1962-10-19

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the house has laid upon the table the seventh report of the clerk of petitions.
Seventh report of clerk of petitions read by the Clerk Assistant.


Mr. James C. McNulty (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with section 8 of standing order 70 I request that the petition be read.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lincoln seeks to have the petition read. Is the house in full agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Proceed.
The petition was read by the Clerk Assistant as follows:
To the honourable the House of Commons in parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned, Raymond Spencer Rodgers, publisher and commentator, humbly sheweth:
That he is employed as the parliamentary correspondent of the daily newspaper the St. Catharines Standard;
That an application from your petitioner for admission to the press gallery association of this parliament has been refused by the said association;
That by such refusal your petitioner is thereby denied the facilities, the rights and privileges of a working newspaperman which are necessary for him to report upon the proceedings of this parliament;
Therefore, your petitioner humbly prays that this honourable house will take such steps as they may deem to be necessary and fitting to enable your petitioner to carry on his profession of a newspaper correspondent and thereby provide a livelihood for himself and family.
And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Raymond Spencer Rodgers.


James Carroll Patrick McNulty: I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Scarborough:
That the petition of Raymond Spencer Rodgers, parliamentary correspondent for the St. Catharines Standard, concerning his application for admission to associate membership in the parliamentary press gallery of this parliament be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections for consideration thereof and such report as may be deemed appropriate in the opinion of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to raise a question of privilege arising out of an answer given yesterday by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to my question. The question of privilege relates to what I think is the entitlement of any member of this house to any report prepared by the government or for the government that is in the public domain, or is in the public domain anywhere in Canada. To support my contention in this regard, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read just a few sentences from a newspaper published in Banff and dated Wednesday, October 10, wherein it says:
Banff avenue auditorium will be the scene of the meeting with the author of the report, Dr. H. P. Oberlander, reading his findings and making such explanations as are necessary.
Yesterday the minister indicated that indeed such a meeting had taken place on Tuesday evening and that this was a report prepared by a firm of community consultants. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have a proper question of privilege regarding the rights of members in this house if, as seems apparent from the minister's statement, the author of a report prepared for the minister reads his findings in public in one place in Canada, yet the minister indicates that the report cannot be given to members of parliament until, as he says, it is studied by the department, and any decision as to making it available to the members of the house will have to be made following that departmental study.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the question of privilege by the hon. member, I do not think he quite finished reading the reply I made in response to his question yesterday. I think the last statement I made was to the effect that I could not table the report at the moment. I used that phrase "at the moment" advisedly because the report had not come into my hands up to that point.
This report has been prepared by a private consultant in community planning, and it was presented to the Banff community advisory council because they were most concerned with it. I have now received two copies of the report. For obvious reasons there are not sufficient copies to distribute to

Question of Privilege
all hon. members, but with the unanimous consent of the house I would be very happy to table these two copies herewith for the information of hon. members who may wish to refer to them.
I should also add that the report was commenced some two years ago as part of a planning program for our national parks to provide for the steadily increasing number of visitors, while still maintaining the essential functions of the parks as conservation areas.


Mr. Speaker:: I presume, in that the point raised by the hon. member is now satisfied by the tabling of this report-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the actual incident is concerned I am very appreciative of the minister's offer, but the minister has given no indication in regard to the principle. It seems to me there is a principle-


An hon. Member:: What principle?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It would be of considerable assistance if anyone who wishes to make a comment on what the hon. member is saying would make it while standing when he has the floor. The Chair cannot hear these interjections, and I would ask the indulgence of the house in this regard.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not wish to make any great capital out of this situation but I would point out to you, sir, that the privileges of hon. members seem to be involved when a report is prepared on the order of a minister and it is revealed in public before even the minister sees it. I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, since the minister has given an explanation in regard to this, whether he has any statement to make on the principle relating to the presentation of the document in public before he or hon. members of this house have had any chance to see it.


Mr. Fulton:: There is no privilege there.


Mr. Speaker:: There are two questions involved here. First of all, this is not a report that is required by any standing order or statute; therefore before the minister can actually table such a report he requires the unanimous consent of the house.
Regarding the right of hon. members to insist on having such a report, there is the interposition of the unanimous consent of the house to have the report tabled and, as has been indicated to me, there is the further point that the document could have been ordered by a resolution of the house for the tabling of papers. Those are the only means whereby this particular report can come before the house, either by unanimous consent of the house or as a result of a resolution of the house.
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
Therefore I cannot see how the hon. member can insist that there is a question of privilege of the rights of hon. members, because hon. members have not got that right. The minister must ask for unanimous consent. There is a distinction here, and I shall now ask whether the house will give the minister unanimous consent for the tabling of this report.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: In so far as the question of privilege is concerned, I believe we shall leave it at that.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, could I just ask you to consider this point and give us an opinion later on; that if a report prepared by the government, or for the government at the government's request, is available to the general public before it is available to hon. members of the house, then the privileges of the house may be reduced. I would like this particular point to be considered because, with respect to the two points you brought up, I think they relate to procedure rather than to the general question of the privileges of hon. members to see a government document.


Mr. Speaker:: That may be so, on the question the hon. member has raised. I will not comment upon his general observations as to propriety. At the moment I can think of many serious difficulties which might arise and where it might be quite improper. On the other hand, the hon. member would not be entitled to have this report if hon. members in any part of this house had said, "No, we will not have this tabled". Then there would have to be a motion for the production of papers. I cannot see that any hon. member can have a right which is subject to the consent of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to call the attention of hon. members to a ruling I made this morning, and to make a minor correction. A question of privilege having been submitted by the hon. member for Port Arthur, I indicated that before the minister, in this case, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, could table a report he was presenting to the house he would require the unanimous consent of the house.
That went too far. All that is required is the consent of the house. I would not wish the record to appear as though the unanimous consent of the house were needed.



U.S. TRADE EXPANSION ACT    REPLY TO MESSAGE FROM PRIME MINISTER

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that on Tuesday I referred to a message which I had sent to the President of the United States in connection with the United States trade expansion act and the suggestion made by me in furtherance of what I had already stated at the prime ministers conference in London. On that occasion, on September 17, I said to the prime ministers conference, among other things:
President Kennedy has placed before congress a program for expanding world trade. I believe, representing as we do members of the commonwealth and a large proportion of the world's population, we should endeavour, in a spirit of co-operation, to give world leadership in a concerted effort to meet the difficult and diverse trade problems of commonwealth countries.
I then proposed that an invitation should be extended to all member nations of the commonwealth, the E.E.C.,	E.F.T.A., the
United States of America, Japan and other like minded nations-and I emphasized those latter words-indicating a desire to participate in a meeting at the earliest practicable date to give consideration to how to deal with trading problems before us in a way which would be of mutual advantage to all. I then stated that this would prepare the way for prospective, non-discriminatory tariff negotiations on a most favoured nation basis. I pointed out that in so far as the European community is concerned, it was already a reality; there was no question about the desirability of that community, as it now exists, carrying forward its objectives. I further stated that it seemed to me that if we were to achieve still wider and more satisfactory trading arrangements before 1970, which was the date at which the preferences would have ended, steps in the direction of further world wide trading arrangements should be now taken.
I stated that this would offer a practical contribution to the solution of our difficulties, advance the strength of the commonwealth association, permit the common market to proceed with the expansion of its own activities and bring to bear the immense trading capacity of the United States of America and Japan. Furthermore, that reciprocal reduction of tariffs should be the only matter for consideration at such a meeting; that the discussions at the prime ministers' conference have shown the urgent need to find solutions to the special difficulties in world trade in agricultural products.
Statement on U.S. Trade Expansion Act I further pointed out that work in the tariff field would need to be co-ordinated with what might be done through other means, for example through world wide commodity agreements both in the field of temperate foodstuffs and where particular problems arise with respect to basic commodities. I further stated there were other matters requiring attention such as trade in tropical products and trade with the developing countries generally.
On Tuesday, as I said a moment ago, I placed before the house the message which carried into effect the suggestions made by me to the prime ministers' conference. At the conclusion of that conference, among other things, the prime ministers expressed-and I quote now-
-the readiness of their governments to join in comprehensive international efforts by all available means to expand world trade in both primary products and manufactures.
In that message which I sent to the President I stated, among other things, that it is vitally important that we find effective means as soon as possible for dealing with these complex and urgent trade problems. I further stated in that letter that it appeared the most convenient way of arranging such a meeting would be to discuss these broad questions at a meeting of ministers.
I know that when I expressed myself in this way before the prime ministers' conference there were some who said all I was doing was expressing a similar view to that advanced by Mr. Khrushchev. I point out that Khrushchev was not referring to like minded nations such as those to which I had referred. There were others who said my proposal would only be duplicating the initiative being taken in the United Nations. However, those views have now had their answer, I think, in the reply I have received from President Kennedy, and I think it would be appropriate if I were to read that reply:
October 18, 1962
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
Thank you for your letter on the occasion of my signature of the trade expansion act. I am pleased to know that the Canadian government welcomes this most significant development in the trade policy of the United States.
Ever since world war II, Canada and the United States have been partners in a determined search for a non-discriminatory trading world which affords to all countries of the free world the best opportunities for economic growth and expansion. Your letter makes clear that we continue to share these common objectives, and I am gratified to have your pledge of close co-operation in moving toward a wider acceptance of our convictions.
I would like to take full advantage of the authority which the trade expansion act confers upon me and I am eager to explore with other like minded nations as soon as possible the problems and prospects for a new approach to the reduction of obstacles to
700	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Statement on U.S. Trade Expansion Act world trade. In this connection the recent discussions in Ottawa between officials of our two governments have been most useful. I have been thinking that, after some of the preliminary work has been done and a consensus reached among the principal participants, a ministerial meeting early in 1963 of the contracting parties of the general agreement on tariffs and trade might well be the most suitable way to enlist the participation and support of like minded nations.
On the basis of your proposal for an international meeting, perhaps we might join forces in recommending a special meeting of the contracting parties at the ministerial level, to be held possibly as early as February or March of 1963. I should be interested in your reactions to this suggestion.
I am encouraged by the improvement in Canada's reserve position and welcome the first step you have just taken in the process of removing the special surcharges on imports in response to this improvement. I look forward to your being able to remove the remaining surcharges. This would help us all move forward in our attack on trade barriers.
Sincerely,
John F. Kennedy.
So President Kennedy has accepted the proposal I made for a ministerial meeting of like minded nations-and again I emphasize his use of those words twice in his letter to me, thereby excluding other similar suggestions which have been made. He has proposed that Canada and the United States, on the basis of my suggestion, should join in recommending a special meeting of the contracting parties. I am very glad the President has done so, and I look forward to the closest co-operation with the United States and other trading countries in bringing together other like minded nations in a common effort to deal with the trade problems facing us all in a constructive and positive manner. Instructions are being given to the Canadian delegation to next week's meeting of the general agreement on tariffs and trade to take action along these lines. I am sure that a ministerial meeting of like minded trading nations such as I have proposed will have the most far reaching and beneficial results throughout the free world. I expressed the hope that hon. members and the people of Canada as a whole will agree that this is a most important and hopeful development which opens great possibilities for our trade and for the Canadian economy as a whole.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think all members of the house will have listened with great interest to the Prime Minister giving the house the details about the correspondence exchanged between himself and the President of the United States and which was, of course, initiated by himself. There can be no doubt that all members of this house will be only too anxious to do what they can to support the government in its efforts to join with other governments in the removal of obstacles to trade and in developing the freest possible

trade between all countries. No doubt my hon. friends opposite would include in that communist China and Cuba.
There can also be no question about the desirability of having this government and indeed this parliament co-operate to the fullest possible extent with the constructive program initiated in Washington by President Kennedy and approved by congress. Indeed, we on this side have been advocating that kind of co-operation and association for many months when in other quarters this program did not seem to arouse very much interest.
The Prime Minister has now explained to the house what he meant in his original letter by a meeting of ministers. Presumably this is a meeting now of ministers of like minded nations. Presumably the later conference which is to be arranged, if it can be arranged as a result of this preliminary meeting in Geneva, will be a conference of all like minded nations. Presumably therefore, Mr. Speaker, any country that wishes to consider itself a like minded nation will be invited to this conference.
May I remind the Prime Minister that there is opening next week in Geneva a meeting of the contracting parties of GATT at which, if this government is really interested in pushing this matter forward, it might have had a minister present to begin the conversations at the present time. However, Mr. Speaker, at this GATT conference of contracting parties Canada will be represented not by a minister but by an official. While he is a very highly qualified and competent official, he is still an official. This would have been a good time to begin this process of ministerial consultation.
It is also true, Mr. Speaker,-and the Prime Minister has referred to it-that there is on the order paper at the United Nations assembly a proposal for a United Nations conference to remove barriers to trade. No doubt the government will be considering how it can relate its proposal for a conference of like minded nations to this proposal for a conference of all members of the United Nations to broaden the boundaries of trade.
In any event, we on this side welcome the government's last minute conversion and desire to co-operate with the United States in this matter. However, I would point out that a process which would be more encouraging for immediate results, as it would have been a year ago, would be to work with the United States, the European common market, the United Kingdom and the commonwealth in order to reduce barriers within

our own boundaries and to have that reduction extended through GATT by the most favoured nation clause to all like minded nations.
(Translation):


Mr. Real Caoueile (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the project that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has just announced to the house is certainly likely to help the Canadian economy.
We, in this part of the house, are in favour of a meeting of all commonwealth countries with a view to seeing what action should be taken to promote trade with other countries of the world.
We believe that if the free world wants to prevent communism from rising or expanding throughout the world, it will not achieve its end with weapons or wars, but through the establishment of an economic system conducive to the full development of all free countries, thus setting the example of fair and true peace to the whole world. Nations now under communist control will then be able to realize that in a free world things can be accomplished that the communists were never able to achieve.
We are very pleased to note that our relations with the United States are most friendly, but it is not by playing politics, indulging in fanciful thinking and seeking farfetched solutions, as our Liberal friends have done in the past, that we shall achieve our purpose.
Canada is an extremely rich country. We must enter international markets. We shall certainly support the government in certain measures introduced to help the smaller countries of the world, the nations that still believe in the freedom and full development of humanity, those countries that allow the individual to go ahead in all fields, and the small nations anxious to develop according to their possibilities and desires.
Mr. Speaker, we are interested in international questions, but we should not forget national questions in which we are more deeply involved.
The international market is very important to our exports, but we believe that the home market strengthens our production and that, thanks to better relations with the United States and the countries of the free world, through our international organizations, we can find better ways to sell our products. Should it become necessary to have a common market, we shall consider the European common market which at that time will enable us to be among those countries that 27507-3-45
Statement on ZJ.S. Trade Expansion Act share our love for freedom and security, to the best advantage of all nations of the world and especially Canada.
(Text):


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on looking around the house it was to me obvious that all hon. members were interested in the statement of the Prime Minister. I am sure most hon. members noted that he rose in a somewhat more sprightly manner this morning than that in which he has risen on a number of other occasions during this session.
The members of this group have always been interested in and welcome the promotion of international trade, as well as the development of the commodity agreements to which the Prime Minister referred in his statement. Moreover, the members of this group welcome the promotion of trade with all countries in the world because we believe international trade is one of the weapons that can be used in the fight for understanding between nations and ultimate peace.
We are also very much concerned with the development of the commonwealth through co-operation and trade. This group has expressed its opinions on that subject repeatedly throughout the years in this house. We welcome anything that can be done to stimulate understanding, co-operation and trade among the various sections of the commonwealth within the framework of international trade.
However, Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat I must say also that the Prime Minister appeared very relieved when he rose this morning to announce the support of President Kennedy for his proposals. I can well understand that. I am quite sure that a good many members of the house thought they were in somewhat vague and general terms. However, we in this group welcome any co-operation among countries in the direction mentioned by the Prime Minister. Only the future will tell whether we have listened to platitudes or whether a course is being charted that will lead to action to the advantage of all mankind.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. T. R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of his announcement this morning, can he tell the house whether it is the government's intention to implement the suggestion made by T. C. Douglas that the government of Canada-

Proposed Legislation


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is proffering information in trying to make a point.


Thomas Rodney Berger: I was trying to lay, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I think it was quite clear what the hon. gentleman was trying to do, and I do not think it was quite in order.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was trying to lay the factual groundwork for my question, which I regard as dealing with urgently required information.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member on two or three counts had transgressed by the time I had cut it short. I think perhaps if he will think over the question he would like to put and draft it in a way that might be acceptable, it would be much better.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Speaker, I have altered my question in accordance with Your Honour's kind suggestion and I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of his announcement this morning, it is the government's intention to ask parliament to give to the government the same right to reduce tariffs that President Kennedy has under the trade expansion act.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think that question is one that cannot be asked on the orders of the day, on several grounds. Of course the usual answer, which would be appropriate, is that if any decision is made in that regard, parliament will be informed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. F. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-65, to amend the Criminal Code (insanity).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code so as to abolish the rule in M'Naghten's case as to criminal responsibility of the insane. That rule originated in 1843, and is to the effect that insanity as a defence to a criminal charge means a disease of the mind to the extent that the accused is incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts, or knowing that they are wrong.
The proposed amendment substitutes a rule that a person is insane for this purpose if his act is the product of mental disease or

defect. The proposed amendment is in line with modern concepts of mental illness and criminal responsibility.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Ian G. Wahn (St. Paul's) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-66, to grant amnesty to and confirm the rights of Asians, Africans and other persons subject to racial discrimination whose admission to Canada may have been irregular or illegal.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to grant amnesty to and confirm the rights of Chinese and other Asians, Africans and also other persons who may have entered Canada by means of deception or other irregular or illegal means but who would not have been forced to resort to such deception or irregular or illegal means had they been citizens of other countries which are treated more favourably under our immigration regulations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FINANCE


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-67, respecting relief against unconscionable transactions.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, October 16, the Ontario court of appeal delivered reasons for judgment in the case of Sampson v. Barfried Enterprises Limited holding that the Ontario unconscionable transactions relief act was ultra vires of the province as being in relation to interest, a subject matter within the legislative competence of the government of Canada. The bill proposes to enact as a statute of Canada substantially the provisions of the Ontario act, which I might say are substantially repeated in the laws of several of the other provinces.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the house leader. If we dispose of interim supply today, how does the government intend to proceed with reference to the general debate on economic matters which he announced last night when we go into committee of ways and means on Monday?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 
Lionel Chevrier: I thank the leader of the house for his lengthy reply, but may I ask another question. Having regard to the last part of his statement, may I ask this. Would we be considering budget resolutions after we have had the general debate, and would we be considering budget resolutions without a budget?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are working on the assumption that there was a budget earlier in this fiscal year and these measures, introduced at that time, naturally have to have the approval of the house. Perhaps the Minister of Finance might deal more adequately with that particular question or matters relating to it.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, if this arrangement is carried into effect there are details that perhaps could be better worked out by a meeting of the representatives of the various parties. However, there is a question of principle which I think should be asked and answered at this point. If this arrangement is carried out, does it mean that for the fiscal year 1962-63 there will have been no complete, formal budget debate in this house with Mr. Speaker in the chair and the usual opportunities to test the government on its budget policies?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is that if there is any test of the government on any of its policies, that test can be applied here almost every day. I think we have observed that. There would have been a complete budget debate according to the rules last spring had the house continued in session. There is no obligation imposed by the rules to have a specific time for a budget debate. The rule says it may go on for six days, but it is not mandatory. I think, under the suggestion I have made, there is certainly no restriction on debate. In fact we are allowing much greater latitude than perhaps would be the case in a budget debate with Mr. Speaker in the chair.
I grant that the opportunity to move an amendment or subamendment is not there with the chairman in the chair. However, there would be opportunities when the budget resolutions were before the house to make such motions as members of the opposition wished.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of all the factors in the

Inquiries of the Ministry picture-and I do not want to transgress the rules to spell them out, both in view of the facts in connection with the budgetary and financial situation, the election and all that- does the minister not think it would be fairer to the rights, of parliament to have the recognized budget debate with Mr. Speaker in the chair, and with the opportunity to move amendments to test the government? Are we not bypassing the traditional procedures of the house by making an arrangement which may, in the end, take more time than the other way would take, the only effect of which is to avoid a formal test of budget policies in the house?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I want to make it quite clear the government is not attempting to avoid anything in the nature of a test of its position. The suggestion is put forward as a vehicle whereby there may be complete freedom of debate and members may participate as they wish. I agree there may be a difference of opinion as to the method suggested. We are putting this forward in good faith and hope that the house will agree to the proposal.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a further question. Would the house leader agree to the ordinary motion being made before the Speaker leaves the chair so that an amendment could be proposed by those of the opposition who may feel so disposed? In that way the suggestion that the house leader has just made, concerning the effect of the debate and a testing of the house, would not be curtailed in any way. We would then have the same rights as we would have had in the last session had the budget been under discussion in the ordinary method. What I am asking now is, would the government consent to the ordinary amendment being made when the motion is made for the Speaker to leave the chair?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested, some of these problems might better be discussed by representatives of the parties meeting together. Close attention has been paid to these suggestions, and perhaps during the course of the day we might consult.


Mr. Speaker:: I was beginning to reach the point where I was going to suggest the same thing, because I think we are having a committee meeting in the plenary session of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister will invite us to lunch.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wifi if the hon. member will pay for it.


Lionel Chevrier: Then there will be no lunch.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister consider withdrawing Bill No. C-49, to amend the Combines Investigation Act, and submitting a bill providing, inter alia, for the extension of the terms of the two retiring members of the restrictive trade practices commission for such further period as may be necessary to complete all inquiries upon which the commission has taken evidence, and presenting such bill for the consideration of this house with all possible speed?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Justice): No, sir. The suggestion would be entirely impracticable.
(Translation):



DENIAL OF EXPORT PERMIT BY U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andre Bernier (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister inform this house as to what action he intends to take in view of the decision taken by Washington to deny the Canadian firm Swatson Livet any export privilege to Cuba?
(Text):


Righi Hon.   J.. G. Diefenbaker@Prime Minisier: I should like to be able to reply to the hon. member in French, but in the words of Mr. Churchill, cruel and unnatural punishments were abolished one hundred years ago. I will, therefore, answer him in English. This whole question is being viewed in the light of recent events, and when the government is in a position to place its decision before the house, that will be done.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the imminence of a strike within the Canadian Pacific Railway structure, he is in the process of seeking an experienced mediator to deal with this particular question.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minisier of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Howard: Is the minister in a position to indicate to the house who this person will be?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the change in policy in respect of the export of electric power from Canada, as announced in the speech from the throne, is the minister giving immediate consideration to the removal of the export tax on electricity from this country? I might mention it is the only export tax levied in this country.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: That is a matter for the budget, Mr. Speaker, and at the moment I am not prepared to go further.



ACTION WITH RESPECT TO BANKRUPTCY FRAUDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Munro (Hamilton East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister's department giving consideration to the brief on bankruptcy frauds presented to him and, if so, what action does the department intend to take?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would earnestly submit to the hon. member that he review his thinking with regard to questions on orders of the day.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. Cashin (Si. John's West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and I apologize for not having given him notice. Have any representations been made by the federal government opposing the proposed closing of the Canadian National branch line from Placentia to Argentia Junction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I seem to detect a pattern here. Once a railway indicates that it wants to close a local section of line or curtail some railway service, it is treated as a matter of great and urgent importance to be answered on orders of the day. I think hon. members will realize that they can better
Inquiries of the Ministry put their questions and get better information if they use the appropriate procedures of the order paper.
(Translation):



LETTERS IN FRENCH FROM SERGEANT-AT-ARMS

Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to speak slowly, although I am having some difficulty in getting used to the slow pace of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Dumont: My question is directed to the Prime Minister and has to do with some explanations I got in a letter written in English and on which are inscribed the words "Sergeant-at-Arms", which sounds like- chargez Varme. I must say I find the mention of arms rather disturbing, especially since there was a reference to swords fifteen days ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Dumont: Here is my question. Could the Prime Minister ask the Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Currie, to write us, members from Quebec, in French when he has something he wishes to say to us. I am worried when arms are mentioned in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: The duties of the Sergeant-at-Arms come under the jurisdiction of the Speaker of this house. We will see that the hon. member's wishes are complied with, although this may be a bit difficult to do at times. But we shall endeavour in every way possible to address our communications to hon. members in their own language, even though the situation may be rather delicate sometimes.



TRANSLATION INTO FRENCH OF WORK BY BEAUCHESNE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-P. Cook@Montmagny-LTslel: May
I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Could the Prime Minister tell me whether he has started to consider the question he took as notice, last Wednesday, regarding the translation of Beauchesne's?
(Text):
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I decided to look up Beauchesne myself after the question was asked. I find that Beauchesne is copyrighted in Canada by Arthur Beauchesne. The fourth edition is published by the Carswell Company Limited. While the people of Canada do purchase a number of copies, we have no control whatever over the question as to whether they should be published in English or in French. Indeed, for the government to

Inquiries of the Ministry ask for it to be published in French, however desirable that may be, would be an invasion and an infringement of the Copyright Act. Any question in connection with producing a French edition would have to be directed to the publishers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question.
(Translation):


Mr. Cook:: May I put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? Does the Prime Minister intend to submit a request in that regard to the holders of the copyright on Beauchesne's?
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think a request would be very effective. It is today a rather costly matter to produce a volume of any of these books. Naturally it is requisite that the publishers make a profit; a certain number have to be sold. I presume that is the reason an edition in French has not been produced. However, I will bring the hon. gentleman's question and suggestion to the attention of the company.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had previously indicated that he wished to ask a supplementary question. Therefore I will recognize him, and then the hon. member for Laurier.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is my supplementary question. In view of the fact that Beauchesne's fourth edition, though a private publication, is furnished to all members of parliament by an officer of the house, is there not substance to the request of my hon. friends opposite that the house or the government should consider having it translated into French?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is a matter of straight argument. I feel it is hardly in keeping. We have heard various representations on this subject, and I do not think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should advance his question in that form; he is just advancing a straight argument.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is not an argumentative one; it is a straight question. I ask the Prime Minister whether the government will give consideration to underwriting the cost of this work and advising the publishers to that effect.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the government has no authority to underwrite any expenditure. Parliament could do so, but not the government. I am sure the hon. gentle-

man would rephrase his question if he now had the opportunity to do so. I think it is most desirable and necessary that the rules should be made available in the French language.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the hon. gentleman and the hon. member for Lapointe for having brought to the attention of the house this matter which was so long neglected by the other side.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is Canada supporting the Mexican resolution at the United Nations for a ban on nuclear tests to come into effect on January 1, 1963?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the question of nuclear weapons tests is now being discussed in the first committee at the United Nations but as yet there has been no actual resolution filed. However, the representative of Mexico, in a speech to the plenary assembly, outlined a resolution which he suggested could be considered by the other members of the United Nations.
Mexico, as the hon. member knows, is one of the eight non-unaligned countries which have been sitting in on the disarmament committee meetings in Geneva. And by the way, these eight countries, in my opinion, have done a splendid job. They are now conferring in New York on the terms of a resolution which I expect will be placed before the first committee.
Canada, of course, has been very active in this whole picture and is a member of the disarmament committee. We are fairly well aware of negotiations which are going on, but at the moment it would be premature for me to say what stand Canada would be taking because there is no actual resolution yet.
There have been several questions asked about what has been happening in New York with regard to this very serious question of nuclear weapons tests, and if members so wish I would be glad to provide a copy of my speech in the plenary assembly on September 25 and a copy of the speech made by General Burns, our disarmament advisor, in the first committee a few days ago. From these speeches hon. members will know exactly the position Canada has been taking and is taking in New York on this question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am
sure the minister's remarks warm the cockles of a good many Canadian hearts, but in view of the great concern with this question on the part of Canadians generally, and their desire to be as well informed as possible, will the minister consider obtaining permission of the house to have the documents mentioned printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.?


Howard Charles Green: I am in the hands of the house with regard to that suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: There has been a request and the minister has indicated that he seeks the unanimous approval of the house that the two speeches referred to be printed as an appendix to Hansard. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of documents above referred to, see appendix.]
(Translation):



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. Is he aware of the fact that for financial reasons, one or more county councils refuse to take part in the winter works program this year? If so, does he intend to assist in some other way the localities not organized in municipalities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that his question is out of order.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake SI. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. I am sorry but I did not advise him beforehand. Would the minister tell us if he intends to replace the two C.B.C. governors from Quebec who resigned during the summer, or if he has done so already?
(Text):


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I think this question would more properly be directed to the Secretary of State.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member was addressing it to my colleague. Anyway I did not hear it and I wonder would he repeat it or place it on the order paper.
(Translation):


Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, this question was addressed to the Minister of National Revenue or to the Secretary of State-


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, but I do not think your question is in order. I cannot see why it should be asked at this particular time since it is of no urgency.


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I think it is urgent, for us in Quebec, that those two C.B.C. governors be appointed in view of the requests that are made at the present time for new radio and television stations.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be that the question is important-or that the problem is important-but not enough to warrant a reply now.
(Text):



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. By way of explanation, on September 28 I asked the minister if it was the government's intention to introduce legislation at this session based on the recommendations of the Sinclair report. This was under orders of the day, in respect to licence limitation in the fishing industry. The minister replied that day that no decision had been made.
My question today is, has a decision been arrived at in the last three weeks, or is it still in a state of indecision?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member, with the last few words, rather ruled himself out. I cannot conceive at the moment that there is great urgency in obtaining the information on orders of the day.


Barry Mather: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the point is, how can a matter which was considered urgent three weeks ago and on which, as far as I know, no action has been taken, be considered less urgent today?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not going to argue the point with the hon. member. It may be that the minister answered the question out of courtesy.

Interim Supply NORTHERN AFFAIRS



ESKIMOS-REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question relating to a rapidly developing situation in one part of Canada where the matter of Eskimos learning English rather than French has become most contentious at the present moment. Has the minister received representations recently from the Quebec government on this matter, and if so, what response has he made?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, no representations have been received by myself.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

George Clyde Nowlan: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $231,819,569.82 being the aggregate of-
(a)	two thirds of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the revised estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $2,514,223,947.34;
(b)	an additional one quarter of the amounts of atomic energy item 5, finance item 50, forestry item 11, labour item 40, legislation items 30 and 35, national defence item 70, national health and welfare item 25, northern affairs and national resources item 10, public works items 5, 45, 125, 190 and 200, Royal Canadian Mounted Police items 5 and 25, loans, investments and advances item L-20 of the said revised estimates, $33,266,831.25;
(c)	an additional one sixth of the amounts of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation item 5, mines and technical surveys items 30, 35, 40, 70, 80, 125 and 130, northern affairs and national resources item 45, public works items 70, 100, 105 and 180, Royal Canadian Mounted Police item 15, transport items 40, 60, 80 and 85, of the said revised estimates, $11,139,450.00;
(d)	an additional one twelfth of agriculture item 145, citizenship and immigration items 30, 40 and 90, finance items 30 and 45, fisheries items 25, 35, 45 and 85, forestry items 15, 25 and 35, legislation item 25, mines and technical surveys items 50, 60, 100 and 140, national defence item 25, national film board item 1, national research council item 1, national revenue item 5, northern affairs and national resources items 25, 60, 90 and 110, public works item 110, trade and commerce items 15 and 20, transport items 100 and 125, veterans affairs items 45 and 50 of the said revised estimates, $52,558,215.00.
Less amounts authorized to be paid and applied by the Appropriation Act No. 3, 1962 and the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1962, in respect of the corresponding items in the main estimates referred to in those acts, $2,379,368,873.77.
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the present fiscal year ending March 31, 1963.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


George Clyde Nowlan: Perhaps I should say a word in connection with this resolution which you have just read, Mr. Chairman, and which is in the form in which it has always appeared in interim supply resolutions in the past.
I want to make one or two things clear to the committee. The proportions requested in this bill are intended to provide for all necessary requirements of the public service up to November 30. In no instance is the total amount of an item as shown in the revised estimates for 1962-63 being released. The bill itself has been prepared, in so far as possible, in the form with which hon. members have become familiar over the past several years. Some change has been required this year, however, as a consequence of the revision of the estimates. Former appropriation acts released supply on the basis of the amounts shown in the estimates tabled on February 12, 1962. Those estimates having been replaced by the revised estimates, it is not possible to use them as the basis of further supply, so the bill has been or will be revised in accordance with the amounts set forth in the revised estimates tabled yesterday.
I give the usual assurance to the committee that the passage of the bill will in no way prejudice the rights and privileges of hon. members to criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee of supply, and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is, of course, the historic right of the Commons to discuss any matter before granting supply. That is a right which goes back to the very beginning of our parliamentary history and one which is cherished in all free parliaments. I propose to exercise that right today by making only a very brief statement of the position of the official opposition respecting the request which has just been made by the Minister of Finance for interim supply for one month, a request accompanied by the usual assurance, an assurance which we appreciate.
By limiting his demands to a single month the Minister of Finance is showing, if I may say so, a proper respect for the right of this house to control expenditure, and I commend him for doing so even though my commendation may make him feel a little uncomfortable. Indeed, it may make me later feel a little uncomfortable; one never knows in these matters. This procedure, this limitation of the request to one month only, will give the committee-if this parliament lasts so long-an opportunity to deal again with

interim supply in a month's time and in the light of what progress is being made, or not being made, during that month; perhaps even in the light of a budget, which we have a right to expect the government to produce.
Since the revised estimates were tabled yesterday we on this side have not, of course, had much opportunity to examine all the implications of the reductions which have been made in those estimates as compared with the estimates tabled by the former minister of finance in the last session of the previous parliament. Especially we have not had much opportunity to consider the possible effect of those reductions on employment, a matter which is very much in all our minds as we approach the winter. We have not had time to do that, but we do not complain about it; because we have an opportunity now to make an examination of this kind, and we shall be in a position to discuss the changes and their implications on the next occasion when the minister appears before us to ask for interim supply, if indeed an opportunity does not present itself before then.
When I spoke in the debate on the address on October 1 I indicated that if the house should reject the motion of want of confidence being put forward at that time, as well as subsequent similar motions moved during that debate, this would mean that the government would have a mandate at least to introduce its legislative and other proposals. I also indicated at that time, and I repeat it now, that each of those proposals would be considered on its merits by the official opposition in exactly the same way as if the government had a clear majority in this house. That did not mean then, and it does not mean now, that we were, or are, giving approval in advance to any measure or action taken by the government. It did mean we would give each measure objective consideration in the light of the public interest.
We recognize that there are economic and financial problems affecting the livelihood and the welfare of the Canadian people which need to be dealt with urgently. We recall that the Prime Minister during the summer stated that longer term economic measures would be brought forward by the government when parliament met in September. He was contrasting those measures with emergency measures. Now that the government has received its vote of confidence it has no excuse for any delay in bringing forward these really urgent proposals. The best way to do that, of course, is by a new budget, so we look forward to receiving these long range economic and financial proposals at an early date. As each measure is brought forward we shall, of course, exercise to the full our constitutional 27507-3-46
Interim Supply
rights as an opposition; by supporting those proposals which we consider to be good, by seeking to amend those proposals which we think we can make better, and by opposing those which we believe to be bad.
I repeat, we sincerely hope the government will shortly bring forward its urgent and important economic proposals. We hope it will not ask this house to deal first with a lot of legislation, some of it already on the order paper, which, though it may have a specialized importance, does not get down to the roots of our real problems in this country-the means of ensuring adequate economic growth necessary for full employment and national progress. We have the right to assume that the government has these economic proposals ready. Are we to take it that these proposals are not yet ready when the government, which has presumably been working on them, asks us to believe that in only four days it had worked out and put into effect an emergency austerity program which involved surcharges on dozens of categories of imports; with graduated surcharges of 5 per cent, 10 per cent and 15 per cent, with all the exemptions that had to be worked out also and with all the regulations that go with that kind of operation? The government asks us to believe that it put into effect in four days a program of cuts of this kind; that during those four days it went to the international monetary fund and to the export-import bank raising loans amounting to $1 billion; that it had made reciprocal currency arrangements with the United Kingdom and the federal reserve bank; that during those four days it had found a legal basis for this action, and had obtained an opinion on that score from the Department of Justice.
May I say, Mr. Chairman, that a government which can do all that in four days in order to deal with an emergency that suddenly boiled up at the beginning of those four days has, I am sure, a long range, far reaching economic and financial program to put before this House of Commons, so we expect to get it without delay. The best way in which to get it, of course, is in the form of a new budget.
In order that there will be no excuse for any delay in this matter of bringing forward these long range financial and economic proposals the official opposition, as I have said, has decided to let interim supply go through without further debate so far as we are concerned. However, we are only one of the minority parties in this House of Commons. Therefore if this debate does begin we shall naturally feel relieved from any obligation not to prolong the discussion, just as we reserve now our right to debate these matters

Interim Supply
fully when they come up subsequently for discussion, when interim supply is requested in a month's time or prior to that time.
In making this statement I should not want to be misunderstood as implying that the official opposition has suddenly discovered any reason for confidence in this government. I hope I shall not be misunderstood on that score. Our position in that regard has not changed. However, we recognize the fact that, like the government, we are a minority in the House of Commons, and that as long as the government can command a majority here its constitutional right to remain in office is combined with its duty to deal with the urgent problems of the country with the least possible delay.
Hence we are prepared to allow this request for interim supply for one month to go through, so far as we are concerned, without any further debate. The government will then have both the opportunity and the obligation v ithout delay to bring before the house, as I say, in the form of a new budget, those long range economic proposals which we have been led to believe for four months would be put before the people to take the place of this emergency austerity program.
(Translation):


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, to hear the Leader of the Opposition, one would think that when the Liberals were in power, the budget was tabled at the same time as the speech from the throne was delivered or during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. He is faster in the opposition than he ever was when he was a member of the government.
We were told a while ago that if the house so wishes, there would probably be a general debate on the supplementary revised estimates which were presented yesterday.
At this time, a request for interim supply for a period of one month is being submitted to us. Even if we were to discuss it during a whole month, it is obvious that we would still have to pay the country's bills for that month and keep the government services going. Consequently, any discussion on that subject is useless.
The general debate will take place Monday and Tuesday, we hope, and all the parties will have the opportunity at that time to put forth their program and to discuss important economic questions. But, for the time being, we support entirely the request of the minister for voting the estimates required for the services of Canada and we will not delay the house any further, because we wish to proceed with more urgent matters for the progress of Canada.

(Text):


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Chairman, we in this corner of the house are anxious that the business of the nation should continue to be transacted. We are therefore willing to vote the government supply for another month. In doing so, however, we wish to urge upon the government the necessity for some effective action immediately with regard to the unemployment crisis with which Canada is faced at the present time and which is more than likely to deepen this winter unless something is done about it.
This is the first opportunity I have had, as a new member, to participate in one of the debates in this House of Commons. I think I could not expect any gratitude from my constituents if I were to talk about the people and places of interest in Vancouver-Burrard. Rather I think they would expect me to try to get parliament to do something about the economic disaster in Canada and about galloping unemployment, and also to do something to turn scarcity into abundance.
During the time I have been here I, like other hon. members, have been treated to the spectacle of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition arguing aimlessly at great length, or undue length, in the opinion of many members of the house, about things that we ought to have disposed of some time ago. They have been arguing about which of them was responsible for the decline in Canada's prestige and which of them was responsible for the dollar crisis. Each of them has invoked the shade of Mackenzie King to support his case. In fact, when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were grappling with each other during the debate on the speech from the throne, many of us thought their speeches sounded so much alike that they must have been using the same speech writer.
This government thus far has not indicated that it is prepared to grapple with the problem of unemployment. The speech from the throne did not even mention the word "unemployment" although we have had hundreds of thousands of Canadians unemployed this year. I think we can look forward, not with any anticipation but with regret, to a winter during which there will be perhaps even one million unemployed. Yet the Prime Minister and his ministers are not prepared even to discuss unemployment. They are talking a different language from the rest of us.
In the speech from the throne the government stated that economic activity in Canada had moved ahead sharply. It may have done so, but many of us did not see it. The fact

is that when we caught sight of it, it appeared to be back where it had been previously. The Prime Minister asserts that production has moved to higher levels than ever before. This may be so. However, he has neglected to point out that production per capita has declined over the last year. It is not really good enough for the Prime Minister to tell the people that production in Canada has increased beyond the expectations of the hon. member for Davenport. What we are concerned about is not just production; we are concerned about providing useful work for men and women. This government ought to have its eye upon that social objective. What we are trying to do is achieve full employment, not simply to achieve greater and greater levels of production.
When we in this corner talk about full employment I think we owe it to the house to make clear what we are thinking about. When the Leader of the Opposition snoke during the throne speech debate he said that during the term of office of the regime of which he was a member, unemployment was 3 per cent from 1946 to 1957. He neglected to point out that from 1954 to 1956 unemployment was 4.1 per cent and was getting worse all the time. But you cannot measure full employment with these barren statistics. You can only achieve a policy of full employment when there are more vacant jobs than there are people without jobs. That is what we in this parliament should be trying to achieve, and what the government should be trying to achieve. You cannot simply measure unemployment statistically. You have to get rid of the notion that we can have tolerable levels of unemployment.
The hon. member for Davenport in his well known report to the late Liberal government talked about a tolerable level of unemployment of 3 per cent or 4 per cent, but we say this is entirely the wrong way to look at the situation. What we ought to be trying to establish is a situation where if there is anyone out of work, be it 1 per cent or 2 per cent or 3 per cent of the labour force, there are no people who are chronically unemployed as so many thousands were during the old Liberal regime and as so many thousands have been during the present regime. What we want to achieve is a situation where anyone out of work knows and lives secure in the knowledge that he can move to another job when he wishes, or that his old job will certainly be available to him before long.
I think this is the objective that all parties in the house should be seeking. We in this corner of the house have said that this objective can be accomplished through so-
27507-3-46i
Interim Supply
cial and economic planning. The government so far have indicated that they are unwilling to grasp this concept. They have promised us a national economic development board. We are looking forward to the introduction of the legislation to establish that board, and we hope it will be legislation which will adopt in a genuine fashion the whole idea of social and economic planning. If it does so the government can rest assured that it will receive the support of hon. members in this corner of the house.
But we believe that the government should be giving serious consideration to the kind of planning that will bring about full employment in this country. You cannot bring about full employment simply by increasing the supply of money. I know that hon. members opposite in the Social Credit group believe that you can, but you cannot do it in that simple way. True, increasing demand, increasing purchasing power, increasing the supply of money-this is one of the tools by which you can achieve prosperity and full employment, but by itself it will not accomplish a great deal. We could increase transfer payments in this country and we would not achieve full employment, because by putting purchasing power in the hands of our people we do not bring idle labour and idle capacity together. This, of course, is what our friends opposite continually overlook. This is the fundamental fallacy of their approach to the matter.


Mr. Patterson:: I am glad you have studied it, anyway.


Thomas Rodney Berger: The necessity we must face is the necessity for planning, and you cannot plan if you are simply going to increase the supply of money-
(Translation):


An hon. Member:: And the balance, later on?
(Text):


Thomas Rodney Berger: -and thereby induce a state of indiscriminate spending; because if you go to the store to buy groceries you do not by doing so put construction workers back to work. This is why we in this corner of the house feel that it is necessary to go very much beyond the rather primitive concept which those who espouse Social Credit theories urge us to accept, because we believe that you have to plan public and private investment in this country.
(Translation):


An hon. Member:: How will you go about it? (Text):


Thomas Rodney Berger: The government has the fiscal and monetary tools to regulate public investment in Canada and, as speakers from this corner of the house have already done, I


An hon. Member:: No, I said set up a woollen mill.


Thomas Rodney Berger: This is the kind of thing you get when you plumb the intellectual depths of the Conservative party.
In our view, Mr. Chairman, a Canadian development fund would make money available to provide social capital at all levels of government. In this way we could enable private enterprise to expand its operations, and we would be enabled eventually to repatriate so much of our industry that has fallen under foreign control. One spokesman for the Liberal party, the hon. member for Davenport, did deplore the fact that so much of our manufacturing industry, our petroleum industry, our mining industry, had fallen under foreign control. Well, the fact that so much of our industry is under foreign control results from the policies, or perhaps they would be better described as non-policies, of the old Liberal government. After the war the Liberals allowed foreign investment, principally United States investment, to come into this country so that there was a vast accumulation of equity capital, and when it receded there was economic dislocation in this country.
There was no reason why this country could not have been developed by loan capital instead of equity capital. I think we in this corner should make it clear that we do not hold the present government entirely responsible for that state of affairs. It is true they have done nothing about it, but it was the old Liberal government that failed to do anything to prevent that situation coming to pass. If Canadians had control over their own economy, over their own savings, there would be no shortage of Canadian dollars and no exchange crisis. The fact is that last year, in 1961, $761 million was paid by Canada to the United States by way of interest and dividends on United States investment in Canada. When the post-war wave of investment from the United States receded, we found ourselves in the terrible situation from which the Prime Minister and his advisers are still trying to extricate us.
Today, planning in our economic affairs is even more urgently required than ever before because a new element has come into the picture. Planning has been adopted
Interim Supply
in many parts of the world for many years. However, today planners will have to take into consideration the factor of automation. This is something that planners have to do something about, and that we in this corner urge the government to do something about. Perhaps in the time that remains to me I can suggest what the government ought to do about automation, and that being the case, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Chairman, I know the Minister of Finance is anxious that I should complete my remarks, but for his benefit I feel obliged to conclude them in the way I had planned. Before the luncheon recess I was about to discuss automation. I pointed out that if the government is prepared to undertake a program of economic planning, such as we have urged it to do, it will have to take into account this new element, automation, that is making planning even more difficult than it was in past years.
Automation is designed to displace labour, but at the same time it means a vast increase is possible in our total production. It also means that because of that vast increase in total production more people are required to administer, tabulate and distribute the products of our industrial system even though fewer people are required to produce the things which our industrial system is capable of producing. Because of automation, and not just because of the government's policy, the number of people employed in producing commodities in Canada is decreasing. This is something that was revealed by a study of technological changes and their impact on employment which was undertaken by the Department of Labour economic and research branch.
This study also revealed that we cannot really expect that those people displaced from work in production will be employed in what has been called the white collar field, because as a result of office mechanization and automation the rate of increase in employment in Canadian administrative and clerical work is already decreasing, so that it is by no means certain that automation produces new jobs.
We in this corner of the house believe something can be done about automation. One of the solutions frequently advanced is that of retraining. The government is contributing to the cost of constructing and equipping

Interim Supply
vocational and technical institutions in the provinces, and 6,872 men were enrolled in these institutions across the country on a full time basis between April 1, 1960, and March 31, 1961. However these 6,000 men represent a rather insignificant fraction of the total number of people who have been displaced by automation and who are unable to find employment.
The annual report of the Department of Labour for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1961, unfortunately did not reveal how many of these people who had undertaken this retraining had actually obtained employment after they had completed their training in these institutions. We believe that in order to get to the essence of this thing we have to come up with some new ideas and new solutions.


Mr. McGee:: Before the hon. member leaves that point may I ask him a question?


Thomas Rodney Berger: Go ahead.


Frank Charles McGee: Is the hon. member aware that in the last session of parliament his party denounced this technical and vocational training school building program as an extravagant waste of the taxpayers' money?


Thomas Rodney Berger: Well, Mr. Chairman, I of course hesitate to accept the interpretation that the hon. member has placed upon remarks that may have fallen from the lips of those who represented the C.C.F. party in the last House of Commons. At any rate, I was about to turn to what I consider to be far more fundamental solutions of this problem than those the government has so far advanced, and I suggest the first of these solutions ought to be a reduction in the hours of work.
Technology has reduced the unit cost of production; and that reduction which technology has given us is something that is far greater than any increase in unit cost of production that might occur as a result of reducing the hours of work. A reduction in the hours of work would in turn increase the number of jobs available.
Other steps could be taken to mitigate the problem of the displacement of labour by automation. We ought to try to keep our young people longer at school. We in this party believe that vocational, technical and academic training at all stages and all ages should be available, regardless of ability to pay, to every man, woman and child in the country. This means not only the abolition of tuition fees but it also means living-in grants and other means of assisting young people to obtain the very best education that they can.
We also believe we should try to work out a program for earlier retirement. Today many men and women are tied to jobs because they

realize that leaving them may involve the loss of accumulated pension benefits, sickness and accident benefits, health insurance benefits and the like. We in this party have for some time advocated a system of portable pensions, a national health insurance plan and adequate old age pensions, all these things being measures that would enable people to look forward to retirement with a sense of security. They would enable people to retire earlier than they otherwise would, and would enable them to enjoy the prospects which retirement ought to bring to every citizen. There are no simple solutions to automation but the government should work on the solutions that we in this corner have advanced.
Let me remind the government that if it were able to get the economy moving again -as it claims it has done even though to the rest of us that does not appear to be the case-if there were an annual rate of economic growth of 5 or 6 per cent, that in itself would not be adequate to provide jobs for those who will continue to be displaced by automation as a result of the increase in the rate of technological progress. Therefore the government ought to look at the revolutionary impact which automation already is having on the country. The shorter working week is one suggestion, and the proposal to shorten the working lifetime of men and women is one that the government may consider to be radical, or even revolutionary. But although such proposals might alter existing social patterns, they would not create social problems. They would provide social opportunities for all our citizens, opportunities which have been enjoyed up to this point by only a fraction of our people.
We have heard in previous speeches that some hon. members sitting in other parts of the house regard social and economic planning as an imposition of some kind of regimentation upon our people. This, of course, is complete nonsense. As far as we are concerned, social and economic planning is a means of affording to every citizen fundamental human rights which I suggest no other party in this house is prepared to recognize, the right to health services and medical care, the right to a job, the right to education, the right to security in retirement, the right to a decent and adequate old age pension. These are fundamental social and economic rights which for too long have been neglected by this government and its predecessor.
This government has assumed responsibility for the future of our economy. It has assumed responsibility for bringing about full employment, but it is unwilling to take the steps that are necessary to discharge the responsibility it has assumed. Nothing, in the view

of those of us who occupy this corner of the house, is more likely to bring democratic institutions into disrepute than a government which is unwilling to take the steps that we ought to be able to take and that we had better take before long in this country to bring about prosperity, to get our economy moving again and to put our people back to work.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Chown in the chair.
George Clyde Nowlan: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1963, the sum of $231,819,569.82 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Nowlan thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-68, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1963.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A and B agreed to.
On schedule C-
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before schedule C and the bill itself finally carry, I wonder if I may put one question to the Minister of Finance. My question is based on the fact that a good deal of this money we are now voting includes funds for the payment of civil service salaries.
My question is this. In view of the statement made by the minister the other day that some relaxation in one of the emergency programs has begun, is there hope that at an early date the government might have something to say about undoing the wage freeze with respect to civil servants?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows as well as I that hope springs eternal in the human breast. I have had discussions with the presidents of the various
Farm Credit Act
civil service associations and I will be carrying on further discussions with them in the immediate future. I am hopeful that steps can be taken in the not distant future to deal with this matter, at least in part.
Schedule C agreed to.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, October 18, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Hamilton-Mr. Chown in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Credit Act to increase the capital of the Farm Credit Corporation from $12 million to $16 million so as to increase the lending capacity of the corporation from $300 million to $400 million; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Mr. Whelan:: Mr. Chairman, I will only take a short period of time to finish what I was saying last evening. First of all, our investment in farm equipment on a diversified farm in eastern Canada, particularly in southwestern Ontario, is as high as it is anywhere in Canada. Our agricultural production in this part of Canada is mostly in crops that are also imported from the United States and other countries.
Most of these are in short supply in Canada. The producers in this area have made a heavy investment compared with their net return. The potential of the region has scarcely been scratched, and many acres of land have not yet been properly drained. There is room for greatly increased greenhouse accommodation, and a large supply of those vegetables which are presently imported from the United States could easily have been produced locally, thus keeping our money at home. By increasing production of these crops in Canada we could also absorb many who are now unemployed. Conditions exist naturally for the development of this industry. It is there; it has been given to us. All we have to do is to develop the possibilities presently there with the aid of modern, scientific ways of canning and processing. If this were done, employment could be provided the year around for a great many people. Many people feel that the amounts now made available through the Farm Credit Act are insufficient to provide for proper expansion.
The crops which we grow and which are in short supply, generally include not only

Farm Credit Act
the kinds of vegetables which appear on the table but include also soybeans, sugar beets and corn. I believe we can grow all the corn Canada needs, though we were not helped, I must say, by the action of the Minister of Finance the other day in taking the surtax off corn just as our own crop is being harvested. That will not help our corn producers who find they are placed in a position of competing with the United States farmers' surplus crop.
Administration of the United States farm administration loan provisions contains a number of good points, and we in our county associations recommended that several should be included in the practices of the Canadian Farm Credit Corporation. We hoped that more of them would have been included in the amendments to this act. In particular we had hoped that an advisory council would be set up

a local advisory council composed of people familiar with the problems of their own areas. I am not suggesting that those who now are responsible for the administration of these loans are not efficient. I know a number of them personally and they are doing a good job in carrying out the provisions of the act in our area.
I should also like to say that we in Canada have the prospect of developing our vegetable industry along lines which would make it possible to sell an important part of our products abroad. There is a market for these vegetables in Europe. Just this week I met the manager of a processing plant who had been in Europe selling his produce there, and he said the operation had a tremendous future.
We had a storm on June 18. I do not mean the elections; it was a hailstorm and windstorm which destroyed a lot of crops in the area of which I am speaking. I asked the government if it would agree to take the surplus from the canning interests because what the farmers planted in beans would not be harvested until October. Officials of the civil service told me at that time there was no legislation which made provisions for this to be done. I think there should be. However, action along these lines was taken by the canners. They took these beans, and this is what the canning company to which I have referred is selling in Germany at the present time.
Some hon. members who come from western Canada might think I have no knowledge of the agricultural problems in that region. However, I may say I have worked in western Canada as a farm hand and know the problems which confront the western farmer. I agree with a good deal of the legislation which has been passed to assist western farmers.

I was interested to hear the Minister of Agriculture tell western farmers that their ship had come in. Well, I live along the Detroit river which is part of the St. Lawrence waterway, and I see ships from just about every nation in the world go by as they ply that waterway. But we in southwestern Ontario are still waiting for our ship to come in.
I wonder whether either the Minister of Agriculture or the representatives of the New Democratic party would condone the practice of part time farming. I wonder, particularly, whether members of the N.D.P. would condone, say, the actions of part time tradesmen going out and moonlighting in competition with workers affiliated with the trades and labour council. I have several brothers who belong to labour unions and they feel strongly that they should not have to enter upon any other occupation in order to earn a decent living in this country, and I do not think farmers should have to take a job in a factory or anywhere else simply because our agricultural economy is not stable enough to ensure them a decent living off their farms. I think our agricultural system has possibilities for development to the point at which farmers do not have to leave their farms to become, in many cases, a surplus on the labour market. Everything which this parliament can do to keep agriculture healthy should be done, if only because of the large percentage of our labour force employed either directly or indirectly in agriculture. Our agricultural products are of high quality, and the world is in need of these products. It is up to us to sell them on the world market. Our marketing boards and processing industry are working now to expand the sale of our products abroad. Loans under this act to those who have already made a heavy investment in order to help them and others to make a decent living are one way of helping to reach this object, and I hope those who will be responsible for the administration of this measure as amended will make sure that the legislation is implemented for the benefit of agriculture throughout Canada.
(Translation):


André J. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise in this house to expound the Social Credit views on the resolution now before us.
Mr. Chairman, may I congratulate you for your appointment, as well as Mr. Speaker for being raised to such a significant post, which calls for so much patience. I am happy to commend him for the objectivity with which he guides our discussions.

Mr. Chairman, at this moment I also take pleasure in mentioning that the riding of Richmond-Wolfe, which I have the privilege of representing in this house, contains several essentially rural parishes, and that a very considerable number of the farms there are considered by the Farm Credit Corporation as marginal, because the annual income of these farmers is inadequate. Mr. Chairman, they do have inadequate income because they are forced to sell their produce at a ridiculously low price.
I want now to bring to the attention of the house a few statistics with regard to the prices of dairy products in eastern Canada in the last few years. In 1952, a hundredweight of milk was selling for $3.25 to secondary industries; in 1962, the hundredweight was sold $2.70 to the same industries, which means a decrease of 55 cents per 100 pounds.
Now, let us look at the price of balanced feed for the milk cow: In 1952, the price was $2.65 a hundredweight; in 1962, it is $3.70 a hundredweight, or an increase of $1.05 a hundredweight.
To remedy that tragic situation, several agricultural advisers recommended the enlargement of farms so as to produce more, thinking that the situation could be settled in this way.
The farmer had then to ask the corporation for an increase in the amount of the loans in view of those improvements. He had to spend terrific sums to buy farm implements, the prices of which have rapidly increased in the last few years. In order to pay for those purchases, the farmer often had to borrow from the banks or from finance companies at an interest rate which he could not afford.
Mr. Chairman, the farmers in my riding, like those across Canada, are not asking for charity. They are industrious and they strive seriously to succeed but, in order to do so, they look to their representatives in parliament for specific legislation in the field of agriculture and a marked improvement in the Farm Credit Act.
Mr. Chairman, our farmers have been too long the victims of an administration which has failed to perform its duty as far as agriculture is concerned. Perhaps our administrators were not aware of the facts, like the young lady in this story told by a farmer who used to rent cottages during the summer. The following conversation took place one morning, just a few minutes before the tourists left:
"What a pretty little cow you have over there," observed the young lady. "But how come it has no horns?" she asked the farm owner.
Farm Credit Act
"Well," the farmer replied undisturbed, "there are many reasons why a young cow like that has no horns. First, certain breeds are slow to grow horns:	their horns only show up at a rather
advanced stage in life. For others, the horns become a danger and they are cut off at some time or other in their life. Finally, we now have breeds without any horns at all. But in this case, there is a slight difference. You see, that little cow has no horns simply because it is a young horse."
Mr. Chairman, if the members of the old-line parties had been aware of the situation, maybe the Farm Credit Act would have been amended, not only to increase the capital at the disposal of its administrators but also to decrease its rate of interest.
The increase of the capital of the Farm Credit Corporation is certainly a slight improvement that will help many Canadian farmers who have to be satisfied with half measures because the present economic system, through the consequences of its implementation, is stripping our farmers of their possessions.
Mr. Chairman, in my constituency there are farms on which three generations of farmers lived without going into debt, while giving to their families security and well-being. Today these small farms are classified as uneconomic. I have to remind you that there are thousands of such farms in the province of Quebec. There are exactly 64,442 farms from one to 69 acres, 53,637 farms from 70 to 179 acres and 4,538 farms of 180 acres and over.
Today, the owners of these farms must resort to loans from the Farm Credit Corporation, with the result that all those farmers have become tenants. If strong measures are not taken soon, they will become proletarians, something to which we, of the Social Credit, object strongly.
We are for the survival of the family farm. It has been the basis not only of our economy but also of our society, since the arrival in Canada of our courageous settlers. However, the family farm cannot survive under the present economic conditions.
Will you allow me, Mr. Chairman, to give you some statistics so that we might see if that prosperity about which the hon. members opposite have talked is a fact. Since I have been in this house, I have noticed that our friends in the old parties have a way all their own of making vague statements. They use percentages that cover only one or some aspects of the problem.

Farm Credit Act
These statistics, Mr. Chairman, prove that the eastern farmers' net income decreased by $7,749,000 between 1957 and 1959. In fact, of all the eastern provinces, that is to say Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Prince Edward Island, it is only in Prince Edward Island that a net increase of $2,271,000 has been recorded. In all the other provinces the farmers' income has been subject to very substantial decreases.
In the province of Quebec, the farmers' income for the year 1962 compared to 1952- for a single year-has increased as far as gross income is concerned by about $21,567,000; but the operating costs having increased by $82,629,000, the net income of the farmers in the province of Quebec has decreased by $61,062,000.
Those figures speak for themselves, Mr. Chairman, but it is even more revealing to note on the spot the hard time the farmers have making a living and providing for their families.
Our friends of the old parties may make splendid speeches and try to have us believe that our Canadian farmers are successful, but they will fail in their attempt to convince us.
Mr. Chairman, has any consideration been given to how much a small farmer has to pay for a $15,000 loan for a 29-year term? It costs him exactly $991.50 a year or $85.95 a month. How could a small farmer afford such payments when he gets less and less for his products?
I would ask hon. members opposite to give thorough consideration to the suggestions made from this corner of the house.
The financing of Farm Credit Corporation loans by the Bank of Canada is extremely important. Such a scheme would enable the corporation to make interest-free loans to the farmers who would only have to pay for administration costs.
The improvements to the Farm Credit Act which are put forward by the Social Credit party would bring prosperity to the Canadian farmers. It is possible to do so and we will prove it after the next election, which will bring the Social Credit party to power in Canada.


Mr. Belzile:: Mr. Chairman, in my opening remarks, I would like to imitate the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Pascoe) and to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) for his obvious dedication to the agricultural class in submitting this bill

to the house at the very beginning of the session. This step will undoubtedly put at the disposal of our farmers the assistance they need for their development.
With the leave of the house, I would like to point out a fact which is not directly relevant to the legislation before us, but which, however, is close to the matter the farmers are most particularly interested in.
I would like to mention in all humility that last fall, in November, I had the honour of accompanying the Minister of Agriculture to Europe, more particularly to Rome, where we attended the eleventh international conference on food and agriculture known under the symbol F.A.O. (Food and Agriculture Organization) and which has its headquarters in the holy city.
Mr. Chairman, for a period of three weeks I have been in a position to observe the generosity of the Minister of Agriculture, his devotion to the farm people, his loyalty and his competence in the performance of his duties within the Canadian government. We know that we have accomplished something quite significant for the Canadian farmers. I just happen to remember what the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) was telling us this morning when he said that we should look after ourselves first before thinking about underdeveloped countries and all those hungry people. Their number is appalling, because according to reliable statistics, 70 per cent of the world's population is undernourished, while a few countries have foodstuffs in excess. Some countries are deprived of the required facilities to develop in order to feed their people, and they are also unable to provide an appropriate education.
Now to revert to the question under consideration, I would like to put on the official record the success experienced by that organization called food bank, which was initiated by-


Mr. Drouin:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We were very pleased to hear that the hon. member went to Europe as well as the Minister of Agriculture, but it seems to me that five minutes to discuss that matter is enough. He has been transgressing the rules since the beginning of his remarks.


The Deputy Chairman:: According to section 59, paragraph 2, I believe the remarks of the

hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin) are excellent and appropriate, but on the other hand, I am under the impression that the observations of the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Belzile) are made precisely with a view to coming to the aim of the resolution. I am sure that the hon. member will almost immediately revert to the subject under discussion.


Mr. Ricard:: The Liberals did talk to us about Cap de la Madeleine.


An hon. Member:: Nothing has been said about St. Hyacinthe.


Alfred Belzile: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before going any further, I would ask my hon. friend, the member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, to show a little more patience. I will deal more directly with the matter under consideration in a few minutes. I was saying that this bill to establish a food bank will be called to play two very important parts-


Rémi Paul: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I think he should keep as much as possible to the matter under discussion. This is not the time to make a complete analysis of the government's agricultural policy. He should discuss instead the advisability of increasing the funds to be put at the disposal of the federal Farm Credit Corporation. I urge him respectfully to come back to the subject of the resolution.


Alfred Belzile: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to prove to you that I can be obedient.
I should like to pass a few remarks about some members who have gone far afield and more than once, but, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I mention it for those who will speak after me.
Therefore, I shall confine my remarks to the resolution and I shall be brief. I do not intend to pat anybody on the back nor to criticize anyone. But let us say that I want to establish certain facts. I am entitled to it and it is my duty as a representative of the people and a member of the farming community. Of course, many members of the house know already that I am a farmer.


An hon. Member:: It shows.


Alfred Belzile: I have been a farmer, a landowner and a professional in every sense of the word since 1932, at the time of a crisis brought about by the Liberal party before getting out of office in 1930.
Farm Credit Act


Vincent Drouin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Everyone knows that the Liberal party got out of office in 1930 and sincerely we are sorry for that.


An hon. Member:: We did not know they were responsible for the depression.


Rémi Paul: The hon. member should not be so touchy about the remarks that other members of the house may make concerning a party. I feel the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane has the right to express his opinions in the house.


Alfred Belzile: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying, I started farming on my own in 1932 and it is on my farm that I raised 14 children-


An hon. Member:: That is better than having small dogs.


Alfred Belzile: -that is where, thanks to the work of my wife, my children and myself, we succeeded in feeding, clothing and raising fourteen children, eleven girls and three boys. Of course, Mr. Chairman, I do not claim to know as much about agriculture as the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) and the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin), but I am still practical enough and I have enough experience in agriculture and in those fields to express an opinion. My experience is based not only on great theories but on practical experience.
If you will allow me, I should like to quote without any malice-because I am not a bad fellow-from a speech delivered in the house on October 4, by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes. It is recorded on page 196 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, mine is a constituency which has deeply suffered from the government's unconcern since 1957 as regards agricultural policy. Most farmers back home are dairy producers, and they are facing an unprecedented crisis.
Mr. Chairman, my only reason for quoting that extract from my hon. friend's speech is to remind him, in case he does not know it yet, that in the province of Quebec, the price of milk is not under the control of the federal government, but of the dairy industry board, a provincial organization.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back-


Vincent Drouin: May I put a question to the hon. member?

Farm Credit Act


Alfred Belzile: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Alfred Belzile: Mr. Chairman, let us say that the hon. member has been given enough opportunities to interrupt me.
Naturally, Mr. Chairman, I can see that my hon. friend might not be pleased with this, because I must admit in all humility that I may not have enough competence to deal with the matter under study, for I am not a notary, or a lawyer. I am just a farmer, I can see that very well.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote without any malice-I am a good chap, you know- extracts from a speech delivered by my neighbour, the member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard), in the course of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
As shown at page 408 of Hansard, he stated:
According to experts, we have perhaps in the Gaspe peninsula the best climate in Canada for general farming.
Mr. Chairman, I like to think that the hon. member for Bonaventure has called forth the opinion of experts to declare here in the house that we have in the Gaspe peninsula the best climate in Canada. Like the member for Bonaventure, I am from the Gaspe peninsula and it is precisely for that reason that I am sure that he did not express his own opinion, because if we ask experts to tell us the real value of an acre of land, the last technician in agriculture will be able to do so.
First he will take into consideration the natural value of the soil, that is whether it is a flat or rolling land, a stony or sandy soil, an alluvial tract of land or a clay soil, etc. He will also consider its potassium, phosphoric acid and nitrogen contents. After that he will be in a position to say: This land is worth $100 an acre and such another worth $50 an acre.
On the other hand, if 1 ask the same expert to tell me the difference between the same value based on the climate of the Gaspe peninsula and that based on the climate in the St. Hyacinthe region, or the Montreal region or the Niagara valley, I think that the man is not yet born who could give me sound figures in this respect.
Mr. Chairman, when one thinks that by the end of April or the beginning of May farmers
are in their fields in the St. Hyacinthe or Montreal regions, sowing their grain, and that their cattle are out on pasture, while we, in the Gaspe peninsula, are still feeding our cows and walking in the snow; when one considers that the grazing season in the Gaspe peninsula only lasts a month or two, that during two short months only-with such periods being sometimes shortened at both ends-our cattle can actually find grazing grounds, one can certainly not make any comparison between the climate of the Gaspe peninsula and that of those districts. Furthermore, when one considers that in the Montreal and other areas I mentioned earlier cattle are turned out to pasture in May, June, July, August, September, October, and in some years until early November, one cannot say that the climate of the Gaspe peninsula is favourable.
Mr. Chairman, if I set the record straight, it was so that this house may understand that as far as climate is concerned the Gaspe farmers are entirely destitute compared with the farmers in the western parts of the province or those in other sections of the country.
Now, Mr. Chairman, to come back to the speech of the hon. member for Bonaventure, he said:
A man is a farmer or a lumberjack. He cannot and must not be both at the same time, if he wants to succeed in one field or the other.
This time, Mr. Chairman, I agree with my hon. friend. And this makes me think of the old saying my grandmother used to quote, and which says: "If you run after two hares at once, you have a good chance to catch neither." That is true, one cannot be at the same time a farmer and a lumberjack. If a survey was made among the farmers who succeeded in life, 95 or even 99 per cent would tell us that they lived on their farms, which they operated for 12 months of the year.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bonaventure made a most interesting speech, because I am always coming back to it, and I say so without any malice.
A little further he said:
We are making the same mistake again in the field of agriculture, we are putting the cart before the horse. Allow me to explain. The Canadian government is much more favourable to the granting of loans when they are used for the purchase of machinery and equipment than when they are used to improve the land.
[Mr. Drouin.l

The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) replied yesterday to those statements of the hon. member for Bonaventure.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bonaventure stated moreover:
We, from the Gaspe peninsula, have been too long forgotten. This tragedy has been with us ever since 1534, when Cartier took possession of our country by setting up a cross in Gaspe. Mr. Speaker, are you not of the opinion that this has been going on long enough? Are you not of the opinion that we have had our share of neglect?
A little further on he said:
The Gaspe peninsula has always been unrecognized, forgotten. It is time to put an end to such a situation. The Gaspe peninsula people, the farmers, the fishermen and the workers-
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the hon. member for Bonaventure that if the Gaspe peninsula has always been forgotten, it has been forgotten a longer time by the party to which he belongs, than by the Conservative party. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, since 1896, in a period of 66 years, the Liberals ruled this country for 46 years, and the Conservatives for 20.


An hon. Member:: The people found out the Liberals were not so bad.


Alfred Belzile: This means that if the Gaspe people have been forgotten, if the Gaspe peninsula has always been the unknown country, it has been forgotten for 46 years by the Liberals and for 20 years by the Conservatives. I believe this is a venial sin, compared to a mortal sin.
And now, Mr. Chairman, to come back to the measure before us, the one providing for increased funds to the Farm Credit Corporation, let us say that money is the sinews of war, that it is also the sinews-


An hon. Member:: Of Social Credit.


Alfred Belzile: -It is the sinews of the farming class, and there are problems, in this regard, not only on the provincial level, but also on the local level. In the consideration of this bill, both provincial and local levels must be taken into account.
Thus, in the practical administration of our legislation, we will have to act according to the needs of each of those areas, while taking into account the technical, climatic and economical conditions, on the local level, as well as the sale of our products, the cost price of the professional utilities, their transport rates, and also the transport rates of our farming products to the large markets.
Farm Credit Act
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the attention of the minister to a provision of the Farm Credit Act. I refer more particularly to loans granted under Part III of the Farm Credit Act. As shown in the Canada Gazettte dated January 14, 1960, Part III of the Act provides that:
Every part III loan shall, whenever practicable, be secured in its entirety by farm land.
That is a kind of loan which we also call a supervised loan. Supervised loans, or loans under Part III apply to young farmers between 21 and 45 years of age.
Therefore, the problem faced by our young farmers is a dual one.
In the first place when a young farmer owns a piece of land large enough to turn it into a profitable farm, what he lacks is herds, buildings and equipment.
In the other case, the young farmer does not own enough land to operate a farm economically.
I am in full agreement with all those members who just told us that an impressive percentage of our farms do not produce a large enough income to support a family, but if we recognize the ill, we must apply the remedy.
If a 50- or 60-acre farm cannot today support the family of its operator as it did 20 years ago, it is due to the fact that there has been a rapid change in economic trends and that the agricultural class has also felt the impact of automation. It is useless to close one's eyes to such a situation.
Mr. Chairman, we recognize the fact that small farms are not economical, therefore it is useless to give assistance to someone who will be unable by himself, despite the best of intentions, to make a success of farming. We must therefore apply the only real remedy.
The solution I advocate is to expand the farm of the young and willing farmer and, through the Farm Credit Corporation, to provide him with the moneys he needs to establish a successful farming operation. We shall see then, Mr. Chairman, prosperous farmers, and this will be more encouraging than seeing two farmers operating with difficulty two small farms.
Mr. Chairman, I shall ask the Minister of Agriculture to use his influence with the

Farm Credit Act
Farm Credit Corporation in order that its inspectors not only set up an office in our area made up of three ridings, but let them take the trouble to visit the farm and see for themselves what is the value of the soil and the ability of the farmer, as well as the conditions under which his family lives, in order to help him financially and in a logical and practical way. This way, the future of a farmer would not be decided by officials in an office 300 miles distant; it would be decided on the spot whether the farmer should be assisted or abandoned to his fate.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the members for their kind attention.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, does the member for Matapedia-Matane permit a question? Does he favour the construction of a grain elevator at Rimouski, which would serve not only the farmers in the Matapedia valley but also those living as far as St. Leon le Grand? Such an undertaking would be a good thing.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I should like to point out to the hon. member for Bellechasse that as the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane has not used up all his time-in fact he has one minute left-he has the right, under the standing orders, to reply to the member for Bellechasse if he wishes to.


Alfred Belzile: I am pleased to say to the hon. member for Bellechasse that I am all in favour of the project he has just mentioned.
For his information, I might add, that in my capacity as a supporter of the government, I have been interceding for three years with the proper authorities to obtain exactly the same thing as he is asking as a member of the opposition.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Chairman, may I associate myself with those who, before me, have taken the floor since the house has been sitting in committee to congratulate you on your appointment to the chairmanship. I fully support the kind words that have been said about you, as well as about the vice-chairman who is now occupying your chair and to whom I offer my best wishes.
1 should like also to congratulate the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane who has raised a fine family of 14 children during the prosperous 22 years of Liberal administration. Surely he would not have succeeded so well under a Conservative austerity program.

Before going on to the bill now before us, may I say, for the information of the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane, that I was aware on October 4 last of the existence of the dairy industry board.
I only deplored, at the time, a state of affairs which is now to the advantage of large dairies, and detrimental to our milk producers. I am convinced that if the hon. member is really what he described himself to be, a moment ago, he will also deplore that situation. So, I take this opportunity to wish the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane a little more influence in his party, in order that it will not take three years to carry out the fine projects recommended by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton).
The official opposition is favourable to increasing the capital of the Farm Credit Corporation from $12 to $16 million so as to increase the lending capacity of the corporation from $300 to $400 million and make it possible for the corporation to be more generous with regard to loan applications submitted to it. We hope that eastern farmers will have their fair share of that increase in the corporation's funds.
Unfortunately, our eastern farmers, and more particularly those of the province of Quebec, have not sufficiently benefited from farm credit loans in the last few years.
Indeed, one only has to look at the last financial report of the Farm Credit Corporation to realize that all the farmers are not equally taking advantage of the facilities under this act.
When I refer to the last report of the Farm Credit Corporation for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1962, I see, on page 20 of this publication, a table giving the following figures.
During the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962, the farmers from the province of Saskatchewan were allowed 1,936 loans, while during the same period, only 109 loans were approved for the farmers in the province of Quebec. And, still more significant perhaps, if we compare this table with the one that is to be found on page 22, we see that the number of loans actually handed out in Saskatchewan during this period amounted to 1,890, hardly 2 per cent less than the number which had been approved. On the other hand, in the province of Quebec only 66 loans were

Farm Credit Act
actually granted, over 40 per cent less than the number of approvals.
With the consent of the house, I should like, at this stage, to put on record these two tables so that hon. members be spared listening to the tedious reading of those figures. Do I have the permission to put these two tables into Hansard?


Gordon Campbell Chown: I must tell the hon. member that he needs the unanimous consent of the house in order to have these tables printed into Hansard. Has the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes permission from the house to file these two tables?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables referred to above are as follows:]



FARM CREDIT

[Stage Direction]
Table VI

[Stage Direction]
Distribution by provinces of farm loans approved during the year ending March 31, 1962
Number Amount $
British Columbia 	. 244	4,051,500Alberta	. 1,518	18,447,600Saskatchewan 	. 1,936	19,812,350Manitoba 	. 429	5,024,000Ontario 	. 1,383	17,104,000Quebec 	. 109	1,786,100New Brunswick 	. Ill	1,109,700Nova Scotia 	. 41	499,900Prince Edward Island ..	. 113	733,200Newfoundland 	. 1	6,1005,885	68,574,850Table VIII

[Stage Direction]
Table showing, by provinces, the amount of farm loans granted during the year
ending March 31, 1962
Part II
Province	Number Amount
British Columbia 	222	$ 3,251,911.12Alberta 	1,416	16,228,245.74Saskatchewan 	1,890	18,694,237.76Manitoba 	412	4,648,755.25Ontario 	1,519	18,066,625.41Quebec 	66	827,683.64New Brunswick 	81	775,839.72Nova Scotia 	31	377,673.90Prince Edward Island .	110	658,477.63Newfoundland 	1	6,100.00Part III	Total
Number Amount Number Amount
	$		$
23	555,724.16	245	3,807,635.2856	1,199,066.33	1,472	17,427,312.0761	1,008,888.66	1,951	19,703,126.4216	301,481.38	428	4,950,236.6372	1,319,057.59	1,591	19,385,683.0034	740,573.33	100	1,568,256.975	75,645.03	86	851,484.752	34,927.38	33	412,601.2810	115,961.22	120	774,438.85-	-	1	6,100.005,748	63,535,550.17	279	5,351,325.086,027	68,886,875.25
Vincent Drouin: Mr. Chairman, must we draw the conclusion, from these figures, that the act itself is bad? I do not believe so. On the contrary, the legislation is good and farm credit has been mostly useful to our farmers since 1929. However, the facts are there. This legislation is helping out the western farmers while the eastern farmers are not getting any benefit from it.
I believe that this unfair situation is due to two main reasons: first, the guarantees required by the corporation are too heavy for most of the applicants and, second, the Farm Credit Act has not been given enough publicity to make it known among the farmers.
As I said when I took part in the discussion on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, there is no doubt that the regulations governing the administration of this act are of such a nature that they favour large operators to the detriment of small farmers.
The requirements concerning the guarantees that the borrowers must offer are such that those who need above all a government loan to improve their farming unit or even to save it from bankruptcy cannot financially qualify to obtain this loan.
It is inconceivable that nearly 50 per cent of the applications are rejected on the ground that the applicants fail to have, according to

Farm Credit Act
the officials of Farm Credit Corporation, the required guarantees to repay the loan which they would otherwise be granted.
As a result, practically only those who operate larger farms, with modern and appropriate equipment, may qualify for loans from the corporation.
Last year, the total amount a farmer could borrow was increased to $27,500, no consideration being given to the smaller farmer who might want a loan from $5,000 to $6,000 to free himself of those loan companies which ask 18, 20 or even 24 per cent interest.
Those excessive limitations are in no way justified, because the farmer is an experienced businessman who meets his obligations in an exemplary way.
Indeed, as the hon. member for Assiniboia pointed out, over 99 per cent of those who were granted loans under the Farm Credit Act are meeting their obligations.
It is obvious, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Agriculture does not know the problems of our farmers. But the figures I just quoted should be food for thought for him and incite him to adjust his policy so as to eliminate the blatant discrimination against our eastern farmers.
The second reason for which our farmers do not benefit from this act as they should, is the fact that the advantages offered by the Farm Credit Corporation did not receive enough publicity.
Our farmers do not know that legislation and I received proof thereof, on several occasions in the last two years I practised my profession, and in a still more striking manner since I became a member of parliament for my riding.
I have here, in many hand, a well made publicity folder showing up the advantage of that legislation and the way it works. The first edition of that publication goes back to June 1961. Yet, no way has as yet been found to distribute it among farmers for whom it is intended.
During the last session, a copy of that publication seems to have been handed to each hon. member, and, at this time, it is only sent to those who are asking for a loan. But the farmer should have this pamphlet in hand before asking for a loan, as it would acquaint him with the very existence of this act, and inform him that he might qualify for a loan and, lastly, it would indicate to him how to obtain it.

That pamphlet, should-and I am stressing the point to the Minister of Agriculture-be sent to all rural post offices in this country to be added to the mail of every farmer, so as to make all needed information available to him.
The minister had his photograph printed on the first page of that folder. Surely it was not for the benefit of his colleagues, as we all have the opportunity of seeing him in person, of looking at the original in this house, from time to time. But the eastern farmers never had the pleasure of seeing him in person; they would be happy to see at least his picture, from time to time.
During the fiscal year 1961-62, the corporation received five official applications for loans from farmers in my riding of Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes. Three were accepted, two rejected.
These figures do not take into account, however, the applications that were made through the former Conservative member and never reached the corporation.
In that connection, I learned with satisfaction last week that the inspector who fell in with the former member's petty political manoeuvres which I condemned in the house last October 4, has been replaced in our district. I thank those who took that very wise decision and I trust that the new inspector will show himself equal to the task entrusted to him and will fill his post conscientiously.
I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that if our farmers were aware of the advantages of the federal farm loans, the corporation would receive many more requests from the province of Quebec, all the more so since the government of that province passed at its last session a law providing for the refund of half the interest charged by the corporation. That law passed by Mr. Lesage's government will undoubtedly make federal loans much more attractive.
If that advertising pamphlet issued by the Farm Credit Corporation were distributed to our farmers, we would see a considerable increase in the number of applications for loans.
I would not like it if my representations on behalf of the eastern farmers were taken to be directed against the western farmer.
I have said in a previous speech, and I repeat it, I am not jealous of the advantages that the western farmers enjoy. On the contrary, I welcome sincerely any measure that ensures their prosperity, because their prosperity benefits indirectly the whole population of the country.

On account of this increase in the funds made available to the Farm Credit Corporation, we have the opportunity to bring about, through appropriate advertising, a considerable increase in the number of applications for loans from the east.
Our farmers are not asking for special treatment; they merely want to be treated like first class citizens of the confederation.
They are entitled to a fair share of the national budget, and that is what I claim for them.
In the last few years, agriculture has certainly lost some of its relative importance in eastern Canada as a result of intensive industrial development. Nevertheless, it still remains the cornerstone of our economy and deserves enough consideration by the government to have a minister of agriculture appointed for eastern Canada.
(Text):


Barry Mather: The constituency which I represent has within its boundaries many farms and many types of farming operation. In addition to fruit farms there are vegetable farms, poultry farms and dairy farms. With regard to the latter, and on their behalf, I was glad yesterday that the government came out to say a word of praise for the cows of Canada. It was in regard to their suggested implication with the strontium fallout situation. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said that while cows and milk had been mentioned in connection with strontium tests, this should not be regarded as evidence that milk was strontium prone. It just happens to be one of the liquids chosen by the experts when they are investigating strontium fallout. I think it would have been more appropriate to have chosen some other fluid in this connection; perhaps beer, whisky or vodka might have been more to the point. Nevertheless, as I say, I was glad that the government has given the cows of Canada a good word.
The fact is that the Canadian cow has a moral and spiritual as well as a material value in our economy. In my riding, as is probably the case in others across Canada, it is the cow that brings or keeps the farmer at home in the late afternoon. The farmer is home because he has to be there to milk the cow. The same cow gets him to bed early in the evening, unlike city executives who, I am told, often frequent nightclubs and similar establishments until a late hour. The farmer is in bed early because he knows he has to get up again early in the morning to milk the same cow. So, in my riding at least, it is the cow which is keeping the farmer of Canada on the straight and narrow path. I might say in passing that it would not be a bad idea I think sometimes if we had a
Farm Credit Act
few cows here on parliament hill. Let me say in this regard that I think too many of the farmers in my constituency will not-


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


Barry Mather: Yes.


George Louis Chatterton: Is the hon. member implying that the farmers who do not have cows are not on the straight and narrow path?


Barry Mather: No; I do not imply that. However, I still think that the cow might help many farmers.
With regard to the legislation which is before us let me say seriously that while we in our party support it for what it is and as far as it goes, yet I am afraid it is not going to do much to solve the problems of the farmers, at least not those in my part of the country. Too many of the farmers there are paying excessively high prices for feed, fertilizer and other things they need in their production. Feed prices have risen $20 a ton in one year. On the other hand they have unstable markets with resulting insecurity. When they have a good crop they do not know where they can sell it or what the price is going to be. United States farm produce is being brought into the market in British Columbia in competition with our home grown produce in large quantities at presumably low prices; but, Mr. Chairman, these low prices seem to be very seldom passed on to the consuming public. At the same time the low priced United States produce keeps down the prices to our British Columbia farmers. Carrots are a good example. A farmer may get two cents a pound for B.C. carrots but California carrots are selling for 15 cents a pound. This is a big price spread. One direct result of all this is the decline in the farm population. According to the dominion bureau of statistics the farm population of British Columbia in 1961 was 77,540 compared to one of 109,919 in 1951. Much of the loss in this farm population has occurred in the lower Fraser Valley. What is needed as well as lending legislation for the farmers, as I know them, is more and better legislation, the enforcement of the Combines Investigation Act and the taxation of excess profits. We need also established guaranteed floor prices under farm produce. The farmers also need a reduction in the taxes on their land.
I was very much interested last evening to hear the second in command of the Social Credit party say, in relation to the farm loan legislation that money was not everything, that not everything could be accomplished by money; that the farmers might get the loans but they might be worse off as a result of it; and that what was needed basically was more guaranteed price legislation to sell produce

Farm Credit Act
on the farm. I congratulate him on that thinking and I hope that, as time goes by, he may come over and join the New Democratic group in this house who believe in democratic economic planning for Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Ouellel:: No opportunity was given to me, Mr. Chairman, to congratulate the Speaker of the house-I am sorry that he is not in his chair-for his impartiality in presiding over the debates of the house. Frankly, he has proved, in the course of the week, that ours is a democratic country even though he experiences some trouble to apply the standing orders at the present time.


An hon. Member:: Just look at who is speaking.


André Ouellet: He had to call for order and I believe that he is not at all responsible for the charges levelled against him.


An hon. Member:: How nice of him.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I seem to be hearing two voices at the same time. I would like the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska to be able to speak without being interrupted.


André Ouellet: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I listened carefully to the opinions of the members who spoke on the act which is submitted to us by the Minister of Agriculture, and which provides for a capital increase to allow a greater number of loans to be granted to farmers in the country.
For the time being, Mr. Chairman, one thing is certain-this legislation is necessary. But I am not sure this will solve the problem definitely. It may solve it temporarily because, as you might have noticed from the statistics quoted by the minister, a great number of farmers have borrowed from the Farm Credit Corporation. I do not know whether our friends opposite take pride in this fact, but you cannot but realize and regret that more and more farmers are poor and getting poorer every day.
My riding is partly agricultural, partly urban. I know something about agriculture because I was raised on a farm, in the constituency of the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane. It was said earlier that farmers had a hard time under the Liberal administration. I was farming then, and I must say that unfortunately the depression continued under the Conservative administration from 1930 to 1935 and also under the Liberal administration from 1935 to 1939. In 1940, the
war which was an unfortunate event enabled politicians to save face for a while.
In all truthfulness, if the farmers of this country were here in this house to hear the proposals made here and see the benefits offered under the bill before us, they would be happy and would feel affluent during the time they would be listening to us, but unfortunately the day would come when they would have to face reality and that day would not be too far away.
The problem as it faces the farmers now, is not so much a money problem, but rather a problem of marketing their production. I am certain that if the government would take the necessary steps to market farm products, farm loans would not be necessary any more.
However, I commend the minister for having thought, at least momentarily, of solving the most urgent problem, by asking for a substantial increase. But I wonder if, under the circumstances he went far enough.
Farmers are complaining that they never meet him. If ever they meet him, they will be forced to recognize his kindness. I am positive that he has the best of intentions, but he, like others, is bound to the financiers and he probably cannot do what he would like to do.
We are made fun of when we bring forth solutions, when we ask that loans to farmers should be financed by the Bank of Canada, without interest and only at cost. Farmers want only to live.
The member for Matapedia-Matane pointed out that farmers who work their land during the summer and go to the bush during the winter do not succeed. It is obvious and I found that out myself when I used to operate a farm. Even doing both, we were starving.
It was pointed out that the Liberals were in power longer than the Conservatives and that the latter were only guilty of venial sins. I do not know about the sins of either group, but I do know that I would not absolve them.
After listening to some members in this house, I find that they are excellent salesmen; so much so in fact that if I ran a refrigerator factory, I would hire them to sell those appliances to the Eskimos and I would be sure to have a booming industry.
That is exactly what the farmer no longer wants, he is disgusted with fine speeches. All he wants is action. He is quite willing to work. Therefore, when I see that farmers are asked to pay $50 to have their farms inspected-and I know what I am talking

about-I wonder whether the government Could not keep this amount and pay it back after the loan has been retired.
Someone said yesterday that to have a fairly well organized farm, a farmer needs at least $25,000. If you work out the farmer's average income, after he has paid interest on that amount, he has absolutely nothing left to live on, because he has to pay out three quarters of his income on interest alone.
A study of the statistics mentioned in the report indicates that formerly the farm was being mortgaged. The farmer was thus in a strait-jacket. Today, through the banks, all his farm machinery is mortgaged.
If the question is considered seriously, it is realized that we shall certainly have to review the situation, since the farmer gets almost nothing from the sale of his products.
It is also known that many farmers buy farm machinery of a cheap finish-what could be called a scrap-heap-for which they are charged $3,000 or $4,000, and besides that farmers are allowed to mortgage their possessions at the bank, to Anally be able to pay for years supplementary interests, when they already paid too much for those farm machines.
Mr. Chairman, farm credit is certainly a good thing. My father got a loan for his farm more than 20 years ago. He is dead now and the only thing he left to his son, my brother, is the farm loan that my brother keeps on paying, with interest. Honestly, what an estate.
Today, they And we do not have enough of it. They want to enslave others still more. Indeed we do what is most urgent Arst. It is true that the situation is serious, but we must admit, for instance, that Quebec farmers, those in my riding as well as elsewhere, never enjoyed the same treatment as those in the west. They never had guaranteed prices for instance.
I hope my good friends from the west will not hold this remark against me because it must be recognized that when we have talked about agriculture in Canada, we have always talked about subsidies for wheat. As far as the eastern farmers are concerned, they do not remember ever getting any.
Consequently, we must remember that the eastern farmers are still a part of Canada, as much as the western farmers, and, in the
Farm Credit Act
future, they should be treated exactly the same way. We can claim that right because we are worth as much as the farmers in the other parts of the country.
Mr. Chairman, I was brought up in the Gaspe peninsula, just like my hon. friend. I lived in his riding and, if I were still there, I do not know if I would vote for him. I know the hard life these people have and, frankly, I am of the opinion that this situation should have been studied sooner.
I hope that we, in the province of Quebec, will have also the pleasure of seeing the Minister of Agriculture. Frankly, if I had not come to the house, I think I would never have known him.
That conArms somewhat the remark made by an hon. member a short while ago. In fact, I do not know if that would improve matters, but it would enable him to see for himself that we are unfairly treated in eastern Canada, and that an assistant minister of agriculture in eastern Canada should have been appointed a long time ago.
There is another thing that I noticed with regard to the measure under study. It is about insurance and they would make loans to farmers between 21 and 45 years of age. If we look at the increase in the number of loans granted until now, we And that farmers from 21 to 45 years old who have always made a success of their farm operations but today And it necessary to get a loan, must be protected. What shall we do to protect them by way of farm loan insurance? Farmers over 45 also have rights. A special premium should be set for them. If they do not wish to take advantage of this insurance, let them at least have the satisfaction of saying it was offered to them.
Under the circumstances, I give the proposed amendment my wholehearted support, but I remain convinced that this measure will not solve the farmers' problem. The government must then make every effort to And outlets for their products. When we have succeeded in Anding markets, it should be easier to deal with the problem and more farmers should be happy.
(Text):


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks at this time in answer to the speech made last evening by the Minister of Agriculture. I wish to say Arst of all that I am extremely pleased to see so much

Farm Credit Act
interest in the house in farm legislation and to see such an interest in getting workable legislation in all parts of the nation. I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture for the very kind references he made about me and I want to say that I am exceedingly pleased, as I am sure all hon. members are, to see the Minister of Agriculture in perfect health again and able to deliver a very spirited address in this house.
I should like to deal with some of the things that the Minister of Agriculture referred to in his speech and to point out what I believe were a great many discrepancies and matters that require explaining to the house. The first objection that was taken by the Minister of Agriculture was to the net income figures that have been used by members of the Liberal party in dealing with this legislation. I want to point out to the minister that the net income figures that have been used in this debate are taken from a dominion bureau of statistics publication. I believe they are authentic. They have been used by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in various presentations. I have in my hand the dominion bureau of statistics publication with respect to farm net income, 1960, in which it is explained what is meant when the term "farm net income" is used. Under the heading "Farm Net Income Concepts" it is stated:
Two concepts are used in preparing estimates of farm net income from farming operations for this report. One is called realized net income-
I notice that the hon. member for Acadia is not in his seat, but yesterday he used this definition.
One is called realized net income and is obtained by adding together cash income from the sale of farm products, supplementary payments and the value of income in kind and deducting farm operating expenses and depreciation charges.
Then, net income has a refinement. The brief goes on to say this:
The other is referred to as total net income and is obtained by adjusting realized net income to take into account changes occurring in inventories of livestock and stocks of grains on farms between the beginning and end of the year.
In other words, if a farmer has liquidated part of his cattle, this change in inventory position is taken into account. By using farm net income figures, the figures used by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we are able to point out to the minister that farm net income in 1961 was the lowest since 1954. If you remove the 1954 figure, then farm net income in 1961 was at the lowest point at any time since 1945. This, we suggest is a condition that hon. members should not apply. It is a condition that should be improved and no matter whether hon. members wish to quote cash income figures or realized income

figures, I think any accountant would say that it is the net position that is of great importance and the net position of agriculture has been steadily declining.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture went on to tell us that there were going to be some changes made. He said that he was going to have some changes made in the regulations to allow loans to be made on poultry. I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture, with deference, that if loans are to be made on poultry the best way of bringing this about is to change the act itself. If such a provision were placed in the act, then the poultry producers would know this was a right they had. It would be certain; it could not be taken away except by a further act of this parliament. This is a much better position for the poultry producer than to have a change in the regulations, even if such change were constitutional and legal. I should like to be assured by the minister on what grounds the regulations could be changed to provide money for the poultry industry when no such provision is contained in the act itself, as I read it. However, even if, in the minister's opinion and in the opinion of the legal advisers to the government, it should be in order, I suggest it would be far more satisfactory to have an amendment to the act itself so it would remove any doubt about this feature and would give it the permanency of legislation rather than the impermanency of placing it in the regulations.
The minister went on to try to defend the fee for services, as he called it, or the appraisal fee. I thought he had a rather weak defence. The minister said, in defending this $50 fee, "Well, do not feel too sorry for people who are supposed to have paid this $50 fee because I would say a great many of them did not pay a dollar; you are giving that service as a free service, but some fee has to be established." How could it be an appraisal and a free service, if the only answer the applicant gets is, no? My understanding of the $50 appraisal fee was that this money was to enable the Farm Credit Corporation to go out and look at the farm and actually appraise it. This is no appraisal, no matter what the minister may term it, when the applicant comes into the office and they merely say to him: "You are not eligible for a loan, therefore we will charge you nothing."


Mr. Woolliams:: I wonder if my hon. friend would permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: When I sit down, my hon. friend can ask all the questions he likes. I would suggest to the minister that this $50 fee is a bar to the provision of small loans. It is inequitable to ask a farmer who gets a small loan, and who obviously has a small

farm, to pay the same appraisal fee as a man who gets a big loan. How can you say, with any degree of equity, to the farmer who gets a small loan that he has to pay a $50 fee and the man who gets a large loan is also told that he has to pay $50? Surely, this is making the little guy pay through the nose and is a bar that should be removed. I suggest to the minister that the original appraisal fee of $10 was far preferable in every way to the $50 fee which has been provided by the regulations.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we in this party have been asking the minister to consider sending this measure to the agricultural committee. We think it is a good suggestion. We think it would be a very good thing to have this measure go before the agricultural committee where the officials could be called, where they would give evidence, where they could be questioned, where we could ask the minister to give us some answers to some of the problems that have been raised. I regret very much that the leader of the Social Credit party, when he spoke following my speech the other night, opposed this suggestion. I feel it was a mistake on his part because I do feel that many members in the Social Credit group want to see a better deal for the farmer.
But apparently some kind of arrangement has been made in this house so that no matter what the vote is, no matter what the justice of the vote is, the members of the Social Credit party always vote with the government. Now, that seems to be the situation. I do not favour the deal that they have made.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What deal did you make, yourself?


Hazen Robert Argue: I would suggest to them that they have carried this much too far.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I would make two points. I think there is a suggestion of imputing motives to the Social Credit party, and that is not in good taste. I do not think the hon. member can comment on this sort of thing and really stay within the rule of relevancy as it relates to the resolution under consideration.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw any implication of motives. I come back to saying that I believe it would be a good idea to send the bill which will be introduced following this resolution to the committee on agriculture. I point out to the members of the house, and I point out particularly to the members of the Social Credit party, that here would be a good opportunity for the members of this house from all
Farm Credit Act
parties to make recommendations for excellent changes. These would not involve matters of confidence in this committee. I suggest the $50 fee should be reduced to $10. This would not upset the government in any way. If a recommendation came into this house to change the formula in such a way that smaller farmers could get more loans, it would be a recommendation and not want of confidence.
Then, when these recommendations came from the agricultural committee to this house, with the blessing I would hope of the Conservative members in the committee and certainly I would hope of members of other parties, the government could decide whether or not they would accept those recommendations. If they feel so strongly opposed to certain regulations, then if they wish they can get up in the house and say this is a matter of want of confidence. I do not think they would, and by the leader of the Social Credit party saying he is opposed to having this measure go to the committee he has done a disservice to the farmers from one end of the country to the other. By refusing to send it to the committee he has made it impossible for the members of the agricultural committee to effect a large measure of improvement in the bill that is to be presented to this house.
The minister had a lot of things to say in his speech. As recorded at page 688 of Hansard for October 18, he said:
There were some new members who, probably in their innocence, told the committee that we have to give more loans to the small farmers. That is exactly what we have been doing.
Yet when we tried to find out the range of loans given to small farmers we did not get the information. We got a little information. The minister took a high figure and said there were 2,500 farmers who got loans of $10,000 or less, out of somewhat less than
6,000	farmers who received loans. This means that only 42 per cent of the farmers received loans of less than $10,000 and 58 per cent of the loans were in excess of $10,000. This proves, I suggest even without the other evidence which I asked the minister to produce, that the small farmer has been discriminated against all down the line.
I further suggest that there is a reason for this. The government has raised interest rates so high that the Farm Credit Corporation is losing money, and I am afraid that if they were asket about it in the agricultural committee they would reply "Well, we are lending the money in the big loans. We will not have high administrative costs if we put the money out in fewer loans, in large amounts

Farm Credit Act
instead of in small loans in larger numbers." This is an attempt to control the size of the losses the corporation has experienced.
I ask the minister this afternoon to produce the tables I asked him to produce last night showing the number of loans in the various categories. It is important to get that information; but when we said more money should be provided for the small farmer he replied "We are doing it." However, the figures do not prove it. Indeed the facts and figures prove the very opposite.
The provisions of the act specify that farm property must be put forward as security, and set out the percentage that must be loaned against property. The minister also said:
Today we ask only one thing: Will this loan make it possible for this man to make more money for his family? We are not going to lend money to anybody if it is going to put him in a hole where he is always under this debt.
We now know that 55 per cent of the applications have been rejected and, according to the minister's own statement, they have been rejected because lending money to these people would only put them in the hole. What a condemnation this is of the government's agricultural policy, to say that 55 per cent of the farmers who seek loans are in such a position that if they were given the money they would be in the hole on a permanent basis.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He never said that.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister says they are helping the farmers in Nova Scotia, and the technique there is to lend money on the character of the person concerned, to lend him money on the opportunity which exists, and not on any casual assets he may have. That would be illegal.


Mr. Rapp:: Make your own speech.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister says there is a new clause. I cannot find it in the act or in the regulations; but if they are lending money on character instead of farm land-


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: You would not get much.


Hazen Robert Argue: -how is it there are just 41 farmers in Nova Scotia out of some 12,000 who have enough character, in the words of the Minister of Agriculture, to get a loan under this legislation? The minister knows there is no provision for lending money on character. An applicant has to produce some real asset, and it is given as security on the loan he receives. I do not believe that to put this forward as a real proposition contributes very much to the proper administration of the act.
The minister made quite a speech. At times it was a moving speech and one could just feel the need of farmers across the country to get something from the government. The minister was also frank. He said they were not doing a very good job in some parts of Canada and they wanted to improve it, but he added that they were doing a good job in western Canada.
He said he went out to western Canada during the election campaign and told the farmers there "Our ship has come in". He went on to say that he told the western farmers that his efforts for the next two or three years would be directed to those areas of Canada that needed to be lifted up. I agree there are areas that need to be lifted up, but the farmers in western Canada must be amazed to hear from the minister that he thinks their ship has come in and that now he will direct his detailed attention to other fields.
What happened out in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba since the election? The government had the initial price of Durum wheat reduced by $1 a bushel on August 1, and the amount of wheat shipped from the lakehead this year from western Canada, in the navigation season to date, has totalled just 100 million bushels as compared with 168 million bushels of wheat last year. The ships may be moving but they are apparently little over half full, and the farmers in western Canada will remember that the minister thinks their ship has come in.


An hon. Member:: Watch your own doesn't sink.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister told the farmers in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba that they would get $2.19 a bushel, but the price has never reached even $2 a bushel. Can the minister explain that to them?
The Prime Minister was in his seat earlier this afternoon and I only wish he were here now. He went out to western Canada and said that if he were returned as Prime Minister he would make acreage payments permanent. There is no reference to that in the speech from the throne. The western farmers took the Prime Minister at his word, but where is the reference to $1 an acre in the throne speech? The western farmers will not be very pleased with that kind of treatment since the election.
The Minister of Agriculture says that from now on he is going to do his work in the east. Well, he has lots to do; but what has he been doing? A few days ago he made a threat to the dairy producers and warned

them that if they did not curtail the production of butter he would cut the floor price. That does not sound too helpful.
He said he would help the eastern farmers, but the first thing he did was to reduce the premium on grade A hogs from $3 to $2 a head. How does that help the eastern farmers? He robbed them of $1 per hog, but he made certain not to mention during the election that this was going to be done.
He also said he was going to do something for the poultry producers. They have not been getting any loans under this act and he said he was sorry for them and would do something for them. He was going to change the regulations. I said that I wished he would put it in the act. He said a farmer should be able to get a loan if he has 2,000 or 3,000 hens. He said an operation of this kind is a medium sized poultry farm. He went on to say, and I quote from his statement:
I lor one do not want to call him a large farmer because he has 2,000 or 3,000 hens. It requires at least that number of hens to give a family any kind of a living.
I have no quarrel with that statement. Yet the other day the Minister of Agriculture announced the deficiency payment on eggs and he said the payment would be limited to a maximum of 4,000 dozen eggs a year per farmer. Now the minister says the farmer, if he is going to make any kind of a living, has to have 3,000 hens; but the deficiency payment is on 4,000 dozen eggs. What kind of hens was the minister talking about-16 eggs in one year from a hen? That is all the support that is going to come from the government. I do not know whether they are prehistoric hens or Tory hens-that do not lay anything-or just what is wrong. But surely that is scarcely a sound policy, to say that a farmer has to have 3,000 hens to make any kind of a living, and they will provide a support price on 16 eggs per hen in one year, when a hen that is worth its feed should be laying 200 eggs a year or more.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What a hen.


An hon. Member:: The minister laid an egg.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister went on to make a very interesting speech. He had a lot of things to say. But I will tell the committee one part of the speech that I did not appreciate and which I felt the minister should not have made. I do not think it was becoming: I do not think it was fitting; I do not think it was in keeping with the type of country we have. He said that he went out across this country and gave little lectures to the administrators of the Farm Credit Corporation. He said:
I have driven home as hard as I can exactly what I have been saying here today. I used this
Farm Credit Act
type of simple little lectures, that I do not care how miserably dressed a person is when he walks into your office-
As a farmer I take that as a slight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friends can giggle if they like. I do not think the farmers of this country walk around miserably dressed. I think they are dressed as well as any other people in a similar kind of occupation. But the minister did not leave it at that. He said:
Even though a person speaks in broken English-
I do not know what the minister was thinking about. He did not leave it at that. He went on to say there were people years ago administering this program who took such things into account. I have lived in a community in Saskatchewan where 1 have been almost a minority of one as a person with an Anglo-Saxon background. I live in a community in Saskatchewan today where almost everyone in the community either came to Canada from the old country or whose father or parents came from the old country. They do not speak broken English. They speak English as well as my relatives and ancestors, who came from the Ottawa valley and had a nice little Irish accent that I think is very pleasant. I do not think it behooves the Minister of Agriculture to say or infer that the agricultural producers who come in for loans are miserably dressed and speak in broken English. I think that kind of stuff should be left out of a speech and left out of this house; it should not have been referred to by the Minister of Agriculture.
We have put forward a number of suggestions. We will have more suggestions to put forward in this committee as the days go on. But I suggest to the government and to the Minister of Agriculture, who I know would like to see this bill and other legislation improved, that particularly when we are a group of minorities in the house, the way to improve this legislation is to send it to the committee on agriculture where it can be considered and important improvements to be made in the legislation can be recommended to this house.


Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to reply to the hon. member for As-siniboia except on one point, because the praise I gave him last evening for being moderate and constructive apparently went to his head and he comes out with a speech similar to those he used to make when he was with the C.C.F. As a result there are no more C.C.F. members in Saskatchewan.
There is only one point the hon. member made that I think warrants any kind of attention. That is the one where he tried to

Farm Credit Act
get out of this fantastic error the Liberals have been making for years in describing the income of farmers. The hon. member outlined today the various factors that make up the cash income of farmers, the supplementary grants from the government and income in kind, adding up to a total cash income. When you take off the costs of operating and depreciation you get an operating, net figure that is the cash in the farmer's pocket.
The dominion bureau of statistics have a bookkeeper's item called realized income and inventory. When the farmer is growing grain beyond the amount he can sell, has a surplus and is filling up the granaries on his farm, the bookkeepers of the dominion bureau of statistics say this is income in his pocket. Therefore when the farmers across Canada make say $1J billion, they add on the $3J million surplus that he did not get paid for and say that is on the farm. That is why the Liberals went up and down the country in the thirties and forties and said, "Look how prosperous is the farmer in Canada. He has this money; his income is at a very high level". They added on all the wheat he did not sell.
Oddly enough, Mr. Chairman, in 1961 the only figure the hon. member quoted was the lowest income the farmers have ever received except for one year. Let me tell the committee that for last year the bookkeepers in the d.b.s. had added on wheat that had not been sold back in the period of the Liberal regime, and they had to take it off when we sold it. So that last year, if hon. members will look at the figures across Canada they will see the figure of $397 million as realized cash income, the farmer's real income, which brought it down to this low figure. But actually the farmer had not had this money taken out of his pocket at all. It had been added on previously. Therefore to get the real figure for last year one has to take the realized income plus the inventory, because the income the farmer receives is when he is paid for his products, not the bookkeeping entry previously; so really the figure the Liberals are quoting as income is roughly $800 million out.
That is all I am going to say, Mr. Chairman, about that remark in the speech of the hon. member. The mere fact that he repeated all I said must have indicated to the members of this committee how much truth there was in what I said, because they never bother answering things that are not important. The hon. member answered point by point what I said yesterday and put it all back on the record, because he knows he carries the weight of sin and guilt that must fall on the

shoulders of the Liberal party for what they did not do for agriculture for 22 years.
Certain hon. members of this committee made remarks today upon which I think I should comment. I should like to make a suggestion at the end of these comments, and I hope I can complete this argument before five o'clock. One hon. member mentioned- I think it was the hon. member for Argen-teuil-Deux-Montagnes-that the farmers of his province did not know about this legislation. I agree; this is absolutely correct. We have one part of our country where the farmers do not even know the legislation that exists and what is available to them. I think I am a failure as Minister of Agriculture for not having been able to get down there and tell them what this government has made available to them in the last four years. So to the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes and other hon. members of the Social Credit party who have been telling this committee about the real needs of their constituents I would say that I welcome invitations to visit their counties, see their farmers and talk with them face to face.
I should be glad to talk with those farmers and tell them what assistance is available to them in the hope that they will take advantage of this great confederation-the tremendous tools which the taxpayers in all parts of the country have put into the hands of agricultural producers. I am thinking of such measures as crop insurance, conservation, rehabilitation and so on. I would like invitations, preferably at week ends, when I do not have to be here in the house, to tell the farmers in more detail the possibilities which are open to them, because by so doing I think they would be encouraged to take advantage of legislation which is already on the books as well as of measures which are due for enactment shortly.
Mr. Chairman, I know that a large number of members have indicated their intention to speak on this subject, and I would ask as a favour not only to myself but also to many thousands of farmers, whether we could not get this resolution through today. On second reading, of course, every member can speak again if he so wishes, and when we move into committee after second reading, every member can speak as many times as he pleases. Moreover, on second reading hon. members would have the bill in their hands and, being in possession of the entire facts they could probably direct their remarks more closely to the subject matter in accordance with the rules of the house. If we get the resolution stage through today, the bill could be printed and put into the hands of hon. members on Monday and we could get off to a good start next week, moving forward to

help the farmers of this country. I am thinking particularly of those in British Columbia and in eastern Canada. The co-operation of all hon. members in this regard would be much appreciated.


Hazen Robert Argue: On this procedural question, this request by the minister that the resolution be passed by five o'clock, would the hon. gentleman agree that should this be done the bill might be sent after second reading to the committee on agriculture and colonization where all the aspects of this question could be considered and where any comments which hon. members might wish to make at this stage could be made to some advantage?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have heard that suggestion, and I would like to consider it objectively. I should like to make a counter-proposal. I would welcome the bringing of officials of the Farm Credit Corporation before the committee on agriculture but I suggest that could be done more advantageously at the regular time. We could call the committee together then and have this farm credit legislation reviewed by the members of that committee but, in the meantime let us get this legislation through. I have a good reason for getting certain amendments made so that 1 can operate this measure in the fall in eastern Canada. This would not affect the right of hon. members to ask questions, make suggestions and go over the whole operation.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, if I may say a word-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I see the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Hazen Robert Argue: I point out that the reply which could be made now was not allowed. I point out that after the minister made that suggestion a member of this party was not allowed to reply to it.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I will hear the hon. member for Assiniboia. I trust he intends to be brief.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is one big flaw in the suggestion made by the Minister of Agriculture. We do not want a school for the edification of members of this house with regard to the legislation now before the committee. We want the bill brought before the committee so that we can make necessary changes. That is far better than passing the legislation and then being told: come on, now the act is on the statute books we will merely discuss it with you.


George Louis Chatterton: I had intended to speak on this resolution, but in view of the request just made by the minister I will defer my remarks to another occasion. I know many
Minimum Wage Rates for Employees farmers in my area are anxious to get the benefit of these amendments and, as I say, I will therefore defer my remarks trusting we will get this resolution through. (Translation):


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, all we have to say, from this side of the house, is: let us have farm credit while waiting for Social Credit. I thank you.
(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the resolution carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: No.


An hon. Member:: The farmers' friend.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am very pleased not to let it go through now.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being now five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private members' business-public bills and private bills.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. C-10, to provide for minimum wages for employees in federal works, undertakings and businesses.
He said: This is a bill the principle of which should commend itself so readily to all hon. members that debate should be very brief. I will endeavour to set a pattern of brevity in the hope that this measure, at least as far as second reading is concerned, may receive the approval of the house during this hour.
At this point I wish to say that if that happens, and I hope it will, I will not ask for the bill to be referred to the committee of the whole house but rather I will ask for it to be referred to the committee on industrial relations so that its many details might be studied. In other words I do not ask the house to accept all of the details and all of the machinery contained in Bill No. C-10 as the only way of carrying out the principle. However, I ask the house to support the principle. I submit that the time has come for an act to be placed on the federal statute books establishing a minimum wage for all workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it seems strange that, in this year 1962, there is still no such legislation on our statute books.
In 1935 Mr. Bennett tried to put minimum wage legislation on the federal statute books but the bill which Mr. Bennett brought in at that time was later ruled by the courts to be ultra vires of the powers of the federal
734	HOUSE OF
Minimum Wage Rates for Employees parliament. That ruling, of course, was given because Mr. Bennett's legislation endeavoured to enact a minimum wage that would apply to all workers in Canada, whether they came under federal or provincial labour jurisdiction. This bill avoids that pitfall. Like the government's bill providing for annual vacations with pay, this bill applies only to those employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction.
I suggest that not only is it strange that in 1962 there should still be no legislation of this kind on the federal statute books but that it is most unfortunate that the minimum wage legislation in our provinces is such a patchwork. Not only is there no uniformity; the tragedy is that in at least three of our provinces there are no effective pieces of legislation or regulations so far as male employees are concerned. Those three provinces are Ontario, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. In all of the provinces there are some provisions with regard to minimum wages, but in most cases they apply only to female employees or only in various regions or districts. There is a great lack of uniformity in these regulations. Furthermore, the figures that are set down as minimum wage rates are, in my view, far too low. Therefore, I think that the time is ripe for the federal parliament to give a lead to the provinces by enacting this minimum wage law for those who come under federal labour jurisdiction, and in so doing, making it a law that is worth something.
In this day and age the wages for our people should be much higher than is proposed in this bill. Certainly the figure suggested in this bill, namely $1.25 an hour, is the least that we should countenance as a minimum. That is the reason I propose this bill, Mr. Speaker. We surely need it in the federal field. I suggest that the time has come for the federal government to give a lead to the provinces right across this country. If we were to take this step of establishing a minimum wage at the federal level, at a reasonable figure such as $1.25 an hour, I feel satisfied that on the part of the provinces there would be a tendency to follow suit.
This consideration, of course, reminds one of an argument we have frequently had in this house as to whether we should lead or follow the provinces. It all depends on whose bill is up for consideration which side of that argument various spokesmen may take. However, I will say this, to the credit of this government and also to the credit of the former government. There are some instances in the labour field in which the federal parliament has taken the lead and the results have been all to the good. Therefore because


it is sound, right and humane, I hope that we shall accept this legislation. As it would give a lead to the provinces, I also say that I hope we shall not delay.
At one time or another all parties have indicated their support for the principle of a minimum wage. As a matter of fact, in the 1957 election campaign the Conservatives had a good deal to say about the overhauling they would do of federal labour legislation. To be specific, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) then the leader of the opposition, in that campaign promised that legislation providing for minimum wages would be introduced. That was 1957. It is now 1962 and we still have not that legislation. There was not so much said about it, of course, in specific terms in the two succeeding elections but the 1957 promise remains unfulfilled. By this bill I am giving to the Conservative members of this house the opportunity to fulfil their promise of 1957. It is also an opportunity given to the Liberals and to the Social Crediters to fulfil promises they have made to the Canadian people as well.
In 1957 I had the privilege of presenting a bill which was almost identical to the one that is now before us. On that occasion, of course, I reminded the Conservatives of the promises they had made in the election campaign. I was told by various spokesmen on the Conservative side of the house that there was nothing wrong in principle with my bill but that I should not be quite so impatient; that after all the government was that year bringing in one piece of labour legislation and others would follow. I have read again with interest the debate of 1957 and I find that a number of those on the Conservative side of the house literally said to me, "Just do not get in a rush; leave this matter to us and we will do it". That was 1957. It is now 1962 and as yet no proposal has come forward from the government side for legislation of this kind.
I therefore hope that this bill will be looked upon as an opportunity to do something that should be done for the Canadian people, to give a lead to the provinces and to put on the statute books a principle that all four parties in this house support.
I repeat what I said in the opening part of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, namely that I am not necessarily wedded to all of the details in this bill. As a matter of fact, we are precluded by the rules from referring to or discussing the clauses in it. I have tried with assistance to work out a bill that has the mechanics in it and I think they are good. However, I should be quite happy to have in the committee on industrial relations a full discussion with regard to the mechanics of it. I should be quite happy if in that

committee advisers from the Department of Labour were to come forward with proposals for other ways of carrying out the principle. That is the reason I have given the commitment that if this house will approve this bill in principle by voting for it on second reading, 1 will not try to rush it through the committee of the whole house but will move that it be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations.
I am sure all those who know me will give me full marks for keeping my promise to try to set a pattern of brevity. I present this bill to the house. It is something I am sure we all support and I hope that it will receive the endorsation of the house.


Mr. Gordon Chaplin (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak today as a new member of the house I realize that this bill which has been presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), or one very similar to this, has been placed before the house on several occasions in the past. As a manufacturer from a relatively high cost labour area I am very much in sympathy with the principle involved in the bill. From a personal standpoint I should like to see a standard minimum wage that extended across Canada because there are many times when the lack of such a minimum wage makes it very difficult to compete in certain operations and with certain products that are manufactured in other parts of Canada at what would appear to be exceedingly low labour rates.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has already mentioned it, but I would point out that a Conservative government under the late R. B. Bennett passed legislation that attempted to cover a wide area in regard to minimum wages. This legislation was challenged by the then incoming Liberal administration, which placed the legislation before the courts where it was ruled ultra vires. In the light of this, it would appear to me that the provinces have the right in a general way to apply minimum wages.
I do not think that the bill goes far enough to be of any real significance, in all fairness to the member who introduced it and I do not think that under our constitutional set-up any such bill that we pass here can be effective. Let us look at the classifications of employees that the bill purports to serve or help in any way. I refer to page 2 of the bill, clause 3 where, under "application of the act", there is the following:
(a)	works, undertakings, or businesses operated or carried on for or in connection with navigation and shipping, whether inland or maritime, including the operation of ships and transportation by ship anywhere in Canada;
27507-3-47i
Minimum Wage Rates for Employees
(b)	railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of a province;
(c)	lines of steam and other ships connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces or extending beyond the limits of a province;
(d)	ferries between any province and any other province or between any province and any country other than Canada;
(e)	aerodromes, aircraft and lines of air transportation ;
(f)	radio broadcasting stations;
(g)	banks and banking.
In the first place, I doubt very much whether banks and banking should be included in a bill of this kind. Be that as it may, let us take the railways. Railways in this country are highly organized from the standpoint of labour. The railway unions are old, very well established and highly respected and they have done an exceedingly good job in looking after the interests of their membership. In my opinion, sir, the purposes of this bill simply do not apply in this area.
Let us take shipping as another example. This bill surely does not apply here. We all know that the chaotic condition of shipping on the great lakes is due to the activity of certain predatory unions. But this is nothing that $1.25 an hour is going to correct.
Then we come to aircraft, air transportation, telegraphers and broadcasting stations. In the vast majority of these cases I doubt very much whether this bill applies to any great or important extent. In looking at the bill I do not believe that it goes so far as to govern crown corporations. But let us suppose it does and let us take the case of Polymer. There again from the standpoint of labour the employees are very highly organized. The corporation is competing for employees and has to pay up to the best going rates in that particular area.
It may surprise some of the members opposite to know that in many areas of this country today it is very hard to get employees. I know that the Liberals opposite have been trying so hard for so long to sell a depression in this country that they now believe it themselves. However, there are many areas in the country that do need the protection, such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has described, that is offered by an adequate standard minimum wage. I should like to follow his thinking and reasoning a little further by referring to the provincial minimum wage orders which illustrate the point he was making. From this publication I note that in Newfoundland the minimum wage is 50 cents an hour for males and 35 cents an hour for females.

Minimum Wage Rates for Employees


Michael Starr: That is because there is a Liberal administration there.


Gordon Chaplin: Nova Scotia has its own system which I have not translated to an hourly basis. In New Brunswick the figure is 50 cents an hour. Quebec has a spread in rates in various zones, those rates being 60 cents, 55 cents, and 50 cents an hour. In Ontario the figures for female employees only are $22, $20 and $18 a week in the various zones. In Manitoba the figures are 60 cents, 58 cents and 54 cents an hour. In Saskatchewan the minimum rates are $30 and $29 a week.


An hon. Member:: Not Saskatchewan?


Gordon Chaplin: In Alberta the figure is $30 a week for male employees in one category. There are other categories which I do not think it is necessary to refer to for purposes of this discussion. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is quite right when he says that in all these areas the minimum wage is much too low and should be improved. None of these figures are very good, and that includes Saskatchewan. The hon. member has talked about a minimum of $1.25 an hour on a very restricted basis; but we see that in Saskatchewan, as I have indicated, the rates work out to 70 and 75 cents an hour. With a socialist government there one would have thought that after all these years they could have done a little better than that. With the influence that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre must have with the government of Saskatchewan, surely he could have persuaded them to adopt a more progressive attitude in this field than they have shown to date.
In all fairness to the hon. member I think I should say I realize that Saskatchewan is not heavily industrialized and perhaps the minimum wage they have adopted is satisfactory for their purposes, but it does seem to me that the point at which this problem should be tackled is at the provincial level.
One other matter that the hon. member has obviously overlooked is that with the way in which this house is at present constituted there is always the possibility and the danger that members opposite might be returned to office. If they did form a government and if they continue in the manner in which they have been talking recently, if they continue to downgrade Canada and live up to those dire forecasts they are so fond of making, we will find that a minimum wage of $1.25 will be much too high because no industry in this country will be able to afford to pay it.
As far as the bill is concerned, I do not feel that it has any real or practical application. Nevertheless, because I believe in the principle involved and because I believe that

minimum wages generally across the country should be improved, I do not want to appear to be negative in this matter. As I have said previously, I believe that this problem should be attacked through the provinces, and I think it would not be out of the way to expect this government to use its good offices to approach the provinces with a view to trying to persuade them to equalize and improve the minimum wage position across the country. I recognize the fact that all of the provinces are not in the same stage of development and it might indeed be difficult to get all of them to agree to a standard minimum wage. However, I believe that with a discussion under the leadership of the present government, I would hope, and with an approach of that kind we could at least close the gap in this regard and get higher minimum wages for the people of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for York South want to ask the member a question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: The hon. member for Greenwood; and I wanted to ask the hon. member a question, if I may before he takes his seat.


Mr. Speaker:: If he wishes to answer.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Does the hon. member wish to answer?


Gordon Chaplin: I will try.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The question is this: The hon. member says he is in favour of the principle of the bill but, as I understand it, for constitutional reasons believes it is not broad enough to cover the whole field. The question I should like to put to him is, does he not think that half a loaf is better than no bread? Does he not think a good principle ought to be put into effect in the field over which this parliament has jurisdiction?


Gordon Chaplin: I am sorry, could I have the latter part of that question again?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Does the hon. member not think that a good principle ought to be put into effect in the field over which this parliament has jurisdiction? He said this bill had a good principle, and I asked him if he does not think it ought to be put into effect where this parliament has, in fact, jurisdiction?


Gordon Chaplin: All I can say to the hon. member is that the number of people directly involved in this bill is actually so small that I think it is negligible.


Mr. Lewis:: Where would the harm be in having this legislation on the statute books?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the Liberal party and my colleagues on this side of the house, to endorse 100 per cent this bill moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I wish to compliment the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre upon being the author of this bill and bringing it before the house today.
There has been considerable discussion as to what the practical application of the bill might be. I think it is considerable. I believe the idea expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was that the bill would set an example or a starting precedent which would be followed by the provinces who have more jurisdiction in this field. If this is the feeling of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, then I trust his hopes may be realized.
It is really unfortunate that the federal government does not have more jurisdiction in this field. The historical background of this matter has been dealt with amply. It seems to me that there are two factors which, in my opinion, make this bill all the more attractive and necessary right now and I hope the passage of this bill will to some degree alleviate the situation. I refer to the fact that there are several areas of employment in which wages are really substandard. This probably results from a lack of union representation, because the peculiar features of the employment do not attract union representation.
The other factor which, in my opinion, makes it all the more necessary to have legislation such as this is that it appears there are so many new people arriving in this country who are unfamiliar with the country, that they lend themselves readily to being exploited by all manner of employers. This type of legislation, so far as setting an example is concerned, will contain rates and job practices which would help prevent this exploitation. An example comes readily to my mind and is contained in the Goldenberg report on labour management relations. This royal commission was established by the Ontario government to study the construction industry. I feel this is a good example because I think that this is the type of industry in which an example really has to be set by somebody. If it falls to this house to do so, then we should do it.
I think it would be apropos, Mr. Speaker, if I were to quote a few of the recommendations contained in the Goldenberg report. I am quoting from chapter 7:
Where the construction worker is not protected by a collective agreement or an effective industrial standards schedule, I find that such protection must be provided by a minimum wage. The facts show
Minimum Wage Rates for Employees that both unskilled workers and tradesmen in the unorganized sectors in the industry are particularly vulnerable to competitive pressures on their hourly wage and working conditions which may and do lead to exploitation. Considering also the transient and seasonal nature of their employment, their earnings will in many cases be substandard, particularly under conditions such as those recently prevailing in residential building in metropolitan Toronto.
He goes on to state that the Ontario legislation has been ineffective, and then he says:
I find that conditions in sectors of the construction industry where collective agreements do not impose restraints call for a change of policy in Ontario in respect of this industry.
Mr. Goldenberg then goes on to call for minimum wage standards to be set in order to cure the alarming deficiency and the exploitation of labour in Canada. In my opinion, this is one of the principal things, in an indirect way, this bill will accomplish. I think it is deplorable what is happening in the construction trades in Canada. The conditions in the trade are almost medieval. I should like to quote again from the Goldenberg report to show that some steps should be taken, irrespective of the immediate tangible results. I am quoting from page 10, where he is talking about the construction industry in the Toronto area in 1960-61:
Against a background of illiteracy and quiet desperation, workers were being compelled to accept conditions-sometimes under threat of deportation-which were startlingly deplorable.
Wages began to fall. But no contractor could hope to compete with the individual who was arranging the emigration of his own work force from Italy, and then providing wages in the form of board and room.
The ten-hour day had become commonplace, and the six or seven day week was not unusual.
The hours of work and vacations with pay act. . . was observed in the breach, rather than in performance, and overtime premiums and vacation pay had apparently not yet been heard of by most employers
The report goes on to cite the alarming conditions and exploitation of labour. I am aware of the situation in the Hamilton area, especially in the construction trades amongst the so-called new arrivals. I feel the time has arrived when it is urgent that such legislation as this be passed.
I should like to refer to a few of the things mentioned by the previous speaker on the Conservative side of the house. He talked about the possibility of the next Liberal government coming into office, and about the attributes of his own administration. I might point out that the Goldenberg report, which is an excellent one and contains many clear recommendations concerning minimum wages in the construction industry, which has had a history of exploitation so far as employees are concerned, has not been acted upon at all by the Conservative government which set up the royal commission.

Minimum Wage Rates for Employees
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to go back for a moment to the real purpose of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in introducing this bill which, I think, was to set an example. If that is the idea, if the merit of this legislation is to set an example, I am just wondering if it does so.
Are we in the federal parliament in Ottawa in a position to criticize the Ontario provincial government for not implementing the progressive recommendations contained in the Goldenberg report, when the best example we can set is $1.25? It is quoted in the Goldenberg report, and the suggestion so far as tradesmen are concerned is that the minimum should be $2.
It is also noted that one of the most progressive provinces is British Columbia, where they have a minimum of $1.25 for unskilled trades and $2 for skilled trades. Perhaps we should consider, not right now but when this goes to committee, making appropriate amendments to the legislation and making its provisions wider so that at least it might set the example we want, so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, and provide a minimum of $1.25 for unskilled labour and $2 for tradesmen working on federal projects and under federal jurisdiction.
Again coming back to the question, are we in a position to criticize provincial administrations if we ourselves do not have an act of which we can be proud? One of the most serious things we ought to consider is making provision in the bill for $1.25 an hour for a 40 hour week, with time and a half over 40 hours, which I believe is also the practice in British Columbia. I do not feel the legislation will accomplish its real purpose unless provision is made to that effect because, as I understand it, its real purpose as proposed by its sponsor is to set an example; and I am just wondering whether it really does that.
(Translation):


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory note reads as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to establish a minimum rate of wages with respect to all employees in Canada who come under federal labour legislation. This bill provides that such minimum rate of wages shall be $1.25 per hour. The bill also provides that its terms do not affect any employee whose rate of wages is higher than the minimum established by this legislation. However, any rate of wages less favourable to employees than $125 per hour is superseded by this bill.
If the bill introduced by the hon. member dealt only with a salary increase for employees in Canada, we would be 100 per cent in favour of it. However, certain clauses of

the bill provide for restriction and interventions in the affairs of private enterprise and Canadian employers. For instance-
(Text):


An hon. Member:: Did you read the bill-


Mr. Peters:: You would be wise to read the bill.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, I read it.


William Arnold Peters: You did not understand it.


David Réal Caouette: Yes I did understand it, but I feel the one who wrote it did not understand what he was writing.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, the bill could have provided for a minimum salary of $1.50 instead of $1.25 and we would gladly have endorsed the proposal.
However, the bill states that the minister concerned, or his representative, will have the right to intervene in the operations of private enterprise, to check the books and interfere with the administration of a company. That is precisely why I feel that it infringes upon freedom as we understand it in Canada.
I am in favour of setting a minimum concerning wages. Yet, there is a difference between the provinces and the federal government even if the provisions of the bill touch only upon matters which come under the central government.
In my opinion, it is not the federal government which has given birth to the Canadian provinces but the other way around. It is thanks to the provinces that Canada is a confederation today.
If a province decides-Mr. Speaker, I have just heard the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) state that that is true. That is not what he was saying about ten years ago-
(Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: I did not say a word. I did not open my mouth.
(Translation):


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should, as federal representatives, leave it to the provinces-
(Text):


An hon. Member:: My god, he is a Liberal.


David Réal Caouette: Yes I am, but a true liberal not a socialist liberal.
(Translation):
Is that it?


David Lewis: Yes, that's it.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, those problems come under provincial jurisdiction. Let the federal government make suggestions to the provinces at federal-provincial meetings, and I am all for it.

We are in favour of workers, men or women, being treated in the best possible way in Canada. Now, under the circumstances, I feel that a guaranteed minimum salary of $1.25 an hour is not adequate but it is better than the present minimum salary.
In the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, we see governments now introducing legislation providing for a minimum salary for workers, men or women, in other words, for all ordinary salaried people in this country. Now, we are in favour of that minimum salary, but, under no circumstances would we like to see the government intervene.
As I have already said and repeated outside the house, and I repeat it again here today, we are in favour of the development of the human person. If a man feels that his rights have been impinged upon, he should be entitled to an appeal, but no yokes or plans should be imposed upon him by our socialist friends-they are our friends in the house, but outside they are less so-or by Liberals with socialistic leanings; we are absolutely against that, and I consider that the Social Credit movement, that Social Credit in Canada-


An hon. Member:: -is coming.


David Réal Caouette: -which suggests security, with freedom, for each and every Canadian citizen, would solve the unemployment, industrial and consumption problems, much better than these bills before us.
Just the same, we are in favour of a strict minimum salary for the whole population, for each and every Canadian citizen. We do not approve of any government intervention in order to control, but we do accept government intervention to help the human person to develop, according to his wishes and aspirations.


An hon. Member:: Why then are you voting with the government?
(Text):


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member asking a question or is he seeking the floor?


David Lewis: I am asking for the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Athabasca.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that a bill purporting to give minimum wages to all employees under federal jurisdiction should be considered by anybody to be 100 per cent effective. When this type of bill was first introduced by
Minimum Wage Rates for Employees the Bennett government it was severely criticized by many members of the house. It was finally declared ultra vires of the powers of the dominion government. I am ready to admit that the present bill jumps over that hurdle and what it purports to do is legislate only with regard to people under federal labour jurisdiction.
I suggest that this bill as it is outlined is far too wide. It purports to give minimum wage rates to everybody under federal jurisdiction; but when one reads the bill carefully, as I have, he finds it is couched in such general terms that it would in fact include almost everybody working in Canada. Where would the R.C.M.P. be in a bill like this? This is an undertaking under federal jurisdiction. Where would nurses in the federal hospitals come in, or trainees in both those noble services to our country? With regard to an R.C.M.P. recruit who is obliged to remain in barracks 24 hours a day unless he goes out on pass, is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre really suggesting he should be paid $30 a day? That is $1.25 an hour without overtime. Should he be paid overtime for this service? I do not think so. I am speaking from information received on this subject. It is necessary to devote your time and energy during training to the regulations, and you know the terms of your employment. I submit that this bill would purport to give an R.C.M.P. recruit $30 a day or more.
I rose in this house some years ago and suggested $1 a day for nursing students. My proposal met with no wide approval. It received no approval at all from the other side of the house, when hon. members opposite were sitting here. This was merely $1 a day for girls who devote 24 hours of their time each day to learning the art of nursing. They are under federal jurisdiction in the federal hospitals and the service hospitals.
I could not see my way clear to underwriting from the taxpayer's pockets a guaranteed minimum wage of $30 a day for nursing students, and I am surprised that people are ready to vote this amount of money when they were not prepared to give them $1 a day. Why the change? I suggest that this is one of those phony bills. It is put forward by an hon. member who has no responsibility to the people except those in his own riding, who has no responsibility to an overtaxed budget and who has not thought the matter through clearly.
Mr. Chairman, I have only picked on two categories, but I could go on down the line. In places where people are learning trades there are those who are not worth $1.25 an hour. I think anybody who has ever worked

Minimum Wage Rates jor Employees anywhere would admit that there are people in any job who are not worth $1.25 an hour, or a guaranteed wage. I would be very, very careful in setting up any wage standards which would purport to provide that $1.25 an hour be paid regardless of the worker's effort.
I have another objection to this bill, that too often minimum wages become maximum wages. If we guaranteed $1.25 an hour for certain types of labour, this would tend to become a maximum wage, and although this bill says it would not prevent anybody getting better terms of pay, you cannot legislate minimum labour rates without affecting every other labourer in this country. I suggest that if, with regard to all jobs under federal jurisdiction, we were to set a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour regardless of whether they were worth that rate of pay, it would be very difficult for people in the primary industries, in farming, fishing or the woods, where there are small operations, to compete at all.
The United States, which is very highly organized in its labour field, have never seen fit to put forward this type of legislation at the levels we are asked to legislate at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member sure of that?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am referring to the $1.25 an hour that it is suggested we put in operation. Not since-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I have listened to your speech. I will allow you to ask a question at the end of my speech. I may not have time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member aware that in the United States there is such a movement?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am aware of the movement in the United States in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think hon. members will realize that they cannot force a question or make a statement as an interjection without properly having the floor.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly surprised that this type of interference should come from the best known parliamentarian on procedure in Canada. This bill has such a general application and is couched in such general terms that one can hardly ascertain what it is really purporting to do; therefore I think it is fair to be very general in criticizing it. I say that, generally speaking, in the United States at the present time nobody has been so optimistic as to expect a higher minimum rate of pay than $1.15 an


hour. I understand they are hoping to raise it to $1.25 an hour some time between now and 1965.
This is another of those bills, Mr. Speaker, which if put through without due thought might well price us out of the markets of the world. We have some difficulty in this regard already. One of our difficulties is to keep the cost of our primary products at a minimum. To obtain suitable farm labour is a serious problem today throughout the farming areas. I have been a farm labourer and I know that somebody going to the farm for the first time is hardly worth more than his board, until he learns to take part in the rural work. Certainly it was very difficult in the hard times of the thirties to find that type of work. He may well be learning his trade as a farmer, and if he is going to become a good farmer his time is well spent. With our very progressive farm policy it will be very few years before he is prepared himself, to take on the job of farming.
Mr. Speaker, in these few remarks I must say that, although I am completely in favour of minimum wages, where there are well thought out labour contracts for our industries, armed services, the mounted police and nurses in training-I am in favour of giving them more encouragement during their apprenticeships-I cannot approve the bill in this form. I would suggest this is no time to put it through in haste. There will be many opportunities later to attack the question of minimum wages, and I will then back any such well thought out plan.


Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Hamilton East in the warm endorsation he extended to the principle of this bill. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) introduced a similar bill to the House of Commons in November, 1957 and I had the opportunity at that time to express my attitude and my support for the principle of a minimum wage. In doing so my support is consistent with the attitude of the national Liberal party of Canada, which is in favour of a federal labour code. This federal labour code will apply to industries under federal jurisdiction and work done under federal contracts. Such a code would establish a minimum wage, fix a maximum working week and determine vacations and statutory holidays as well as provide standards for health, safety and working conditions generally. Therefore, as a Liberal member I am pleased to applaud the initiative shown by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The purpose of the bill is clear. It is a basic, humanitarian purpose. The President of the United

States four years ago introduced a national minimum wage bill into the United States senate, and his comments underlined the humanitarian purpose of such a measure. Senator Kennedy said:
I have shown the need for this bill in facts and figures. But that is not its only justification. When we permit the growth of a depressed class, numbering millions, whose members cannot afford the bare necessities of life, we pay a heavy price. We undermine the general prosperity of the nation which rests upon consumer purchasing power. We promote the spread of slums, of crime, of disease, of all the ills which grow from hopeless poverty.
I certainly share that humanitarian purpose. We have heard from hon. gentlemen opposite the traditional argument against efforts to raise the levels of remuneration through minimum wages and through collective bargaining. The argument is that any increase in wages is bound to affect employment prospects in the industry concerned. I thought that argument had become obsolete. Apparently it has not, but it is certainly not supported by any investigation which has ever been undertaken to find out the effects of increasing wage levels.
Another argument advanced this afternoon was that the bill would have no substantial benefits-that its enactment would have negligible effects. That is not true. I have hundreds of federal employees in my constituency and there are hundreds in other areas of Canada who would be immediately affected by the enactment of a bill increasing the minimum wage to $1.25. There are park employees working under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources who are at present receiving rates of wages considerably lower than the minimum provided for in this bill.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: How long have they been there?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not intend to undertake any historical survey.


An hon. Member:: Your government was in power.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: So that is why things should not be changed? Well, we have really heard an expression of Toryism this afternoon. Stick with the status quo-change nothing. We on this side believe in change and reform. That is why we are supporting this bill.
What is the alternative to providing a national minimum wage? The alternative is to allow workers in this country to live on the fringe of society and in certain cases chained to unproductive occupations. If we take action to increase the national minimum wage we shall be providing an incentive for 27507-3-48
Business of the House
the development of more productive occupations of a kind which will provide them with a decent wage and a decent standard of living.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonlon-Slrathcona):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is substantially the same as the one debated last year and I still find myself talking about one particular point which in my opinion the draftsman of this measure did not take into account. I refer to the hon. member's desire to fix a minimum wage right across the country without regard to the factors which vary from one region to another.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: If hon. members have anything to say, to get on record in Hansard, they might, perhaps, seek the permission of the Chair and get the floor, rather than make these extraneous comments from their places.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder, then, if I might ask the hon. member whether he will conclude his remarks in time for a vote to be taken.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: When I have found something wrong in a bill, I do not think the hon. member would expect that with only one minute left I could educate such hon. members as himself with regard to the matter.
I was pointing out the fallacy behind the bill. It would set a minimum wage across the country without any regard to the varying conditions in different parts of Canada which cause wages to be lower in some places and higher in others. This point was touched on by some of the speakers who have referred to the present provincial legislation. I am sure anyone who has travelled across Canada has found a great difference in prevailing rates.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Would the leader of the house kindly tell us the business for Monday and the course of next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: As I suggested this morning in answer to a question by the hon. member, the intention is to move into committee of ways and means on Monday, and we might continue in committee of ways and means during the course of the week if the house wishes to continue the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: In view of the special circumstances prevailing this session, will not the government give consideration to having the Minister of Finance take advantage of the provisions of standing order 58 to make his

Business of the Howe
statement on financial and economic affairs this week? This would afford an opportunity to the House of Commons to express an opinion on the financial policies of this government which otherwise will not occur in the current fiscal year.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The proposal made at noon today would give every opportunity to the Minister of Finance to make a complete statement regarding economic conditions in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know if I made myself clear. The standing order is 58. I think that would meet also the position which was under discussion this morning. Otherwise- and the leader of the house will correct me if I am wrong-no opportunity will occur in the current fiscal year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As Your Honour recalls, there was some discussion about the matter this morning, and it was agreed that representatives of the parties would see each other. We did not have lunch together; but as a result of the information communicated to us when we did get together I must on behalf of this group protest very strongly against the proposal which the leader of the house has now made.
Standing order 58 is one which can be used in the way the minister proposes; but knowing the history of this standing order, having been on the committee when it was revised, may I venture to say that, looking at it, it is clear that the intention is that when a minister of the crown is to make a budget presentation he does so with the Speaker in the chair on a motion to go into committee of ways and means. That is what is spelled out in Beauchesne, fourth edition, citation 267, which says:
It is usual to make the budget speech on the motion for the house to go into committee of ways and means, but finance ministers have at times found it convenient to make it on the motion for committee of supply.
Nowhere in the authorities is there any suggestion that it is appropriate to have it in committee of ways and means. I observe that
Your Honour is getting to the edge of your chair and I will therefore say no more at this time except that we register the strongest protest. We think the proposed course is unfair to the rights of parliament, and if it is proceeded with on Monday we shall protest at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: The business of the house is a matter for the house leader. Since there is no motion before the Chair, I do not think we can conduct a debate on the propriety, one way or another, of a particular motion. I do not think we are going to solve the problem at this time. The argument which in part the hon. member was advancing at this time would have been germane at the time of the making of the motion. I am hoping that other members will not join in a similar type of argument at this time.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I put a question to the house leader because it is pertinent to the discussion which will take place on Monday. I hope he has had an opportunity of looking at standing order 58 and I hope he is in a position to tell us whether he will proceed under that order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I just wish to say two things. The first is that the suggestions put forward by the hon. member for Laurier will receive careful consideration. I always pay attention to his suggestions.
The weakness of the position taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is that with regard to this procedure he has offered criticism to which there is no right of reply at this stage. If on the announcement of the business of the house hon. members are going to offer criticism and record their views in Hansard, which is subsequently made available across the country, I think a right of reply surely should be available to the government side.


Mr. Speaker:: It is for that reason that I rose to bring that discussion to a quick halt.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.


[Stage Direction]
Statement by the Honourable Howard Green, Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada, in the General Debate at the 17th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, September 25, 1962
Mr. President,
It gives me great pleasure to join with others in offering you congratulations on your election to the presidency of the general assembly. Your outstanding qualifications and wide experience in diplomacy, international law and in United Nations affairs will, I know, prove to be of great value at this important session.
Your appointment is a well deserved tribute to you and also to your country, Pakistan. Last week, the people of Canada were delighted to receive the President of Pakistan as a distinguished and highly respected visitor. His visit served to re-emphasize the excellent relations which Pakistan and Canada have always enjoyed.
I also wish to extend a very warm welcome to the four new members who were admitted to the United Nations last week. In Ruanda and Burundai the United Nations played an important role in bringing about the transition from trusteeship to independence. Canada had the honour of serving on one of the United Nations commissions during the preparatory period. Aided by a common bond of language, we now look forward to developing with these two countries the same close relationship which links Canada with the other French speaking countries of Africa.
The achievement of independence by Jamaica and by Trinidad and Tobago is an event of special significance and of interest for Canada not only because of our commonwealth association but also because of the historic ties which have existed for centuries between Canadians and the people of the West Indies. I am confident that these good neighbours of ours-the first new members incidentally from the western hemisphere- have a valuable contribution to make to the United Nations.
Last year when I spoke in the general debate, the United Nations was facing many grave issues, some of which actually threatened its survival. The atmosphere in the assembly as those representatives present today who were here a year ago will remember, was one of tension and anxiety. The whole future was uncertain-the future of this organization and the future of the world.
27507-3-481
May I suggest that the events of the past twelve months have not dispelled all the difficulties; but neither have they fulfilled the pessimistic prophecies of a year ago. We are living in a world when it pays to be optimistic. I do not believe that the pessimists will ever settle the problems that face the world and I believe that clearly, in this session of the general assembly we have a good deal more reason for hope than a year ago.
Laos
Here I should like to point out that there have been some gains in the complex international endeavour to strengthen the peace. For example, at the beginning of 1962 the situation in Laos seemed far from settled. By July international agreements providing for a unified, independent and neutral Laos had been signed in Geneva by the 14 nations attending that conference. Those nations included governments which did not recognize each other but which shared a common determination to face reality and find a solution. The result was a positive step toward peace and stability in southeast Asia.
Canada was one of the signatories of the Laos agreements and as a member of the international commission Canada was charged, along with India as chairman and Poland, with the task of seeing that the agreements are carried out. We intend to fulfil these responsibilities with fairness and diligence. I emphasize, however, that ultimate success in Laos will depend on the continuing support and co-operation of all the governments concerned. I think we can make Laos an example for the settlement of problems in other parts of the world.
A significant factor in the successful negotiations on Laos was the businesslike procedure evolved. In particular, the device of co-chairmanship proved its worth and the United Kingdom and the Soviet union deserve much of the credit for the result. I pay tribute to them today for their work as cochairmen of that conference.
Disarmament
There is, furthermore, another area in which there has been some progress. After
[Stage Direction]
a year of inactivity, steps forward were also taken in the field of disarmament. The United States and the Soviet union reached accord on a joint statement of agreed principles and laid it before the general assembly on 20 September 1961. This was followed by another advance-which I think should be considered a major advance-the establishment of the eighteen nation disarmament committee which began its deliberations in March of this year in Geneva.
This committee has two important advantages over previous disarmament forums. First, following the precedent of the Laos conference, it has the United States and the Soviet union as permanent co-chairmen and they meet together frequently to arrange agendas and try to resolve differences. I do not suppose that ever before have Americans and Russians spoken together on so many occasions and for such a long time as these co-chairmen have been doing in Geneva. And, of course, these great powers are the key to the whole problem of disarmament. If there is to be a settlement it must be reached primarily by these two nations. Second, the committee has as members eight non-aligned nations-Brazil, Burma, Ethiopia, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Sweden and the United Arab Republic. By their impartial and constructive approach to the intricate problems of disarmament, these eight nations have helped to advance the work of the conference. In the opinion of the Canadian delegation these eight nations have made a magnificent contribution at that conference.
For the first time since nations began to debate this all-important question of disarmament, the two major powers have put forward comprehensive treaty proposals. The committee has been examining these proposals for the past five months. One thing shown conclusively is that the dangers caused by the vast array of modern armament cannot be removed at one stroke or by adopting some simple formula. To reach agreement on general and complete disarmament requires the greatest effort and the most painstaking negotiation.
The fundamental problem of course is the distrust and suspicion which have sharply and tragically divided the world since the end of the second world war. Negotiating governments must make greater efforts to overcome this distrust and suspicion.
The committee in Geneva should play its part in this transformation. The Canadian delegation at Geneva has repeatedly emphasized that there are common elements in existing proposals which can be developed into significant measures of disarmament. What is required is a renewed endeavour to achieve acceptable compromises.
Canada welcomes the announced intention of the Soviet union to modify its proposals for eliminating nuclear weapons vehicles. In our view, this may help to remove the block to negotiations in Geneva which was created by the incompatible positions of the two sides on this particular question. Of course, we must reserve our final opinion on this modified Soviet position until we see the detailed amendments to the Soviet draft treaty; and, in addition, agreement on this key disarmament question will inevitably require careful examination in Geneva of all the related factors.
Early in the Geneva conference a committee of the whole was set up to deal with measures which could be put into effect quickly and would help to relieve international tension and create mutual confidence pending agreement on general and complete disarmament.
Among the subjects this committee has before it are: first, measures to prevent further dissemination of nuclear weapons; second, the reduction of the possibility of war by accident, miscalculation or failure of communications. In order to stop the arms race spreading to outer space, Canada has proposed in this committee that immediate action should be taken to prevent the placing of weapons of mass destruction in orbit. We urge that when the disarmament committee resumes its work redoubled efforts be made to reach agreement on the important questions which are before this collateral measures committee.
This assembly should bring to bear the full force of world opinion to ensure more rapid progress on disarmament. To achieve this we must, first of all here in New York, avoid propaganda exchanges on the question of disarmament. The whole issue could become a propaganda battle here in this assembly, and this would be a tragedy. We must also assess the possibilities for compromise on important points which are still in dispute. Finally, we must recommend as forcefully as possible-I would hope recommend with one voice-that the disarmament committee in Geneva renew its efforts at the earliest possible moment.
The commonwealth prime ministers meeting in London a few days ago recorded their unanimous conviction in this sense. That statement by the commonwealth conference was very significant because the 15 nations there represented all the continents of the world. I quote from the communique:
"The prime ministers agreed that the need for disarmament had been intensified by the steady development of ever more powerful weapons. They reaffirmed the principles laid

down in their statement on disarmament on March 17, 1961, and expressed their conviction that the eighteen nation disarmament committee at Geneva should continue its efforts towards a treaty for general and complete disarmament in accordance with these principles. They noted that discussions on the cessation of nuclear weapons tests had also been taking place in Geneva and expressed the hope that these efforts would be successful in bringing into being an effective treaty to eradicate this source of fear and danger to mankind."
The eighteen nation committee is responsible for detailed negotiations and only through its continued efforts in Geneva can progress toward disarmament be realized. That is why we must, as the distinguished representative of Norway stated here a few days ago, ".. . give encouragement and guidance to the negotiating nations in Geneva". I point out that all members of the United Nations have a fundamental obligation to assist in every way in ensuring that agreement on this vital subject is reached without delay. The world simply cannot afford the risk of failure.
Nuclear Weapons Tests
In the disarmament talks at Geneva and in this general assembly, it has been made very clear that the problem of nuclear weapons tests is of the gravest concern to all members of the United Nations. My government maintains its firm opposition to all nuclear weapons testing, for two reasons.
First, we are convinced that continued testing poses an ever increasing danger to human health. Of this 1 shall say more presently. Second, the ultimate security of mankind is weakened, not strengthened, by further testing. No matter what considerations may lead the major powers to undertake nuclear tests, their effect can only be to accelerate and to make even more perilous the race in nuclear armaments. The powers concerned must not ignore the fact that the arms race itself gives rise to fears which in turn become a factor in intensifying competition in armaments.
I believe that these fundamental points are not in dispute. But the tests have still not been stopped. The proposals submitted by the eight uncommitted countries at Geneva, and the new technical data advanced recently by the United States and the United Kingdom, have opened new opportunities for agreement.
The Canadian government strongly supports the proposal, originally made by the Mexican delegate to the eighteen nation disarmament committee, that a target date, January 1, 1963 -and I wish it could have been earlier- should be set for the cessation of all tests.
This date has been accepted in principle by the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet union.
As a minimum first step, agreement could be reached immediately on the final cessation of nuclear tests in the atmosphere, under water and in outer space. To have a comprehensive treaty, of course underground tests must be included. The question barring agreement on such a treaty is whether the parties shall be obligated to permit inspections on their territories when other means of determining whether there has been an underground nuclear explosion fail to give a definite answer. This is a difficult problem involving dangers to the security of the nations concerned, but the dangers which result from the lack of solution are immeasurably greater.
If the great powers cannot reach agreement on this issue, prospects for general and complete disarmament will be dim indeed. They can and must resolve their differences in this field if they are to fulfil their obligation to mankind. The general assembly should clearly express itself in this sense.
Radiation
I revert now to the hazards to human health created by nuclear testing. The second comprehensive report of the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation brings out the danger very clearly in the following statement-and I quote from this scientific report:
"As there are no effective measures to. prevent the occurrence of harmful effects of global radioactive contamination from nuclear explosions, the achievement of a final cessation of nuclear tests would benefit present and future generations of mankind." That is the objective language of a scientific report tabled just a few months ago. The dangers involved are immediate. They affect us now and what is even more important, they will affect future generations.
In order to assess these dangers properly, the assembly must continue to insist on a co-operative world wide study. Last year's resolution on the subject reaffirmed the desirability of continuing full international cooperation through the scientific committee. The latest report of the committee constitutes an authoritative and up to date assessment of the exposure of mankind to radiation and of its harmful effects.
In the resolution of last year, the general assembly called for a study of a world wide synoptic reporting scheme of atmospheric radiation levels. I have been greatly encouraged by the progress made by the world meteorological organization in preparing
[Stage Direction]
such a scheme. It is our hope that its implementation on a world wide basis will soon be initiated.
The Problem of Want
Now I come to another question. Disarmament deserves high priority in our deliberations because it seeks to remove the means of waging war. The acting secretary general has emphasized in his annual report the need to eradicate the basic causes of war-poverty, famine and disease. The economic and the social work of the United Nations goes along so quietly that it does not always receive the public attention it deserves. And yet success in raising living standards in the less developed areas and in expanding and stabilizing world trade may, in the long run, determine the question of war and peace.
The role of the United Nations in providing an effective framework for economic and social development is well established. There will, I am sure, be no disagreement over the importance of the various assistance programmes. These essential activities must be adequately supported. In the decade of development we should strive to make increasingly effective use of existing institutions. For its part, the Canadian government will continue to support these United Nations efforts and at the same time to maintain our bilateral aid programs.
The promotion of sound trading conditions is at least as important as the provision of aid. In fact, the recent commonwealth conference considered that question and they had this to say: ". . .improved opportunities and conditions for trade are even more important than financial aid". That was the unanimous opinion of all the countries represented.
Canada has sought in the United Nations and outside to promote international arrangements and institutions-for example, the general agreement on tariff and trade-which would encourage the expansion of trade on a multilateral and non-discriminatory basis. This will be our attitude in examining the economic and social council's recommendation for a conference on trade and development in 1964.
Such a conference will provide one opportunity for a discussion on strengthening the world trading system. While some problems can be dealt with only in a world wide forum other aspects of trade can be examined usefully by countries whose trading systems- and hence trading problems-are most alike. For example at the recent commonwealth meeting Canada proposed an early conference of a group of countries to discuss their common trading problems. Such a conference
would in fact help to prepare the way for wider, non-discriminatory tariff negotiations on a most favoured nation basis.
Commonwealth and Emerging Nations
I should like to say a few words now about the commonwealth and emerging nations. In London we welcomed four countries that have joined this family of free and independent nations within the last year- Sierra Leone, Tanganyika, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. This brought the number of nations participating fully in the commonwealth conference to a total of 15. All but four-those four are the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada-have become independent since the second world war and in each case they have chosen of their own free will to become members of the commonwealth. In addition, there were representatives present from other territories such as Uganda, Kenya and British Guiana which will shortly obtain independence and will in all probability choose to join the commonwealth and, of course, the United Nations. I believe Uganda will be gaining independence in a matter of weeks.
The commonwealth of today is an inspiring example of friendly association of nations of diverse races, cultures, creeds and political institutions. Its members may be divided in their approach to some questions, but they are solidly united in their dedication to the cause of peace and to the promotion of better understanding.
Great credit for this outstanding achievement in international co-operation and for the successful launching of these new nations must be given to the United Kingdom. All other nations of the commonwealth-including Canada, although it is a long time ago in our case-were at one time colonies, and in their progress to nationhood the United Kingdom has given generously and wisely of its aid and guidance.
This being the case, I find it very hard to understand the bitter and sometimes unfair attacks which, from time to time, are made against the United Kingdom on the subject of colonialism. We all know that there are difficulties to be overcome in some territories, but surely the United Kingdom's record of past accomplishment in this field justifies confidence in its intention to guide these peoples to independence.
Unhappily, from this very rostrum and in debates in many other United Nations bodies, the Soviet union has painted quite another picture of these colonial developments. Soviet spokesmen have chosen to disregard peaceful

evolution in the commonwealth where freedom and independence have become a living reality for 600 million people since the second world war.
Canada's own part in developing the commonwealth prompts us to reject the Soviet union's criticisms and its claim to be the champion of freedom and independence for subject peoples. Sometimes I marvel at the nerve of the Soviet union representatives in making that claim.
We urge that the United Nations should view the Soviet attack in proper perspective. In 1960, the Prime Minister of Canada reminded the general assembly about the position of subject peoples within the Soviet empire. Many millions there cannot today exercise the right of self determination which the Soviet government demands for others.
The denial of human rights and fundamental freedoms casts grave doubts on the Soviet union's whole position on colonialism. When the United Nations is examining situations in many other areas of the world, it should not ignore the areas under Soviet rule. The charter principles on human rights and self determination are clearly intended to be universal in their application.
Peace Keeping Operations
I have been dealing with some of the main issues before this assembly. I turn now to a set of problems which vitally affect the future of this organization.
Of fundamental importance are the United Nations peace keeping operations in the Middle East, in the Congo and now in West New Guinea. Canada contributes men and resources to all these operations and regards this contribution as a prime responsibility of membership.
In the Congo, the United Nations has assumed its heaviest responsibility. The secretary general's program for national reconciliation there has been favourably received by the parties principally concerned and Canada is encouraged to hope that this plan will go forward smoothly. The elements of success in this difficult situation are a willingness on the part of the Congolese themselves to resolve their difficulties and a readiness on the part of all other states to support the program.
In this connection, the commonwealth prime ministers had this to say-and I think it is important coming from that conference-[DOT] "They took note, in particular, of the proposals relating to the Congo which were recently put forward by the acting secretary general of the United Nations, and they expressed the hope that these would prove to be the basis for a speedy and constructive settlement."
The task which the United Nations undertook in the Congo was one which it simply could not shirk. Members of this assembly need hardly be reminded, however, that one consequence has been a financial crisis verging on bankruptcy. Canada has supported ad hoc measures for meeting immediate financial needs but we have also consistently sought to place the financing of United Nations peace keeping operations on a solid foundation. We have urged that the basis should be collective responsibility.
For this reason, the Canadian government welcomed the advisory opinion of the international court of justice on July 20 which confirmed that the costs incurred for the United Nations emergency force and the Congo force were "expenses of the organization" within the meaning of Article 17 of the charter. This authoritative opinion should be endorsed by the general assembly and should form the basis for financing peace keeping operations. After all, advisory opinions of the court ought to be fully respected in the interests of establishing international rules of order.
Basing ourselves on the principle of collective responsibility, we must find a formula for apportioning peace-keeping costs because this organization has to be in a position to fulfil its charter purposes.
Stability in The United Nations
It is equally clear that the chief executive of this organization should have wholehearted support in the discharge of his responsibilities. Our distinguished acting secretary general has shown great courage, great patience and great wisdom during the course of his interim term of office-which remember, began at a time when confusion reigned in United Nations affairs. During the past year he has given leadership which has restored confidence to the organization.
The underlying need in United Nations affairs is for stability. In these turbulent times, governments require a steady base for international co-operation and for quiet diplomacy. Most people of the world look hopefully to the United Nations to point the way and provide the means to these ends.
A significant element in achieving stability and a capacity to act effectively is to develop orderly procedures. Our distinguished past president has made some interesting and useful suggestions for improving assembly procedures. I welcome the decision to inscribe an item on this subject, and I hope some solution will be worked out.
The greatly increased membership of the assembly and the length of recent sessions give added urgency to the need for the most
[Stage Direction]
efficient working methods. The speed and the efficiency with which we carry out our work is an important factor in determining the degree of public support for the United Nations.
In conclusion may I express my firm conviction that the United Nations has emerged from the uncertainty which clouded the sixteenth session. Confidence and stability are being restored. The atmosphere in the present assembly is favourable for constructive work.
We now have an opportunity to respond to the improved situation by dealing firmly with the main issues before us. We must take encouragement from the recent progress, however gradual toward peace. We must maintain a steady United Nations course in that direction, conscious of the undercurrents of danger in our troubled world but confident that we can control them.
We live in an age in which there have been several very important developments.
First, there has been the greatest spread of self government in the history of mankind.
Second, there has been the greatest interest in helping developing nations. Most of that interest is idealistic and unselfish. I admit that there is some selfishness in it but primarily it is idealistic and unselfish.
Third, there is the greatest friendliness and understanding among peoples. What a great thing it is for a foreign minister to come here and be able to talk to 30 or 40 other foreign ministers, as well as distinguished representatives of other grades. Never has there been such an understanding of problems and views of other nations.
Fourth, we live in an age in which there has been the most widespread desire for peace of all time.
Each of these four developments has been brought about largely by the work of the United Nations-by the work of this organization. If we keep this fact in mind and retain our optimism and our hope, this session will be the best in the history of the United Nations.
Text of a Statement on the Cessation of Nuclear Weapons Tests Delivered October 11, 1962, in the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly by the Canadian Representative, Lt. Gen. E. L. M. Burns
Mr. Chairman,
In the opinion of the Canadian delegation, there is nothing before this assembly which is more urgent or fateful than the question of how to put a final stop to the testing of nuclear weapons. This is an object for whose achievement all members of this organization should stand united, for all of us will suffer if these experiments continue. The United Nations general assembly cannot legislate an end to nuclear tests, but it can and should use the immense moral force of its decisions to press for a speedy solution of the problem.
Mr. Chairman, my government remains unequivocally opposed to all nuclear weapons tests. That virtually all delegations also oppose them has been made clear by statements which we have listened to in the general debate in plenary. This can be taken as proof that nuclear testing is opposed by the vast majority of men and women all over the world.
Canada is opposed to further testing for two good reasons. In his statement in general debate, the Secretary of State for External Affairs emphasized that, first of all, we are gravely concerned by the dangers to human health which result from nuclear testing. In our view, which we believe is supported by
scientific findings, the bodily health of everyone is endangered by exposure to additional radiation. But what is more disquieting, increased radioactivity resulting from nuclear tests can have incalculable effects on future generations. This generation would therefore perpetrate a grave moral wrong on posterity by continuing nuclear testing.
It may be said that from the humane and moral standpoint, these arguments are sound, but that, if considerations of defence and national security require them, nuclear weapons tests must go on, notwithstanding their undesirable effects. But does continued testing improve the security of any nation? In the short term, it may be claimed that nuclear testing is required in order to effect or restore a balance in weapon power. But is there any reason to think that national security can be maintained over the years in this way? In my view, there is not. A protracted competition in this sphere-between super-powers already armed to a degree hardly imaginable -can only increase international tensions, and the ultimate danger of nuclear war.
The major nuclear powers are themselves in agreement that continued testing increases the pace of armaments race. In a joint statement released last August 27 by the Prime

Minister of Great Britain and the President of the United States we read the following sentences:
"The United States and the United Kingdom cannot emphasize too strongly the urgency we attach to the problem of ending all nuclear testing once and for all. For the safety and security of all of us, this deadly competition must be halted and we, again, urge the Soviet government to join with us in meaningful action to make this necessity a reality."
The chairman of the council of ministers of the U.S.S.R. has been equally firm in spelling out the grave consequences of continued testing. In a letter addressed by him to Prime Minister Macmillan in April of this year he wrote as follows:
"Throughout the world the people are justly expressing their indignation not only because nuclear tests lead to the fouling of the atmosphere and may in some degree have a harmful effect on peoples' health and their moral and physical condition, but also-and this is the most important point-because the race to build up nuclear weapons will be accelerated even more by the new series of experimental nuclear explosions."
Clearly then the dangers of further experimentation in this field are admitted. It may have grave effects both on our own health and on future generations; it is ultimately a threat to the security of mankind; it increases international tensions and reduces the possibility of agreements in other fields. If this is the belief of the leading statesmen of the nuclear powers, why can they not stop the tests? But it is not only the responsibility of the nuclear powers; nuclear testing affects all nations; to deal with it is the responsibility of all of us represented here. Can we not, as rational beings, act in our own interest?
The advantages of a test cessation agreement are many. Such an agreement would not give a special advantage to this or that country or alliance, but would be in the interest of all humanity. Let me summarize the truly impressive gains which a nuclear test ban agreement would achieve:
First, as the major powers themselves recognize, it would significantly reduce radiation hazards and improve international security.
Second, it would inhibit the development of more and more destructive nuclear weapons.
Third, it would arrest the development of nuclear weapons by an increasing number of nations, a danger whose gravity can be recognized by all, and one may say, especially by the present nuclear powers.
Fourth, it would be a start on disarmament. My delegation entirely endorses the view expressed by the acting secretary general in
the introduction to his annual report, in which he emphasized that the first step toward disarmament is to stop nuclear testing. We share his sincere hope "that the nuclear powers will realize that the whole world is hoping and praying than an agreed first step may be taken soon".
In short, an agreement to end nuclear weapons tests would be a first clear proof that the many declarations by the great powers that they want to end the arms race are not mere words, but will result in real and effective action.
I have reviewed so far the weighty reasons in favour of putting a stop to nuclear tests. In my opinion these factors, taken together, should convince every rational man that the need for a solution is urgent. It remains, however, to devise practical means of achieving this goal. In recent months several suggestions have been made which, my delegation believes, should be endorsed by this assembly.
In the first place, we strongly support the proposal put forward in the eighteen nation committee for an early cut-off date by which all testing would be ended: January 1, 1963 or, we would hope, earlier. Acceptance by this assembly of a target date should provide added incentive to speedily resolve remaining differences.
Second, Canada endorses the proposal for an immediate ban on all testing in the atmosphere, outer space, and underwater. Such a proposal is common to the draft treaties advanced by both sides, and an agreement would be a substantial step in the direction of a comprehensive ban. It would greatly reduce or even remove the health hazard resulting from nuclear testing. Moreover, differences over inspection do not constitute a barrier to agreement in this field.
Third, my delegation wishes to underline the importance we attach to the contribution of the eight unaligned nations represented at the Geneva negotiations in putting forward compromise proposals on a verification system. The Canadian delegation has taken the stand at the eighteen nation conference -and we reaffirm it now-that the eight nation proposals provide a sound basis for an agreement satisfactory to all concerned. A system based on existing national networks of observation posts with new posts if necessary; an international scientific commission to process and examine data from these stations; and the obligation of states parties to the agreement to furnish the facts necessary to establish the nature of any suspicious event on their territory-these are the main elements of the eight nation proposal which we believe should be incorporated, without further delay, in a draft treaty for ending all nuclear tests.
[Stage Direction]
Agreement on these points would narrow the differences separating the two sides to one major question: What is to be done if there is a dispute as to the nature of an event which has taken place in the territory of one of the parties to the agreement? It appears from new scientific data submitted last August at Geneva by the United States and Great Britain that the area of uncertainty where doubtful events could arise has been considerably reduced. Nevertheless, controversy persists over the question of how to verify that no underground testing takes place. Technical problems which have been raised in the examination of this subject could not usefully be discussed in this committee. However, there is a fundamental matter of principle which my delegation is firmly convinced must be borne in mind by the nuclear powers in their negotiations in this field.
It is agreed, I think, that no foreseeable inspection system will fully meet the preoccupations of all parties to a test ban agreement. What is needed then is a reasonable assurance that their interests will be protected. But this criterion cannot be applied exclusively to the risks which may be inherent in the treaty itself; it is equally important not to lose sight of the grave risks which humanity continues to run in the absence of such an agreement.
It has been alleged, for example, that a verification system involving on site inspection could mean that espionage data would be collected by the inspectors. In my opinion, the possibility that the international inspectorate could be used in this way is exceedingly remote. I cannot believe that the Soviet union would seriously contend that this risk compares in any way with the dangers which they themselves agree are inherent in continued testing.
It is also argued that the risk of a state evading its obligations under a nuclear tests agreement must be reduced to a minimum. My delegation fully recognizes the importance of this requirement, since a treaty which would not give assurances that states were living up to their commitments would be cause for continuing concern and tension rather than diminishing these factors as an
effective agreement is intended to do. But the risk of evasion should also be balanced against the dangers mankind must live with in the absence of an agreement. If it is feared that states might sign an agreement and later conduct secret tests, the nuclear powers must not only ask themselves whether this risk is acceptable in principle. They must also assess with equal care whether the military significance of such evasions would be greater or less than the dangers to health and security resulting from continued testing and an accelerated arms race.
This balance of risks and advantages has to be kept in mind in order that the negotiating parties may assess the real significance of possible espionage or evasions. As long as the negotiators concentrate their attention on the disadvantages to their security which might result from a particular system of inspection, it is doubtful whether any real progress is possible. But when these disadvantages are seen in their proper perspective, against the graver prospects of continued testing, the necessary conditions will exist to bring an effective test ban to reality. If the negotiating parties can readjust their thinking in this way, new compromises, acceptable to both sides, could be achieved without delay.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me review briefly the main considerations which will guide my delegation in dealing with the questions to be decided under the present item:
First, we wish to see a halt-by January 1, 1963 or earlier-to all nuclear weapons tests;
Second, as a means of achieving this end, we support the proposal for an immediate test ban in the atmosphere, outer space and underwater;
Third, we desire an effective international agreement which will provide assurances that no further tests are carried out and that all states live up to their obligations under the treaty. We are convinced that these objectives demand urgent attention, and we sincerely hope that this committee will act quickly and forcefully to assist in their realization. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the Canadian delegation will give its full support and active co-operation in this endeavour.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 22, 1962