limited value.
The last time the Prairie Farm Assistance Act was amended to increase the total payments under the act was in 1957. Up until that time the maximum payment a farmer could receive was $500, or $2.50 an acre on one half of 400 acres. Now the maximum is a total of $800, or $4 per acre on one half of 400 acres. I am asking by this motion that the maximum of $4 an acre be made $8 an acre, that the payment of $3 an acre for a yield category of from three to five bushels be made $6 an acre and that the $2 an acre payment of from zero to three bushels be made $4 an acre. This would be a straight doubling of the payments within this yield category.
The further proposal is that in recognition of the general increase in the size of farms since 1939 the government should consider an increase in the acreage on which benefits may be paid and that it should consider a 50 per cent increase in the acreage on which benefits could be paid. This would mean for a larger farm-and perhaps I should call this an average size farm because there are a great many farmers today who have up to 600 cultivated acres-a maximum payment in the lowest yield category of $2,400.
I have in my hand the August 1961 issue of the Economic Annalist which gives the 11-factor cost of production index. This index shows tremendous changes in the farmer's costs of production over the years. In 1939 the index stood at $99.3. In April of 1961 the index had risen to $283.4. In other words from 1939 to 1961 the cost of production index has almost tripled.
The maximum payment under the act in 1939 for the smaller acreage or the acreage then provided was $500. For a similar acreage under the proposal I am placing before the house today the maximum payment would be $1,600. That is very close to the change in the cost of production and would merely mean that for a farm of this size in 1962 the farmer would be able to receive a sum of money with approximately the same purchasing power as the dollar had in 1939.
I realize that there are certain areas of western Canada where prairie farm assistance has very little appeal. I realize there are areas of western Canada where this proposal will not receive wide support. However, it is my experience that taking western Canada as a whole over the years P.F.A.A. has been very acceptable, has received the support of western farm organizations and I am led to believe the proposal I now have before the house would receive similar support.
[Mr. Argued

As to the future I think we should develop a better P.F.A.A. It may be advisable also to develop a more adequate Crop Insurance Act. It may be that at some time in the future these two acts can meet so that together they will give the western farmer some protection in time of crop failure.
The kind of measure I propose today is not something that is a cure-all for the problems of western Canada. It would merely mean that in time of widespread crop failure there shall be a basic minimum below which the farmer's income will not be allowed to drop. This basic minimum income for a farm of 400 cultivated acres in time of total disaster would be $1,600, which I submit is not a tremendous sum of money with costs as high as they now are. I suggest that the cost of a measure of this kind can be borne quite readily by the federal treasury. When you compare the cost of this kind of legislation with the $1 an acre payment, provision for which was recently made, or the payment of storage costs, provision for which has been on the statute books for a long time, the cost of this type of provision cannot be regarded as prohibitive in any sense.
The Prime Minister said in the throne speech that certain payments would be made to farmers who have suffered from crop failure. Those payments have not been made to farmers who suffered crop failure but to all farmers. In keeping with the sentiments expressed in the Prime Minister's statement I suggest this kind of provision should be given favourable consideration by the house, that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act placed on the statute books in 1939 has proved of great value, that its benefits should be increased and that the farmers themselves are willing to pay more into the act if they are allowed to receive greater benefits.


Mr. McIntosh:: What authority does the hon. member have for making that statement?


Hazen Robert Argue: My authority derives from my understanding of the position of the farmers. My hon. friend can contradict me and say I am wrong. That is fine. Nevertheless I make the statement that the farmers of western Canada would be quite happy to have the 1 per cent deduction for P.F.A.A. increased to 2 per cent if they could get the benefits under the act doubled and if they could get the maximum cultivated acreage increased from 400 to 600 acres.


Mr. Rapp:: That would be all right in southern Saskatchewan.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think this kind of proposal would be highly acceptable. The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale-one has to be so careful in using that unwieldy name

-says that that would be all right for southern Saskatchewan. Under the legislation brought in by this government farmers in areas such as the hon. gentleman's or in areas similar to his in Manitoba may have a chance to get crop insurance and they do not have to pay the payments under this act. The hon. gentleman may obtain it for his producers if he wants it. When this argument has been presented in the past we found that although there was a lot of vocal complaint about the levies that were made, when farm organizations were asked if they wished to have large areas of western Canada exempted from the act they said no. I suggest the motion I am proposing today is one that will receive the wholehearted approval of western farm organizations and will represent a great step forward in providing crop failure protection to farmers in western Canada. I hope this motion will come to a vote and that we may be able to test the sentiments of the house.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time we in this house have heard the hon. member for Assiniboia mention that he would like to see these changes made in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The only difference today is that he is speaking from another quarter of the house. I wonder whether he has the support of the Liberal party in this regard. I notice that the motion was seconded by the former official agricultural spokesman of the Liberal party. I wonder whether the hon. member for Assiniboia has the full support of the Liberal party in presenting this motion today.


William Moore Benidickson: We are all for it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is a question I wonder about. Perhaps the former agricultural spokesman of the official opposition will participate in the debate later and give the house the benefit of his viewpoint.


Mr. Boulanger:: I will.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It would be interesting to the house to have the viewpoint of the Liberal party because hon. members in the official opposition have been going through Quebec saying that the western farmers do not need any additional support and do not need acreage payments. How does the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska feel about this motion. This matter is of very great interest to me as my constituency has always been one of those in Alberta which have benefited a great deal from P.F.A.A. While I realize this fact, I must point out that my constituency is in the unique position of having half of it benefit a great deal from P.F.A.A. and the other half benefit very little
Prairie Farm Assistance Act at all. Hence I hear two sides of the story as I go throughout the east central part of Alberta. I hear those who would like more money under P.F.A.A. and I hear those who would like to do away with it altogether. It would be interesting to hear what the other members of the newly found party of the hon. member for Assiniboia have to say on this matter. My mind is taken back to the time when this question was raised in the house in 1958. At that time the hon. member for Assiniboia was going throughout the country saying that the Conservative party has 47 members from western Canada but that it would take them four years to find out where to hang their hats. May I say that it has taken him 17 years, Mr. Speaker, to find out where to hang his hat; and we who formerly came from Saskatchewan are not sure that in 17 more years he will not be hanging it somewhere else.
This is a question on which one must gauge the remarks emanating from the Liberal party having regard to where they come from; I refer to the new, the old, the this and the that. This is a question that I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, all members of the house should take into consideration when they study this resolution. Certainly the constituency of the hon. member for Assiniboia will benefit perhaps to some extent by this resolution if no further changes were made with regard to P.F.A.A. When he mentioned this matter in the house in 1958 I asked him to what rate he would then raise the percentage in P.F.A.A. He said he would triple it. I observe that he has now reduced the figure to 2 per cent instead of 3 per cent. Maybe this is the effect of the switchover. I do not know. I will leave it to him to decide. However, this is the change that he has talked about.
There is another thing I should like to point out to the rest of the house. He has mentioned that this would perhaps just double everything in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. It would also double the contributions made by the federal government towards western Canada. This is a point in which the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska would be quite interested in view of the remarks he has been making throughout his home province with regard to western farmers.
Actually from 1939 until 1959 something like $101 million were paid into the prairie farm assistance fund through the 1 per cent levy on farmers, and $202 million were paid out under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Those are approximate figures. Hence the federal government has stood practically half the cost. I also think it fair that it be pointed out here that Saskatchewan has been the big

Prairie Farm Assistance Act beneficiary. They have been receiving something like $2 for every $1 they put into it, Alberta about $1.50 and Manitoba were lucky if they broke even. Perhaps that is why crop insurance has gone over so well in that province. However, in doubling the contributions as suggested in this resolution the farmers would then be paying approximately, on the average, $20 million every year into P.F.A.A. The federal government, of course, would perhaps be paying out, on the average, $40 million every year. When you consider the $40 million every year and the crops raised on the acreage, this comes to something very close to 6 per cent. This 6 per cent under the Manitoba crop insurance plan will get you a better return than the $8 an acre suggested here by the hon. member for Assiniboia. While I and a great many of my constituents would benefit by this proposal, I think it only fair that some of these things be pointed out to the house and to both parties.
Another thing that should be pointed out is this. The hon. member for Assiniboia suggested that some day in the future the Crop Insurance Act and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act may meet. I suggest that they meet right now if the province will get a move on and do something about the matter. Manitoba has taken quite a large forward step, in my opinion, in offering the farmers crop insurance, that is in areas in which the P.F.A.A. does not cover the situation too well because of the minimum they must have in order to qualify, because of poor crop below 8 bushels an acre. Half townships are obliged to qualify.
The hon. member for Assiniboia never mentioned today the question of individual basis. Actually more farmers are concerned with receiving P.F.A.A. or crop insurance on an individual basis. He failed to mention that matter in his talk. I think this will be a far better step; I refer to bringing it down on an individual basis. It would do away with any conflicting crop reports turned in by one farmer and another. Actually I realize that bringing it down on an individual basis would be difficult under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act as it now stands. But under the Crop Insurance Act there is no real difficulty in this matter. In fact, most of the crop insurance is written up, as I understand it, on an individual basis.
This points out one of the advantages a farmer can have by taking out crop insurance or advocating, as is the case in Alberta, that the provincial government devise a crop insurance scheme. Another advantage is this and I point it out purely to show the house the differences between the two pieces of legislation. In the P.F.A.A. the payments


cover a limited number of acres. In this motion I think the hon. member has suggested that the number be increased from 400 acres to 600 acres. Here again he is catering perhaps to some of the larger farmers. Maybe he has all the large farmers in Saskatchewan down in his area.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I say that 600 acres is not a particularly large number.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is the hon. member's opinion, not mine. However, I point out this fact. Under the Crop Insurance Act a farmer can insure all his crop if he so desires. This is a direct improvement over the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. It can be on an individual basis. He can insure all the acreage he farms. In fact, in one of the provinces I think he is obliged to insure all the acreage he farms if it is farmed in one unit, or something like that.
The other point I should like to bring to the attention of the house is this. As I have already mentioned, my constituency benefits a great deal by P.F.A.A. In fact, two thirds of the amount paid out under P.F.A.A. in Alberta I daresay goes into the constituency of Acadia. However-and I draw this point to the attention of the house-if increasing the payments is in any way going to arouse those farmers who are paying into it and are receiving nothing from it, or is going to anger them to such a point that they convince the authorities that perhaps the P.F.A.A. should be amended or should be done away with, then I would be hesitant to support this motion.
We in Acadia appreciate the P.F.A.A. It has done a great deal for my constituency and we wish it to continue to give service to that area. Actually I point this out because of the number of farmers I meet in the north and northwestern part of my constituency who have failed to benefit even in the last few years. Since 1958, when we amended the act, 15 per cent to 20 per cent more farmers are qualified under the P.F.A.A. than were qualifying previously. This takes in all those persons who have side incomes such as that from perhaps a part-time job on a railway or in an army camp or in a small town and are farming on the side. They can now collect under P.F.A.A. An elevator man or a school teacher who is farming on the side can now collect under P.F.A.A. When this change was made in 1958 it allowed something like 15 to 20 per cent more people to qualify for assistance. While the formula of 50 per cent paid by the farmer and 50 per cent paid by the federal government has been true in the past, I question whether or not it will remain true in the future because of the greater number of people qualifying under

the Prairie Farm Assistance Act today. I believe I have pointed out to the house some of the difficulties and possible results that this resolution might have and I think that it requires considerable study.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, for the information of hon. members who are always accusing me of reading my speeches in the house, I shall explain to them the notes before me. In this way, I hope not to be disturbed for a few minutes during which I propose to speak.
Of course, I had no need of an invitation from the hon. member who just sat down because I proposed to take part in the discussion for several reasons.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I supported the motion of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). One of my reasons for doing so is that the implementation of these proposals would mean a step forward and promote the stabilization of western farm income. Though it exceeds that of the eastern farmers, the income of the western farmers has nevertheless been declining for the past four or five years, more particularly in the last two years.


Samuel Boulanger: A rather gratuitous statement on the part of the hon. member.
Moreover, the implementation of a measure such as that proposed by the hon. member for Assiniboia would improve the situation which prevailed until now with regard to stabilizing the purchasing power of our western farmers which, of course, has an impact on the eastern economy. Indeed, once the western farm income is stabilized, eastern industry will follow suit; our textile industry and our farm implement industry are prosperous. On the other hand, when the income of western farmers declines, we, in the east, suffer too.
Another reason for which I supported the motion of the hon. member for Assiniboia, is that I wanted to help compensate for the promises the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made during the 1957 and 1958 elections, when he promised parity prices, "parity not charity".
The unfulfilled promises of the Prime Minister are known, and, while waiting for a change of government which will allow us to improve our farm legislation, I support the measure put forward by the hon. member for Assiniboia.
The purpose of the motion before us is to protect the farmer against the damages caused by drought-
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
(Text) :


Mr. Henderson:: You have got the wrong idea.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member wish to ask a question?


Mr. Pigeon:: Do not ask him any question, you will embarrass him, he would not be able to answer.


Samuel Boulanger: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the basic principle behind this proposal is to protect the farmer against damage due to drought or all the other causes which can bring about crop failures.
It is true that we have passed a crop insurance act in 1959, but since its enactment, three years ago, this legislation has given practically no result.
In fact, only 194 farmers in Saskatchewan have seen fit to avail themselves of this legislation.
(Text):


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That was the Saskatchewan government.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: That is just what I said: only 194 farmers in Saskatchewan.
(Text):


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That was the Saskatchewan government.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: That is just what I said: only 194 farmers in Saskatchewan and 3,600 in Manitoba. It is nearly three years since we passed this legislation, and out of 575,000 Canadian farmers, only 3,700 have seen fit to take advantage of it. Let nobody tell us that the Crop Insurance Act is beneficial to the farmers of the province of Quebec. Quite the contrary. It does not meet the needs of the farmers.
It is all very well for the Conservative government to claim that they have enacted sound agricultural legislation. It is all very well for the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion) to travel around in the province of Quebec, claiming that the situation is fine for the farmers in that province. But he is mistaken. He should go to the farms, talk to the farmers and find out about the real situation.
(Text):


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What about the sale of margarine in Quebec?
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: If you want to ask a question about margarine, I can answer you and I will take the opportunity to do so.

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
The sale of margarine in the province of Quebec was asked for by the farmers. Do you know why? They asked for it because although it was unlawful, margarine was nevertheless sold under the Union Nationale administration. And I can say-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I ask a question of the hon. member?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?
' Mr. Pigeon: I should like to address a question.


Samuel Boulanger: No, later.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member yields the floor a question may be put.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, a question was asked when the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska was in the process of answering a question that had just been put to him. It is quite obvious that the question of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm was not to elicit information but to try to interfere with the speech being delivered so ably by the hon. member.


Noël Dorion: It would be embarrassing because the answer is not in the text.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska has the floor and I trust he will have it without interruption.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: I wish to complete my answer to the hon. member for Acadia. If the sale of margarine was authorized, it is because the farmers asked for it, since the Union Nationale administration did not care to enforce the act it had passed in that regard. That is why margarine is sold in the province of Quebec.
I might add that several members of the Union Nationale were directors of margarine producing companies, or what we used to call "spread" because the use of the word "margarine" was forbidden.
Now the hon. member for Acadia asked me about the point of view of the eastern farmers. I will gladly make it known to him, as well as mine.
We never criticized the measures to help the western farmers. I challenge any member to prove that I spoke against the assistance to western farmers. In fact, we asked for the farmers in the east the same benefits that were being granted to those in the west.
Here, I must pay homage to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) who has


always worked in the interest of the eastern as well as the western farmers, because he understands their situation.
We asked for the eastern farmers benefits similar to those enjoyed by the western farmers. But this was not granted to us; and, in view of the Conservative members who surround us, we have no hope of being successful, because they are not aware of the eastern farmers' problems. They do not want to help them.
We will therefore have to wait until there is a change of government, in a few months from now. It is only then that the farmers will be able to raise their heads, breathe easier and really live.
Mr. Speaker, I will end my remarks immediately, because I would like the question to be put on the motion in order that we may find out, once and for all, who is in favour and who is against the agricultural policy for the west and for the east as well.
(Text):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I would like to-
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Ask it in French.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Well, I shall be pleased to ask it in French.
I have received representations from cigarette, cigar and pipe tobacco growers concerning crop insurance. Could the hon. member tell me why the provincial government does not ask to take part in that crop insurance program in order to support the specialized tobacco crops in my constituency?


Samuel Boulanger: I will gladly answer the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm. If the province of Quebec does not join this Conservative crop insurance scheme, it is because it is not feasible in that province.


An hon. Member:: Why did you vote for it, then?
(Text):


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


Hazen Robert Argue: Let us have a vote. Let us find
out how the party stands.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member for Dauphin.


Mr. R. E. Forbes (Dauphin):: I wish to say a few words on this resolution sponsored by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). I am in agreement with the intention of the hon. member to provide farmers with sufficient income with which to pay operating expenses in years of crop failure due to drought, or other cases over which the farmer

has no control. However, the P.F.A.A. was implemented in the thirties as a measure of relief to enable the farmer and his family to live. The provincial government and municipalities assisted the farmer with the purchase of feed and seed grains on a loan basis until the farmer could get a crop which would enable him to repay his loan. This legislation has been amended from time to time to enable more farmers to qualify, by reducing the area and increasing the compensation.
In 1958, the act was amended to remove many of the inequities in the making of payments and to broaden the coverage. The result has been from 10 to 15 per cent more farmers benefit from this legislation than previously benefited from it. This whole matter of income for farmers has been of great concern to this government. In order to stabilize the income of farmers, particularly in years of crop loss, this government in July, 1959, passed the Crop Insurance Act. It was hoped this would enable farmers to help themselves and would meet conditions such as were experienced during this past season.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put on the record the regulations which are necessary to enable farmers to benefit from this worth-while legislation, as many hon. members may not be familiar with it. This legislation has been of great benefit to the farmers in Manitoba who have carried crop insurance. I quote:
The act provides that Canada will pay 50 per cent of the administrative costs of any insurance scheme plus 20 per cent of the premiums paid in any year. The contribution of 20 per cent of the premiums is similar to that paid by Canada to the unemployment insurance fund.
In addition, Canada may in any year loan to a province up to 75 per cent of the amount by which indemnities exceed premium income plus reserves plus $200,000.
There is no compulsory feature in crop insurance but the agreements now in force provide that at least 25 per cent of the farmers in any area covered by the insurance scheme must participate before the scheme can operate.
The coverage provided under any agreement with a province shall not exceed the established value of 60 per cent of the long term average yield. The established value of each crop is determined by any method agreed on by Canada and the provinces. The long term average yield of an insured crop in any area is calculated and determined in a manner approved by the federal Department of Agriculture. In the Manitoba agreement the long term average yield is calculated over a 35 year period. However, different periods of time may be used depending largely on yield records which are available.
It is generally accepted that the 60 per cent coverage provided is approximately equal to the cash cost of production.
Just what are the costs of production in Manitoba? The hon. member for Assiniboia has said that under his plan of amending the P.F.A.A., the farmer could collect $1,600.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act I have been advised that in Manitoba some of those farmers who carried crop insurance collected over $5,000. Surely, this is a scheme that would be approved by any farmer who wanted coverage which would enable him to pay the expenses connected with farming. Now, the rates which applied in Manitoba are simply these, as it states here:
The premium rates between townships in the northwestern area from 61 to 10 per cent (or 98 cents to $1.51 per acre) for a coverage of-
Now, the hon. member for Assiniboia should listen to this.
-$15.15 an acre for wheat, $12.71 for oats, $14.84 for barley and $16.50 for flax.
Hon. members should note that these are the premiums the farmer himself would pay. The full premium to handle the coverage includes another 20 per cent from the federal government. I feel that this crop insurance measure is one of which the farmers should avail themselves.
Some hon. members opposite have complained-


William Arnold Peters: You have not talked about the resolution.


Richard Elmer Forbes: -that this act has not been accepted by the farmers. This is due to the fact that over the last eight or 10 years we have had a succession of good crops. They have been waiting for something that would be a little bit cheaper. I am certain that with experience, the government of Manitoba will establish rates for the various soil zones that will be acceptable to the farmers of our province.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to endorse this resolution. As you probably know, as a group, we have already accepted this resolution and had some discussion about it. We are in a position where we are getting support from another section of the house that we perhaps did not expect-


Hazen Robert Argue: Come over, Arnold; there is a vacancy right here.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska has said that there has been considerable criticism from eastern Canada of these acts. I should like to say, as a representative of a farming area, that I think this is very unfair. I think that in a good many cases we find more reluctance on the part of the representatives of western agriculture to support the eastern farmers than we do on the part of the eastern farmer to support the programs of the western farmer.


Hazen Robert Argue: Let us have a vote on this.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.

Prairie Farm Assistance Act


William Arnold Peters: We think it is true. I am quite aware of all the legislation which applies to western Canada. It was my intention to move an amendment which in effect would remove the last sentence and add "so as to expand the act to apply to all provinces". However, if I did that you would be very surprised to find it would be opposed by most of the western members, and I say this reluctantly.
Farmers should be interested in agriculture as it applies to the whole country, rather than taking a sectarian point of view, those in one area wanting more for themselves and not being interested in seeing it is applied to the rest of the country.
The last speaker mentioned crop insurance and I do not see how that could arise in this discussion. It is a completely different thing altogether. I would like to add to what the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska said and I would tell the house that in my area the farmers have discussed this matter. The minister of agriculture in Ontario set up a commission of the provincial legislature which went around among the farmers to find out if they would support this type of insurance that the government proposed. In my area there was a very largely attended meeting and they told the head of the delegation, who is now the minister of agriculture and therefore is aware of the opinion they had, that they were not opposed to crop insurance being introduced in Ontario but they were personally not interested in taking part in the scheme. They said they would support it on the basis that it might be good for somebody else.
The people in eastern Canada connected with the agricultural industry are interested in supporting legislation that will be beneficial to other parts of Canada, and I hope eventually we shall be able to look at agriculture in an across-the-board type of way. I might even refer to it as an industrial union of agriculture rather than a craft union, so that all people engaged in agriculture will be interested in the problems of people in different sections of the industry, and thus give sustenance to this type of proposal.
I am quite happy to see acceptance of this extension, and when a vote is called before the hour is up I think we shall find that all members of the house will support this legislation. The western members can rest assured that if they are willing to do that, then the eastern members will be quite happy to give this their support.


John (Jack) McIntosh: In speaking on this resolution I first want to refer to statements made by two


opposition members. One was that the western members at no time would want to help the farmers in eastern Canada. On behalf of all the western members, and 1 think I can speak for them, I want to say that is absolutely wrong. The reason they said that is because they do not understand the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. That is one reason why I would not support this motion.
Further, I would point out to the hon. member for Assiniboia that under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act the producers have to contribute 1 per cent of their product. It is taken off their cheques when they take their grain to the elevators. If the federal government increased this in the manner suggested by the hon. member for Assiniboia* then naturally the constituency he represents* and the one represented by the hon. member for Acadia would be all in favour of it. Those members who represent constituencies in the foothills of Alberta, where producers have paid into this from the start and have not reaped any benefit from it, would be against it because their constituents would immediately say "let us out." That is one of the reasons why the eastern farmers do not want to participate now.


William Arnold Peters: We would probably want to participate but we have not the opportunity. It only applies to three provinces.


John (Jack) McIntosh: This is considered the spring wheat area. If the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska and yourself would get together we would support you at any time if you wanted this extended all over the country. I agree with the remarks made about viewing agriculture as one industry right across Canada, and that we should work for the benefit of all Canada and not just one particular area.


Samuel Boulanger: The minister promised to extend this last year, or two years ago.


Mr. Mclniosh:: That is the trouble. Possibly your party did not have strong enough representation, and I sympathize with your efforts over the past four years in that you did not understand the problem in western Canada. This resolution is not a new one. We discussed it the first year we were down here and some of the western members representing the foothill constituencies said "our farmers won't go for it". The constituency represented by the hon. member for Acadia, and my own, have benefited more from this act than any other constituencies in Canada, and I would point out it was never intended to be an insurance act. By its name it is an assistance act and if this resolution goes through it will be a means of putting the

farmers back to where they were in the 1930's. They would have to look to the municipalities for relief.
In the first place the payments under this act were never meant to cover all the losses in production. They were just intended to be of assistance and they are not given to the landowner himself. They are actually given to the operator of a farm, the one who has to put in the crop the following year, and it is not a matter of covering his complete losses.
I have made mention of spring wheat areas and they can be divided into two parts, the part known as the prairies or great plains, and the part known as woodland and parkland. Climatic conditions in each of these areas vary from year to year. We in the prairies or great plains area suffer from drought, frost, rust, hail and so on, and in the long term average over a period of 45 years one would think we should have given up farming on this type of land. However, over a 45 year period on that type of land we have had an average production as great as if not greater than the parkland area, and I think it is in the interests of the people of Canada to keep that group of farmers on that land to produce more crops of wheat.
Agriculture used to be first in our exports. Now it is third and we must maintain our production on the western prairies.
I should like to say something about how this program is financed. Farmers contribute to the program to the extent of 1 per cent of their sales of wheat, oats, barley, rye, flax and rapeseed. The last two were included last year and all farmers are covered in the program. When I mention "farmers" I mean
Business of the House the actual producers on the land and not the land owners. This money is placed in the prairie farm investment fund and is used to pay farmers who experience crop failures. The additional funds required for payments are provided by the federal treasury without interest. All administrative costs of the fund are also paid by the federal treasury and, as the hon. member for Acadia told us, this 1 per cent contributed by the producers amounts to 50 per cent of the money that is paid out. The farmers pay that themselves, and of course they also contribute to the amount of money paid by the federal treasury. Up to the present-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the hour for consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I hope the house leader could indicate to us the business for the next two days and, if he could possibly do it, it would be a great help if we could know what the government intends to start with next week.


Mr. Churchill:: Tomorrow we shall continue with the supplementary estimates which we have not yet completed, followed by the estimates of the Department of Public Works, I think the study of the estimates will take most of Thursday and Friday. I will consult with the members of the parties on the other side of the house tomorrow afternoon with regard to the business which will be coming up on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 8, 1862