1964-09-22

Mr. Speaker:: May I be permitted to
correct a clerical error which appears in the extract from the minutes of a meeting of the commissioners of internal economy held on Monday, September 14, 1964, concerning salary revisions for employees of the House of Commons in certain classifications, tabled in the house on Friday, September 18, 1964.
On page 3 of the said extract, as well as on page 702 of Votes and Proceedings of that date, under the classification "Chief of personnel" the words "Retroactive from October 1, 1963 to May 11, 1964, inclusive" should read "Retroactive from October 1, 1963, to June 30, 1964, inclusive".



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's)
presented the third report of the special committee on a Canadian flag, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice) moved:: That the items listed in the main estimates and the supplementary estimates (A) for 1964-65, relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs, presented to this house at the present session, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs, saving always the power of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of fhe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether, when he met recently with the President of the United States, the question was discussed as to the recognition of communist China or a seat for communist China in the security council?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question I think at the end of last week. My answer then, which I am glad to be able to repeat now, was that this matter did not come up in our conversations.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister say, in view of the discussions that are apparently taking place in this connection, referred to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, whether there has been any consultation with the Chiang Kai-shek government or any representative of that government regarding the position of Taiwan in the event that recognition takes place?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. There have been general discussions I think within the last two or three months with the governments concerned, including the government of China on Taiwan. The position of this government on that particular aspect of the problem has been stated very clearly, that any recognition of the government of Peking would have to be related to the views of the inhabitants of Taiwan as to whether or not they wish to be included in that recognition.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, has it also been made clear to the Chiang Kai-shek government that whatever measures take place, including recognition, every protection will be given to the people of Taiwan who have stood with us in freedom for so many years?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have just said, Mr. Speaker,
and I repeat in a different way, that it is
8284	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry not the policy of the government to do anything which would compel the people of Taiwan to accept the jurisdiction of a communist government in continental China without their own consent.


John George Diefenbaker: And to assure the people of Taiwan that their integrity will be protected against the hundreds of millions in communist China?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it would be a little difficult, Mr. Speaker, for the government of Canada on its own to give an assurance to the government of Taiwan that the integrity of that island would be protected. It would undoubtedly have the protection under the United Nations charter which would be given to all countries that are the victims of aggression.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to a story in the press which indicates a distinct possibility that the NORAD agreement will not be renewed unless Canada is prepared to contribute to a costly space program. Could I ask the Prime Minister, first, if Canada is being asked to contribute to such a space defence program and, second, whether Canada is contemplating the likelihood of not renewing the present agreement when it expires?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no, and the second part of the question does not arise. The position of the government on that matter has been made very clear by the Minister of National Defence and others.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and it concerns the situation in Cyprus. In view of the fact that our Canadian peace keeping troops are being subjected to a new secret weapon of aggression, being sticks and stones in the


hands of female patriots on that island, can the minister report what action has been taken, what decision has been made as far as the general situation on the island is concerned, and what progress has been made at the United Nations?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, General
Thimayya has taken the matter up with the Turkish community, with the vice president in particular I think, and I suspect that the matter will be resolved satisfactorily.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In my question I also referred to the fact that the house would like to know more about what has developed in relation to negotiations with regard to the Cyprus situation.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, as to the situation on the island itself, there has been a rather satisfactory state of peace for the last 10 days. The question of the renewal of the mandate of the force is now before the security council, which met on this question last Thursday and Friday. They met again this morning, and they are meeting this afternoon. As soon as the security council has made its decision the government of Canada will then be in a position to give consideration to the course which it proposes to follow.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is Canada imposing any conditions with respect to agreeing to continue the Canadian force in Cyprus for a further period of time? Is Canada asking for any extension of the terms of reference or any change in the status of the agreement between the United Nations and the government of Cyprus, particularly with reference to freedom of access, freedom of movement and the right to disarm guerrillas?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to put the matter exactly in the way my hon. friend has done when he asks, have we imposed a condition. We have urged upon the secretary general the view that the powers of the force should be clearly and unequivocally established. Following the representations which Canada and other countries have made, the secretary general in his report has laid down three conditions that embrace the area of desired action which the hon. gentleman has incorporated in his

Inquiries of the Ministry question. This is now the subject matter of south viet nam-request for statement on discussion in the security council.	present situation


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister say what is the state of the plans for the rotation of Canadian troops now in Cyprus, in the event that Canadian troops there will be required there for a further period?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, plans for rotation are complete. An advance party has already left, as I indicated to the house a few days ago, and the Department of National Defence is in a position to act as soon as a decision is taken.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Some weeks ago I asked the minister if he was giving any consideration to provision of additional pay for the Canadian force in Cyprus in line with what has been done by the Swedish, Brazilian and other governments. At that time the hon. gentleman promised the matter would be considered by himself and the officials of his department. Is he now in a position to announce any decision with regard to pay and allowances for troops in Cyprus?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No positive decision has been taken, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, September 17, the hon. member for Vancouver East directed an inquiry to me concerning Mr. Calvin Macdonald, who is alleged to have made an application for permanent admission to the United States. I understood at the time that my department was not involved in this matter, but I wanted to see first whether any related matter would fall within my jurisdiction. Such an application would be strictly between the applicant and the United States authorities. The Canadian immigration service would not become involved in such an application in any way; consequently the Department of Citizenship and Immigration would have no information concerning this case.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the present Khanh regime in South Viet Nam, which I believe is the second or third such regime we have recognized within the last few months, retain the confidence of this government; or in light of continuing turmoil there does it not seem clear that a reappraisal of our relationships in this respect is necessary?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman gave me notice of his intention to ask this question. I should say that, where there is no special consideration, the practice followed by Canada is to deal with the government that is in control. It is not for a Canadian government to decide whether any particular government is the right one for a country to have.
The situation in South Viet Nam, does of course, give concern. I hope that the continuing efforts of General Khanh to bring stability to his troubled country through the creation of a broadly based and popularly supported government will be successful. There will be an opportunity tomorrow for the Prime Minister, myself and other members of the government to exchange views on the general situation in Viet Nam with Ambassador Cabot Lodge.
While I am on my feet I should like to say that some time ago the government of Canada decided to increase the level of its economic and technical assistance to South Viet Nam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister any report from the Canadian representative on the international truce commission regarding recent happenings in the bay of Tonkin, and can he give the house either today or tomorrow some authoritative information as to what actually took place?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, when I was in Tokyo a few days ago I asked our representative on the international control commission in Viet Nam to come and report to us, as he did. I have nothing to add at this point.

Inquiries of the Ministry


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina Ciiy):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have not had an opportunity to give him notice, so he may want to take it as notice. I have been informed that with the full approval of the Secretary of State for External Affairs one Professor Nicolaev of the department of economics of the University of Moscow has been appointed to the staff of the economics department of the University of Saskatchewan, Regina campus, for a period of one year.
I should like to ask the minister on what basis this man has been admitted to Canada for this purpose. Is it on the basis of some exchange program whereby a Canadian professor is going to a university in Russia? Can the minister inform the house what is the basis of the admission of this professor into Canada and to this campus for this purpose?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is surely a question for the order paper.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Speaker, I think this question involves a very pertinent point. My information is that this is being done with the full consent of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Surely he can give a short answer so we can be informed.


Mr. Speaker:: The purpose of questions at this time is to deal with urgent matters that require an immediate answer. The minister may or may not be in a position to answer correctly on the spot. Therefore I suggested that the question be put on the order paper in order to get a full and complete answer, rather than a possibly half informed answer.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: With due deference, Mr. Speaker, I suggested that the minister might take the question as notice. I think the question is urgent, in that it perhaps has to do with national security. I think we want to be informed. If I have to put the question on the order paper I will do so, but I give notice to debate the question at ten o'clock.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could he inter-

vene, in the case of the employees of the newspaper La Presse of Montreal, in order that the appeal to the board of referees be heard before September 30, and even this week, in view of the urgency of an immediate solution of that problem for the many employees of La Presse and in view of the fact that the matter was settled much more quickly in the case of the newspaper employees in Toronto?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: I shall be glad to investigate to see if there is any way by which this hearing can be held at an earlier date.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister also intend to recommend that payment of benefits be made retroactive to the beginning of June, that is to the time when the strike started? [Text]


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is no way by which the Minister of Labour can make recommendations on this matter, because under the law the determination of the qualifying date in the first place is a matter for the insurance officer, then for the board of referees and ultimately for the umpire if that final step is taken.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heber E. Smith (Simcoe North):: should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether there have been any communications or conversations between the federal government and the provincial government of Quebec, the city of Montreal, the municipal port council or any other local body with a view to transferring the national harbours board facilities in Montreal to the provincial or municipal authorities.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: If the harbour facilities generally are the subject of the hon. member's question, the answer is in a very strong negative.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister give every assurance that the position of the ports of Saint John and Halifax, and now St. John's, Newfoundland, will be protected, inasmuch as they are in competition with Montreal, should any of these

moves mentioned in the newspapers take
place?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there seems to be a very great misapprehension. There has been no thought, and never has been any thought to my knowledge, that any ports now administered by the national harbours board would not continue to be administered by that board.



SYDNEY, N.S.-REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATION BY NATIONAL BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. May I ask the minister if he can advise the house whether he and the government will give consideration to the recent suggestion that the port of what we like to call greater Sydney will be brought under the administration and jurisdiction of the national harbours board?
John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a very large matter of policy, sir, on which I could not very well give an answer on the orders of the day.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government of Canada received any request from the united republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar, as a member of the commonwealth, for military assistance? If so, what is the nature of the response the government proposes to make to such request?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for Exlernal Affairs: I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. In reply I would say that over a period of several months the government has been actively considering requests for assistance in the training and equipping of the armed forces of the united republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The government has agreed to the request made by that government to send a military survey team to look into these matters.
Prior to the decision to send such a team the Canadian government offered training places for army officer cadets from Tanganyika and Zanzibar and this offer was accepted
Inquiries of the Ministry by the government of the united republic. The first group arrived in Ottawa on September 16. I believe it is anticipated that up to 15 cadets will be accepted in the present training year.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister say whether there is any danger that if the government of Canada does not render such assistance, other countries, perhaps communist countries, may do so?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: My hon. friend has no doubt seen indications in the newspapers to the effect that there has been an offer of assistance from communist China. Indeed, I believe there is a mission from that country in Tanganyika at the present time.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister or the Minister of Industry. Can the Minister of Industry justify the expenses incurred concerning personnel charged with finding new industries for different parts of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Raymond Langlois: But is it not a fact that during the last few days many of these men were unnecessarily laid off on a temporary basis?


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry in relation to the one I asked a few minutes ago, to the effect that there are a few men in the minister's department who have been laid off; and I refer to those personnel in charge of finding new industries. Is that a fact, and can the minister say when that took place?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that there had been any lay-offs in the Department of Industry, but I will be glad to make inquiries concerning this.



AUTOMOBILE PARTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid  Scoll@Danforlh: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a question to the Minister of

Inquiries of the Ministry Industry in the hope that it will meet with your ruling. In view of the widespread concern being created by reports from Washington that the United States is likely to take retaliatory action regarding the government's automotive parts incentive program, has the minister held meetings recently with United States officials to discuss alterations in the program; and what is the nature of such alterations, if any?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members will be aware that there is a quasi-judicial action pending in the United States with respect to the program of which the hon. member has spoken. In view of that fact it would be inappropriate for either the Canadian government or its representatives to make any kind of comment. I may say, however, that as is customary between ourselves and the United States, there continues to be the closest of consultation with a view to exploring all possible contingencies, all possible eventualities, and seeking solutions thereto.



EMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED MILITARY PERSONNEL IN DEFENCE INDUSTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the expressed concern that there is a growing close association between the defence department and the defence industry, due to an increasing number of retiring senior military officers taking top posts in defence companies, will the minister inform the house what steps he is taking to prevent this practice continuing?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the assumptions made in the newspaper story of which I have taken note are quite unwarranted, and there has been no evidence whatsoever that senior members of the armed forces who have retired and taken positions within industry, to give of their talents and energies to the country, have in any way abused the positions they previously held or made use in an unauthorized way of information to which they may have been privy.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to that asked of the Minister of Industry by the previous speaker. Has not this practice been followed in the United States, and as the result of these retired military officials becoming senior executives of companies


concerned with defence material production has not the United States had to pass legislation to correct the situation? Would the minister say that none of these retired officers have joined companies in Canada under similar circumstances?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not aware of the legislation in the United States to which the hon. member has referred. I am certain there is no such legislation in the United Kingdom. I will make inquiries as to what is the situation in the United States; but, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I think any suggestion of restrictive legislation impugning the bona fides of ex-members of the armed forces in this country is quite unwarranted.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister says he is not aware of this legislation. It was passed by the congress of the United States in 1963, and it prevents senior military officers occupying these posts. My supplementary question is this. Is there not some danger that the defence industry will dictate to the defence department what they should buy, rather than it being the other way around? Would this not be the situation if his department was staffed with too many senior military officers?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. A prominent member of the United States cabinet said that under these circumstances there could be a conflict of interest. Does not the minister agree with him?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think that is a proper question.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Due to congestion almost every Friday evening of Air Canada passengers arriving at Toronto international airport and requesting limousine service without success, will the minister say whether he has investigated the possibility of private companies supplying this service; and would he inform the R.C.M.P. not to prohibit the private cabs carrying passengers to the terminal from offering such service?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the hon. gentleman knows, Mr. Speaker, I have been looking into this matter for some time, and if there is a shortage of cabs I think something should be done to remedy it.



INQUIRY AS TO INTERNATIONAL COFFEE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In reply to a question of mine yesterday it was indicated that the retail price of coffee in Canada had increased by some 25 per cent to 30 per cent in line with the international coffee agreement. Is Canada satisfied with this agreement, or is some thought being given to protecting coffee drinkers by seeking amendments to it?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, I happen to have been the chairman of the international coffee conference at which the present coffee agreement was negotiated. At that time coffee prices were at very low levels, lower than at any time in the past decade, and it was agreed by the then Canadian government and by all the other countries of the world that this was causing human hardship and was interfering with the development of countries that produce and export coffee.
When the agreement came into effect in July, 1963 prices were, as I say, at these very low levels. Shortly thereafter there was a very serious drought in Brazil, which was the main cause for the increase in prices. Indeed, the increase had very little to do with the international coffee agreement. Then, when these prices rose very sharply as a result of the change in the supply situation, the members subscribing to the coffee agreement acted quickly to increase the permissible supplies of coffee being marketed under the agreement, with the result that coffee prices came down from their high point.
In answer specifically to the question as to whether Canada is satisfied with the operation of the agreement, I would say that this agreement can be improved; and it can be improved, I think, for the benefit of both consumers and producers. I would urge upon my hon. friend who asked this question that it is very much in the interests of all of us,
Inquiries of the Ministry including the consumers of Canada, that there should be reasonable prices for coffee, just as there should be reasonable prices for wheat.


An hon. Member:: And turkeys.


Barry Mather: As a supplementary question, is the minister not aware that the United States house of representatives has withheld re-ratification of the world coffee agreement because it is the feeling there that it is working to the detriment of the consumers of coffee in the United States?


Mr. Sharp:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I know this. I know the reluctance there has been in the United States for many years to agree to any international commodity agreement. This has been a standing difficulty, but I do hope this agreement will be ratified.



NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING IMPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Could he tell us whether it is true that certain concerns are now entering into preliminary negotiations with a view to import butter into Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of it, but I will make inquiries.



REQUEST FOR GRANT FOR 1966 QUEBEC FESTIVAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could the minister inform the house whether the government is favourable to awarding the $500,000 grant to la societe des jeux d'hiver de Quebec, as recommended by the national advisory council on amateur sport and physical fitness? Also, what stage has been reached in these transactions between the federal and the provincial authorities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It does seem to me this is a very good question for the order paper.


Auguste Choquette: It is an urgent question, because those games are supposed to take place in 1966 or 1967.
8290	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Auguste Choquette: Therefore the organization has to be assured it will get the grant as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, I will raise this question at ten o'clock.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and arises out of an answer he gave the former minister of northern affairs and national resources, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, in reference to a demand for his resignation by the Banff civic council, an elected body. Is he now prepared, because of the serious charges made against him by that elected council, to meet with the council in the very near future?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to meeting the council at any time. I would hope that some of those who made the statements in question would not be at the council meeting when I attend it. This is an advisory board, and they gave the type of advice that was given in this case when it was absolutely clear that I was operating within the advice given us by the Oberlander report and also by the code that we had developed in respect to the use of these properties. This matter has been the subject of a number of editorials, and I think the gentleman who spoke about dirty politics was probably answered as well by them as I intend to answer him when I speak.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would care to disclose the name of that elected representative on the council, so the council could advise him to stay away the night the minister meets with the council.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister assure the house that the choice made in regard to this property was not in favour of commercial interests versus one of the most strategic potential park sites in Banff?


Arthur Laing: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe so, because this site was set aside in the Oberlander report for use as a motel. The difficulty in the parks-not alone in this


park-is that there is resistance to competition. I unfortunately, as was the former minister, was placed in the position of having to determine what is the proper degree of competition. I would say that in my best judgment at the present time I tend to greater competition being permitted than exists at the present time, and that is going to be the policy.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State, but in his absence perhaps the acting minister could answer. Can the minister advise the house and public when the him on the excellent national conference on Canadian goals, recently held at Fredericton, will be shown on C.B.C. television?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no knowledge of the matter, Mr. Speaker, but I will inquire.



ALLOCATION OF FREE TIME TO POLITICAL PARTIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether he has made representations to the C.B.C. so that the leaders of the other parties might have a television program like the ones given to the leaders of the Liberal and Conservative parties, and also what were the results of those representations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will pass on the views expressed by the hon. member to the C.B.C.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Can he tell us whether there was an answer from the C.B.C., whether he expects an answer soon or whether he intends to renew his request in this respect?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to make further inquiries.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, my question refers to an important article appearing in this morning's Globe and Mail, which reads in part:
"Until honesty returns to our ranks, how can we criticize other political parties?"
This was stated by a supporter of the Ontario Liberal association in protest against federal Liberal politicians in the provincial field.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eric Alfred Winkler: My question is to the Minister of Finance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is not in order.



CROWN ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to answer the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) who asked me a question the other day in connection with the disposal of crown assets.
I understand that there have been negotiations between the city council of St. Hyacinthe and the representatives of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and a resolution from the city council of St. Hyacinthe is expected now at any moment.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Si. Hyacinihe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production a supplementary question arising out of the information he gave a little earlier.
How much did the city council of St. Hyacinthe offer for the two unused buildings?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I said a little earlier, we are awaiting the city council's offer.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: have a question for the Minister of National
Inquiries of the Ministry Defence. Is the minister aware that the traditional fly-past held in connection with the annual battle of Britain ceremony in the Rivers-Brandon area was cancelled at the last moment on instructions from Ottawa and that this was the only disappointing aspect of an otherwise impressive ceremony? Can the minister give reasons for the sudden change in policy in this regard?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): I thank the hon. gentleman for indicating to me on the way to the house that he would ask this question. He is not accurate when he implies there was a sudden change in policy. As I think he was advised in response to his telegram, last March the R.C.A.F. established a policy of not accepting invitations to participate in fly-pasts and other shows across the country, except in a certain narrow range of circumstances including air force days. The policy which has been applied throughout the whole season was applied in the case to which the hon. member refers.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Is the minister aware that regular training exercises are carried out by the aircraft based at Rivers, that the pilots of these planes were standing by waiting to take part in the ceremony, and that they were disappointed, because they regard it as one of the most important ceremonies in which the air force can participate, inasmuch as it was commemorating an event which makes it possible for us to sit here as a free parliament today?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I was not aware of that, but if it is so I am surprised they would not have been aware of the policy which was established by the force many months ago.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport; I regret I have not sent him notice. Has the hon. gentleman recently had discussions with the leaders of the western wheat pools with regard to the new transport legislation, and is he able to disclose to the house the nature of any advice which may have been tendered to him?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had the chairmen of the Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta pools to lunch with

Inquiries of the Ministry me today. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was also present. It was a very enjoyable western gathering at which we had a little discussion about the transport of wheat, a subject which naturally interests the wheat pools.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Did the right hon. gentleman state in the course of a press conference in Vancouver on September 17 that closure would be used if the flag committee did not come forward with a near unanimous decision?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No such statement was made.


Robert Carman Coates: Would the Prime Minister make available to the house what, in fact, he did say to that press conference? 1 picked up the Montreal Star on Friday afternoon and the headline said that closure would be applied by the Prime Minister in the debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to convey to the hon. member the record, as I have it, of what I did say. Also if he studies the matter he will And out that the Montreal Star did not make the statement he mentioned.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a supplementary question.
According to the Canadian Press he stated in Newfoundland yesterday:
I hope to see the new Canadian flag and the union jack flying side by side on the parliament buildings.
Does this mean that even before the committee hands in its report we are certain that Canada will have two flags?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No; I did not say that, either, in that form.


Robert Carman Coates: I wonder if the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There should be a little order.


Raymond Langlois: I rise on a question of privilege-


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps the Prime Minister would tell us what he did say?


Raymond Langlois: I rise on a question of privilege. I had intended doing so earlier, but since the question has now been brought up I should like to insist on a point which the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam brought before the house the other day. As a member of the flag committee I urge that until this committee has made its report the leaders of the two major parties in this house should refrain from making any statements which would cause any kind of commotion in that committee, so that we can come to a conclusion before long.


John George Diefenbaker: We do not want to be unfair to the Prime Minister, because two mis-reports in two days is one under par. Would he tell us what he did say yesterday in this regard? He says he did not say that he hoped soon there would be two flags flying on parliament hill. What did he say?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know the right hon. gentleman has an intense interest in this matter, and I also know how preoccupied he has been over the years by accuracy in reporting. What I said was, I am sure, something which would appeal to the right hon. gentleman. I said that if the committee reports, and the report of the committee is accepted by the house providing for a distinctive Canadian national flag and a flag which symbolizes our commonwealth association and our loyalty to the monarchy, I would hope on appropriate occasions to see both of them flying on parliament hill.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that we have the revision of what the Prime Minister said yesterday-


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a question of privilege, the right hon. gentleman asked me what I said and I gave him a report of what I said. He has no right to refer to this as a revision of what I said. I do not adopt those tactics, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope we have concluded questions on this particular matter for the moment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: have a supplementary question on another aspect-


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member for Kootenay West that we have had sufficient discussion of this matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It has been brought up, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Fisher:: Christmas comes but once a year.



LOTTERIES

[Stage Direction]
NOVA SCOTrA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. On the front page of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald for yesterday morning, September 21, I read that the first open season on moose in Nova Scotia since 1937 will open tomorrow, but only 400 residents are eligible to hunt the animals. Then this statement appears: "The licences were drawn for last month".
Will the Minister of Justice advise this house when the lottery was legalized by the Department of Justice, so that we may have a precedent for other lotteries in this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Now we have enjoyed that question I suggest we move on.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Inasmuch as the hon. gentleman's estimates received a speedy referral to the standing committee today, would the hon. gentleman tell us whether he is ready to discuss, within the area of that committee's inquiries, the revision of veterans pensions in the light of the present day cost of living?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I think that is a question for the committee itself. Perhaps I had better put it this way. I can assure the hon. gentleman that I will be glad to appear before that committee at any time it so requests.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and it can probably be classified as supplementary to a previous question. When his estimates are before the committee concerned, will he be in a position to make a policy statement with re-20220-525*
Inquiries of the Ministry gard to the proposed takeover of veterans hospitals. I may be in error, but I do not think we have had a clarifying statement. On the one hand, we have the statement being made-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question has been asked. Let us wait for the answer.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a moment ago I will certainly be glad to appear before the committee at any time and answer any questions that are right and proper, and which I can answer.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. P. Deschafeleis (Minister of Public Works):: Yesterday the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam wondered why vacant quarters in Churchill could not be occupied by personnel of Pan-American Airways. When the army was responsible for housing before April 1, 1964, they issued a block of houses to the United States air force, which in turn allocated some of the houses to its contractor, Pan-American Airways. The Department of Public Works has kept that arrangement in force, because the vacant houses will eventually be filled by employees of various federal departments now in Churchill when they have completed their recruiting. We anticipate, therefore, that this recruiting will soon be completed, and there should be no vacancies after that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How soon does the minister think these 100 vacant married quarters will be occupied? At the present time I understand they are empty, while Pan-American employees are having great difficulty obtaining living accommodation for themselves and their families. How soon will these 100 vacant quarters be occupied by the families to which he referred?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, this recruiting is going on quite rapidly. I think my estimates will be called on Thursday or Friday of this week, and I will be in a position then to give more details.
8294	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



INCLUSION OF INTERPRETERS AND TRANSLATORS IN INTERNAL ECONOMY COMMISSION DIRECTIVES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency asked a question concerning certain pay increases. I want to say that the order passed by the internal economy commission and announced by Mr. Speaker last week did not include the employees of the house who belong to the translation and interpretation divisions of the Department of the Secretary of State, because the salaries of these employees have been revised already. That revision was effective as of April 1, 1963. The classes of translators and interpreters form part of the group A cyclical review.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Would the parliamentary secretary inquire whether the regulations-not the increases but the regulations-applicable to the employees of the House of Commons apply also to translators and interpreters?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I will refer this particular detailed question to the appropriate authorities and obtain an. answer.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Oltanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister advise the house whether discussions have been reinstituted with the provinces, or whether discussions are contemplated with the provinces, in respect of the development of a national highways policy; and can he tell the house when the government plans to make an announcement of such policy and whether it is likely to be soon?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, it is not easy on orders of the day to answer such a broad question which has to do with government policy, but I might say that it is not the intention of the department to call the provincial minis-


ters of highways to a national conference. This does not close the door to any exchange of views in respect of problems the provinces might have. In fact, during the past month we have had many meetings with the provincial ministers of highways.


Stuart A. Fleming: I
have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand the minister to say there is not to be a conference on national highways policy but simply conferences on ad hoc situations as they arise, and that no national policy is contemplated?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I said before that for the present year it is not the intention to call a meeting of the provincial ministers of highways, and that is the situation at this time. I have said that this was not closing the door to any particular talks with any provinces, and such talks have in fact taken place.


Stuart A. Fleming: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am not asking the minister about not closing doors, I am asking him whether he is going to open some doors to a national highways policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest that the hon. member put that very detailed question on the order paper.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of fhe Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Fisheries has been receiving many complaints following the article in the Globe and Mail regarding the inhuman and dastardly practices of some in respect of sealing. He stated the other day that he was going to recommend some change in the regulations. Is he now in a position to say what those changes will be, so there will be no repetition of the circumstances set out in that article that brought about tremendous public interest?
Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the seal season has been closed since April 25 last, I believe, and will not reopen until early in March of next year. As I have stated in this house, a meeting was held on May 19 or 20 in Moncton with representatives of the sealing industry and a number of representatives of the fishermen concerned. Since then a draft has been prepared of certain amendments to the seal

regulations, and a second meeting has been called for early October in order to make known to those interested the amendments we have in mind. Following that meeting it is my intention to have an order in council passed amending the regulations and giving the protection which has been asked for.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that statement, and ask him whether representatives of the humane society will be present when these proposed amendments to the regulations are discussed, so there will be double assurance that these cruelties will not continue to be perpetuated.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that we have already discussed these proposed amendments with representatives of the humane society, and they are quite satisfied with the amendments we have in mind.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Public Works?
Could the minister inquire of the 1967 world exhibition corporation about its project "Habitat 67" under which 1,100 model apartments would be built at an estimated cost of $36,903 each?
Does the minister not feel that those apartments are too expensive?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member to put his question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) since he actually attends to matters relating to the 1967 world fair?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Approximately a
Farm Machinery
year ago I asked in the house whether the government intended to form an agency to deal with eastern Canada feed grain. Has the government taken any decision or any step in this direction since 365 days ago?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will bring this question to the attention of the minister who is absent on official business.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, September 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hays for the second reading of Bill No. C-121, to provide for the extension of credit to farm machinery syndicates.
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture gave us some further information concerning the general outline of the bill we are discussing, which has to do with loans to farm machinery syndicates. This was done because on this side of the house many questions were asked at the resolution stage pertaining to the background of the legislation. When the minister was pressed at the resolution stage he stated that in the terms of the bill itself, and the explanations that would follow, answers would be found to these many pertinent questions.
Although the parliamentary secretary did comply with our requests to a degree, there still remain many broad questions with respect to the principles of the bill about which we would like to be satisfied. After having had the opportunity to read the bill I must say that personally I am very disappointed. I am of the opinion that the measure may indeed be of some help to a few large farm complexes throughout the country, but in its application it will do very little to help the ordinary farmer who seems to be in difficulty today.
The approach of the government in the bill, as with any other farm legislation or policy that has been introduced by the government, seems to follow one particular course, to provide further funds by way of credit for our farmers who, if they take advantage of it, find themselves deeper and deeper in debt. In my opinion this in no way attacks the basic problem of farming today because farmers do not want to be in debt. They do not want too much additional credit. What they want is an attempt by the government

Farm Machinery
either to increase their incomes or decrease their operating expenses in order to give them the necessary capital to finance themselves. It is my honest opinion that the bill, as in the case of other legislative applications of policy by the government, does nothing to attack these basic problems facing agriculture today. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) and the parliamentary secretary spoke about the 80 per cent of the cost that the loan would cover and the 20 per cent that would have to be put up by the individuals joining such a syndicate.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that in the course of a few minutes this afternoon I could ask the parliamentary secretary or the minister some of the questions that must be going through the minds of farmers today who are aware of this legislation. I hope that before we get into the committee stage on this bill the parliamentary secretary might provide the answers to these questions, which I am sure must be troubling these farmers. We have heard about this 80 per cent-20 per cent basis, but what the farmers will want to know is how this 20 per cent is going to be broken up amongst the members of the syndicate. Is each member of the syndicate to be assessed an equal amount of this equity or is there to be a disparity amongst the members who join? Can one member put up 10 per cent and the other three members provide the other 10 per cent or must they all assume an equal amount of this liability? This is one of the questions farmers are asking today.
, We understand from the parliamentary secretary that each member will be allowed to borrow up to $15,000, and that there will be a maximum of $100,000 for the syndicate. We find the same regulation applying to farm improvement loans, and we wonder just what difference there will be. The parliamentary secretary stated this will in no way jeopardize the ability of farmers to borrow under the farm improvement loans legislation. Here again a question arises. If a farmer has borrowed $15,000 under the farm improvement loans legislation and has used his assets as collateral, will these same assets not be necessary for collateral for a farm machinery loan? Certainly the parliamentary secretary would not, I believe, contend that the same amount of capital can be used as collateral for both of these loans.
Then there is the seven year limit. If $100,000 is borrowed and the interest rate is the prevailing rate, plus 1 per cent for

the cost of operation, it could mean 6 per cent spread over seven years. If there are five or six participants in this syndicate it would mean the repayment would amount to perhaps $6,000 per member per year, which is quite an obligation to be undertaken by a farmer.
There is another question that is bothering farmers today. What effect will this measure have on private enterprise? Throughout Canada today there are machine agents who are providing pools of machinery and making equipment available to their neighbours and farmers in the area, and charging operation costs on a custom basis. In what position does this measure place these men? There is a provision in this legislation to the effect that every member of a syndicate does not have to be a full time farmer. This has caused a lot of worry amongst members of the opposition because they believe it will lead to integration and we shall see big business come into the field to take over the tools necessary to do farm work. I am sure farmers all across this country would like to see these loans strictly limited to farmers. Farmers have a great deal of suspicion about pouring money into the hands of individuals not engaged in farm work who may be induced to come into the field, because in many cases this does not promote the best interests of the farmers themselves.
The parliamentary secretary spoke about general provisions. Farmers have found as a result of bitter experience that it is always a simple matter for them to obtain money from the various farm corporations, provided they have the necessary security. It is always a simple matter to contract into these things. When we are talking about $100,000, the farmers want to know how they contract out of something like this if it does not meet with their approval or does not live up to their expectations. The parliamentary secretary has stated that general provisions would be enacted for adding new members, to cover the death or insolvency of a member and for the dissolution of the syndicate. These are very general terms, Mr. Speaker, and general terms do not mean very much to a farmer in connection with an undertaking of this size.
We would like the government, if it is in a position to do so, to elaborate on these general provisions and to indicate what machinery they envisage might be set up to take care of this very important part of this measure. The farmers want to know what

happens if a partner becomes bankrupt. Where do we stand then? What happens if one of the partners should die? Am I saddled with that part of the obligation? If I want to get out of this syndicate, how do I get out or can I get out? How much of the obligation am I going to be forced to assume to get out of the syndicate? What factors are taken into consideration? What about the devaluation of the machinery the syndicate has purchased? These are some of the questions farmers are asking themselves today. Farmers are businessmen, Mr. Speaker, and they want to look at this measure strictly as businessmen. I feel that they are right in asking these questions.
The next question is, how do we arrive at the type of machinery we are going to buy? What happens if there is a disagreement amongst the members of the syndicate as to the type of machinery we want to buy? The members might agree on the type of machine, but there may be a difference of opinion over the company that is to furnish this machine. There are many machine companies today making machinery which is used for the same purpose but which may be slightly different. The farmers want to know how these matters are going to be decided. Are we going to have the members of the syndicate making all these decisions, or will the syndicate be subjected to a mass of rules and regulations relating to each of these difficulties that might arise? The farmers want to know exactly what they are going to get into. In my opinion it is not sufficient to state there will be general provisions.
It is stated that before a syndicate is formed the members will be required to make arrangements regarding shares, regarding repairs, operating costs, storage and allocation of priority for use of the machine. Now, Mr. Speaker, what is meant by "make arrangements"? Is it going to be stated that before a syndicate is brought into being you must form a board of directors, that you must have bylaws? Is it to be a closed corporation? What are the operating methods by which these arrangements are going to be made? Who makes these arrangements? Who decides what machinery shall be bought? Who decides the type of machinery that shall be bought? What happens when a new member is brought into the syndicate? How is he treated? What part of the obligation does he assume? Does he have to contribute toward the full cost of the machinery or the depreciated value of the machinery? These are the questions we
Farm Machinery
would like to have answered before we deal with this bill clause by clause.
We hear that a number of persons may join a syndicate. This poses another problem in connection with farm credit. Farmers do not want to tie up all their credit in farm machinery. They have to have credit for fertilizers, for livestock and for seed. If I understand this bill correctly, when a person joins the syndicate he must sign a promissory note, and he must assume the entire obligation because, as I understand it, the obligation is assumed jointly and severally. Farmers want to know if they borrow $15,000 individually and the syndicate borrows $100,000, is the credit of a farmer assessed for the entire $100,000? When the farmer goes to a bank to borrow additional funds and this promissory note is disclosed, does this work against his credit to the full extent of $100,000? If such is the case, then there are hundreds of thousands of farmers whose credit would be absolutely at an end if they belonged to a syndicate operated under such an arrangement.
We are certainly not going to oppose this bill in its entirety. We are not going to oppose the principle of the bill, because we are of the opinion that if there is anything at all that will help the farmers we will support it, and if the farmers can use further credit we shall support the provision of it. If farmers can obtain and use better equipment, then that is all to the good; but I fear this bill will not accomplish what the government hopes it can, because I do not think the farmers will utilize this credit.
It will probably be businessmen who hope to invest money and earn a living that way, who will use the provisions of this bill. There may be large farm complexes which will take advantage of it, but these are few in number; and I believe that after the bill has been in operation for a few years the government will find it is a very poor one indeed. The government will find that it is not attacking the basic farm problems, that it is window dressing, and that it fails to meet basic farm needs.
It is my opinion that the provision of more credit to farmers at this stage is not the answer to farm problems. Some attempt must be made to assess and combat the two basic problems facing farmers today, which are lack of gross income and the increase in operating expenses. The gap is narrowing every year and farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with these problems. All the government is doing through the

Farm Machinery
Farm Credit Corporation, the Farm Improvement Loans Act and now through this farm machinery syndicate bill is offering greater and greater credit to farmers which, for the most part, will put them more and more in debt, unless something is done to attack the basic problems of agriculture. The farmers of Quebec, Ontario, the maritimes, the west and B.C. know what the problems are. They have made representations to the government on their basic problems, and it is my opinion that a measure such as this will not in any way alleviate the basic problems they are facing.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to make a few brief observations on this somewhat unusual bill to provide for the extension of credit to farm machinery syndicates, the exact purpose of which is still somewhat of a mystery to the members of the house.
Before I proceed I should explain that I have been a farmer all my life, but in contrast to the many well-to-do farmers we find in the ranks of the Progressive Conservative party I have been associated more with the axe, the grub hoe and the walking plow throughout my life.


John George Diefenbaker: You are an agricultural plutocrat.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: However, I am just as interested in this bill as if I were the owner of a very large farm and had a large amount of equipment. I might say, Mr. Speaker, as my leader previously said, that we support the apparent principle of the bill, which even at this time is somewhat obscure, but the over-all general intention appears to be good. However, we shall have to do a bit of quizzing before we finally know what it all means.
To extend credit to farm syndicates and to provide a special account of some $25 million sounds very well. But as hon. members know, throughout the years this party has supported the economic family farm as the basis of Canadian agriculture, has supported the development of the co-operative ownership of machinery, has supported co-operative processing for farmers, has supported cooperative marketing, and has supported commodity marketing agreements between governments. In fact I think it is true to say that throughout the years this party has had some influence on agricultural policies in this house, closely associated as it is with the

producers of Canada, whether they are industrial or agricultural.
Until now we have not been faced with a bill quite like this one, but we have urged policies to this end and have urged legislation containing what appear to be the general purposes of this bill. We all know that in recent years, particularly since the second world war, there has been a great need for credit because of the greatly increased mechanization of our farms, and because of the large amounts of money required to buy the equipment necessary to service them.
I have had some experience of that in a much smaller field than on these wide prairie plains, or the rich Ontario valleys, or the rolling Quebec hills. It has been practical experience, because I am one of those who have their noses to the grindstone most of the time. Anyway this experience with the people I have the honour to represent has caused them willingly to associate themselves together in the co-operative purchasing of machinery, and I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) raise some doubts as to the ability of farmers to co-operate for this purpose. Our experience has been entirely different. We have carried on a form of co-operation in the purchase of machinery, as I said before on a much smaller scale than my hon. friends to the right speak of, but with great success, and I believe that what can be done in a limited sphere can be extended.
In his statement the minister recognized the great need for credit for the purchase of machinery, and also recognized the need for co-operative effort in purchasing machinery. Then he went on to deal with the syndicates, and this is the part of the bill on which we want full explanations. What does he mean by syndicates? How will they function? How will the proposed act be administered? I understand it is to be administered by the Farm Credit Corporation, and as this piece of legislation is an experiment its administration and application will be watched with interest.
As I have endeavoured to point out, there is experience in Canadian history to support this type of legislation in general principle. I am not quite sure of the details, but I remember when I was a boy our first investment in co-operative machinery was when all the neighbourhood got together to build a snowplow in order to get us out of the woods. Some people say we have not got out of them yet; but anyway, Mr. Speaker, after that we had co-operative ownership of

stump pulling machines. No one had sufficient money to buy a stump pulling machine and the necessary steam engine so we did it on a co-operative basis. Later we bought community land clearing equipment. Then as our orchards came into bearing we bought spraying machines on a co-operative basis, because these too were costly. In fact they are now ten times as costly as they were 40 years ago. Some farmers also went into the purchase of small saw mills and planers on a co-operative basis, and I shall have some questions to ask in that respect when we come to deal with various clauses in the bill.
Further, as has been pointed out, the prairies and other parts of the country shared similar experiences; all of which indicates that this type of legislation, if it is on a sound basis, should be very successful. Further we know that in the United Kingdom during the last eight or nine years they have experimented along these lines quite successfully. I do not know the details of their legislation with respect to co-operative ownership of machinery, but I do know the U.K. government makes provision for credit for the purchasing of machinery.
Because this is experimental legislation we have to ask a lot of questions. We support the principle or general purpose of the bill. Only experience in its application will determine whether it is successful to any extent or whether by amendment it can be made fully successful.
I take this point of view, Mr. Speaker. As I have said before, I give credit to the government for bringing in any legislation along this line that is of an experimental nature. We have to be willing to experiment in various ways in agriculture, as far as legislation is concerned. Some of these experiments will fail; some will succeed as the result of amendment because of experience. But I do believe we should be willing to see legislation of this type given a trial, to see how it works, and then look forward to an account from the minister, say after the act has had a year's operation.
I could go on at greater length, Mr. Speaker, but I think we can best get the information we require with respect to the purpose of this bill by asking our questions on the various clauses of the bill when they are being considered by the house in committee.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the second reading of Bill C-121, an act to provide for the extension of credit to farm machinery syndicates. We appreciate
Farm Machinery
the remarks the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture made last night, bringing to our attention some of the ramifications of this proposed legislation and answering some of the questions that have been asked. It is a refreshing change to have this Liberal government introducing for the first time since it was elected a piece of legislation that has to do with agriculture. Any other pieces of agriculture legislation, to the best of my knowledge, were concerned with amendments to existing legislation that had been introduced into this house by the Conservative party. It is unusual, Mr. Speaker, that when the government is introducing for the first time a piece of legislation concerning agriculture, the Minister of Agriculture is not present to pilot the bill through the house.
Mr. Speaker, may I make it abundantly clear at the beginning that I am in favour of any legislation that will help increase the farmer's income, or anything that can be done to reduce the farmer's operating costs. I would hope sincerely that this legislation would do just that, but I have very many doubts as to whether it will provide either of these two conditions. The first question I would ask the minister if he were here is: Why did he introduce this legislation? Did anybody make representation to him or the government asking for such legislation? Did the Canadian farm federation or the farmers' union make representation asking for this type of legislation? Or is this just a brainchild of the minister's, to help promote farm integration? Does he want to promote integration, or does he want to help the small, individual farmer? Or is this going to be just a great bonanza for the agricultural farm implement people?
I think there is a great deal of duplication in this piece of legislation. Farm improvement loans were extended just recently doubling the amount that any farmer may borrow. As hon. members know, this act was set up to enable farmers to buy machinery. I believe this act would take care of the very thing the government is trying to bring about in this bill. The Farm Credit Corporation legislation was recently amended and it, too, makes provision for the purchase of machinery.
Then we have the other lending facilities that are available. I think of the Canadian banking system and the banks that are ready and willing to extend credit to an economic farm unit or a farm operation that is on sound footing. I believe we should pause here for a moment Mr. Speaker, and think of

Farm Machinery
the part the bank managers and the banks of Canada have played down through the years in helping to develop the economy of our country and agriculture as well. I think of the very useful advice the bank manager can give to a farmer or to anyone who makes application for a loan. I do not think we can just pass by lightly the ability that he has and the information he has at his disposal; the guiding hand and direction he is able to give anyone making application for or inquiring about a loan. I say again that I believe there is a great deal of duplication in this piece of legislation.
Are these syndicates to be treated as a cooperative? Are they to have the advantages with regard to income tax returns that cooperatives have at the present time? If this is so, I think this is a discriminatory piece of legislation; I think it is unfair to private business. The man who has made a great investment in machinery, who is ready and willing and is doing business in his community as a custom operator, is being discriminated against by this piece of legislation; or will be if it is adopted by the house. I think of the many millers who are operating feed mills in my area and many other areas of Canada. It is suggested that mobile feed mills can be bought under a syndicate arrangement. These mobile feed mills will move around an area in which there is already located a mill that has been serving the area down through the years and has been rendering good service. They will have a distinct advantage over the miller in the community especially with regard to the income tax arrangements that will be provided to these syndicates under this piece of legislation.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think this will create unfair competition. I would suggest that if the minister wishes to aid the livestock feeder in the east or the west, a more direct approach might be taken. In my humble opinion, the present course of action that is proposed will give the greatest benefit to the machinery manufacturers. The progressive farmer has more to do than learn the complex workings of the feed trade. The organizing, operating, upkeep and financing of a mobile feed mill is no small problem. The knowledge required to use the mill to maximum efficiency, the knowledge required to mix uniform feeds for effective purposes, and the knowledge required to choose the right supplements to complement the farmer's grains are not learned overnight.

What happens then? Either there is the drop in quality that goes with a drop in price or some member, the one who has learned the most, will take over as manager of the group. If that is the case, the new co-operative group will be in direct competition with the local feed mill. It will incur many of the overhead costs which must be borne by any business organization and there will be fewer farmers to help bear these costs. A duplication of services often dilutes the efficiency of both.
I think this is a most unusual bill. There is a certain amount of mystery and experimentation connected with it. What research did the department carry out before introducing it? The parliamentary secretary told us last night that this system had been used in the United Kingdom. I believe he said it was introduced there in 1955 but that it took seven years, until 1962, to get 293 syndicates interested in this type of legislation. Even nine years later, in 1964, there were only 596 syndicates established under the United Kingdom program. Looking up the number of farmers in the United Kingdom I found that as of last year there were 399,683, almost as many as we have in Canada. However, I do not think a comparison can fairly be made between the situation in the United Kingdom and that which exists in Canada in this respect. The type of farming carried on in the United Kingdom is entirely different. They have smaller units there and climatic conditions are different from ours. So I do not think it is fair to say that because this scheme has worked in the United Kingdom it will necessarily work in Canada.
In conclusion I repeat what I said at the beginning of my remarks. I am in favour of anything which would help increase farm income or reduce operating costs, but I do not believe this bill is an answer to these problems. The measure involves duplication and for this reason it is not necessary. It discriminates against private businesses which are in operation in some fields one of which I have mentioned. For these reasons and others already mentioned, I doubt very much the value of this piece of legislation. I mentioned that this is the first piece of farm legislation which the Liberal government has introduced since it came to power and I cannot help think that they could have introduced much more needed legislation than is represented by the illconceived measure which has been placed before us at the present time.


Robert Norman Thompson: 
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to add anything to the arguments that have been advanced by the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) (Mr. Danforth) and the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales), but I do feel that some observation should be made regarding the policy of this government to act on behalf of farmers and bring about within our country new hope in various areas of agriculture that have been so seriously neglected by this government.
In so far as this legislation is concerned, I can only measure its importance in the view of the government by the fact that no minister is here to present this legislation. Only two ministers are in the house. One is the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught), who at no time in my experience has participated in agricultural

Farm Machinery
matters, and the other, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet), whose experience in connection with agriculture is, to say the least, limited. I am not talking about his past, because I do not know anything about that, but I do know that his knowledge of agriculture has never been very apparent in this house. I am not going further than that at the moment, unless the hon. gentleman wants to get me into another field.
May I say this, and I speak with the authority of parliament throughout the years, that there could be nothing more contemptuous of the House of Commons than the introduction of legislation, which we are told is important, when the carriage of that legislation is not in the hands of a minister. I say that with all due respect to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Beer), the parliamentary secretary. He cannot speak for the government and has no authority to do so. The answers he may give would not have the authority of governmental answers. Indeed I think this is the first time in the years I have been here that I have known of any legislation being inr-troduced without a minister being available to explain and answer the questions that necessarily arise.
When one thinks of the promises made only 17 months ago, 18 months ago and 19 months ago in respect of what was going to be done for Canadian agriculture, he must remember that now in the month of September this is the first matter of legislation originating with this government intended to help the farmer. Nothing has been done to meet the problem of the Canadian farmer, and that problem today relates to the increase in the cost-price squeeze and the increase in the prices of those things which the farmer has to buy without a corresponding increase in the price of those things the farmer has to sell. The government that promised much now brings in a piece of legislation that has all the appearance of papering over the agricultural cracks in the Canadian economy.
I was interested to read recently that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) thinks that the name "farmer" is one that is not as highly regarded as it should be. Indeed he said in his speech in Toronto on December 4 that something should be done to improve the image of the farmer, and that image he said should be improved in the sophisticated city minds. In the view of the Minister of Agriculture "farmer" is an expression that can no longer be used among the sophisticated, and therefore the Minister of Agriculture for Canada has concluded that it might be well to

change the name, and instead of calling him a farmer we should begin to call him what he really is, a food producer, a food manufacturer, or a grocery grower. That is a most unusual viewpoint on the part of the Minister of Agriculture for Canada, and it is surprising that he should be disturbed in his soul about the name "farmer" but not equally disturbed by the need for taking effective action.
Hon. members of the official opposition have brought before the house and the country the serious plight of the dairy farmers, the serious plight of the farmers both in Ontario and in Quebec. No action has been taken and nothing has been done to meet the problem, of such a nature in the province of Quebec that some
16,000	farmers-if I may still use that expression without its having the connotation of opprobrium that was in the mind of the Minister of Agriculture when he spoke in Toronto-marched on Quebec city. Nothing has been done and no action has been taken. The real income of the Canadian farmer is down, and I mean the effective income based on a proper relationship to the cost of things the farmer has to buy. Indeed what is being produced here by this legislation is simply an experiment with a potential $25 million cost tag attached to it.
I cannot discuss at this moment what the effect of this legislation will be, but it does provide that not less than three individuals, who are engaged in farming independently of one another, or who are members of a cooperative farm association, and the principal occupation of a majority of whom is farming, may obtain some assistance. What does this mean? It means simply that two farmers can join with a financially powerful man and then obtain this assistance. It is all very well to say that something should be done for the small farmer, and I believe in that, but this legislation has all the appearance of being ill digested, ill considered and completely insufficient in any way to meet the farm problems.
I am reminded that many promises were made by the Liberal party during the election campaign. They were summed up recently in the Family Herald of Montreal. I am glad to see that the joint minister of agriculture, if I may call him that, is in our midst now because he is the one who should be piloting this measure. He is the only one who can speak with authority, not a parliamentary secretary however estimable but a minister of the crown. I hope that as I go on the number of ministers will increase. I am referring to numbers, not to importance. We

now have three present and we will expect the hon. gentleman who has just come in, the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), to have something to say in this regard because, after all, in his own province of Quebec public opinion is aroused today to such an extent that one of the ministers said the other day the economic situation in that province was of greater importance than any constitutional matter that is being raised there.
I do not know why the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) felt that the word "farmer" carried a very unelevated connotation and whether that is the reason the present government has not acted to carry out its promises. They were wonderful promises that were made. Here they are as set out in the Family Herald:
The emphasis in price supports will be shifted from butter to skim milk powder and cheese. Deficiency payments will be made to cream shippers to maintain present price levels.
What has been done in that connection has left the dairy industry of eastern Canada -and I am now speaking of eastern Canada- in a most serious situation. Next:
A new Liberal government will take the initiative in formulating with the provinces a program of providing free milk for children in school.
Free milk? That promise, made in every part of this country, is gone. Next:
A new program of active leadership in improving the quality of dairy products will be undertaken in co-operation with the provinces.
Except for the change in the subsidy on Cheddar cheese there has been no action. Next:
Farmers who wish to switch from dairying to other enterprises to which their farms are better suited will be encouraged by credit specifically adapted to this purpose and by conversion compensation grants.
There is another program promised but no new measure has been produced.
Vigorous leadership will be provided in the activities in a new national co-ordinating advisory board for the dairy industry.
Promises were made and while a special dairy conference was convened the only board that is in existence is the national co-ordinating advisory board established by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) when he was minister. Then we come to wheat.
A new Liberal government will immediately provide a floor price of $2 per bushel for wheat-
Promise? Yes. Implementation? None. It has now been dropped.
Further, legislation will be provided for a two price system for wheat on the basis of the unit
Farm Machinery
quota. Farmers will be paid a price for wheat used in domestic human consumption which reflects the fact that they buy production requirements in a tariff protected market and sell in world markets. This policy will be effected by a consumer subsidy and thus will cause no rise in the price of bread.
No action. Forgotten. I mention these promises to indicate that what is being done here is simply a subterfuge to conceal the failure of the government to act on behalf of agriculture. What did they promise with regard to price supports?
A new Liberal government will maintain price supports on important agricultural products that are fair and realistic, they will be based on principles, not on expediency. Where appropriate, a new Liberal government will provide deficiency payments that will protect farmers in seasons of price declines by calculating payments on a quarterly instead of annual basis. Where appropriate, also, support prices will be put on a regional basis.
I need not tell you that that promise has been honoured by being entirely neglected except for the price support program on dairy products and the 47 cent support price on a pound of flue cured tobacco. Then we come to livestock improvement. To read this is like reading a book of fiction when compared with the implementation contained in this measure, which represents all that has been done except for the extension of credit under legislation already existing. This is what it says:
To further improve this vital section of our agricultural economy a new Liberal government will:
Rapidly expand record of performance testing of livestock...
Undertake additional aggressive programs of quality improvement for hogs, beef cattle, poultry and sheep.
Vigorously support research on livestock nutrition with a view to achieving significant cost reductions for farmers...
Undertake a thorough revision of the health of animals regulations and ensure their effective enforcement.
Nothing has been done on that last one. You will recall it was said that too much was being done for the west under the government of which I had the honour to be prime minister. All we did was to elevate the level in western Canada to that in other parts of Canada on behalf of agriculture. I speak now, not as Leader of the Opposition but as a western member wanting to see something done by the government on behalf of the eastern dairy farmers. Let us have no more of this tinkering, for that is what it is. The government will go out and say that they made $25 million available to syndicates. What the farmers are asking for is a fair and reasonable price level. Do you remember

Farm Machinery
what those on the other side of the house said? "We are going to bring about a new system. It has been most unfair for all ministers of agriculture to come from western Canada. We are going to give you an associate minister."
A new Liberal government will include both a minister of agriculture and an associate minister of agriculture of cabinet rank, one of whom will be specifically responsible for agricultural problems in eastern Canada.
A government of promises. A government of retreat. On the very first day as prime minister, the Prime Minister indicated it was his intention to appoint Mr. Rene Tremblay as the new minister of agriculture, east. That hon. gentleman thought he was appointed. He even had letterheads prepared and then he found there was not going to be one. That is the position of affairs today. This was a major promise and certainly with the Minister of Agriculture perambulating all over the country there should be a minister of agriculture present in the House of Commons to substitute for him and carry out some of these promises.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You mean one inside the house and one outside.


John George Diefenbaker: Then we come to feed grains.
The Liberal party is committed to continuing the present feed freight assistance program.
They did that.
Ensuring that sufficient freight and storage capacity is made available, so that adequate supplies of feed grains are maintained at the lakehead to supply eastern Canadian markets.
Instead of doing that they instituted a storage program under which the government pays for the storage in licensed elevators in eastern Canada of feed grains during the six months from October 15 to April 15.
Providing the seasonal credit necessary to cooperatives for the purpose of ensuring that adequate supplies of feed grains are moved to eastern Canada prior to the closing of navigation on the great lakes and held there until required during the winter months.
This is the promise; the performance, nil.
Providing long term credit to co-operatives for the purpose of expanding feed grain storage facilities where required.
I ask, what did they do in that regard? Again the answer is, nothing. Then they also said that they would' sponsor legislation for the incorporation of co-operatives on a national basis, and would provide loans and other encouragement for the efficient development of agricultural marketing and supply

co-operatives of all types. Again, what was the answer?
They said that the P.F.A.A. would be extended to provide more adequate coverage in the areas to which it applied. Again there was no action. I quote:
A new Liberal government will extend national housing legislation for the improvement of farm homes and other dwellings in rural areas.
What has been done in that connection?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Not a thing.


John George Diefenbaker: You could almost ask that question on all of these matters and develop a symphony in the house, a symphony in which all would say "nothing".
There is part of the record. 1 say that this government has totally failed to give consideration to the needs of Canadian agriculture. When the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh) asked the other day regarding the turkey situation-and this was after the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) had spoken to those whom he called "the turkey people"-he was told that when the minister came back he would tell us about it. The turkey industry is in grave danger today. We have had for too long a Minister of Agriculture absent from this house. With the situation in our country, with the cost-price squeeze facing the Canadian farmer, the time has come for this government to wake up and bring in legislation that will be helpful. I repeat that western members and members from all parts of Canada will join with the government, if only it will act to meet immediately the one problem of transcendent importance to agriculture, the dairy problem in our country.
This legislation, the principle of which we accept and the performance of which we have little hope, does not even scratch the area of responsibility of this government in agriculture. It is nothing, as I see it, but a means of endeavouring to lead the people to believe that effective action is being taken. This legislation was promised months ago. I think about July 1 the minister announced that this legislation would be of great importance and that it would be brought in by about July 29. It is being introduced on September 22. No one knows where it was conceived. No one knows what agriculture organization has asked for it. No one knows how it will work. It is simply, as I said to begin with, a measure, grandiloquent in its terms, designed to cover up the fact that masses of promises respecting agriculture were made by members of the Liberal party,

but now they are in office those promises have been dishonoured in the intervening 17 months. Nothing has been done except to increase the credit provided by legislation already on the statute books.
I do not know if this measure will do any harm. I do not believe it will. However, it does not meet the overwhelming need of Canadian agriculture, and that is for action by this government, by a government represented by a minister in the house carrying the legislation through, rather than placing the responsibilities on the estimable shoulders of an hon. gentleman who cannot speak with the authority of a cabinet minister.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I take great pleasure in taking issue with the right hon. gentleman on some of the remarks he made. That he should say it is improper for the parliamentary secretary to guide this bill through this house indicates the respect which that right hon. gentleman has for parliamentary secretaries, or indeed even the ministers-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member will permit a question? Is he aware that when I was parliamentary secretary to the minister of veterans affairs the then Liberal opposition even refused to allow me to guide the estimates through the committee?


Steven Otto: The atmosphere in the house at that time must have been such that it would have been inconceivable to permit such a thing. I am happy to see that our ministers emphasize, and this government emphasizes the importance of placing responsibility on the shoulders of parliamentary secretaries, and the younger generation of men in this house.


An hon. Member:: You know better.


Steven Otto: I was happy, Mr. Speaker, to hear the young member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) say he considered this to be daring legislation. In fact, what this whole nation needs is to be directed with daring and adventure. It is lucky for us we do not sit down like a bunch of old men, as hon. gentlemen on the other side do and say, take care, take care, do not do this, do not do that. We have to do something. I am pleased to see that the Minister of Agriculture did give the parliamentary secretary the responsibility of guiding this bill through the house. I think it is something that should be repeated in other departments.
Farm Machinery


An hon. Member:: It might be an improvement, at that.


Steven Otto: The matters pertaining to this bill have been discussed not only by the minister but by the parliamentary secretary, and by many members on this side of the house as well as the other side. It is a matter of concern to everyone. This is not something that was dreamed up by any minister; it was the consensus of many members here who know a great deal about the problems of agriculture.
It cannot be denied that many small farmers work half their lifetime in order to buy new equipment, but no sooner do they buy a piece of equipment at a fantastically high price than it becomes antiquated and is hardly ever used. This bill provides part of the solution because now that equipment can be shared. In many instances farmers want to diversify their activities, but individually they cannot afford the complete purchase price of new equipment necessary for diversification. The syndicate method would be an answer in such cases, and in many others as well. Primarily this is an approach towards an answer, which is much more than the right hon. gentleman ever did when he was on this side.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Here comes Red Skelton.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, somebody has just called me Red Skelton again. I always like to see the hon. member from Windsor castle here because he is so fond of royalty.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult for me to speak at this time following the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) because I feel that no man in this house understands the problems of the farmers better than he. I always thought it was most regrettable during the last election, and the one previous to it, that the Liberal party, in order once again to pit class against class, farmers against businessmen, allowed propaganda against the western farmers to be broadcast from the radio and television stations in Toronto-


Clément Vincent: And in Montreal.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, and in Montreal,
leaving the impression that the previous government was interested only in the program for the western farmer.
I want to say something about the economics of farming. I was born and raised on a western farm homesteaded by my father in 1905, and over the breakfast and dinner

Farm Machinery
table I heard all about the problems which occurred in the 1920's, the 1930's, and even during the second world war. I have always believed that the law of supply and demand is just as important to the farm community as it is to the business community. When the farmers can get a market for their produce there is prosperity on the western plains.
I think it would be a good thing when considering this legislation, which to me is very nebulous-it is not going to do any harm but it is certainly not going to do any good-to review the early months of this government's tenure in office. It is well to remember that in May 1963 the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) went out to Regina and Edmonton and said the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), had made a mistake when he told the farmers to grow more grain. The minister said they should not grow more grain, that there would not be any market for it, and that it would pile up on their farms, just as it did previously under a Liberal administration. In short, he said the former minister made a great mistake in saying to the farmers, "Grow more grain and we will sell it".
Then something happened. The cabinet found out that the previous government had laid the foundation whereby credit was given to communist nations so that they could buy western wheat. That is the important thing to keep in mind. When the Liberals go out west and say, "We are selling your wheat too," it is not the sale of the wheat that is so important. What is important was the setting up of the credit arrangements by the Conservative government, to permit communist countries to buy western grain. Not only did that bring prosperity to western Canada-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I am just wondering whether he would not think that the speech he has been making up until now is not too closely related to the bill before the house. I realize his statements are probably introductory in nature, but I would suggest he should get on to the subject matter of the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would like to answer that, Mr. Speaker. What I am saying is right in line with the bill because the farmers do not need credit when they have a market for their produce. When they can sell their produce, they themselves produce the capital they need and can go to private institutions to

fill the gap. That is why it is important to review this first of all, because we cannot separate the thought and the principle of credit without dealing with market legislation and marketing. I would like to continue in this vein for a few moments because of the relevancy between credits and markets.
At that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce said it was wrong to grow the wheat. Then they got the market in Russia, and yesterday we heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) say everything is good in the country, and that there is a boom in progress. Certainly there has been a great improvement, so far as agriculture is concerned, since the Conservative party took office in the late 1950's, and that improvement is reflected today in the general economy of Canada, because when the wheat was sold it increased the gross national product of Canada and thus improved the general economic picture of the country.
During the 1962 and 1963 elections, when the Liberals were pouring out promises to win votes, we Conservative members told the people in our ridings, and elsewhere, that there was a bright economic picture, and that because the gross national product had increased by 6 or 8 per cent there was an uptrend in the economy. Did those farm champions, those cabinet ministers who are absent today, tell the electorate the truth at that time?
The Minister of Finance talked about the great Canadian, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the greatest living Canadian; but that same Canadian during the election told the farmers at Forest Lawn, in my constituency, that if his party were elected he would set a floor price for wheat at $2 a bushel. That was as much as he knew about agriculture. Hazen Argue had not been able to whisper to him that wheat at Fort William was then selling at $2.06 a bushel. The Prime Minister promised to reduce the price of wheat.
He also told the farmers that when the dollar was down valued they would get less for their produce and therefore would need more credit, but yesterday the Minister of Finance said that devaluing the dollar was the most important thing that led to the uptrend in the economy.
Now when the Liberals have found they have a market they are trying to take the credit for it. We have a travelling Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays). Someone said there was nothing wrong in having the parliamentary secretary steer this legislation

through the house, as the farmer says, "Somebody has to do the work. If I am going to sit in town the hired hand has to do the work," that is what is happening here.
As I said in my opening remarks, the law of supply and demand is important. If you have the demand, western Canada can supply it. As a man born and raised in western Canada I am convinced that if there were a food emergency in the world and the call went out, the western plains could produce not 600 million, not 700 million but a billion bushels of wheat, on present day farms with modern equipment.
The reflection of the economy of western Canada on eastern Canada is important. In dealing with credit for the purchase of farm machinery I want to refer to a speech I made on April 23, 1959. In it I gave the example of an average farm in the Bow River riding, and showed that the cost of machinery for it in 1947 was $37,000, while the same machinery cost $57,000 in 1959. In that short period the cost, of machinery increased by $20,000, and I shall try to be most fair about this. There has been an uptrend in the cost of machinery. We know that the kind of equipment used on farms has been much improved, and these improvements add to the cost of the machinery but, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the farmer always faces the cost squeeze.
To people who may not be quite familiar with the economics of agriculture, when they drive into a farm and see a big combine, and see this and that, they think everything is fine on the homestead. But the cost of production is ever on the increase; and the government, as pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, has done nothing to assist the farmer meet the cost squeeze. The only reason the farmers in western Canada are not in difficulty today is that the previous government laid the foundation for the markets for grain which brought prosperity and money to the farmers so they could purchase machines, pay their taxes and the costs of production.
But what has the government done today with regard to these markets? We read today in the farm papers and other papers that the Russian market has gone. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) is talking about exporting various kinds of new bulls from Canada; but they will not let them in because of the problem of foot and mouth disease. Has the minister really considered with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) the problem of new markets; because it will
Farm Machinery
take only one year in which to lose the markets that have been established, and the grain will pile up on the farms. The farmers really needed credit in 1956 and 1957, when they could not sell the grain. The previous government unloaded that surplus and laid the foundation for the markets which are now enjoyed by the Liberal government and have bailed them out of trouble, not only in western Canada but economically throughout Canada. That is the picture.
Let us analyse the bill itself. A typical farm today, in order to be an economic unit, must have at least a section, a section and a half or two sections of land in the wheat belts of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Today, with the type of farming that is undertaken, and nodoubt with the new kinds of grain scientists have brought out so as to shorten the period in which it will ripen, we are able to harvest the grain earlier. But we have that period in agriculture which we call the sensitivity period, the time when you have to do the work when the sun shines. I do not think this bill will be of any benefit to farmers who wish to purchase harvesting equipment, which is the most expensive type of equipment used on the farm. Last fall at this time I visited my own farm and drove one of those pusher combines which has just been made. It cost $12,000. This type of machine is necessary on the farm, for this reason. At that time the grain was swathed; it had been raining and the grain had started to sprout. When the time comes that the sun shines, you cannot have your neighbour using your combine, you have to be combining yourself -for two reasons; one is to get the grain, and the second is to keep the grade of the grain that is lying in the swath.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, with regard to harvesting and seeding equipment, or general equipment on the farm in western Canada, this legislation is absolute nonsense. One of the closest friends of Harry Hays, the Minister of Agriculture, said it is absolute nonsense; it will do nothing. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said, it is plain windowdressing. They are pretty thin drapes, at that; I am afraid everybody has seen through them. Do you know why this bill is brought in? It is brought in for the benefit of those who are going back to their constituencies, or those who wish to go into Conservative constituencies in western Canada, so they can say, "We at least did something for agriculture while Harry was absent". That is exactly what it is.

Farm Machinery
I will end with these words, Mr. Speaker. It is harmless; it will not do any harm. I will vote for it because the only thing it might do is this; in order to market the grain in the winter farmers might be able to form a cooperative in order to buy snow-removing equipment so they may get their trucks into town. But as far as doing anything to organize farm machinery in western Canada is concerned, or keeping the family farm that they talk about, it is absolutely useless. They are very strongly in favour of the family farm during an election; but they forget both the family and the farm after the election. This legislation will not do anything for western Canada. The prosperity is there-and I admit it is there-at the present time, and it only exists because of the policies of the previous government. This government is absolutely bankrupt as far as agricultural legislation is concerned. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace that the minister is not here to defend his department in this regard.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, just a word or two about Bill No. C-121, to tell the house that our party is in favour of the bill.
It does not commit the government but, above all, our farmers' credit. As for the government they will only have to take money out of the country's consolidated revenue fund.
Nowadays laws are constantly being passed to create new ways of getting into debt. Such is probably the new basis of our national economy.
Mr. Speaker, when this bill is being considered in committee I will probably have several questions to put to the Minister of Agriculture, but I very much fear that once again he will be conspicuous by his absence as he is this afternoon. I am obliged to make a few comments at this time so that they can at least be recorded if they cannot be answered right now.
We are all very much disappointed on account of the minister being absent when he should be in his seat in the house. If he is inadequately paid I would suggest that we increase his indemnity so that he would at least be present when the government is proposing amendments or legislation pertaining to agriculture and that he would show some interest in the agriculture of this country.
On reading this bill to provide for the extension of credit to farm machinery syndicates, I am wondering whether this legisla-
tion will actually be useful in the province of Quebec.
Indeed, we find in the new Quebec farm programs a trend to extend each farmer's acreage. This need became evident when the farm loan legislation was discussed. Indeed, about 60 per cent of all loans were refused in my district because they said the farmers' acreage was too small. Today, our farmers are asked to have twice, or three, and even four times the area of their former land in order to be eligible for all those loans made available by the government.
Apart from those extended acreages, the smallest unit is 300 acres per farmer, we notice something else in the new policies and more particularly when there is forest farming. There are those community projects in Matane and Gaspe; I wonder when we are going to stop setting up community projects in order to come back to the family farm, which is so dear to our fellow citizens.
As I said a moment ago our farmers were asked to enlarge their acreage so as to be eligible for loans. And now that some farmers in my riding have bought four or five lots, which means about 500 acres, in order to negotiate a loan with a view to setting up a herd or buying mechanical equipment they are faced with another piece of legislation which in effect tells them: In future, we shall lend only to farm syndicates.
I know people who had to organize themselves on a family basis to acquire the minimum acreage required by the Farm Credit Corporation.
And, now that the head of the family has called upon his children in order to get enough land to entitle him to a farm loan, he is going to be asked to form a syndicate of at least three members. That means that, in future, three family units who have organized themselves these last few years will have to join together to try and benefit from those loans.
Frankly, I wonder if such a loan is not designed to favour some province other than Quebec. Not being familiar with the situation in the other provinces, I cannot tell whether they have enough of those machine syndicates to allow them to take advantage of the benefits provided for in Bill No. C-121, but I know the province of Quebec quite well and, at the present time, I am sure farmers there are not in a position to form those syndicates of at least three members to benefit immediately from those loans.
Considering the responsibility that will fall upon members of the syndicates as a con-

sequence of this bill, I wonder how that responsibility will be spread among the members.
Let us say that a syndicate has five, six or ten members, even though I doubt very much that such a thing will ever be possible in Quebec. Which of the ten members will carry more responsibility? Would it not have been better to provide in the bill for the issuance of an insurance policy to cover each member's share of the loan. If there were nine or ten members, a single policy would cover them all and on the death of the first one, the whole loan would be repaid. Indeed, I feel that other explanations will be necessary for us to form an opinion as to the responsibility of syndicate members.
For instance, the minister should state- because we will be asked that question in our ridings-who will be responsible, or if each farmer will be responsible, on a pro rata basis, for the amount he endorsed. I understood that they assume equal obligations, and since it is always the most solvent who is the most responsible, the whole thing is unfair and unpractical. I am asking my question in that light and, therefore, I claim that it will again be impossible for us in Quebec to get something out of that bill.
We are already having enough trouble with the loans granted by the Farm Credit Corporation; we are having a lot of trouble getting it to accept a small number of the applications made by our farmers who need those loans.
Mr. Speaker, if the investigators called upon to deal with those loans are as strict as those of the Farm Credit Corporation, it should not be expected that this bill will be of any use in my area, because I follow closely the work of those officials and they are much more inclined to refuse loans than to try to help farmers to become eligible for them.
Over 40 per cent of farm owners in my area, that is, former farms that used to yield large crops, had to move to the city because their holdings were too small to meet the needs of their families. Those farms have remained uncultivated for five, 10, 15, and even 20 years. Those farmers are still waiting for government legislation, hoping that with farm credit loans, they will be able to return to those farms and cultivate them again. But, as the inspectors do not seem very much interested in putting those lands back under cultivation, farmers leave them and, sometimes on the advice of the investigators them-
Farm Machinery
selves, go to the city and try to sell their land to a finance or a trust company.
Mr. Speaker, I heartily wish that this bill will serve the purpose which the minister likely has in mind, but I think if he had glanced at Quebec, he would have soon realized that this bill would fall short of its objective. In fact, if he wanted to make it useful to Quebec, he would have to rewrite it almost entirely.
Why not pass a bill which would grant a loan to all farmers instead of those syndicates? Why not amend it to enable all farmers to take advantage of the measure? I think that it would be much more logical.
I heard someone from the western provinces talk about this bill and I concluded that if it had been introduced in the above-mentioned conditions, it would have been much more beneficial to farmers.
To conclude, I want to say that our farmers do not necessarily need loans, but concrete help. Under our present farming system, a loan is no help. Let us give our farmers what they ask for instead of what they did not ask for. They never asked for loans to purchase farm machinery. They need compensated discounts or subsidies in order to reduce the cost of those machines. That is what our farmers need.
Instead of throwing away millions of dollars to seek to control a small nation in Cyprus, why not use some of those millions for our own people, our farmers, by granting them compensated discounts on farm machinery?
If the sale of farm machinery cannot be controlled, I think the government would nevertheless have a major part to play by conducting inquiries on the cost of that machinery, and I am convinced that it can save for our farmers, from 20 to 25 per cent on the selling price of that machinery, if it would set a limit on the income of those companies, as well as a maximum rate of interest.
In doing so, it would help the farmers and, consequently, the whole of the people. The first duty of a government is to impose limits upon those who are tempted to go beyond them.
Even today, we hear that loans are granted at 30, 35 and even 40 per cent interest, and the government does not dare interfere with these loan sharks. I am wondering what useful purpose does the government serve? If there is one thing against which the farmers and all the Canadian people should be protected it is excessive interest rates.

Farm Machinery
This does not make sense; and when we ask the government to fix interest rates, to set a limit, it does absolutely nothing.
If a manufacturer or a seller is entitled to make 20, 25 or 30 per cent profit on the sale of an item, it rests with the government to fix a profit margin. But such a suggestion is made to no avail.
The government merely introduces measures such as the one which has just been passed to enable the farmer to get into debt, that is to authorize finance companies to take a tighter hold on him without any government control.
Instead of providing credit facilities for farmers, his cost price should be assured and more particularly, the marketing of his products should be guaranteed. The farmer would not need any loan then because he is no shirker.
Let us facilitate for him the purchase of farm implements at a reasonable cost, instead of forcing him to reimburse two or three times the cost. Let us secure markets for him and it will not be necessary to press him to support his family and develop our farm economy.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words in respect of this particular bill, and I shall be brief because I think most of the salient points have been covered by other hon. members. It would be a mistake on my part not to mention the effect of this legislation on the wheat farmers in my riding of Macleod, Alberta, and I limit my remarks to those individuals so there will be no misunderstanding about whom I have in mind.
If more than 1 per cent of all the wheat farmers in my area take advantage of, or benefit by the provisions of this legislation, that would be more than I would expect. This legislation is being advanced by the present government in an attempt to solve the problems with which farmers are faced today, and if less than 1 per cent of wheat farmers benefit, I suggest it will have little or no effect on the farming community of western Canada.
It may well be that several farmers in remote areas will get together and purchase a saw, for example, on a co-operative basis. I understand certain co-operative organizations in Saskatchewan have been purchasing machinery, and they might take advantage of the provisions of this legislation. We have yet to hear the minister clarify the effect of
TMr. Gauthier.]
these provisions on the Hutterite farming communities. I am sure we all want that information, so that we can in turn assess the effect the provisions of this legislation will have on different segments of the agricultural economy in this country. I am sure many others across Canada will be seeking information of this kind.
This legislation provides that those individuals who enter into a syndicate for the purposes of obtaining the assistance provided by this legislation will be jointly and severally responsible. In other words, if a man becomes part of a syndicate which obtains assistance through this legislation for the purchase of machinery, he becomes jointly and severally responsible in respect of that obligation. If I have any understanding of farmers and their philosophy, and I think I have, I know that they will not become involved in such a situation. Farmers are not inclined to sign on the dotted line and become responsible for a debt incurred by a syndicate, because they will not risk losing their land. I am sure that most farmers in western Canada who farm on a quarter section, a half section or perhaps even three quarters of a section will hesitate before forming a syndicate and becoming liable for the repayment of $100,000, for example, obtained through the provisions of this legislation for the purchase of new machinery. It is my experience that the farmers in western Canada usually buy second hand machinery which they can repair and use to harvest their crops, but which they can afford to purchase out of their available funds without having to risk having their land and assets attached. Farmers generally are wary of joining syndicates, corporations and organizations of that kind because they know they might lose their shirts.
I might also add that if five farmers formed a syndicate one might prefer to buy a combine, another might prefer to buy a manure spreader and another might want to buy a tractor; but if each one bought a particular machine they could exchange work and in this way get their farm work done rather than setting out to buy farm machinery jointly. In other words, the individualistic approach of the western farmer is going to have a great deal of influence on his thinking so far as joining a syndicate is concerned.
As for supporting the legislation, it provides for loans and may help co-operatives and others. Therefore I certainly will support it. However, the government is barking up the wrong tree if it thinks that this legislation is the solution of the farm problem of western

Canada. This legislation has to do with the provision of credit, and you do not look to credit for the solution of the problem of the farmers of western Canada. Their problem involves prices and markets. We were even told by the second speaker on the bill, a member of the N.D.P., that Liberal members from rural ridings did not support the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) with regard to this legislation. I have not had time to look into that statement but if it is true, and I believe it is, I wonder what those Liberal members would wish to support.
With all due respect, what we want to protect and perpetuate in this country is the family-size farm. It is the price which the farmer is going to receive for his wheat, his turkeys and other agricultural commodities which will determine whether he can keep his head above water and cope with the situation. The answer is not to give him more credit. If the government could do something to bring down the price of machinery they would be doing something that farmers and everybody else would like to see done, but there is nothing in this legislation that will bring down the price of machinery.
What the government is doing is to lend the farmers more money so they can buy more machinery, but this is no solution at all to the farm problem. Since I am talking to practically empty benches on the Liberal side, which indicates what they think about their agricultural program and the bill now before the house, I do not see that anyone else should be too much concerned. As I have said before, I intend to support the legislation and I hope it will do some good.


Mr. John Mullally (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak very briefly on the bill and I am prompted to do so by the remarks of the last speaker who said directly that members on this side of the house do not support the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) so far as this particular piece of legislation is concerned. I deny that charge and I want to assure the hon. member emphatically that we support this legislation very strongly and have advocated it for a considerable time.
The first time I spoke in the house I made particular mention of legislation of this nature. My thinking on the matter was a little different from what is embodied in the legislation introduced by the minister but I think that it nevertheless accomplishes the same purpose. My idea was probably somewhat involved and would have been rather expensive. I had in mind that the Department of Agriculture would set up machinery banks in the
Farm Machinery
various agricultural areas of the country, where farmers could rent the necessary pieces of machinery from the department at the lowest possible rental charges. I can see that this is a very involved proposition. I believe that the measure now introduced by the Minister of Agriculture will overcome or at least contribute to overcoming one of the very great difficulties facing our farmers, the increasing high cost of machinery, which has tripled in the years since the end of the war. The parliamentary secretary indicated last night that machinery is now costing our farmers $541 million a year.
May I also compliment the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Beer), who is piloting this legislation through the house. We regret, as hon. members opposite do, that the Minister of Agriculture cannot be with us today. He is attending a very important meeting abroad which I am sure is in the interests of agriculture in this country, and I am certain that the farmers of Canada will benefit from the work he is doing in this connection. While we regret his absence on business of this nature, nevertheless we are very happy that the bill is being so capably handled by a farmer with the experience of the hon. member for Peel, who is able to provide answers to questions that hon. members may wish to ask and can guide this legislation very capably, I am sure.
I am most disappointed at the typically critical, non-constructive and sometimes cynical attitude toward this legislation of some members opposite. I confine that comment to members of the official opposition who have complained bitterly about the inadequacies of the bill and about farm problems in general, but have put forward no constructive suggestions as to what might be done, first to improve the legislation, and second to improve the farm situation generally. We are well aware that there is a serious situation on the farms, particularly in eastern Canada. We know what the basic problem is. I think the leader of the New Democratic party summarized it very well in a speech last week when he dealt with the rising costs of operating a farm, and the decrease in the returns to the farmer from his labours and from the sale of his products. Other hon. members have already referred to this situation today as the cost-price squeeze.
This is the problem, but what is to be done about it? It is very easy to point to the problem and I am very concerned about it, as are all hon. members on this side. I have listened intently throughout this and previous

Farm Machinery
debates for one constructive suggestion from the opposition as to what might be done, and I have failed to hear one. While it is easy to criticize it is much more difficult to offer constructive suggestions and put forward ideas that can be enacted into legislation for the benefit of farmers in all parts of Canada.
I am also disappointed and somewhat disturbed by the attitude of members of the official opposition in indicating very strongly, it seemed to me, that our farmers are a group of people who cannot co-operate or work together. I deny that most emphatically. I was raised on a farm and have seen farmers work together. I cannot think of any occupational group of people who work together as well as farmers do, who share their machinery, plant their crops and harvest together. In fact, not only with regard to their agricultural problems but in their other pursuits and indeed, in every phase of life they work closely together, and I am most disappointed that members of the opposition would suggest, as they have almost invariably in speaking to the bill, that our farmers are a group of people who absolutely cannot take advantage of this legislation for the simple reason that they are selfish individuals who cannot work co-operatively for their own benefit, for the welfare of their industry and the common good of all farmers.
I am not going to enter into a discussion with the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) or some of the other members who spoke on all phases of agriculture, particularly in eastern Canada. The Leader of the Opposition had a very good opportunity yesterday to test the confidence of parliament in the matter of eastern agriculture or agriculture in general, but he passed up that opportunity. I think that if he had something to offer, some criticism to make, yesterday was the time to do so. Today he should have confined his remarks more closely to the matter under discussion.
The other point which has been raised consistently by speakers from the opposite side has been the suggestion that this legislation will help only the large farmers. They seem to be gravely concerned that this government, and the minister, is interested in helping only the large farmer. Possibly they represent the large farmers, but in my part of the country we have many small farmers, and I think this is the situation in much of eastern Canada. I feel this legislation will do the exact opposite of what they have suggested, and that it will be of real benefit to the small farmer. The large farmer does not

have to depend on it; he has personal resources from which he can buy the type of machinery he needs most. The small farmer is not in such a favourable position. He must depend upon sources of credit such as are provided by this legislation in order to enable him to work in co-operation with his fellow farmers and purchase the type of machinery he requires. I think this is a very good piece of legislation-not perfect of course, but it is something new, something revolutionary, something farsighted, which members opposite can never see. It is something which will eventually, perhaps with improvement as may become necessary, benefit the small farmers of this country.
It has been suggested, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of Canada are not concerned about additional credit. I should like to refer for a moment to a brief which was submitted by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to the Prime Minister of Canada and the members of the cabinet on February 26. On the matter of farm credit, the federation stated, in part, as follows:
The federation, at the federal-provincial agricultural conference in December of last year, made a number of submissions on farm credit to the government, urging in general much more intensive attention to farm credit needs, and the development of new programs. We will not repeat those representations here in full. In resolutions from our members, however, delegates to our annual meeting laid special emphasis on three immediate needs, which we would draw to your attention for early action:
First, they reiterated our long standing request for special disaster loan legislation.
I need not tell hon. gentlemen that this is the very type of legislation which we have introduced, and which is already in the resolution stage. I refer to the crop reinsurance measure. This will provide one of the requests of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Their second request was as follows:
Second, the loan limit of the Farm Credit Corporation should be raised to $50,000.
We were even more generous than the Canadian Federation of Agriculture thought we should be. We raised it to $55,000. I continue to quote:
Third, the loan limit on farm machinery under the Farm Improvement Loans Act should be raised to $10,000-
Again, we were more generous than requested. We have raised the limit to $15,000.
Finally the federation said:
May we repeat that we feel well developed, flexible credit services to meet farm needs are

of utmost importance and deserve more intensive investigation and research than they have received in the past.
I think this measure answers very thoroughly the concern of Canadian farm people in having better sources of capital available to finance their varied farm activities, particularly in relation to one of the most difficult aspects of agriculture farmers have faced in recent years, the high cost of farm machinery.
I believe I have concluded what I wanted to say in this connection. I do not believe anyone would suggest this is a perfect piece of legislation. It is something new and something which I believe may be improved as experience dictates from time to time. There are two things which, from a personal point of view, I should like to see changed. I would prefer to see a fixed interest rate rather than a flexible one, which varies according to the cost of money at any particular time. I should like to see the service charge of 1 per cent eliminated. I feel that as a country we are not doing as much for agriculture as other countries are doing, and I think particularly of the United States, Great Britain and many European countries. The amount of money we contribute as a percentage of our budget or as a percentage of our total agricultural production, certainly is not comparable to the amount provided in other countries. I think the government should absorb the cost of servicing these loans and we should establish a fixed interest rate.
I mentioned that my original conception of this legislation was somewhat different from the measure the minister has introduced. I want to state emphatically that we on this side unanimously support this particular piece of legislation. We strongly support the minister. We have discussed it. We have advocated it and we feel it is a measure that will benefit farmers in all parts of Canada. If the farmers in some parts of Canada are too prosperous to take advantage of it, I can assure the house there are many farmers in eastern Canada who will be very happy to take advantage of it and I feel they will benefit immeasurably from it.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: In rising to speak on the principle of this bill following the remarks of the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Mullally), I should like to refer to some of the things he mentioned. He asked certain questions and I will be only too glad to try to answer them. I should like to draw my answers from a document with which I am sure he is familiar. The caption is "A
Farm Machinery
square deal for farmers". This is a pamphlet put out by the Liberal party in 1962, wherein they said they had all the answers.
This pamphlet sets forth the basic problem. It is stated that the basic farm problem is the cost-price squeeze on the farmer's income. This is an important thing to remember when we are considering this bill, which is to provide credit for the purchase of farm machinery by syndicates. The other point that should be raised at this time, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that this bill provides for setting aside $25 million for the purposes embodied in the bill. I should like to refer hon. members opposite to the fact that the estimates of the Department of Agriculture for this fiscal year amount to only $140 million. This measure apparently is so important it will require $25 million of the funds of this country in order to achieve the purposes for which this measure is designed and which, in my opinion, will affect less than 1 per cent of the Canadian farmers.
Those who want to know what could be done now for the farmers by way of legislation should look at the promises embodied in this election leaflet that was put out by hon. members opposite. I am just going to mention a few of those promises. These are some of the pledges made by the government and which were never fulfilled. In fact, no indication has been given that the government wants to move along these particular lines. First of all, you may think of the accelerated depreciation on farm machinery that was promised. You may think of the consumer subsidy that was promised on wheat going into domestic consumption. I think too of those promises that were made with regard to the stabilization act. What happened to the egg producers on the prairies during the last few months? I think too of the crop insurance legislation to which the hon. member referred when he mentioned disasters. The legislation to compensate for disaster promised by the government has nothing to do with the crop insurance legislation already on the statute books, and we have had no indication from the government of any legislation over and above the crop insurance legislation already enacted.
I also think of the impetus that could be given to ARDA in the areas where it applies. Mention was made today of the dairy problem in eastern Canada, and there was another promise made with regard to unemployment insurance for farm workers. That promise has been denied by the ministry and indications are that nothing will be done in

Farm Machinery
that regard. I could go on through this long list of promises, and hardly one has been touched upon by the administration.
Rosthern constituency probably has more small farms in it than any other riding in Canada. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, this bill is one of the most useless pieces of legislation ever to come before parliament. I am opposed to the principle contained in the bill. I believe it is a dangerous piece of legislation and that its very terms are a denial of the things the minister himself stated on so many occasions during the past several months, when he said the primary aim of his department would be to try to meet the problem of the farm machinery cost-price squeeze.
This bill does not lower the price of farm machinery. When one considers that $25 million is being set aside by this measure, and when one thinks of all the other things that could be done for farm people, and for people in other walks of life, with that $25 million, there can be no other conclusion but that there should be much more important legislation to present than this bill. I am going to oppose it because I believe it is wrong and because I believe farm people will be unable to use its provisions to any great extent.
The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) said we have got to do something. That is the thinking across the aisle. They know they have to do something because they have not done anything so far. No one can deny that the Minister of Agriculture promised the farmers he would do something about the high price of farm machinery, but this bill will not in any appreciable way overcome that problem.
I believe this measure will encourage those speculative influences in agriculture that are likely to accelerate the destruction of the family farm. I am sure the speculators in western Canada will be much more interested in this measure than will farm people. It is an unthinkable thing that we are going to channel $25 million into this type of operation, after all the other legislation we have tried to enact over the years to help the family farm.
While there may be some-and their numbers will be limited-who will be able to use this legislation, its over-all effect will be to the detriment of the agricultural industry and it will be a retrograde step so far as farmers from one end of Canada to the other are concerned. Some have said this is daring legislation: I say it is foolhardy legislation.
To think we were told during the so-called flag debate that we were holding up something that was of importance, and now to be pre-
[Mr. Nasserden.l
sented with this bill just reinforces the comments I made on the resolution stage when I said this was one of the weakest measures ever brought before parliament on behalf of the agricultural industry.


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


Gerald William Baldwin: I just want to make one observation in reply to the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Mullally) who asked a very pertinent question on why the official opposition did not take the opportunity presented on the supply motion to challenge the government by bringing forward a motion of non-confidence. It is very simply answered by the fact that in May this year, on a supply motion, such a motion of nonconfidence dealing with the problems of eastern agriculture, was presented, and on that motion the hon. gentleman himself spoke and made quite a worth-while contribution.
Members on the government side substantially voted against the motion of non-confidence and the official opposition, as well as all the other opposition parties, are now prohibited by the rules from presenting such a motion. It is impossible for the opposition parties to introduce it at this time.


John Cooney Mullally: I thank the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Beer:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the parliamentary secretary speaks now he will close the debate.


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to close the debate. I simply want to observe that a number of questions have been asked and that the minister is expected to arrive for the eight o'clock reconvening of the house. I am sure he would like to have the opportunity at that time to answer these questions and to explain the bill further. So without regarding this as replying to the debate, may I call it six o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty pursuant to standing order 39A to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock on the adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale (Mr. Rapp)-agriculture-poultry-inquiry as to steps to maintain prices.

The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Cho-quette)-grants requested for the 1966 Quebec festival.

Third, the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More)-external affairs-appointment of Russian professor at University of Saskatchewan.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the consent of the house to revert to motions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Statement on Finance
ber of issued shares; shares held by shareholders associated with the non-resident also would be taken into account in determining the 10 per cent limit.
The proposals would not prevent shares being registered in the name of a Canadian resident where a non-resident is the beneficial owner, but in such cases no one would be permitted to exercise the voting rights pertaining to the shares so held.
No one would be permitted to exercise the voting rights pertaining to shares held directly by a non-resident or held for him by nominees if the total of the shares so held together with the shares held by or for shareholders associated with the non-resident exceeds 10 per cent of the issued shares of the company.
In order to prevent the purpose of the legislation from being defeated by transfers of shares between the date the bill is introduced and the date the legislation comes into force, and at the same time to avoid interfering with existing voting rights, the legislation would establish midnight tonight as a significant point of time in three respects. First, it will be proposed that if the directors of a company allow the entry in the company's books of any transfer of outstanding shares or allotment of newly issued shares to a non-resident after today that would increase the number of shares held by nonresidents beyond 25 per cent of the total number of issued shares, no one will be permitted to exercise the voting rights pertaining to the shares so transferred or allotted so long as they continue to be held by or for a non-resident. In the case of a company that today has more than 25 per cent of its issued shares held by non-residents, this suspension of voting rights would apply only to transfers or allotments of shares that would increase the proportion of shares held by non-residents, but the voting rights pertaining to shares now held by non-residents would not be disturbed.
Second, the prohibition against the exercising of voting rights, applicable in the case of any holding of shares by or for a nonresident and associated shareholders that exceeds 10 per cent of the issued shares, would not apply to any such holdings that now exist. However, this exemption would cease if any such holding is increased after today.
Third, if more than 50 per cent of the shares of a company are, today, held by or for one non-resident, that company would be exempt from these limitations on the transfer of

shares and the exercise of voting rights so long as that condition continues to exist.
I wish to remove any uncertainty which might otherwise exist following the introduction of this bill as to what will be proposed in the bills to amend the bank acts to be introduced later, concerning non-resident ownership and control. Provisions relating to this matter similar to those set forth in clause 3 of the bill to be introduced tomorrow and already described by me in this statement will be included in the bills to amend the bank acts, and these would also be effective after today to the extent that I have indicated for insurance, trust and loan companies.
I also want to make it clear that the proposals relating to non-resident ownership and control will not affect the great majority of normal market transactions in the shares of the institutions concerned. If trading is for resident ownership, these transactions are not affected at all. Transfers of shares between non-residents also will not be affected unless the transfer would cause a non-resident together with associated shareholders to own more than 10 per cent of the total number of issued shares.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: This statement by the Minister of Finance has, of course, very wide implications, first in the investment field with regard to the powers of investment of trust companies and also in the much more complicated area of the ownership of financial institutions such as life insurance companies, trust and loan companies and banks.
I recall back in 1957 the measures brought in by the minister of finance at that time to prevent through mutualization, the capture of Canadian life insurance companies by foreign companies, if they were subject to take-over attempts. However these measures never prevented the gradual buying-in of these institutions, and I think it is this practice that the minister is trying to curb at the present time. Subject to what we may have to say when we see the bill and have considered all its implications, I think we must commend the government generally on this attempt. This is very complicated legislation as we can see from the conditions which will apply as described on pages two and three of the statement. I think I will reserve my remarks on the complexities of the measure until we see the legislation, except to mention that it has some of the complexity of certain anterior legislation which was presented to us and which has not worked out so well.

As I see it, the measure proposed will certainly not bring back some of our major life insurance companies which have been taken over, companies where more than a 50 per cent interest is owned by foreign investors. I think the third paragraph on page three covers that situation; it will remain undisturbed.
There is one point I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members. Insurance companies are to be given additional powers to invest in real estate and they will also be able to invest in subsidiary fire and casualty insurance companies in Canada, as well as in subsidiary life insurance companies. I think this is right, because our companies, particularly our fire and casualty companies, have gradually been taken over one by one by foreign owned concerns who have possessed this power while our own people, who frankly could have done so, were prevented by law from so doing.
One cautionary note I would raise relates to investment in subsidiary real estate companies. If these are merely realty holding companies for the purchase of a company's own premises, then it is not so bad. But I would not like to see this provision used as a means of involvement in speculative estate companies, because if there is anything which will get the reserves of a financial concern into a real mess it's having them tied up in real estate. We need only go back to the early thirties to be reminded of the position of United States financial institutions in this regard.
I feel that any further comment at this time would be superfluous; we will await the introduction of the legislation before making any further comment. However it seems to me that generally this represents a move in the direction taken by the minister's immediate predecessor but one.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I think every member of the house will commend the minister on his purpose in bringing forward this legislation. We may have some doubts as to how efficacious its provisions are likely to be but I am sure no one will object to the objectives of this particular measure.
I am concerned about some of the administrative difficulties which may be involved in policing this legislation. I can foresee a number of difficulties in enforcing it. It may be they are not as serious as I think they are, but I should be glad to hear the minister explain later how it is intended to supervise these provisions.
Statement on Finance
We have, of course, been losing insurance companies right and left to investors next door, and I have not been able to make up my mind about this paragraph on page three regarding companies of whose shares 50 per cent or more are owned by non-residents. The implications of the exclusion of these companies from the legislation are not yet clear to me. It seems to me there may be many cases in which non-resident ownership may be slightly over 50 per cent and there is no reason why they should not be subject to this legislation. It may be, of course, there is some reason which escapes me at the moment.
However, I would think that eventually, if the minister really hopes to repossess Canadians of their financial institutions and prevent any further alienation, he may have to consider the possibility of using the apparently moribund Canadian development corporation as a means of generating public investment in such concerns in order to ensure their continued Canadian ownership. Of course, I am not yet sure what will happen, but I should like to think that the Canadian pension plan may provide some of the funds, through the Canadian development corporation, for such a development.
I am not sure how effective the prohibition of voting rights will be in some cases. While the votes may not be cast by some people whom the minister wishes to exclude, I suspect that their influence will be sufficient to have the acceptable votes cast in the way they wish it to be done. However, we shall have to wait until the text of the bill is before us for study. In the meantime I will conclude by saying again that we must commend the minister's efforts. He is still pursuing his goal with commendable perseverance in spite of some mishaps in the past, and I sincerely hope he will not meet with any mishaps on this occasion. We shall have more to say when the bill comes before us.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: I wish to say only that we shall be very interested in seeing this legislation. Indeed, until it is brought before us I do not think there is anything further which needs to be said.
We hope that when we come to consider the revision of the bank acts, however, we shall find that certain financial institutions now excluded will be able to make mortgage loans so as to help prevent the alienation of our resources which has taken place in the past, due to the fact that the banks of this country have been unable to extend loans on the basis

Statement on Finance
of first mortgages. I think this is most important.
With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will just say that we will be interested to see what the legislation has to offer when it is before us.


Gilles Grégoire: 
Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. The house will now resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hays for the second reading of Bill No. C-121, to provide for the extension of credit to farm machinery syndicates.
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on Bill C-121 I must first of all point out that at the time this bill was in the resolution stage I had many fears in respect of what it might do for Canadian agriculture, and many fears as to what it would do to the family farm position in this country. At that time I was assured by the minister that all my questions and fears were without foundation and would be dispelled when the bill was brought forward. We now have the bill, and as far as I am concerned I still see cause for questions and fears in respect of this supposed syndicate legislation.
There is no question but that today's agricultural picture represents a very important part of Canada's economy, and that money and management are the keys to agricultural
Farm. Machinery
success. Perhaps 20 or 30 years ago hard labour and long hours might well have been written in the record as being the key words to success on a farm. Today money and management might be said to be the two key factors in promoting and ensuring success on the farm. But as legislators we must ask ourselves what type of agriculture we are promoting. What types of farms do we foresee in the future? Several different pictures could be painted, one not necessarily in contradiction of the other, but nevertheless different modes of agricultural life exist in the world today. We look at Canada where we have a free enterprise type of agriculture, a personalized type of management in the operation of farms throughout Canada, with every farmer working and managing his own farm, looking after his own machinery and achieving one of the highest degrees of productivity throughout the world.
From time to time people take tours of Canada to study our agriculture. Not very long ago the Russian minister of agriculture toured Canada in an effort to ascertain why we were so successful in this country while they were not. What type of agriculture do we have in this country? As I pointed out, we have personalized management, a personal concern for profits, a personal effort on the part of the owner to make sure that he makes a comfortable living and is able to sustain himself. What type of agriculture does Russia have? One might say it is collective, one might say it is managed, but one can also say it is a syndicated type of operation for the welfare of the state and not necessarily for the welfare of the individual.
How much different is that from what this legislation will promote? This legislation establishes syndicates which will benefit the managers, but will it necessarily benefit the workers? How different is what this type of legislation promotes from the type of agriculture carried on in Russia today? Farms in that country are managed by the state and under this definition they would be syndicates with the workers taking care of the machinery.
In an article in a rural paper in western Canada the minister of agriculture from the U.S.S.R. pointed out that they have difficulties in that country because farm machinery is not looked after and the operators do not care because they do not own it. He said that he thought there was a difference. The minister and those with him visited farms in Saskatchewan and Manitoba where there were tractors and other machinery 10 years

Farm Machinery
old and they wondered why they were in such good condition. The answer they were given was: "It is mine, I look after it". That is the key to the management of farms across Canada today. How will that be promoted and extended by this legislation?


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Dandy; shoot.


Maurice John Moreau: Does he see any element of compulsion in this legislation? Does anyone have to take part who does not want to?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Farm Machinery
those who will use this piece of legislation have used all their credit elsewhere and will view this as another avenue which may afford one ray of hope to enable them to be a success in the business world.
What will it do to reduce the cost of machinery? One may well say that it will allow a certain machine to spread itself over more acreage, thereby reducing the cost of the machine per acre. If this theory really held true, one could only come to the conclusion that Russia, with its communes, must be very successful. They buy machines for the optimum amount of use. The Russian minister of agriculture pointed this out quite vividly while touring Canada. I noticed a report of his conversation with one farmer who was using a tractor that was 10 or 11 years old. The Russian minister of agriculture asked how it happened the machine was in such good condition. The farmer replied that it was his and he looked after it.
I notice a provision in the bill to the effect that arrangements for repairs must be clearly set out in advance before the syndicate is set up. No one can foretell when a certain machine will break down or why it will break down. The fault may have been building up over the years. It is difficult to assess who does the greatest amount of damage to a machine and who should repair it. In my experience of operating and maintaining five different implements with my neighbours, we have had no trouble in this regard. But if those machines were costly, and were bought for something like $75,000, $80,000 or $90,000, we might quibble long and hard over where a machine should be repaired and who should pay for the repairs.
Many farmers may look upon this bill as a ray of hope to alleviate their problems brought about by being situated in an uneconomic farming area where the agricultural business they carry on is not economic itself. They may form syndicates and give the lawyers lots of business, but in a few years they may well find themselves disappointed. This is no solution to the agricultural problem.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Certainly.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I am just wondering whether the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) is against this bill?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member's curiosity will be satisfied in due course. I am

in the process of making up my mind. I see many things in this legislation to which I am opposed, and unless the minister can allay my fears that this will not promote the type of agriculture I do not like I will vote against it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why should I, as a farming legislator, support something that I do not think is going to maintain the type of agriculture in which I believe? I ask the hon. member, and all other hon. members on that side of the house who represent rural constituencies, to take this bill home tonight and ask themselves, will it promote the family farm, and then come back tomorrow and tell me why it will?


John Maxwell Roxburgh: It will promote the family farm.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tell me why it will.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I can tell you-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member who has the floor should not be interrupted.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am glad to see one hon. member over there rise on his feet and try to answer my questions. This bill has been knocked about for a week and very few members have said it will promote the family farm. I say to the hon. member, let him make his speech on this legislation. Prove to me right down-a, b, c, and d-that this will promote the established family farm. How does syndicating help the family farm?
How does syndicating help the farmer's son take over a farm when his father dies? The farm may well be involved in a syndicate, and after the lawyers are through he may have nothing left.


Mr. MacEwan:: An hon. member, "Oh, oh."


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That may have been a bit harsh on the lawyers, but this is part of the concern farmers in my area have about this legislation. It might well be said that this measure could be helpful in land clearing and land levelling. I live reasonably adjacent to an irrigation area, and I have done a bit of irrigating myself.


An hon. Member:: And aerating.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Farm Machinery
this legislation. On the other hand, my opening remarks were that money and management may well be the key to good farming in this agricultural world in which we live. But if this government is to put up the money, if any government is to put up the money, they must direct their help to those who need it. The wealthy, whether they be in farming or any other business, are well able to look after themselves. I hope I am wrong about this legislation. I hope this money which is going into agriculture will benefit agriculture as we know it in Canada today. I hope it will promote and maintain the farm managed by the farmer for the benefit of the farmer and his family.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Speaker, I for one am not apprehensive of this legislation as long as the syndicate is composed of farmers who really are working the land. I have only one suggestion to make to the minister in connection with this legislation. I think serious thought should be given to having these loans insured against the death of one of the participants. I do not think it would be very difficult to get the legislation changed in such a way that an insurance policy could follow the loan, whereby if one of the partners of the syndicate passes on, that part will be paid up and it will not be a burden on the other participants or the widow, as the case may be.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that we have another bill before us which purports to help the farmer. As so often happens in this free discussion group here, a previous speaker rises and steals a great deal of your thunder. I could not have said better than the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) the things which are very close to my heart in connection with farming problems.
If the house will bear with me for a few minutes, there are one or two matters I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. I think we must consider very carefully the principle behind this bill. What are we going to do to farming in general? It is only a few years ago that our main problem, apparently- I do not say that I agree with this entirely- was that we had already produced too many agricultural products and we were starving in the midst of plenty. At that time our main problem was to find markets. I think the main problem is still to find markets. If the main efforts of our government were spent on marketing our products and making sure that the hungry people of the world were fed, for

instance, and that our prices in the world market were such that credit arrangements, and so forth, meant we were able to sell our goods, I think most of the smaller problems such as financing the farm would disappear.
I say this because if the farmers all across Canada had a ready market for their products, many of our problems in agriculture would disappear. I think it is safe to say that we are the only country in the world with far more virgin soil to be developed than we have developed so far. We have not yet reached our potential in farm production on the land we have. If our main effort is going to be toward feeding the world-and I think that is what it should be-and if marketing is to be our main objective, I believe this government should carry on in the vein in which we carried on in the six years we held office. We concentrated on the marketing of our goods, and, behold, many of the problems in agriculture were reduced.
Looked at from the human point of view, I for one was raised on the farm. I have no apologies to make for that because I think farming is now and always has been the most noble of all human endeavours. The feeding of people in our own country and then feeding the hungry people of the world is a blessing to mankind. This is certainly the role Canada can play far and above any other country, and this is the effort we should be making in this regard.
We want to keep people on the farm. I think the principle of this bill is entirely wrong. As the hon. member for Acadia said, this bill stresses making available large funds to farmers. They are certainly large funds to a small farmer or to a group of small farmers, if they can borrow up to $100,000. I do not think it is the financing of the farm that is the bottleneck. This bill purports to aid farmers in obtaining farm machinery and, I presume, at something like reasonable prices. What in the world is the use of a bill that requires the forming of syndicates, that requires considerable expense in getting together in a legal group, with all sorts of guarantees? How in the world will this reduce the price of farm machinery?
I do not see how this could do anything except raise the price by at least 1 per cent. That is written into the bill. It will cost money to administer the scheme and the cost of administration will be borne by the farmers themselves. So if we agree that this bill sets out to help the small farmer -and I do not think it does-it would begin

by adding at least 1 per cent to the cost of machinery bought under its provisions.
It may be a little more efficient to have one large tractor working on five farms, but my experience is that this is not possible. If there is a need to purchase one large piece of machinery I can see the need for a syndicate. But five farmers do not need a syndicate in order to get five tractors. Each farmer will naturally look after his tractor much better if he owns it outright and does not have to haggle with four other men. Rightly or wrongly, the Canadian farmer is a very independent person indeed. If he did not love his freedom I do not think he would go out and spend all the years necessary to put a farm into proper shape. This takes many long years of work not only by the farmer himself but by his family, gratis, and when they have produced a family farm they do not want four other farmers to help them run it.
I believe this is a thinly disguised way of providing assistance to corporate farming; I think this is the purpose behind the legislation, which is nothing less than a sop to this creeping socialism which is so prevalent in our country today.
The independent farmers in my own district, and I am speaking principally of them, each own between a quarter section and a section of land. Each needs one tractor. What they are worried about is certainly not the borrowing of $100,000 for more machinery. What they are worried about is getting a reasonable return for what they produce. If they can market their goods at reasonable prices they do not mind paying a reasonable price for machinery. It would take great ingenuity, I know, under our free enterprise system to devise a bill which would bring about a reduction in the price of a small tractor to the family farmer. But this is what he wants and this is what I should like to see him get. The small family farmer is worried about other things and I suggest the minister should turn his attention to other assistance measures which are of far more value even than lowering the cost of farm machinery, among them a guaranteed income. I do not go so far as to say that the department is actually against the small farmer, but I do believe the effect of this legislation will mean that the small farm will become smaller and smaller and that the large farm will become ever larger.
Do we want this trend to continue? We have heard a great deal lately about western farmers being in such good shape that they do not require any further assistance. This 20220-527i
Farm Machinery
could be true of the large grain farmers because in the last two or three years they have found a market for their grain. But by far the major proportion of the farmers in northern Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are small farmers. They are unable to pay the excessively high prices required today for machinery. Labour is short. It is necessary now for a farmer to farm his own land and the argument that the large farm or corporation farm is more efficient is not a good enough answer for us in Canada.
As hon. members opposite well know, because it is their pigeon now, we face a folding up of many railway branch lines. One reason for this is that there are fewer people living on the land. It takes a courageous government to reverse this trend, a trend which I say is wrong. A corporate farm may be able to produce wheat at $1.20 a bushel whereas normally it would cost $1.40, but we will always require in Canada a strong, independent minded people who come from rural surroundings. I do not think there is a man in this house who if he were to look into his ancestry, would find himself more than three generations off the farm. When families move into the cities, they die out. I challenge anybody in this house to say he can look back for three generations and not find that his grandparents or great-grandparents came from the farm. This is a heritage we have to preserve, and that is why I ask the house to consider this whole matter very carefully. This new economic religion we are preaching today, this religion of efficiency, efficiency, efficiency, may have a serious effect on the future of our country.	1


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: May I ask the hon. member for Athabasca a question? This afternoon in my speech on this subject I mentioned the percentage of farmers in my riding who I thought would be making use of this legislation. What is the view of the hon. member with respect to the constituency of Athabasca, where there are a large number of small farmers? Would it be 1 per cent, or would it be less?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I think 1 per cent would be a liberal estimate, if I may use that term. Certainly the suggestion contained in this legislation has never been put forward to me, and I have attended every farmers meeting in my district during the past six years. I have never attended a farmers meeting without this question being put to me-and I admit it is a difficult one to answer: How can we reduce the cost of farm machinery on the family farm? If the present bill purports

Farm Machinery
to do that, I think it is a colossal failure. I cannot see that by adding legal costs to the already extremely high cost of farm machinery we shall be doing a thing to help the farmers.
But we must do more than try to reduce the initial cost of farm machinery. I understand from the farmers in my area that they are greatly concerned at the present time at the cost of maintenance and repairs. I will give hon. members a concrete example. Only two years ago I was out in a harvest field with one of the farmers in my constituency. Some time earlier his combine had broken down. He had sent his son to town for the spare part required and his son eventually arrived with the piece of repair material. It was a chain. No doubt some members will recognize it when I describe it as an elevating chain for hoisting grain into the combine where it is threshed. The farmer showed it to me and said: "What do you think would be a fair price for that?" Well, it was two pieces of chain a little heavier than bicycle chain, about 20 feet long-two chains 20 feet long very similar to bicycle chain, built the same way. And there were crossed slats set about 15 inches apart, made of bent aluminum. I looked at it. I am not a machinist but it seemed to me that allowing for the automation they have in industry, facilities for turning out this kind of thing by mass production, $50 would be a fair price. Believe me I was giving what I thought was a liberal estimate of a fair price for that piece of machinery. Well, it cost that farmer $248. It was just five times the price I thought it should be. I have had some experience on the farm. I have also worked in a hardware store. Yet I could not see how this was worth more than $50 in any circumstances.
This is the kind of problem which alarms the small farmer. His turnover is not large and after he has paid $9,000 for a combine he is worried about the cost of keeping it in operation. What are we going to do about that? That is perhaps a difficult question to answer. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and the officials of his department might call together the manufacturers of farm machines and ask them what they intend to dc. about lowering the cost of farm machinery and repairs.
This whole situation is not a one-way street. We are not shy about asking the farmer to put his shoulder to the wheel in time of war to produce more and more food and peg the prices of his products. Why can-

not the farm machinery manufacturers do something to reduce the cost of repairs?
I am not so cynical that I believe the Massey-Ferguson people are not interested in the welfare of this country and particularly the farmer. Well, they should be interested because if my figures are accurate their profit for this year exceeded the profit for any year in their history, and at a time when the farmers of this country are asking this government to do something about reducing the price of farm machinery. I think there should be a limit to the profits of the farm machinery manufacturer. What would people do if the farmers were to create a monopoly on food, holding it on the farms until they received an exorbitant price? I am sure every newspaper and member of parliament, particularly those representing urban ridings, would castigate the farmers of this country if they held their grain on the farm until they received $4, $5, $6 or $7 per bushel. The people of this country would become alarmed if that situation occurred.
The Minister of Agriculture should make some attempt, in co-operation with farm machinery manufacturing companies, to reduce the cost of farm machines and repairs to farm implements. The Liberals and Conservatives, being members of the two free enterprise supporting parties in this house, should get together with management in an attempt to find a solution to this price squeeze problem. Let us challenge the manufacturers to find a solution to this problem.
No one who has heard me speak in this house could think that I am a socialist. I am against socialism in all its creeping forms. I do not think that the Saskatchewan river dam project is a socialist project but rather an investment in which we should all share. I do not think subsidies paid in certain circumstances, particularly in respect of freight rates for the shipment of livestock, is representative of socialism, but some people would make that suggestion. However, I am opposed to this kind of legislation and suggest that it is a socialistic measure, because it in effect states that individual farmers can no longer own and operate their own farms and at the same time obtain assistance under the provisions of this bill. It suggests that farmers must form a corporation of three, five, seven or a million. The basic principle of strength in our economic national life has always been that one man may own and operate his own farm. I am against corporation farming in all its phases. I think it is very dangerous

to have more than half of the production of food in Canada being produced by corporations.
This bill states that the majority of people to be assisted under this farming legislation must be farmers. It is astounding that that fact must be spelled out in this legislation. I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture has spelled that out in this bill in an attempt to bring a halt to the trend toward the complete takeover by corporations of farming in Canada. I think we should take a very serious look at the situation. I do not think it is wise to turn our land over to corporations and allow them to produce all our food, including grains, poultry and cattle. Why must we spell out in a bill as this that the majority of individuals to benefit will be farmers, and then limit the assistance to groups or corporations? I do not wish to name the corporations, but the effect of this legislation will be that those groups will be able to obtain vast sums of money for the purchase of farm machinery with which to operate in direct competition with the small farmer of the type I represent, who on his own is unable to obtain the same assistance.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt) suggested perhaps 1 per cent of the wheat farmers in western Canada would benefit as a result of this legislation. I do not believe that one quarter of 1 per cent of the wheat farmers in western Canada will benefit. I think the benefit of this legislation will be reaped by those corporations which are engaged, and are becoming engaged, in farming. As long as the government is assisting these corporations by guaranteeing prices and developing markets farming will be profitable on that basis.
I do not believe in nor will I support anything that tends to assist and encourage large groups or corporations to buy farms from the individual farmers who have worked all their lives to make a living. I would support any kind of legislation which would help make it possible for the boys and girls who have been raised on the small family farms in Canada to take over those farms from their parents and operate them as family farms, and I will not support any legislation of the kind that suggests men should gather together in groups or corporations in order to operate farms in Canada. People should be allowed to group together of their own volition, and I am thinking in terms of the Hutterite colonies which exist in Alberta. In many cases even they are being persecuted, but if they wish to gather together in that fashion it is their right to do so. I do not think people should be forced to
Farm Machinery
form corporations in order to take advantage of assistance offered by the government.
The Minister of Agriculture may well suggest that there is nothing in this legislation to compel farmers to form groups, but the only way they can take advantage of the provisions of this legislation is by doing exactly that. If a group of individuals wish to obtain $100,000 for the purchase of farm machinery they must form a group or corporation and assume liability jointly and severally.
Cheaper farm machinery cannot be obtained by hiring a lawyer to incorporate a group or by incurring the expenses of civil servants to inspect the farms to ascertain whether they are good risks. Let us do something about reducing the cost of farm machinery. Let us do something about reducing the cost of maintaining that machinery. Once we do that thousands of individual farmers across this country will believe that we are assisting them.
The only excuse I can find for the minister in respect of this legislation is that he does not fully understand the effect of it. If he does fully understand the effect of the provisions in this bill and realizes that it is a form of socialism, supported by those members to my left, then this legislation is worse than it appears on the surface.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Certainly.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the hon. member realize that the people he is referring to in this part of the house also have some criticism to express in respect of this bill, while supporting the general principle?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am criticizing the hon. members in that part of the house on the basis of their support for creeping socialism. It is bad enough when the government does not know that the essence of this bill embraces a creeping socialism, but if the government is aware of this fact then they are completely selling out Liberal principles.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member answer another question? Are the members of his party going to support this bill?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I sincerely hope that they will not, and that is one of the reasons I am taking part in this debate. I do not think my words fall entirely on deaf ears. If I can show hon. members that this legislation is not in the interests of the average small farmer in Canada I am sure some hon.

Farm Machinery
members, even in your party, will be broadminded enough to oppose it.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I have offended the hon. member by my castigation of socialism, but when considering the end result of this proposed legislation one must realize that it is a form of socialism. I commenced my remarks along that particular line.
The principles of this bill should be thoroughly understood before we are called upon to make a decision. If there is any provision in this bill which in the end result will be of assistance to the family farm I will support it, but I do not believe that to be the case. If there is anything in this bill which will promote the welfare of the individual farmer in this country I will support it, but I think we must look at the end result of its provisions before coming to a final conclusion. I do not think any provision of this bill will promote that welfare, but will in fact do quite the contrary-increase the cost of farm machinery. I think this legislation is a smokescreen behind which the ministers can hide. We are being asked by this legislation in effect to sign several blank cheques. I do not think we fully appreciate exactly what this bill will accomplish.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I bring to the attention of the hon. member that on second reading we are limited to a study and consideration of the principles of a bill, and the hon. member cannot discuss a study or consideration of individual clauses.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I have been trying to establish the principle of the bill as well as I can. I think any hasty legislation loses sight of the principle, and it is the principle of the bill which I am attacking, I hope with some approbation in the house. I am sure that anybody who believes in free enterprise will say that the emphasis should be upon individual, free enterprise and that people should not be forced into corporations. Perhaps in other industries some people have been forced into incorporating, but I think most of us will agree that generally this is done to escape taxation. When an individual starts making excess profits, shall we say, he immediately turns to his lawyers and has them form a corporation so that his excess profits are still retained within a very narrow group.
I suggest that the same type of thing will go on under this legislation in that excess profits might be made from fattening livestock, let us say, by people who are not really farmers at all, and they are going to hide these profits by spreading them five ways.

Only two of them may be farmers and another may well be a millionaire who has no connection whatsoever with agriculture. It is this principle I am attacking, and I am quite sure that I am expressing the opinion of a great majority of the members of my own party, although I do not pretend to speak for the Conservative party as a whole. On this side of the house we do not do that. We speak at all times according to our consciences and on the basis of what we know. We are not a group of experts in any respect. I have never owned a farm, although in my youth I worked for several years on farms for very little remuneration.
I am not an expert on farming but I have taken the trouble to talk to people who are, to people who have hacked their own farms out of the bush and now live in the hope that by working hard and long and doing their best they can earn a fair and decent living. When I visit these farmers it is the cost-price squeeze I am always hearing about. They want to know why it is that no matter how high the prices for their products go the price of machinery always goes higher. This is why I suggested to the minister-I would be quite willing to go along with him if necessary- that he should talk to some of the people who produce farm machinery and discuss whether this is a good time to expect excessive profits. The farmer has often been asked if he would not work a little harder to produce cheaper food for the hungry people of the world, and it is a good question. Would the farm machinery people not be willing to give a little so far as their profits are concerned toward the same end? Certainly we could produce cheaper grain if we had cheaper machinery.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is also a mistake to assume that all the problems of agriculture in western Canada are solved. I might say that in the northern half of Alberta comprising the constituencies of Athabasca, Jasper-Edson and Peace River there are more individual farmers than there are in the other eight constituencies south of the North Saskatchewan river. This supports what I said, that if we are thinking about agriculture it is the small bush farms where we find the people who are replenishing the good red blood of our country. They are on farms and this legislation will not help them at all. It will only add unnecessary cost when what is required is the cutting down of the original cost of machinery and the cost of maintenance. This is what will help them most.

We must tie in this farm legislation with other farm legislation. There is certainly no point in providing this type of credit to the farmer unless you are going to be able to guarantee in some way that the help you are giving him with your left hand is not going to be taken away by your right hand. All these things must be integrated. Under ARDA the scientific use of our land is certainly a national project, but there is no point at all in taking people off submarginal land and putting them on good land unless they are going to retain the important things-the right to own their own land, the right to stand on their own feet.
I think it is a preposterous thing for us to go to the taxpayers of this country and ask them to subsidize any type of corporation. That is my own personal opinion. I do not believe in corporations being subsidized by other people at all. If five wealthy farmers are willing to pool their resources they do not need any help from the government at all. They can go to any bank in Canada and borrow money.
I want to make another point about the question of interest. The bill purports to assist farmers to obtain agricultural machinery at reasonable prices. What is the interest rate going to be? I am trying to keep away from the specifics of the bill, but because the interest rate is left blank the whole principle of the bill to my mind falls down unless we are going to be able to assist farmers to get machinery at a reasonable price and at a reasonable interest rate. Part of the principle of the bill is surely the interest rate. There is no point in lending money to farmers if the interest rate is going to be excessive. I would ask the minister to explain later exactly what interest rate he expects the farmers will have to pay.
When we were in office and introduced farm legislation our principle was that because the farmers were in fact the backbone of the country we should make money available to them over a long period of time at a reasonable interest rate, and so we established an interest rate at 5 per cent on farm loans. With any higher interest rate I do not see how the bill will be of any help at all, particularly to the small farmer.
When the minister travels throughout the country I should like him to make sure he does not add to the rift or arguments between the east and west. I would say that our problems in the northern part of Alberta are much more similar to the problems of the farmers of eastern Canada and the maritimes
Farm Machinery
and the small fruit farms of British Columbia and Ontario than to the problems of the large grain farmer. I am not saying at all that there are not problems in western Canada of pressing importance, but as long as we can maintain our world trade in wheat I think that the major problem of the prairies is temporarily resolved.
I say that the small farms of northern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba are the same as the farms of eastern Canada and the maritimes and the problem we are faced with is how to make sure that these small farmers have a minimum income. I do not think it is any answer to say that if a man cannot make money on the farm he should pack up and go to a city. What are these people going to do in the cities? We are faced with automation and excess labour in the cities can no longer be absorbed. They can suceed on the farms and we have to arrive at a happy medium between so-called efficiency and maintaining happy people on the farms.
While it is a desperate step, one solution might be to institute some form of licensing in order to protect the family farm. We must be ready to define a farm. I see that in the bill it has been found necessary to define "farmer" for the purposes of the legislation. This might be a good time to take a look at defining who is a farmer and who is not, and in doing this we would have to get a very clear idea of what type of farmer we intend to assist-not to subsidize but to assist-by creating an atmosphere in which he can operate.
Some years ago the farmers from western Canada came down here and I faced them with this problem. I said, what is a family farmer? Some of the spokesmen for this group were shy about defining a family farmer. I do not know why they were afraid to do so, but I suggest perhaps even within the farmers union there are influential people who have a great stake in farming and who do not want the farmer too closely scrutinized. They do not want to say, this is a farmer and this is not. I am quite sure that when the time comes to administer this measure you are going to have a great deal of difficulty in deciding who is a farmer and who is not, and how much of his income is derived from farming.
I have never hesitated to define a family farmer. I say a family farmer is one who lives on the land. I for one am against subsidizing or assisting or encouraging anybody else through special legislation who is not

Farm Machinery
in fact a bona fide resident on a farm to go into agriculture. I do not believe Canada Packers are farmers. I do not believe the sugar people are farmers, but they are deeply entrenched in the farming business, as you know. This is where these corporations come into the picture. Suppose you are seized with the problem of deciding whether or not a machine for digging sugar beets should come under this legislation. What are you going to do there? Will the Rodgers Company or the Alberta Sugar Refiners be considered farmers? Will they be considered farmers merely because they take up a quarter of cleared land? This is vertical integration and it has gone away beyond bounds in Canada today. It is only a few years since, to my knowledge, one corporation in Ontario was producing 50 per cent of all the broilers. I pose this question for the Minister of Agriculture. This corporation is still in existence. Perhaps they will decide to grow grain for their own chickens, and if you get a few small farmers in southern Ontario with 50 acres and you include this corporation, which I will still leave anonymous, as the third party, are you going to lend them another $100,000 in order that they can buy some farm machinery to put another 30 or 40 farmers out of business?
Are we merely trying to cut down these large corporations and make them standard across the country? Are we going to say that you can no longer farm unless you have a financial corporation as a silent partner?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member is making a rather unusual speech. He has criticized this bill because he says it benefits the corporation farmer. He criticizes it also because he says it seems to be creeping socialism. These two criticisms seem to be contradictory, and would he explain them to us?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, I will be pleased to do so. Like most other farm problems, this one is not all black or white. I suggest this government does not know where it is going with this piece of legislation. It could go into the field of complete monopoly, with one company, as it has done with the broiler business, or it could get to the point where you are no longer able to keep the family farm. You will either be forced into the corporation farm, or if you are not forced into the corporation farm you will be forced into the communal farm, like the Hutterites in Alberta. They call it simple Christian communism. I would be inclined to go along with the Christian part of it because they have no desire to try

to impose their will on anybody. The only difference between socialism and communism is the amount of force required. I say this on no less authority than Mr. Woodsworth, who was for many years a member of this house. I believe it was in February of 1933 that he said it may well be that force may be necessary in the final analysis, so this makes the veil between communism and socialism very thin indeed.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order; may I suggest to the hon. member that perhaps at this time he is getting away from the principle of the bill before the house?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I was merely being courteous and answering the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). I am sorry if I have strayed from the principle of this bill. Nevertheless I have not strayed very far because I have put up a warning light for my Liberal friends so they will not fall into this socialist trap. If the bill is intended to force us into communal farming, then it is socialism. It may well be communist in its final analysis, if that is the purpose of the bill. I object to it on these grounds. If the purpose of the bill is to cater to large corporations who are trying to take away farms from individual farmers, I am equally opposed to that. I am a Conservative. We Conservatives stand for the maintenance of the standards of our ancestors. We do not have to go too far back, two or three generations. Our ancestors pioneered this country and believed when they established themselves as farmers they would be able to hand on to their children a well established way of life.
They did not intend that at any time their representatives in parliament would sell out to socialism or to the larger corporations. It is not fair. I hope my hon. friend from Kootenay West is not suggesting that the Conservative party is the tool of the large corporations. We are not. If I were, I would certainly have no hope of campaign funds from Massey-Harris or Massey-Ferguson.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compion-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-121 brings us to define the role of agriculture in society. It plays one of the greatest, noblest roles because the farmer needs several organizations; he has to work for several segments of the economy before he can reach his objective. The purpose of agriculture is to provide food for individ-

uals, for human beings. We must recognize and appreciate the true value of agriculture. Why is agriculture important? What is its role? What is the reason for its existence?
We absolutely have to admit, as members of parliament and as individuals, that agriculture is the cornerstone, the basis on which rests the whole structure of society.
However, if the foundations of agriculture are undermined as they are at present, then the whole economic and social structure of society will disintegrate. Because if it is recognized that farmers have basic needs, that agriculture, especially in the province of Quebec, is at present in a terrible state of stagnation, members of parliament and several public officials are still not aware of it. If members of the house visited rural counties in my part of the country, they would realize the chaotic state of agriculture in our districts and would see that 70 per cent of farmers have abandoned their farms.
It is real stagnation. Those remaining express the desire to leave the farm from day to day, from month to month. Since no help was provided to the farmers, today the family farm is gradually disintegrating and disappearing. It is the result of our present system, and this phenomenon of the disintegration of agriculture is also evident throughout the economic structure.
Farmers have vital needs. They need a home just as the city worker, as any other individual in the country; they need clothing, they would like to give an education to their children the same as anyone else. And with an average annual farm income of $1,500 in the province of Quebec, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) cannot believe that his Bill No. C-121 could be applied in that province. Does he think that the eastern farmer could take advantage of that legislation?
Everybody knows that 99 per cent of the farmers are already saddled with farm loans; they have a hard time making ends meet and discharging their obligations. The Duplessis government had granted farmers loans which, as he claimed at that time, were to save agriculture in the province of Quebec, get farmers out of the doldrums; but 20 or 25 years later, one finds that farmers are ten times worse off than they were before.
Farm loans proved that they were not the right formula to save agriculture because experience showed that they served only to get farmers into debt and into worse trouble. Farmers operated their farms during 10, 15 and 20 years without showing a deficit and now they wake up with one. Farmers obtain 20220-528
Farm Machinery
loans offered by the federal and provincial governments and those new loans only serve to pay off the deficits incurred in the last 10 or 15 years.
And the farmer is left with his run-down buildings and his broken agricultural instruments. In fact, there is hardly anything he can use any more. He is then obliged to borrow $15,000, $20,000 or even $25,000 to make up for his deficits in previous years.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot see how this measure can save agriculture. We are not opposed to the principle of the bill. But this measure only favours those who have money; it is of no help at all for those who have none. As a matter of fact 99 per cent of the farmers will not be able to take advantage of this piece of legislation because they are already so deeply in debt that the banks will probably refuse to let them have a loan even if the government does guarantee such loans. I do not see how this bill could solve the farm problem.
Yet, there are solutions to the farm problem. But proper action should be taken to solve existing problems if we really want to help the farmers. Anything else would be of no earthly use and would never solve the problem. Many suggestions have been made over the years, but none were accepted.
Agriculture is more than ever in a state of stagnation, and it is not by making loans to the farmer and by charging him interest that his problems will be solved. As a matter of fact, he cannot even make enough profit to pay the interest and if he has to pay interest on farm loans, it will increase the cost of production and, consequently, the cost of living will rise as is the case at the present time.
As a matter of fact, it seems that there is no end to it.
Are we going to solve the agricultural problem with all the methods that were suggested and the measures that were applied? I do not think so, as agriculture is still in a state of depression and nothing has been settled yet.
Therefore, in order to solve the agricultural problems, I will allow myself to make a few suggestions to the Minister of Agriculture as well as to the house. I know that several members have already made suggestions, but I suggest that since agriculture is in a state of stagnation and the farmer is unable to pay any interest, the money that will be lent him should be interest free. This is one of the first steps to be taken if the agricultural
8332	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion problem is to be solved, for it will never be solved otherwise.
Here is my second suggestion. It was pointed out a while ago that farmers needed homes and farm buildings, and yet taxes have been raised. As a matter of fact, farmers are building the year round. But an 11 per cent sales tax has been imposed on all building materials, with the result that the farmer has to suffer the ill-effects of a tax increase he cannot afford to pay. So let us start by removing taxes which are hurting everybody, but especially the farmer. Let the Minister of Agriculture begin by removing that tax. If he came up with such a solution, I believe good results would follow.
I would also suggest to the minister that all the heavy equipment the farmer needs to clear up and enlarge his farm and to help him do his work, especially when there are many stones on his land, ought to be made available to him and paid in full either by the provincial or the federal government or by both together, or through shared programs under ARDA.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I have to remind him that it is now ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Monteith:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the acting house leader could outline the business for tomorrow, Thursday and Friday?


Mr. MacNaughi:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall take up the consideration of main estimates, starting with the Department of Fisheries, followed by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, then the Department of Public Works and finally the Department of Forestry.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Would the acting house leader outline the estimates for Thursday and Friday?


John Watson MacNaught: If we finish these tomorrow I would be able to announce other departments at the close of business tomorrow evening.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
[Mr. Latulippe.l


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked to have this question debated is because it is of such importance and urgency. On many occasions I have asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) about the low prices for turkeys, and he gave me the answer that they were higher than ever before. When I asked him about the low prices for livestock he gave me the same answer, that they were higher than they ever were, when in fact they were at their lowest.
The other day when I asked why the price for chickens was so low, Mr. Speaker said I should put the question on the order paper; but as I have already said, it is of such importance and urgency that I would like to debate it now.
I have here in my hand a sales slip issued to a farmer in my area, Mr. Olaf Olson, who sold 99 chickens. After they had deducted $9.50 for killing these birds, he finished up with $8.35 for them. Mr. Olson lives about 40 miles from Humboldt. If you consider the 10 cents per mile that is usually charged for travelling, it will be seen that he wound up with only 35 cents for the whole works. In order that hon. members do not get the impression that these chickens were of poor grade I would like to give the record that is to be found on this sales slip. There were 12 grade A's which weighed up to 5J pounds killed, 60 B's that weighed up to about 4J pounds, 17 C's, and there were two or three old roosters and chickens of lower grade. But the fact is that any time a farmer sells 99 chickens at grade A, B and C and only receives $8.35, there must be something wrong. It is for this reason that I bring this question to the attention of the house, because when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) goes out in the country and tells us that the price of livestock, poultry and turkeys is higher than ever before, the fact is that this is not the case.
The same thing applies to turkeys. The price of turkeys is lower than it has ever been before. The Minister of Agriculture has not done anything to solve this problem, and I suggested to my good friend Mr. Olaf Olson that what he should have done was take a hatchet, go into his chicken coop, chop the heads off the chickens, give his chickens a decent funeral and forget about the whole thing. He is a good Swede, and when I told him this he looked at me. He did not say

very much; he only swore, and I would not like to say exactly what he said.
I would like the Minister of Agriculture to give me and the people in the country an answer to his question. Why does the farmer only receive $8.35 for 99 chickens, when they are bought in the store for a much higher price?


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) for his question and his interest in this particular matter. I am confident of course that he would not want to be inaccurate in what he says. When he suggests that the minister said turkeys commanded a higher price than ever before, and that the price of other poultry and livestock is higher than ever before, I believe he is not correct.


Reynold Rapp: It is on the record.


Bruce Silas Beer: What the minister has said on numerous occasions is that the price of turkeys in 1964 is about consistent with or slightly higher than it has been for the past four years.
The hon. member raised the question of fowl. I think we have to understand the situation a little to appreciate the purchasing problem which confronts those concerned. In 1963 there was an increase of approximately 30 per cent in the number of chicks going to the farms, and this marked increase has placed pressure first on the egg market and second on the price of old fowl going to market in 1964. I think this is the real reason why the farmer we have been considering has a problem. There are a lot of fowl going to the market at this time for which there is a very limited demand.
The hon. member is correct in analysing the prices in the various grades, but I think it is proper to point out that only 15 per cent, approximately, of the shipment was of the top grade, and naturally the balance would not bring the highest return. I hope that with an appreciation of these underlying problems the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale will be able to explain to his farmer that the reason for his complaint is fairly deep seated.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There can be no debate at this time.
20220-528J
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



REQUEST FOR GRANT FOR 1966 QUEBEC FESTIVAL

Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, here is the question I should like to put to the minister and which will be answered, I am sure, by her parliamentary secretary, who is here now, with great ability and in a very appropriate manner.
As recommended by the national advisory council on amateur sport, will the grant which was supposed to be awarded to "La Society des jeux d'hiver de Quebec", an organization set up to carry a program of athletic competitions in Quebec city, be paid to that organization?
I have already put this question in the house. The minister then replied, very properly indeed, that she was not in a position to give me a specific reply.
What happened is that because no precise decision has been taken in that respect, the said winter sports association of Quebec city finds itself in a difficult situation. In fact, under the present circumstances, it will have to postpone until 1967 the project it had intended to undertake in 1966.
Having received very recently a written as well as a verbal communication from the president of that association, I thought it was my duty to bring the matter up again so as to know what to expect, in order to be in a position to give a specific and final reply to the interested parties.
I would like to know if that subsidy will be granted according to the recommendation made.
If no grant is forthcoming, I should like to know why. Are there legal, political or constitutional difficulties in the way? That is what I should like to know in order to give an adequate reply to the people concerned who have asked me for information.
Nothing would please Quebec citizens more than to see that project carried out at the very centre of French life in America, so that during the celebration of our centennial, in 1967, all our athletes, united in a spirit of solidarity, will participate in competitions. That endeavour will be a great success if the federal government agrees to give the requested grants.
I have been told, on the other hand, that some correspondence was exchanged between the provincial and federal authorities. I was given to understand that the federal authorities were willing to go along but that the provincial authorities were still reluctant


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary io Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it can be clearly stated that there is no suggestion whatever that the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare and the federal government are not prepared to co-operate, and on the basis of what has been taking place I suggest that there has been co-operation and negotiation between the two levels of government, federal and provincial. Negotiations are continuing in the hope that this matter can be resolved. I am sure it is the intention of both levels of government to advance this project.
If there is anything more definite to report in the near future I am sure the minister will be in a position to do so.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Speaker, I sought leave to debate this matter this evening because I was denied the privilege of receiving an answer to my question to the minister this afternoon. He did not even choose to take my question as notice, which would have permitted him to give a brief and concise answer tomorrow.
My question arises from an announcement which appeared in the Leader-Post of September 18, 1964 under the heading "Russian to Teach". This article states:
A. B. Nicolaev, 41, an economist from Moscow State university has been appointed visiting professor of economics at the University of Saskatchewan, Regina, campus. Mr. Nicolaev is deputy chairman of the department of political economy at the university. He was a guest lecturer at both Cambridge and Oxford, 1962.
Principal W.A. Riddell said today he believed it was the first time a Soviet citizen has accepted a
[Mr. Choquette.l
post to a Canadian university. The invitation was extended with the approval of the external affairs department.
Further to that announcement a release was made to radio and television stations, and a comment was credited to Professor Smythe, who I understand is head of the economics department at the Regina campus, to the effect that this Russian economics professor would be of great benefit and would give intellectual stimulation to the student body.
It might well be that the minister and his parliamentary secretary will say that this is a provincial matter. I believe that questions will be asked of the provincial authorities, but as a member of this House of Commons I do not have the oportunity to do that.
As a result of this announcement made on September 18 I have received several letters from people who are aroused about this professor coming to Regina. Some of those letters were written by parents of students who wonder about the orientation in the university as a result of this visiting economics professor. I do not share in full those fears and concerns which have been expressed, because I am aware of visits being made back and forth between the U.S.S.R. and this country, and our exchange in trade, which is leading to a new understanding. The fact remains that people in communist countries have relatives who are naturalized Canadians. Immediately those Canadians apply to have those relatives released and allowed to come to Canada where they can find the freedom offered in this country, their requests are given short shrift. Yet with apparent alacrity this leading professor of economics from the University of Moscow is permitted to come on a visit to fill a fellowship position in the economics faculty of the University of Saskatchewan, Regina campus.
It is said that this has been done with the full approval of the federal government and the Department of External Affairs. Therefore at the federal level there are questions that I think should be completely answered so that the fears that people have with regard to the spreading of communism in a seductive manner will be allayed and so they will be assured that our security is protected. I think we should have full answers. That is the reason I put the question forward.
All of a sudden we are faced with a visiting Russian economics professor, and it is stated he is the first Soviet citizen to accept such an assignment in Canada. In view of the stringent control normally exercised by the Russians the question is being asked why

the Russian authorities have permitted this to happen. I know of no announcement that has been made, but perhaps unbeknown to us there may be an exchange program under which our Canadian professors who espouse our social system have been invited to occupy chairs at Soviet universities. Has this happened or is this a one-way traffic? If it is a one-way traffic, what is the thinking of the department in permitting it to take place on this basis?
I have no fear at all as to our present free enterprise social structure being able to stand on its own feet in the full light of any analysis that searching minds and free people want to make. As far as I am concerned, it is the greatest system on earth and it has provided more goods at better prices to more people than any other social system in the world. Therefore I have no fear about its being able to stand on its own feet. But here we have coming to this country a leading Russian professor who subscribes to an alien system which in most cases locks its doors against investigation and interrogation. We are permitting this man to come here. What is his purpose? How far can he go? What freedom is he to be allowed in this assignment? He will be dealing with adolescent minds and great concern is being expressed.
I hope that rather than mere verbiage about how this happened, how the department permitted it and so on we will receive straight answers. If there is something to be gained, if it is a fair exchange, if the Russian people are being placed in the position of being open to receiving answers to their questions from our people in the same way that our people in Canada will be exposed to answers from this Russian professor as a result of his visit, I think this should be known, because it would allay people's fears. I put these questions to the minister's parliamentary secretary and I hope he will be able to answer them completely tonight so that the fears expressed in some of the letters I have already received in this short time will be allayed so far as the action of the federal government in this action is concerned.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised many questions and in the three minutes allotted me I doubt very much that I will be able to satisfy him completely. I can say, however, that the hon. member in raising this matter has drawn attention to one particular case in isolation from a num-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ber of considerations. As he is no doubt well aware, for some years it has been the policy of the Canadian government to agree to cultural exchanges between Canada and other countries, including the Soviet union, whenever we were able to secure conditions of reciprocity. This policy is of long standing and has been subject to periodical review under this and previous governments.
In implementing these general policies it should be obvious that in this, as in other fields, officials carry out their responsibilities under general directives laid down by the government. There was no reason why the case to which the hon. member refers should have been brought particularly to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin). The matter was dealt with according to established procedure.
The arrangements for this exchange have involved the officials of the Canadian government department concerned, both in Ottawa and in Moscow. No objection was taken to the initiative by the University of Saskatchewan to arrange for Professor Nicolaev to come to Canada. Education is of course a matter of provincial responsibility. The decision to bring Professor Nicolaev to Saskatchewan was taken by the university of that province. In this particular case, there were no reasons for refusing to grant a visa to Professor Nicolaev, provided suitable arrangements had been made, as was the case, by the University of Saskatchewan.
For the hon. member's information, the details of this case are as follows: Toward the end of last year the University of Saskatchewan approached the Soviet ministry of higher education with an invitation to nominate a qualified Soviet economist for a visiting professorship at the university's institute of social sciences for the 1964-65 academic year. In response to this invitation, the Soviet authorities submitted the name of Mr. A. B. Nicolaev of the Moscow state university. The University of Saskatchewan accepted the nomination and requested the Department of External Affairs to expedite the issuance of a visa. As I suggested earlier, this visit should be viewed as part of a developing exchange of visits and contacts between Canada and the Soviet union in the academic field. In the past year or so, arrangements have been made for a number of Canadian students and professional people to work in and visit institutions of learning in the U.S.S.R.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Wednesday, September 23, 1964