1964-09-28

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

Mr. Ryan: 1.	When will the railway sidings and rail loading facilities be removed from the area bounded by King street west on the north. Front street on the south, Simcoe street on the east and Spadina avenue on the west, in the city of Toronto?
2.	What part or parts of the railway yards south of Front street, in the city of Toronto, between Yonge street and Bathurst street will be surplus to railway needs and be put up for sale?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1.	Concerning the area in Toronto bounded by King street west, Front street, Simcoe street, and Spadina avenue, now occupied by the Simcoe street freight shed facilities of the Canadian National, the question of whether these facilities will continue to be located in this block or will be relocated elsewhere is still under study. Relocation of the facilities now located in this block would permit removal of the present railway trackage there and make available the block for commercial redevelopment; however, whether this can be done would depend upon whether the shed facilities now sited there can be relocated elsewhere economically.
2.	Concerning the area south of Front street between Yonge street and Bathurst street, now occupied for the most part by railway yards, the question of what alternative or supplementary uses of this property could be developed is at present under study by the three interested railways (Canadian National, Canadian Pacific and Toronto Terminals Railway Company). It is unlikely that portions of the area for which alternative or supplementary uses might be developed would be put up for sale, it being considered more likely that availability for such alternative or supplementary use would be through lease of the ground or aerial rights on a long term basis.


HEALTH GRANTS TO COMBAT ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG ADDICTION
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	In each of the last five years, what proportion of funds granted under the national health grants program went to combat (a) alcoholism (b) drug addiction?
2.	What was the specific purpose of each grant?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. (a) 1961-62, $2,095; 1962-63, $5,983. (b) 1959-60, $8,900; 1960-61, $6,377;	1961-62, $11,700;	1962-63,
$11,173; 1963-64, $49,114.
2.	(a) In 1961-62 a grant was made to the province of Ontario for a study by the Toronto psychiatric hospital of the mental effects of alcoholism.
In 1962-63 the abovementioned grant was continued and a grant was made to the province of Manitoba for a study, by the department of psychiatry of the University of Manitoba, of the relationship between alcoholism and tuberculosis.
(b) From 1959 to 1962-63 inclusive federal funds were provided for the support of a study of drugs with addiction liability, carried out at the St. Michel Archange hospital, Mastai, P.Q.
In 1961-62 a grant was made for the support of psychiatric and social work services of the narcotic addiction foundation of British Columbia.
In 1962-63 a grant was made to carry out an investigation under the direction of the department of pharmacology, University of Montreal, on the replacement of narcotic analgesics by the non-addiction inducing di-methyphenothiazines in man.
In 1963-64 a grant was made to assist in the establishment and operation of a narcotic addiction investigation unit operated by the alcoholism and drug addiction research foundation, Toronto.


FOREST ACCESS ROAD, BELLETERRE-LE DOMAINE, QUE.
Mr. Mariineau: 1.	Has the province of Quebec applied to the federal government for a program under the provisions of the forest access act in the matter of construction of the highway joining Belleterre, Temiscamingue county and Le Domaine, Pontiac county?

Questions
2.	Is there any agreement in the matter between the two governments and, if so, (a) what are the terms and conditions of such agreement (b) have any negotiations gone forward between the two governments in the matter of this highway from Belleterre to Le Domaine?
3.	What assistance is the federal government prepared to render to facilitate the early construction of this highway?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1.	Under the forest access section of the federal-provincial forestry agreement, the province of Quebec has requested federal financial participation in the construction of a forest access road between Belleterre, Te-miscamingue county and Le Domaine, Pontiac county.
2.	(a) Under the terms of the federal-provincial forestry agreement, the federal government will pay one half the cost of construction or improvement of any road or trail intended primarily for the protection and management of forest lands or the transportation of forest products removed therefrom.
(b) The province of Quebec has requested for the fiscal year 1964-65, that the federal government pay one half of an estimated expenditure of $100,000 for the construction of the first 15 miles of the road extending from Belleterre eastward to Lac a la Truite.
3.	The federal government has accepted the proposal as presented by the province of Quebec.


FEDERAL GRANTS TO McMASTER UNIVERSITY, HAMILTON, ONT.
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	What federal funds have been made available to McMaster University in each of the last five years?
2.	Specifically, to what purposes were these funds directed?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: In so far as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is concerned:
1.	For the calendar years 1959-1963 inclusive, McMaster have received the sums of $8,000, $8,000, $8,524, $14,018 and $17,465 for a total of $56,007.
2.	Contracts for the conduct of research.
In so far as the Atomic Energy Control Board is concerned: 1. 1959-60, $65,000; 196061, $100,000; 1961-62, $140,000; 1962-63, $140,000; 1963-64, $170,000.
2. All funds in each of the five years used for the purpose of research in the McMaster University reactor.

In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned: 1. 1959-60, $67,425; 1960-61, $107,313; 1961-62, $108,190; 1962-63, $137,845; 1963-64, $129,985.
2. These grants were in aid of defence research projects.
In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned.
1.	Projects were submitted under the national health grants program and approved for the following payments to McMaster University during 1959-64: 1959-60, $24,669; 1960-61, $19,561; 1961-62, $8,370; 1962-63, nil; 1963-64, $3,632.
2.	These funds were made available for the support of four research projects and for the employment of teaching personnel for the postgraduate training course in psychology at the department of psychology.
The research involved the following studies.
1.	Analysis of the social organization of mental hospital wards.
2.	The effect of training schedules on rigidity as manifested by normal and feebleminded children to determine the effect of rigidity on discrimination reversal learning.
3.	The effect of originality training on the learning of mentally retarded children; and
4.	Clinical studies of circulation in cardio-pathic patients using the inhalation radio-cardiographic technique.


RESEARCH INTO LEUKEMIA DEATHS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Is the government conducting or supporting research into the causes of the consistent increase in leukemia deaths in Saskatchewan?
2.	Is the government conducting or supporting research into the causes of the recent serious increase in leukemia deaths in Prince Edward Island?
3.	What have been the results of any such investigations?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	See answers 1 and 2 above.


DEFENCE RESEARCH BOARD-EMPLOYEES LEAVING
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	During the last six months, how many employees have left the defence research board?
2.	What was the name and reason for departure of each?
3.	Which of these former employees is now receiving a pension?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1 and 2. One hundred and fifteen and four died. Reasons given for departure

were: health, five; retirement, nine; personal, 16; other employment, 57; further education, four; marriage or household duties, 16; lay-off, four; leaving Ottawa, two; released, two. It is not in the interests of former employees to make the reason given by each employee for departure publicly known.
3.	The nine people who retired, and three who left for health reasons are in receipt of pension.


FILLING OF VACANCIES UNDER QUEEN'S PRINTER
Mr. Herridge: Is it government policy not to fill vacancies caused by retirement or resignation from any position under the jurisdiction of the queen's printer?


Maurice Lamontagne: The answer is no.


CONSTRUCTION OF LOW RENTAL HOUSING PROJECTS
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	How many dwelling units were built with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation subsidies or credits, 75 per cent of which are paid by the federal government for the renewal of slum areas and the construction of low rental housing projects?
2.	How many such dwelling units were built (a) in the province of Quebec (b) in the province of Ontario (c) in the constituency of Compton-Frontenac?
3.	What was the federal government's share in such projects (a) in the province of Quebec (b) in the province of Ontario (c) in the constituency of Compton-Frontenac?
4.	How many dwelling units are being built under the provisions of the same act (a) in the province of Quebec (b) in the province of Ontario (c) in the constituency of Compton-Frontenac?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: 1. Canada-10,151 total units completed as of July 31, 1964.
2.	(a) 796; (b) 6,199; (c) nil.
3.	Capital expenditures-federal government share (up to July 31, 1964), (a) $7,971,254.08; (b) $53,001,829.42; (c) see answer to 2(c) above.
4.	(a) Nil. (b) 275 units under construction as of July 31, 1964; (c) nil.
Note: The above figures relate to federal-provincial public housing projects built outside redevelopment areas as well as those built within these areas.


ANIMAL EXPOSURE TO EXPERIMENTAL BLAST, SUFFIELD STATION
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	In the t.n.t. blast experiment at the Suffield experimental station in Alberta on July 17, 1964, were animals exposed to the blast by any research team and, if so, for what purpose?
Questions
2.	What kinds of animals were used and how many of each kind?
3.	How were these animals used or disposed of after the experiment?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Yes, to take advantage of an opportunity to expose animals, the weights of which bracket the human body weight, in an environment free of nuclear and thermal radiation giving a blast-pulse similar to a kiloton weapon.
2.	Twenty sheep, 108 goats and 24 cattle.
3.	Observations of effects on the animals were recorded immediately. Any animal with evidence of painful injury was anaesthetized while being examined. Survivors were killed painlessly by intravenous administration of membutal. All animals were also studied by post mortem examination. After post mortem examination the carcasses were buried.


VISIT OF CANADIAN STUDENTS TO CUBA
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many Canadian students were granted visas through the Department of External Affairs to visit Cuba in June, July and August, 1964?
2.	To what extent were these visits financed by the government of Cuba?
3.	Is there any correspondence, or were there any verbal discussions wifh representatives of the government of Cuba and with officials of the Department of External Affairs regarding such arrangements?
4.	What was the proposed purpose of the visits?
5.	What are the names and addresses in Canada of those to whom visas were granted?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. None. Canadian citizens do not require exit visas or permits to leave Canada. The issuance of entry visas if required for the admission of Canadians to another country is the responsibility of the authorities of the country to be visited.
2.	Publicity issued by the fair play for Cuba committee indicated that the Cuban government was providing transportation and accommodation for the students.
3.	No.
4.	The fair play for Cuba committee stated in certain of its publicity material that a purpose of the tour was to permit the students to acquaint themselves with developments in Cuba.
5.	Answered by No. 1.


COST OF MENTAL ILLNESS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the direct cost of mental illness in Canada for the last year for which figures are available including hospital care, medical care, and medication?
2.	What is the indirect cost of mental illness in Canada for the last year for which figures are
847S

Questions
available as a result of loss of earnings by patients in hospitals and patients from industry?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. The total
direct cost of mental illness is unknown. The operating expenditures reported by public mental institutions in 1962 amounted to $141,600,000. The operating cost of psychiatric care in general hospitals for that year (excluding medical care) can be estimated at $17,500,000. The direct cost of medical care and medication outside mental institutions is not known.
2. Information on the indirect cost of mental illness in Canada is not available.


REDUCTIONS IN MENTAL HEALTH GRANTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	During the last fiscal year, how many projects were not approved, or reduced in amount, because the Department of National Health and Welfare did not have funds allocated to assist the provinces with an orderly development of their mental health programs?
2.	During the last fiscal year, how many hospital construction projects have been refused, or reduced in amount, because the Department of National
	Training	1.
	programs	Bursaries
	approved	approved
1954-55	22	3441955-56	18	3361956-57	17	3331957-58	17	3581958-59	19	3791959-60	20	3941960-61	22	4091961-62	20	3981962-63	20	3931963-64	18	406PUBLIC USE	OF ST. HUBERT	AIRPORT
Question No. 1,914-Mr. Rondeau:
Will the R.C.A.F. airport located at St. Hubert, P.Q. soon be converted into a civil airport while still remaining available to the air force and, if so, when will the airport be available for public use?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The transfer of responsibility for the St. Hubert airfield to the Department of Transport was announced on December 5, 1963. However, subsequent developments have resulted in further discussions taking place between the two departments and

Health and Welfare did not have funds allocated to assist the provinces with an orderly development of hospital facilities?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. None. The provinces submitted projects for the development of their mental health programs within the amounts of allocation for the year 1963-64.
2. None. All projects submitted by the provinces for federal assistance on behalf of hospital construction have been approved under the terms of the hospital construction grant. It is understood that some provinces have established priorities in the submission of projects and resulting payments under this grant.


MENTAL HEALTH TRAINING PROGRAMS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the number of training programs, bursaries, and short courses in the field of mental health in each of the past ten years?
2.	What was the total amount available in mental health grants for each of these years?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 2.
Short	
courses	Amount
approved	available
154	$ 7,234,868
155	7,234,868
156	7,234,868
194	7,234,868
147	7,234,863
196	7,234,868
178	8,765,391
218	8,765,391
163	8,765,391
164	8,765,391
transfer of the airfield has been deferred for the time being.


RESEARCH INTO SUICIDE CAUSES
Mr. Mather: 1.	In British Columbia, and in Canada, what has been the death rate from suicide in each of the last ten years?
2.	Is the government conducting, or lending financial support to, research into the causes of the high rate of suicide in British Columbia and, if so, at which institutions and under whose direction is such research being conducted?
3.	What have been the results to date of such research?
4.	What is the annual cost to the government of such research?

Questions
Hon. Maurice	Lamontagne	(Secretary of	State): 1. Suicides and	rates	(per 100,000	population) for	British	Columbia and	Canada	1954-63:	British Columbia	Canada	Number	Rate	Number	Rate1954	178	13.7	1,104	7.21955	156	11.6	1,106	7.01956	173	12.4	1,226	7.61957	163	11.0	1,247	7.51958	172	11.2	1,271	7.41959	179	11.4	1,287	7.41960	162	10.1	1,350	7.61961	193	11.8	1,366	7.51962	171	10.3	1,331	7.21963	221	13.0	1,436	7.6
2. No.
3 and 4. See answer 2 above.


REPAIRS TO GOVERNMENT WHARVES, KINCARDINE, ONT.
Mr. Loney: Is the Department of Public Works considering any construction, renovation or repairs at the government wharves at Kincardine, Bruce county, Ontario?
Hon. J. P. Deschateleis (Minister of Public
Works): Reconstruction and repair work on our marine works at Kincardine are under consideration.


REPAIRS TO GOVERNMENT WHARVES. PORT ELGIN. ONT.
Mr. Loney: Is the Department of Public Works considering any construction, renovation or repairs at the government wharves at Port Elgin, Bruce county, Ontario?


Hon. J. P. Deschateleis (Minister of Public Works):: Repairs to 220 lineal feet of the south breakwater are presently under way. In addition an irregular area is being dredged in the southwest corner of the harbour adjacent to the south breakwater and steel sheet pile wall.


VETERANS RECEIVING 100 PER CENT PENSION
Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John): How many veterans receive 100 per cent pension in each provinces?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Canadian pension Commission-Veterans receiving disability pension at the rate of 100 per cent as at March 31, 1964, by province:
Province	Number of pensioners
Newfoundland	67
Prince Edward Island	64
Nova Scotia	358
New Brunswick	244
Quebec	725
Ontario	2,198
Manitoba	499
Saskatchewan	274
Alberta	469
British Columbia	932


SEAT BELTS ON MILITARY VEHICLES
Mr. Grafftey: Are all military vehicles required to be equipped with seat belts and are all military personnel required to make use of said seat belts when travelling on public highways and public roads?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is now approved policy that seat belts will be fitted in vehicles which normally are required to travel on the highway and in some special purposes vehicles. The implementation of this policy is at different stages, depending on receipt from the manufacturers and establishment of the requirements.
Where service vehicles are equipped with seat belts, the driver shall have his safety belt properly fastened at all times while operating the vehicle and passengers riding in these vehicles are to be advised by the operator to fasten their belts.


U.S. BONDS RECEIVED UNDER COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY
Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-: Cowichan-The Islands):
What are the maturity dates and interest rates of the issues of United States government bonds in which the Canadian government has invested United States funds received on account of the Columbia River treaty?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Rate of Interest
Amount	Maturity	Date	%$30,000,000	Nov.	1,	1965	430,000,000	Nov.	1,	1966	4430,000,000	Nov.	1,	1967	4430,000,000	Nov.	1,	1968	4430,000,000	Nov.	1,	1969	4430,000,000	Nov.	1,	1970	4423,929,534.25	Nov.	1,	1971	44


$203,929,534.25 HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Questions

Mr. Bell: With respect to the wharf and/or breakwater at St. Martins, Saint John county, New Brunswick, what maintenance and repair work has been completed, including the expenditures, and what is planned for the future?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Wharf: repairs were carried out during the fiscal year 1963-64 at a cost of $17,165.64.
West breakwater: repairs now underway by contract at a cost of $34,465.
East breakwater: repairs being considered for 1965-66, subject to funds being provided.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, CRAPAUD, P.E.I.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	When was land acquired for the erection of a post office at Crapaud, Prince Edward Island?
2.	What is the area of the land acquired?
3.	From whom was it acquired?
4.	What amount was paid for the land?
5.	At what date was construction commenced and what is completion date?
6.	What are the dimensions of the building?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. On February 14, 1964.
2.	7,500 square feet.
3.	From Mr. A. P. Simmons.
4.	$1,000.
5.	Work commenced in March 1964 and was completed in September 1964.
6.	The dimensions are 24' x 20'.


ADDITIONS TO CANADA COUNCIL ENDOWMENT FUND
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Has the government given consideration to the request of the Canada council for additions to its endowment fund to enable the council to extend its work along the lines set out in its brief to the government, dated March 3, 1964 and, if so, what decision has been made?
2.	If no favourable decision has yet been made, is the matter still under consideration?


Mr. J. B. Siewari (Parliamentary Secreiary to Secretary of State):: This question is in two parts. The answer to the first part is yes, and the answer to part 2 is yes.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: On a question of privilege, how can "yes" be a satisfactory answer to the question "What decision has been made?"


John B. Stewart: I will certainly have to ascertain how "yes" would be a satisfactory answer to the question as put.
IMr. Pennell.]

On the orders of the day:


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, may I respond to the point of privilege raised earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concerning the answer to starred question 1,940. I now have had a chance to consider the suitability of the reply. I think if the hon. member will examine the two affirmative replies given, he will understand immediately.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question related to the reply just made by the parliamentary secretary. Since the question we are discussing, starred question No. 1,940, asks whether consideration has been given to certain matters, and then adds these words, "If so what decision has been made," how does he construe "yes" as a satisfactory answer to that? I should like to know what decision has been made.


John B. Stewart: There are two parts to the question. The second part, as put down by the hon. member himself, reads:
If no favourable decision has yet been made, is the matter still under consideration?
The answer to the second part was "yes".


NATIONAL NUCLEAR FORCES WITHIN NATO
Mr. Gray: What was the latest statement of Canadian policy on the question of the creation of national nuclear forces within NATO?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In my speech to the Atlantic treaty association I made the following remarks with regard to national nuclear forces:
The fact of the matter, then, is that some western European countries feel that they should have a greater share in the military direction of the alliance. Some of these countries have tried to meet this problem by creating a national nuclear force. This is not, however, a feasible course for most members nor do we regard it, on balance, as a desirable course, certainly for us, to follow.
These are the actual words that were used in the speech to the Atlantic treaty association and are in accordance with established Canadian government policy.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Nesbitt: 1. In April or May, 1963, was a loan made to India in connection with the sale of a number of Caribou aircraft?

2.	What were the terms of the sale of these aircraft and what was the number of aircraft involved?
3.	What were the terms of the loan?
4.	Have any of these aircraft been delivered to India and, if so, how many?
5.	Have any repayments been made with respect to this loan and, if so, on what occasions and what were the sums involved?
Return tabled.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, LAKEHEAD TO MANITOBA
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What are the specific sections of the trans-Canada highway completed west of the lakehead to the Manitoba boundary?
2.	What were the dates of completion, the names of the contractors and the level and percentage of the federal contribution on each contract?
3.	How many times and at which intervals, does the federal authority examine the completed contract sections to determine the quality of the work and the way it is standing up to conditions?
4.	On how many new sections has the government found the road breaking up and in need of considerable repair?
5.	If the federal authority does not follow up the wearing quality of the construction, what information has it from the provincial authority, on the state of these completed highway sections?
6.	What portion of the mileage of this stretch is completed to trans-Canada standards?
7.	What portion is now under construction and what are the target dates for completion of the remaining unfinished portions, in so far as the federal authority is aware?
8.	Is there any simple explanation for the many years it is taking to complete this section of the highway?
Return tabled.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I heard over the radio that the Secretary of State for External Affairs intended to make a statement today with regard to the Cyprus force. I would ask him whether what appeared in the press, that there is to be an extension, is correct; and whether his attention has been directed to articles in the New York Times and other influential papers setting out contributions which various countries have made to the Cyprus force, together with promises for the future, but making not one reference to Canada, the one country which seems to be paying more for its whistle as a member of the United Nations than any other in this connection.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I fully share the right hon.
Inquiries of the Ministry gentleman's irritation over this inexcusable failure to note the contribution made by Canada in the Cyprus peace keeping operation, which, I think I may be allowed to say on behalf of the country, is a contribution exceeded by that of no other nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The United Nations security council, as the right hon. gentleman has just indicated, adopted a resolution late Friday afternoon extending the term of the United Nations force in Cyprus. Following receipt of the official request from the secretary general over the week end that Canada should continue to participate in the force for a further three months, the government has authorized me to inform the secretary general that Canada is prepared to do so on the same terms that applied to the Canadian contribution in the first two three-month periods.
As a result of this decision arrangements for the rotation of the Canadian contingent are now proceeding, and my colleague the Minister of National Defence advises me that the first flights left this morning. The first battalion of the Canadian Guards will be going to Cyprus to relieve the first battalion of the Royal 22nd regiment, the Van Doos, and a reconnaissance squadron of the Lord Strathcona Horse will relieve the reconnaissance squadron of the Royal Canadian Dragoons.
I am sure the house would wish me to take the occasion of the return to Canada within the next week of members of the Royal 22nd regiment and the Royal Canadian Dragoons to say how very proud the people of Canada are of the exemplary way in which the members of these famous units have carried out the difficult and delicate duties which have been entrusted to them.


John George Diefenbaker: The words of commendation for the force which the hon. gentleman has used are, of course, worthy of the support of all hon. members and of Canadians as a whole. I think the commendation is all the more deserved because of the fact that this United Nations force has been hobbled from the start, and has about it only the veneer of effectiveness without the necessary powers to carry out its responsibilities.
I would ask the minister in this connection why it is that in all the press reports I have been able to read, in the New York Times particularly, there is no reference to any request on the nart of Canada, which has the

Inquiries of the Ministry largest force of all on the island, for any increase or expansion of these powers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not agree with the right hon. gentleman that the force has been hobbled, or whatever the word was, because I am sure the evidence reveals that but for the United Nations force, in which Canada has played so distinguished a part, there would have been a deterioration that might well, both at the beginning before the force was established and afterward, have led to war.
As the secretary general said in the report which he circulated 10 days ago, the presence of the force was, in his judgment, vital for the maintenance of conditions that could lead to the avoidance of war and produce a situation that might encourage satisfactory results from mediation. I may say that last Friday I met with Colonel Amy, the officer in charge of the Canadian contingent, and from what he told me, as I am sure from what he has told my colleague the Minister of National Defence, there is no doubt that the United Nations force has, notwithstanding the great difficulties it faced, made an indispensable and necessary contribution in that troubled island.
My right hon. friend says he saw no reference in the newspapers to the added powers of the force.


John George Diefenbaker: No; the request from Canada.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: To the request from Canada. As my right hon. friend knows, the secretary general did make a statement in the security council in which he referred to the consultations he had had with participating governments, including Canada- which I may say has been very active in this regard-on the conditions which he laid down and which are embodied in the notation of the resolution passed by the security council on Friday last. The security council noted the secretary general's request for full freedom of movement for the force, authority to remove military installations, and authority to separate opposing forces and create buffer zones.
It is significant in this context that the security council resolution containing such a clause received for the first time the unanimous approval of the members of the council, including the Soviet union and Czechoslovakia. It should also be noted that in the course of the debate the secretary general received explicit support for his proposals regarding these conditions from a majority


of council members and particularly that, in a statement he made after the resolution was passed, he reasserted his intention to continue to seek full freedom of movement for the force.
In these circumstances the secretary general will, in Canada's view-and we have been so advised by him-be justified in proceeding on the basis that the mandate of the force has been reinforced by the security council's deliberations on his proposals. He will now attempt to create more effective operating conditions for the force.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, after the removal of the words of lullaby I want to ask the minister this question. I have before me the resolution and the notation. Has there been any increase or expansion of the powers? That is the simple question that I ask.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be unduly severe with my right hon. friend, and I think I had better take his strictures in the spirit in which they have been offered. As my right hon. friend knows, there was a discussion among the participating countries for a period of four days regarding a resolution that would set out explicitly the powers which were sought and referred to by the secretary general in the report that he circulated some 10 days ago. It was not possible to get consent to this resolution without running the risk of a veto. Rather than run the risk of a veto, which would have meant there would have been no renewal of the mandate, the secretary general agreed to a resolution in terms similar in their generality to the resolution of March 4.
In this resolution of Friday last, notation was made of the report of the secretary general, particularly in regard to the enlarged powers sought by him. He likely takes the position, as he publicly indicated afterwards, that, as there was no opposition to this procedure, he is acting on the assumption that his mandate included these enlarged powers. This is a technique which has often been resorted to at the United Nations. It is the only technique that is available in the face of the potential use of the veto. I think it was a constructive course of action and I am sure the secretary general, backed up by all who support him, has done everything he can to deal with this difficult situation. I am satisfed that the right course has been followed.


John George Diefenbaker: So the answer is no.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a further question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the fact that he announced that there was a rotation among the Canadian troops, does he intend to suggest to the United Nations that Canadian troops rotate with troops of other member countries, because, according to Maclean's French edition, the most thankless tasks were assigned to the Canadian troops, while the British, Finnish and other troops were there almost as tourists?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think that the answer might be in the affirmative, but I would like to examine anew the terms of the question which the hon. member just asked me.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs could advise the house whether the problem of financing the peace keeping operations in Cyprus has been solved, and whether the Soviet union has indicated its intention to make any contribution in this matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Soviet union has not indicated its intention to make any contribution. The governments of the United Kingdom and the United States are making sizeable, and the largest, contributions to the voluntary fund. Canada, as I indicated a moment ago, along with Ireland, is continuing to pay the costs of our contributions to the operation. The secretary general, however, was forced to announce-I regret that he had to do so, but it shows the state of international acceptance of United Nations obligations

that unless the fund was large enough he might have to withdraw the force before December 26. The financial situation of the United Nations is such that he had no alternative but to make this announcement. I would hope that other countries in the United Nations will follow the example of Canada and Ireland and other countries and assume obligations which under the charter are legally imposed upon them as well as upon us.

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): Mr. Speaker, in view of the commitment of Canadian troops to Cyprus for another three months, which makes a total
Inquiries of the Ministry of nine months, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he is prepared to give the house an estimate of the cost that will be much more accurate than his completely erroneous estimate of July 28?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend always clothes a fairly intelligent question with unnecessary abuse. The Minister of National Defence will deal with the question.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, I have been accused of unnecessary abuse. On a point of privilege I think I have to point out that on July 28 the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the total cost of Canada's participation, including the airlift-and I quote his exact words from page 6063 of Hansard for that date-"would be around $2J million for the year." On August 3 the Minister of National Defence said that up to that date the estimated cost had been $2,200,000. Therefore there was not any abuse on my part. The abuse of the privileges of parliament was exercised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in giving us erroneous information.


An hon. Member:: As always.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree fully with you.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Can I not get an answer from the Minister of National Defence?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think the problem is a matter of interpretation.


John George Diefenbaker: Most of the minister's statements need interpretation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On August 3 I tabled figures of the estimated cost up to July 30. The estimated cost to date of Canadian participation in the United Nations force in Cyprus, including initial and support airlift and certain costs recoverable from the UN related to Canadian personnel at UN headquarters in Cyprus who are not members of the Canadian contingent, is $2,810,000. This figure does not include the cost of the rotation of the Canadian contingent which began this morning. This is estimated at $190,000.
On the basis of estimated monthly costs ol $305,000, expenditures for the next three months, including cost of material, food, other supplies, support airlift and services directly attributable to Canadian participation in the UN force, may be expected to amount to $915,000. This does not include possible costs

Inquiries of the Ministry of repatriating our Canadian contingent at the end of this third three-month period.


RECOGNITION OF QUEBEC DELEGATION IN PARIS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he tell the house what decision has now been made with regard to the Quebec delegation in Paris and also whether the government has decided to grant the same privileges as those previously granted to the Ontario delegation in London?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the second part of the question, I must say that this decision does not depend on the Canadian government, but rather on the French government.
As far as the first part of the question is concerned, I must say that since discussions between the French government and the Canadian government are not yet completed, I am not in a position to give a final answer.


POSSIBLE MODIFICATION OF TREATY BETWEEN U.S. AND JAPAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister participated in any discussions, or is he aware of any discussions that took place, when he was in Tokyo, when Mr. Cabot Lodge visited Canada, or with other United States officials which would indicate that the United States intends to modify its treaty with Japan to permit the establishment of regular armed forces; to permit rearmament, and to permit the deletion of the declaration against war clause in that treaty?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, sir.


MALAYSIA-INQUIRY AS TO MILITARY SURVEY GROUPS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I wish to address two questions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the commission from Malaysia reached Canada and held conversations with representatives of this government; and second,

has the military survey group from Canada left for Malaysia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The military survey group, which had expected to leave for Malaysia last week, would have been on its way but for the fact that the team from Malaysia which was in the United States and later came here asked that there should be a delay so they could study certain information. We are now waiting to hear from the Malaysia authorities before the Canadian team departs.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can he tell us how negotiations are progressing between his department and the department of natural resources of the province of Quebec concerning the transfer of the administration of Eskimo affairs in that province, and can he also tell us if he expects that those negotiations will soon be concluded?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there have been no negotiations at the official level in recent weeks. I rather anticipate that we will be having certain discussions with the department concerned in the province of Quebec in the next several weeks.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Since those negotiations rather seem to be at a standstill, and since the Prime Minister of Canada is known as one of the greatest diplomats and negotiators in Canada today, does he not intend to intervene in order to bring those negotiations to a conclusion as soon as possible?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member should be too impatient. I am quite confident that these negotiations will continue, and that a solution will be found.


HAINES CUT-OFF-U.S. OFFER OF WINTER MAINTENANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the government yet reached a decision on the offer of the government of the state of Alaska with respect to the all weather maintenance of the Haines road?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think it was on Friday last I indicated to the hon. member that the matter was under very active discussion. I am pleased now to tell the house that we have already offered to the state of Alaska to extend for another one year trial, the same amount of money that we paid last year, which was $127,050 U.S. funds. This offer has been communicated to the government of Alaska.


Erik Nielsen: As a supplementary question, is this then a counter offer to the offer of the state of Alaska to maintain the road on the basis of $167,000? Is that not correct?


Arthur Laing: We have good reason to hope and believe too, that the payment which was made last year will be acceptable again.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, because of the indisposition of the Minister of Transport, I should like to address my question to the acting minister. In view of the notice that went out this morning to members to attend an informal briefing in connection with the railway legislation, would the government consider inviting to this meeting the appointed representatives of the interested provinces?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of the particular notice referred to, but I will immediately look into the matter and consider it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the acting minister, in making his inquiries, make reference to the implications of this act to the province of Quebec, so that province will be among those invited?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have not indicated at this stage that any province 20220-537
Inquiries of the Ministry would be invited, but I will look into the observations made by the hon. member.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Now that the 30 day delay requested by the Minister of Public Works is over, could the minister tell us what is the situation as regards the negotiations concerning the construction of federal buildings in Hull?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that I could announce today the construction of a federal building in Hull but unfortunately I am not yet in a position to do so.
However, I expect to be able to announce shortly the construction of two federal buildings, one in Hull and one in the city of Eastview.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister is prepared now to announce whether the new federal building for Kelowna, British Columbia is ready to be built?


TRANSPORTATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Last Friday I asked him about the lack of passenger accommodation on C.P.R. trains between Montreal and Vancouver, and he indicated that he would refer this matter to the Minister of Transport. I am sorry to hear that the Minister of Transport is ill and may not be resuming his duties for several days. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has taken this matter up directly with the Canadian Pacific Railway and, if not, perhaps he can advise us who is doing so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the matter has been taken up, but we have not as yet received a reply to our request for information. As soon as that reply is received it will be given to the house.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE


RUSSIA-FURTHER WHEAT PURCHASES AND CREDIT ARRANGEMENTS REQUESTED
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I should like to ask the Prime Minister if there is any foundation for the newspaper article to the effect that to all intents and purposes no immediate future purchases of wheat will be made by the U.S.S.R.; and whether it is a fact that the U.S.S.R. has asked Canada, should it desire to extend its trade in the U.S.S.R., for credit arrangements extending between 10 and 15 years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be discussing this matter with the minister on his return tomorrow, and perhaps he will be in a position to give an answer to the question. Of course he has already said in the house that there has been no definite information from the Soviet union as to whether they will or will not be importing more wheat from Canada.
So far as the latter part of the question is concerned, I have ascertained, as no doubt my right hon. friend has, that the Soviet union has been making statements of this kind to a good many governments in regard to providing credit terms.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the U.S.S.R. stated to Canada that it desires, indeed demands, credit arrangements of between 10 and 15 years in respect of any future trade?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, we have had no official demand or request of that kind from the U.S.S.R. in regard to credit terms.


POSSIBLE IMPEDIMENTS TO FREE TRADE BETWEEN PROVINCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I nave a question for the Prime Minister arising out of reports that the Manitoba government intends to bring in a program of special concessions to provincial manufacturers. In view of the impediment to free trade between provinces represented by this and other provincial programs, what action or plans does the government contemplate to deal with this and other similar programs being followed by various provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen those reports. I shall be glad to look into them and see

if any action or statement is required on our part.


MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the minister from Pictou asked-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Moore Benidickson: -the hon. member for Pictou asked if I had received a communication from the board of trade of Pictou regarding the berthing of the Canadian hydrographic ship Acadia. I said, and it proved to be correct, that nothing of that kind had at that time come across my desk, although I had had representations the previous year. I find that late on Wednesday a communication was received from the board of trade of Pictou. I was away in Quebec city on Thursday, and my staff proceeded to make inquiries concerning plans for the berthing of this ship this winter.
I gave consideration to the representations that have been received from my hon. friend, from the Minister of Labour and others, and over the week end we have decided to continue the winter berthing of the Acadia at Pictou. It has been berthed at Pictou since 1945, although with the establishment of the oceanographic institute at Halifax there are some operational advantages in the ship being berthed in a port that provides a longer operational season. I assure my hon. friend, however, that the arrangement will not be disturbed this winter.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has had any further meetings with the executives of class A and B fairs with regard to the capital grants that were frozen. Is it the intention of the government to continue the grants?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the last of the pilot projects which were initiated this year on the prairies and at the Western fair in London have now been completed. We are assessing

them, and as soon as this has been done we will be calling in all the executives of both class A and B fairs as well as the ministers of the provinces to ascertain what we will do in connection with the capital grants.


Michael Starr: When does the minister expect this time will arrive, when he will be in a position to call in these executives to thresh out this problem?


Harry William Hays: We are going to do this just as quickly as we can. When we have reached some sort of agreement I shall be glad to announce it.


HOGS-GRADING PRACTICES RELATED TO PREMIUM PAID
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry William Hays: On Friday last the hon. member for Humbolt-Melfort-Tisdale referred to a report of a statement made at a meeting of the Ontario hog producers marketing board to the effect that the payment of premiums on grade A hogs depended on the amount of money allocated for such premiums at the beginning of the fiscal year.
In reply I may say that this suggestion is completely unfounded. Since 1961-62 the appropriation for the payment of quality premiums on grade A hogs has been so arranged as to allow expenditures to exceed the amount originally estimated. Prior to 1961 it was necessary to provide the additional funds required by supplementary estimates. Under the new procedure being followed since 1961 this is not necessary. As an example, $4,670,480 was originally provided in the 1963-64 estimates but the actual expenditure on hog premiums for that year totalled $7,479,484.
It is also interesting to note that over the past ten years the percentage of hogs on which quality premiums have been paid during the last four months of each fiscal year has been as high as, or higher than, the percentage on which payments were made during the first eight months of each fiscal year.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Has
the minister given any consideration to withdrawing the hog premium subsidy and having it reflected in the price of the product?


Harry William Hays: There has been no consideration given to that.
20220-537i
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


STEPS TO MEET PROPOSED ACTION BY MEMBER FOR YORK-HUMBER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State, but in his absence I shall put it to his parliamentary secretary who is known for his aristocratic discretion.
Could he tell us how matters stand now in the quarrel between the C.B.C. and the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) in connection with station CJBC?


John B. Stewart: I want to thank the hon. member for reminding me of this question. I know the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue also has an interest in this matter. He asked a question about it on September 4. I am now informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that a writ of summons was served on the corporation on September 24, 1964. Moreover, I am informed that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does not intend to change its plans for the operation of a French language station in the city of Toronto unless the court makes an order which necessarily requires some change to be made. The corporation intends to oppose and defend the action which has been commenced.


Auguste Choquette: I should like to ask whether the Canadian government will be represented by a lawyer in the case of Cowan v. C.B.C. case.


John B. Stewart: I believe the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would have full jurisdiction to defend itself in this action.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponfiac-Temiscamin-gue):: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the parliamentary secretary tell the house who has been retained as counsel for the C.B.C.?


John B. Stewart: I will ask the corporation.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria, B.C.):: I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has it been brought to the minister's attention that on the night of Saturday, Septem-

Inquiries of the Ministry ber 26, 1964, two seriously injured cadets from the Royal Military College, Kingston, were taken to the Queen Mary veterans hospital in Montreal for first aid treatment, but were refused admission? Will the minister tell us if this action is in accordance with the rules of his department, and will the minister have the matter investigated?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I want to thank the hon. member for advising me at the lunch hour that this question was going to be raised. A partial investigation has been made, and the information received to date is that these cadets arrived at the main gate of the Queen Mary hospital around 1 a.m. Sunday morning dressed as civilians. They did not identify themselves as cadets. They were advised to go to the west gate for entrance to the admitting department.
On arrival at the west gate one of them placed a telephone call, and before the telephone call was finished they were met by the police who took them away. It is not clear why they left with the police or why they were not let in to the admitting department. We are continuing the investigation.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Can the
minister say if he is aware whether these cadets were refused admission to any other hospital?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I have no further information at this moment. As soon as I have it I will be able to report to the house.


RENT INCREASES IN VARIOUS HOUSING PROJECTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale):: I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is the minister aware of the difficulties caused to tenants of some veterans housing projects as a result of rent increases, and would he look into this problem so that no undue hardship or difficulty may be experienced by the veterans concerned?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I will be glad to look into the matter.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Boutin) and the
[Mr. Groos.l

hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) asked various questions concerning the arrangement of flags at the national war memorial during the ceremony commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Royal 22nd regiment.
Before the ceremony authorities of the regiment actually inquired about the possibility of raising fleur-de-lis flags between red ensigns around the national war memorial. Even though the public works department is responsible for flying the flags, no decision is ever made in such circumstances without first seeking advice from the protocol division, and this was done in this case.
Following various consultations with the protocol division, the officers of the Royal 22nd regiment were advised that the fleur-de-lis could not alternate with the red ensign around the war memorial but that it could be flown by the regiment during the ceremony.
The hon. members must realize that, in many cases of this type, custom, tradition and precedents must guide us; and I must add that the only flags that can alternate with that of Canada around the war memorial are those of foreign countries which, on occasion, pay tribute to our dead.
In this case the decision was taken in conformity with the policy followed in the past. I am among the first to regret that what is called "protocol" should be so rigid, but I am also among the first to recognize that it must be so. Therefore, one must not look here for any motive other than the usual custom to explain the decision made and it would be unfortunate to think otherwise, because the ceremony which took place in the capital last week was everything we had hoped it would be: a moving tribute from the government of Canada to one of its most gallant regiments.


Mr. Pierre-Andre Bouiin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question.
The Minister of Public Works has just said that the decision was taken by the protocol branch, which is under the secretary of state department.
Could the Prime Minister remind the Secretary of State that the protocol branch comes under his jurisdiction, because last Friday he did not seem to know it. He said then that the matter was the sole responsibility of the Department of Public Works.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I must point out to the hon. member that I did not say that it was up to the Secretary of State to make a decision in this

respect, but that it was up to the Minister of Public Works to do so.
However, before making decisions in such cases we always consult the protocol division.
I would also mention that the Department of External Affairs and the Department of the Secretary of State both have a protocol division, but final responsibility rests with the Department of Public Works.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question so as to clear up the answer the Minister of Public Works has just given. The minister stated that in such cases the Canadian flag had to be flown. Could he tell the house to what Canadian flag he is referring?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the red ensign, needless to say.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Public Works seemingly based his answer on custom and tradition, could he tell the house how many cases of this kind have occurred in Canada since confederation?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer this question by saying that since confederation the Canadian flag has never flown along with another flag at the war memorial, unless it was a flag of a sovereign foreign country.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has this ever been asked by one of the provinces?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Could the minister tell us what officer- and to which department he is responsible- supplied information on the protocol regarding the flags flown at the Canadian war memorial?
Could he also table in the house the text of the protocol which made it impossible to fly the fleur-de-lis last week?


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


COLD LAKE, ALTA.-CONTRACT FOR AIRPORT HEATING SYSTEM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Terry Nugenl (Edmonlon-Slralhcona):: I should like to ask the Minister of National
Inquiries of the Ministry Defence whether he would clarify an answer he gave on Friday. He gave it so quickly I was not in the house when it came up. He said, as reported on page 8429 of Hansard- this is with regard to the conversion to gas at Cold Lake airport-that the contract was not simply put up for tender but that gas was being supplied by the Cold Lake Pipeline Company, the only company in a position to do so in that area.
Does that answer mean that the Cold Lake Pipeline Company is doing the conversion work normally done by heating and plumbing contractors, and was this work negotiated rather than put up for tender?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The pipe line company is, I understand, installing the underground works necessary for the distribution of the gas. In the circumstances I believe this would have been a negotiated contract.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: My question concerned the conversion of the heating units in 850 married quarters. Has this work been put out for tender or was it negotiated, and is it being done by the same company?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I cannot recall for sure. I think I had better take that part of the question as notice.


REPORTED U.S. INTENTION TO CONSTRUCT DAM ON YUKON RIVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources concerning relations between Alaska, the United States and Canada. My question is based on reports of the plans of the government of the state of Alaska and the United States corps of army engineers for harnessing the hydroelectric potential of the Yukon river by the building of a dam at Rampart on the Alaska portion of the Yukon river.
Bearing in mind our knowledge of the United States doctrine that first in time is first in right, and in view of the warning by General McNaughton that once ratification of the Columbia treaty had been completed the United States would step in to take the Yukon power away from Canada, would the minister inform the house of the government's plan to protect Canada's rights so as to provide for the future development of the Yukon river by Canada in Canada?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Arthur Laing: I cannot at all accept the assumption that a great deal of progress has been made by the state of Alaska or by the government of the United States in plans or intentions to build a dam at Rampart. I think we have made it amply clear that at the present time the building of that dam and the transmission of power through Canada would not be in the interests of Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is what we want to hear.


Arthur Laing: Moreover, the economic considerations involved in the transmission of power for well over 1,000 miles, as well as the fact that transmission would have to take place entirely through Canada would, I think, place us in a very strategic position.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormislon (Melville):: I have a question for the acting minister of citizenship and immigration. Has the hon. gentleman any further information regarding the presence in Toronto of two United States strike directors?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I will take the question as notice.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It refers to a question I asked the minister last week with reference to question No. 1,744 on the order paper, to be found on page 27 of today's routine proceedings. This question has been on the order paper since August 20. It seeks information which must be readily available in the external aid office, and I asked the minister last week whether he would see that it was answered. The hon. gentleman was very gracious and reassuring, but no answer has been given as yet. So I should like to ask this minister this. Have any Caribou aircraft been delivered to India so far?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall see that this question is given the attention it deserves. I am told the answer has already been tabled. The hon. member does not give the department the credit he should.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Are the reports correct which appear to have been given to persons outside the house concerning the details of the proposed national labour code? May I ask, further, whether the notice respecting this legislation will be filed before six o'clock today so the item will be on the order paper by September 30, as the minister so solemnly promised?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: I have no comment to make with respect to the first part of the question. When I indicated that the notice would be on the order paper by the end of September, I thought September had 31 days. With that qualification I will meet the commitment I made to the hon. gentleman.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, September 22, 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. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: I rise to speak in favour of Bill No. C-121 because of the view which has been expressed by certain members of the opposition, among them the hon. member for Macleod and the hon. member for Acadia, that the present bill is of no value to the small farmer.
As my hon. friend from Kings said the other day, this is a most important bill as far as the small farmer is concerned. It is something which the small farmer really needs, and it can do a great deal to help him. I think it is well known that every small farmer-


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question. I should like to correct a statement the hon. member made. We never made the statement that this would

not help the small farmer; we said, the small wheat farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I will accept that correction, Mr. Speaker, because I say that the small wheat farmer is equally as important as the small eastern farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I think it is very well known that the average small farmer, whether he lives in British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta, the midwest, the east or the far east, has a very, very diversified business. He is concerned with growing crops, both grain and field crops such as potatoes, tomatoes, fruit and so on, as well as feeding livestock and poultry. Therefore he is given the opportunity by the bill to grow a much needed cash crop.
Take, for example, the farmer who might want to grow four or five acres of potatoes. To grow four or five acres of potatoes requires planting machinery; it requires spraying machinery; it requires harvesting machinery. It is utterly impossible for the small farmer to buy all the machinery that is needed to plant and harvest five acres of potatoes. Five acres of potatoes may not seem much to our big growers of wheat in the west. However, Mr. Speaker, five acres of potatoes, or tomatoes or whatever it may be, does mean a certain cash crop that is so much needed by the small farmer today to help keep him in business. By borrowing money for this type of machinery he can grow this type of crop.
With regard to a group of three or more farmers getting together to buy this type of machinery, the opposition has said this is a syndicate, that this smacks of communism. Don't tell me that three of your good western wheat farmers or three of our farmers in the east, or wherever they may be, are going to be put in the communist class if they get together to buy some machinery to better themselves in life. That is a really laughable suggestion.
1 mentioned briefly that three or four farmers can use this type of machinery with which to grow potatoes. There are many, many types of machinery that will help the farmer, and the big farmer also, but I will mention only two or three individual pieces of machinery. One is the new pelleting hay machine. The average small farmer cannot handle one of these, but a group of three, four or five farmers can. I am a farmer my-
Farm Machinery
self; 1 admit that there are certain types of crops that it is very difficult to handle by means of co-operative machinery, but there are other types of crops that are quite easily handled in this way. I would mention the corn harvester, for example. Every farmer has a wagon and a tractor of his own, but with a corn harvester they can pick any time of the year and three, four, five or twenty farmers can get together and buy a harvester and so better themselves.
There is one thing, Mr. Speaker, that a great many people have not taken into consideration, but this has been proven in Europe. I refer to the high powered feed mill, for example. A group of farmers can get together and buy one of these mills with the aid of the finances provided through this bill. There may be enough farmers to enable them to put a man in charge of this piece of machinery and so save themselves $3 or $4 a ton. This saving alone may determine whether they are going to be successful and make money out of the operation.
1 mentioned the syndicate arrangement earlier. It was mentioned by members across the way that farmers could not co-operate in this regard and therefore this arrangement would not work. Hon. members opposite who are farmers know much better than that. They know that farmers are the most co-operative group of people in the world today. I know this is so, not just because I am a farmer but because I have been concerned with the federation of agriculture and with farm groups, etc. I have worked with farmers all my life, and they are the only group of people in which this arrangement could really work.
I would like to illustrate how a group of farmers in any area can work together. There was a group of five farmers in my own community. Like every other group of farmers they wanted to buy the type of machinery that hon. members opposite have been discussing. They bought a piece of machinery, and John had it this week, or today; Bill had it another week; John broke something and Bill had to fix it. In other words it just did not work. However, being a group of farmers, did they get mad at each other and throw the whole arrangement up in the air and say it could not work? No; they used their intelligence.
I should like to tell the house what they did. Don't tell me this arrangement cannot work, because this group of farmers are living proof that it can and they are carrying on this arrangement today. One man of the group

Farm Machinery
undertook to look alter the machinery. There is hardly a young farmer today who cannot pull his tractor to pieces, or his combine or whatever it may be, and get it to work. They took one of the boys who loved doing that sort of work and put him in charge of this piece of machinery. He fixed this machine. He was paid so much an hour for every bit of work he did, not only on their farms but on his own farm, with regard to harvesting the crop. He looked after this piece of machinery. This group of farmers are still operating today under this arrangement. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, don't tell me this bill will not work among a group of farmers.
Today there is one thing wrong with us, and this is not just in farming. Today we are thinking big, too big. We are thinking big, and bigness is getting completely out of hand in the United States and Canada. We are getting away from small business, and small business is needed today as never before, not only to keep the economy of the country going but most important of all-and I know everyone will agree with me who knows anything about farmers or is a farmer himself-to keep in balance the heart of our nation, its people. This is what small business does, and it is what the small farmer is doing today.
One of the greatest obstacles to the development of a thriving farm community big or small is not only in the attitude of John Public himself but the attitude of the farmer. It is said that small business is doomed. If every one of us looked with this attitude at our businesses and at the businesses that are in our communities, and if we looked at our own lives with this attitude, we would be doomed. We all know that farmers are a group of people who have always been more satisfied with their way of life than any other group or industry, and rightly so. But we must remember that the fast changing world of today is affecting not only farm life but every walk of life. To keep up with this trend those who are in charge of business, be it farm business or industry, have to be quick to sense the need for change and adjustment. We cannot just sit and think of what our fathers did and be satisfied with that, whether it is in the farming business or any other type of business.
Because the farmer is satisfied with his way of life he has unconsciously been resisting these changes instead of using his energy and efforts to find a way of taking advantage of the changing circumstances. And this is not the case just with the farmers. I think if each hon. member in the house went back

to his own community he would find this true of other industries as well. I can name a number of industries in my own constituency which were the very heart and soul of little communities but which are there no more. They are there no more because they could not sense the change in the times. At the same time other industries which did sense the change in the times are now employing more people today.
This farm machinery bill represents one of these changes. It is something new; it is a completely new line of thinking, and if taken advantage of and given the chance it will play a very important role in keeping the small farmer in business today.


Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words on Bill No. C-121. First of all I must say that I am very pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture in the house today and to note that his many duties have not taken him away from the final day of discussion on second reading of this bill.
I have waited a long time for an opportunity to speak on this measure and to give the reaction to it of one who has farmed in Alberta for many years. I do not call farming an industry but rather a profession. I do not like being called a grocery grower or any other fool thing like that; I am a farmer and proud of it. I think farming is a profession. It is no longer the misfit who can go into farming. A farmer has to be able to manage his business and to have a proper outlook on life before he has a hope in the world of making a success of it. In this day and age people in all walks of life must be prepared to make a success of whatever undertaking they decide upon; and believe me, Mr. Speaker, one can be proud of being a farmer. No longer is he relegated to the business of farming just because he is a misfit at something else; that just cannot happen any more.
For some time we have been discussing loans of various kinds to farmers. I am one of those who still cannot see how any farmer can hope to borrow himself rich. The last time this measure came before the house was on Tuesday, September 22. Up to that time several measures had been discussed. All of them provided loans to farmers and amounted to a possible total loan of $55,000 from the Farm Credit Corporation and $15,000 by way of a farm improvement loan. Now we have a measure to make it possible for people in farm syndicates to borrow $15,000 each. Therefore it is possible for a farmer to borrow up to $85,000, and it would be his responsibility to pay it back.

I would not want anybody to think I had any idea that all farmers would be able to borrow that amount, but let us suppose that one farmer was able to borrow up to $85,000. If he paid only 5 per cent interest he would pay over $4,000 each year in interest quite apart from what he needed to live on. I do not think many farmers will be able to handle loans of that size, and each farmer must realize that he has no hope of being able to borrow himself rich.
The hon. member for Norfolk, who has just spoken, said in the course of his remarks that someone on this side of the house had said that farmers could not co-operate, that these loans could not possibly be of any use, and that if they did borrow they were communists. In the first place, I am sure no one over on this side of the house ever said that farmers could not or would not co-operate. We who come from the west know very well that the farmers are unable to co-operate in owning machinery no matter how much they would like to, because their operations are controlled by the weather, not by themselves. In the area in which I live the farmers have had pretty well four weeks of steady drizzle; I do not mean heavy rain like we had in Ottawa yesterday, but the sort of drizzle that makes harvesting impossible. The crops out there are swathed and lying in the fields, and no one can tell me that three, four or five farmers who owned one combine would be happy with that sort of arrangement instead of each being able to use the machine to harvest whenever the sun shone. I think there has to be a combine for each unit.
With regard to the allegation that they are communists, a communal farm is not composed of individual owners. Farmers on communal farms work for the good of the community. Those farmers do not own anything, so the hon. member is away off beam when he says that we on this side are calling people communists who would borrow under this kind of legislation. The only real communal farms in western Canada are those operated by the Hutterites. They are very hard working people, but none of them owns a thing and would not be eligible for a loan under this farm machinery syndicate credits act.
To my mind the only people who could really benefit from this measure-and here I am speaking entirely of the west, not of someone who grows five acres of tomatoes or potatoes in Ontario or eastern Canada- would be, say, a father who has two or three 20220-538
Farm Machinery
sons, each of whom could borrow provided he owned land. They could borrow money under this legislation for the purchase of farm machinery provided they worked together as a unit rather than as individuals. If they worked as individuals they would be faced with the old problem of doing certain things on their farms only when weather permitted.
It seems to me the only thing that could be satisfactorily purchased under the provisions of this legislation is heavy equipment such as a portable feed mill. If groups of farmers purchased portable feed mills and learned to operate them efficiently they would only suceed in putting another industry out of business. Surely it is obvious that local feed mill operators can do a better and more efficient job than can be done by farmers with portable mills. In the district of Canada where I live there is only one farmer operating a portable feed mill. With the exception of one report from that man's brother to the effect that this was a success, I have heard nothing wonderful about his operation. Nor have I heard of any farmer in the district other than the operator making use of that portable feed mill. This, incidentally, is not a syndicated operation.
At this time I should like to read into the record an editorial which is to be found in the Canadian milling and feed publication of August, 1964. This publication is the voice of the milling and feed industry in Canada. The editorial is signed by Robert Mercer, the editor, who says:
A news item on the back page of the Financial Times of Canada states that the Minister of Agriculture plans to finance collective purchases of farm machinery. Only certain more expensive items of machinery are to be included, among which is the mobile feed mill. A large sum of money is being put aside for the financing of these purchases, and it is to be made available through the Farm Credit Corporation.
We understand that the reason for including the mobile feed mill is in order to lower the cost of feed to the farmer. How a co-operative of local farmers, who should be within 30 miles of each other, hope to compete with an established mill, we do not understand.
We suggest that if the minister wishes to aid the livestock feeder in the east or in the west that a more direct approach be taken. In our estimation 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

Farm Machinery
required to choose the right supplements to complement the farmer's grains are not learned over night.
So what will happen? Either a drop in quality that goes with a drop in price, or some one member will take over as manager of the group and learn the business. If the latter is the case, then this new co-operative group is in direct competition with the local feed mill. It will now have many of the same overhead costs of a business organization and it will have fewer farmers to spread the cost across. A duplication of services often dilutes the efficiency of both.
If, as we suspect is the case, the problem is one where the minister feels the costs of custom grinding and mixing are too high, (which are usually billed below cost) then is this not the area for the assistance? Politically it is advisable to help the farmers, but in this case is it practical?
Feed is a costly and complex input item of a farm operation. However the cost is offset by its value. The efficiency of modern feeds can be seen from the price of eggs that has not increased in proportion to costs. Feed efficiency can only be fully derived when it is correctly formulated, correctly mixed, fresh and used for the purpose indicated.
We maintain that feed costs are not too high. A feed, or a cost in producing a feed may be too high. If this is the case, then it is better to pinpoint the area of concern and work to its correction, than it is to foster further purchases by the farmer into a field where the competition already undersells itself.
I am in complete agreement with that editorial, and I wonder what those people who will be put out of business will do in the event that such a thing takes place.
Other items of machinery have been mentioned, such as heavy grading equipment, levelling equipment and other things of that nature, but every county in Alberta has a complete line of heavy equipment which is rented out by the hour, along with an operator, to any farmer who desires to make use of this service. In that way the farmer is not responsible for the purchase or maintenance of this equipment and, furthermore, does not have to learn how to operate these machines. In that regard, I do not think the provisions of this legislation are feasible or advantageous to a farmer.
As far as the purchase through the provisions of this legislation of combines, tractors, plows and tillage machinery is concerned, I must point out that farmers, because of the very nature of farming and weather conditions, all have a need to use this type of equipment at the same time; therefore it would not be practicable to form a syndicate and purchase one of each.
This legislation appears to be directed toward vertical integration of the farming industry, and certainly in that part of the country in which I live will not be of any

assistance to the small farmers. I should like to know who is going to benefit as a result of this legislation. Will the small farmers benefit? The only small farmers who will benefit, I suggest, are those in an area who are related and can operate their individual farms as a single unit. I gave an example of this in respect of a farmer and his several sons.
I understand that one third of the membership of any group or syndicate formed to take advantage of the provisions of this legislation may be comprised of individuals who are not engaged in farming. This is a very bad feature or premise to this legislation. Only farmers should be eligible for whatever benefits can be derived from this measure.
I cannot see any advantage to be gained by the small farmer through this legislation, unless he can, under the provisions of this bill, obtain a loan on the machinery which he has now mortgaged, in most cases to the bank or under the Farm Credit Corporation provisions. It may be of assistance to a big farm, providing that farm is operated by a father and sons, who are all owners but who operate their properties as one unit. So far as I can see, this is the only place where this measure would be of help.
As 1 mentioned at the outset, the initial cost of the machine is not the only consideration. There is still the interest, the bookkeeping, and so on. Somebody will have to be paid to keep the books, manage the repairs and other items that will crop up from time to time under an agreement such as this. I should like to see these loans insured. I understand that any one member of the syndicate is responsible for the whole loan. I believe the loan should be insured in the name of all the members of the syndicate, then one member would not be left to pay up the whole loan in the event of default because of death or for other reasons.
It would not be proper for me to criticize a measure such as this, unless I could suggest to the minister some means of getting around the fact that so much money will be made available to one section of the country by way of these loans. Farmers do not want to be borrowers. Every one of them is an individualist. He wants responsibility for conducting his own business, and he feels that is his own business.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: May I ask a question?


Frank John William Fane: Yes.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: The hon. member mentioned that this measure would apply to only one section of the country. Would the hon. member delineate that section of the country?


Frank John William Fane: Did I say that?


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Yes.


Frank John William Fane: I was talking about the farmers. I said that they need help, and they need all the help they can get, but they do not want to be set aside as people who are always wanting to borrow money. They want to be on their own. They want to receive a proper price for their produce and they want that price to bear some relationship to the cost of the stuff they have to buy. The amount they receive for what they sell must bear a relationship to the cost of what they have to buy.
I can give an example, Mr. Speaker. In 1944 I bought a 16 foot self propelled combine. The price of that combine was approximately $3,200 which, at that time, equalled the amount received from 3,000 bushels of No. 3 northern wheat. If one were to buy the same combine today-I suppose it is a little nicer machine, a little more streamlined and perhaps handles the work a little faster or has more gadgets, such as a cigarette lighter or a comfortable seat-it would cost roughly $10,500 and that would be equal to the amount received from 10,000 bushels of No. 3 northern wheat. Is that right? The government of which I was a member was just as guilty of increasing loans to farmers. It is not too easy a job to tie the cost of production to the price received for the sale of a product. Why can we not work toward making it possible for farmers to get returns commensurate with the cost of production? I know the minister is going to laugh at that, but the only way any government can hope to avoid all this business of introducing special measures for loans to farmers is by following the course I suggest.
I am a farmer and I am proud to be a farmer. However you could not get me to sign one of these syndicate deals, even if you dragged me in with the biggest tractor you could find. I have had some syndicate deals, but they did not pan out. It was not my fault but was the result of the vagaries of the weather. I think perhaps I have given that thought to the minister, and I know he has received it many times from other members. I just wanted to tell him how I felt about it. I did not intend to take so much time this afternoon, but I felt that it was necessary. I am anxious to see this measure discussed in committee because then we will 20220-538J
Farm Machinery
have an opportunity to discuss each section and ask the minister questions.
For example, one question I will have for the minister is, will the benefits of this measure be available to the residents of Indian reserves, those who are treaty Indians? They are the people who need help most. Will it only be available to those farmers who are well off and who can get money some other way? It will not help many young farmers. Again I say, Mr. Speaker, I am talking as a western farmer and one who has been a farmer all his life. I am just telling you how I feel this measure will or will not operate.


Mr. Patrick Tobin Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, over the week end I had the opportunity to discuss the legislation now before us with several farmers and farm organization leaders of my riding, and I simply wish to say that those farmers, who could be considered as small farm operators, wholeheartedly support the bill and asked me to join with them in commending the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) for his leadership in proposing this legislation to assist farmers.
The hon. member who just took his seat indicated that he spoke as a western farmer. For his information, as far as I am concerned, I may say that I speak as an eastern farmer.
Mr. Speaker, the farmers in my area are small farm operators and they asked me to congratulate the minister because they are convinced that this legislation, in enabling them to purchase farm machinery, will be of tremendous assistance in the development of their farm.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the remarks made by the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Mullally) and more particularly those concerning the rate of interest. I think the rate of interest should be fixed and not floating as now stipulated in the bill. And I feel there should not be a 1 per cent deduction for service charges. I think the measure would then be more beneficial to the farmers.
We will certainly have to bring some amendments to the legislation and I am asking the minister to take those suggestions into serious consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I think this legislation is part and parcel of a program that was to be based on a farm policy. I think it is very important for the agriculture economy as a whole, and we should look into the possibility of establishing a national farm policy which could

Farm Machinery
bring about the development of our agriculture. I hope that the minister will consider these suggestions.
Mr. Speaker, the only reason I took part in this debate was to tell the Minister of Agriculture that the eastern farmers, and especially those in the eastern townships, give their unqualified support to his proposed legislation.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am not going to agree wholeheartedly with the last hon. member who spoke, who got up ostensibly to congratulate the minister but at the same time pointed out a couple of ways in which he apparently felt there might be room for amendment or improvement in this bill.
I certainly have not risen to condemn the idea that is envisaged in the bill, but I do feel I would like to know a little more about it, and I do feel it is very important that the farmers of this country understand this measure much more fully than they can by just listening to statements such as those made by the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh).
I am sure there is no one in the house who is not ready, willing, and indeed anxious to do anything he can to help the farmers overcome the cost-price squeeze. We are willing to do everything we can to help them band together in their own interests, and we hope that in considering this one aspect we can work out something that will be most useful to them.
It is not just as a member of the opposition that I have a duty to look at this most critically. My background as a lawyer compels me immediately to look at the signs of trouble -where can the farmer get into trouble on this; where could he be led astray; wherein does this bill fail to achieve in its wording, its concept and its method the objectives which have been so loudly praised on the government side of the house?
I am afraid there are many signs here which indicate to me that the government has approached this from the angle that here is a measure which will, on the face of it, appear so helpful, where we are putting up 80 per cent of the money, where we are able to put such a good face on our desire to help the farmers, that no one will dare stand up and be very critical because he might be taken as anti-farmer. What I have just said, Mr. Speaker, indicates my first criticism of the bill.
[Mr. Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe) .1
There has not been sufficient thought put into this measure. It is a piece of show rather than a practical working instrument. It has been presented as a mighty helping hand to the farmer, and there has not been enough frankness with the farmer as to the loopholes or limitations and, in fact, the dangers there are in this system. It is true that farmers at harvest time have learned to co-operate with one another to quite an extent, and I am quite willing to concede that there will be many instances when small groups of farmers, even small groups of small farmers, could see in this bill a chance to band themselves together to buy some machinery, to obtain a degree of financing that they could not obtain individually and that they might not be able to obtain collectively without the assistance of this measure.
However, I think it is only fair to point out that there is nothing to prevent any small group of farmers getting together to form their own syndicate, their own little partnership-because that is what it is-for the purpose of purchasing farm machinery and of financing it in that way. The difficulty is that any partnership-and I would like to use that word instead of "syndicate," because I think it is the fairest warning to the farmer -carries with it the joint and several liability which is spelled out in this bill, and which is still so little understood by farmers who are not used to business dealings and are not used to forming partnerships.
After listening to the two hon. members who spoke on the Liberal side, particularly the last hon. member who said all his farmer constituents wanted him to thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) and praise this bill, I am wondering if any farmers realize when they get into a syndicate, that even though each one puts in only $1,000-and we will suppose their friends in the syndicate put in a little more, and that 80 per cent of the money they require is borrowed-and they end up with a $50,000 feed mill or other complex piece of machinery, that each one is responsible for the full $50,000, despite the investment of only $1,000.
Does the individual small farmer realize the risks in any partnership involving a great deal of machinery? Does he realize that if the manager of the enterprise makes a mistake and fails to insure properly, or if the machinery should be ruined or lost by some hazard not covered by the insurance, that the partnership is responsible for the full value-not just the money they collectively put in but all the money advanced

by the bank, which the government is guaranteeing?
Not only that, but I wonder if each one of those little farmers, who is at first glance so unhesitatingly enthusiastic about this, realizes that if he puts in only $1,000 and something were to happen to his partners, as a result of which they are unable to pay their full share or fair share, all his individual assets could be seized and that he could be liable for the full $50,000? This is the essence of partnership law and this, to my mind, is the greatest risk a farmer going into this syndicate idea can run. It is not just the risk of losing it all, but there is also the risk of what it does to his own borrowing ability in the interim. Once a farmer joins a syndicate he is contingently liable for the full commitment of that syndicate. Suppose he has put in $5,000 and the syndicate incurs a liability of $40,000 he is contingently liable for the sum of $40,000. If he goes to a bank to borrow some money to buy a new car, for example, or to buy a piece of machinery, his borrowing ability would be inhibited by the fact that a contingent liability for $40,000 was opposite his name. I wonder how many farmers who at first glance think this measure would be a lifesaver have given this point any consideration. In the past they may have had no difficulty in borrowing from the bank so as to buy more cattle or a new piece of machinery. It may well be that having regard to the contingent liability they would assume under this bill they would no longer be able to borrow the amounts they have been accustomed to borrow to help them in their normal operations.
I am not saying that this bill will cripple the borrowing ability of every farmer who takes advantage of it, but I am convinced that the ordinary farmer does not realize that this is a distinct possibility and I am not ashamed to say that I think this legislation should be referred to the committee on agriculture where this point could be gone into thoroughly, where it could be advertised and where members of this house could receive more instruction from farmers as to the possibility of these provisions harming their credit rating with regard to normal operations. Certainly, in setting up a scheme making it possible for farmers to expand we must take into consideration the fact that some farmers might be tempted to expand along lines they might not otherwise have considered. After all, it would take only a little money to get a big piece of expensive machinery and the people who are interested
Farm Machinery
can see the tremendous potential which might be involved. I am not saying that the ordinary farmers of this country are not shrewd enough businessmen to decide whether they should or should not go into a new line. But I have had a great deal of experience of people who have found the over-ease of getting credit to be their undoing, and we should be neglecting our duty here if we tried not only to help the farmer but to help him in the best possible way. If we cannot do it in a better way than this, we should make sure that the farmers understand the limitations.
I have not tried to work out in detail a better way of doing what is now proposed but I suggest the government should consider the possibility of proceeding by way of private companies rather than syndicates. Instead of forming syndicates farmers might form small private companies whose articles of association would contain strict provision against a transfer of shares, possibly, in the case of death, for example, and providing also that membership should be limited to working farmers. Within this context it might be possible to evolve a scheme whereby each farmer could put up only the cash necessary to get started and be subject to call for the rest of the shares. He might, for example, put out $1,000 and be on call for $5,000 with the understanding that if the worst came to the worst $5,000 would be the extent of his liability. He would thus be assuming a limited liability which he could take into calculation. No matter what happened he would not be called upon to pay more. With farmers putting in this sort of money the government might work out a scheme of guarantees, guaranteeing if not 80 per cent of the loan then something fairly close to that figure. This I submit would remove the two basic fears I have. Farmers could no longer be called upon to pay the full extent of the contingent liability of the whole syndicate, and in the second place their credit ratings would not be inhibited by that contingent liability.
I have indicated that I can see ways in which small farmers could take advantage of this legislation by banding together and I do know that a great deal of co-operation is required among farmers at harvest time whether or not there is any question of a syndicate. But in the years I have been down here, remembering how much stress has been laid on the importance of the family farm and how much legislation we have passed to give such farmers a fair chance of earning a living, it occurs to me to ask how much

Farm Machinery
consideration the government has given to the possible effects of this bill. My hon. friend from Vegreville (Mr. Fane) called it political integration. I was thinking more in terms of removing a farmer from farming. Under the terms of this legislation it is only required that one person in a syndicate should be a full-time farmer; the rest need only be engaged in farming operations. We know the absentee landlord has been the bane of farming for a long time. I do not think it takes too much imagination to see the trend here. A person wishing to set up an operation to do custom harvesting for his neighbours cannot provide the elaborate machinery required. This operation, by the way, would not run the same risk with regard to weather, or the extent of the crop, as a farmer normally runs; at least, it would not be affected to the same extent. I can understand there are those who feel that this is one part of farming operations which is bound to be profitable. The capital required is only 20 per cent of the whole amount. A limited amount of capital is raised among those they intend to serve. Thus, at the same time they get people to help put up the money, bind them as customers and take a fixed rate for the use of the machinery owned by the syndicate.
I am not at all sure this is the type of farming operation we wish to encourage in this country. I am aware, although I am not a farmer, that there may be areas in which small farmers feel a need for some outside help at harvest time or during specialized operations. I do not pretend to know enough about farming across this country to speak without reservation but I believe the combined experience of the farm members of this house is such that the minister could obtain the kind of information he needs and the government could obtain the kind of direction it must have in order to solve this problem in the best possible way, rather than in a way which merely puts the best front on it.
I was intrigued last week when one of our members, I think it was the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg), was asked a question by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt). The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) in what I thought was a most supercilious way said; "There go the experts, quoting one another". Having been a member of this house for a few years now, and having had the honour of serving with members on this side of the house throughout those years, having seen what they have done through their efforts in this house for the western Canada agricultural position, having some knowledge of how it came about, I have

learned to respect the opinion of those members. If the Minister of Transport was being funny when he said the experts were quoting one another, I want to say very sincerely that those whom I consider to be the experts on agriculture in Canada today are the members in this house, who have demonstrated that they are experts in this matter.
It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I feel so strongly that to avoid some of the pitfalls I see in this bill it should be sent to the agricultural committee. A little more knowledge about the subject is not going to hurt us; a little more opportunity for the farmers to learn a lot is certainly going to help them, no matter in what form this bill is finally presented. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul):
That this Bill No. C-121 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on agriculture for further study and report.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to vote against the amendment which has just been made, because-


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: It has to be seconded first.


Mr. MacNaughi:: It has been seconded.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I believe I am in order, Mr. Speaker. I propose to vote against the amendment which has just been made, because I believe that the legislation as it is before this house at the moment has received due and careful consideration. I believe, after listening to the debate and after reading the reports in Hansard, that it is legislation which will help the farmers of the riding that I personally represent. I intend to support this legislation and I do not believe it should be subject to any further delay, which I believe would be the result if the amendment which has been proposed were to be adopted by this house.
This is the time of year when the agricultural fairs, particularly the fairs of the Ottawa valley, are in full swing. Last Saturday I had the opportunity of visiting the Carp fair, where I discussed with a number of the farmers present what such a bill would mean to them and how it would affect them. Other fairs are now being held, and I am sure this is an opportunity taken by many members of the house to meet with their constituents and talk to them about just how such a bill would affect them and what it would do for them.
I know that the bill embodies a new principle, that of extending credit to a syndicate

or a group of farmers to assist them in acquiring machinery which they need in order to be more efficient in their operations. I have listened with interest to the debate from the other side of the house and have noted that some hon. members have expressed very grave concern with regard to the principle of this bill. I am happy to note that the speeches today have not been in the same vein. The speeches by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) and the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg), for example, seemed to me completely beside the point when they suggested that legislation which permits farmers voluntarily to co-operate and improve their situation in joining together to purchase machinery is somewhat communistic or socialistic. I am sure no one, on sober reflection of the facts, would really think this is the case. I know that as far back as August 26 the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) pressed the government to bring this legislation before the house. He asked a question, which is reported in Hansard at page 7288, as to whether there would be introduced in the house a measure to provide loans to groups of farmers to enable them to purchase farm machinery in the most economical manner. The minister indicated that such a measure was coming forward. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition then said:
So there will be no misunderstanding I say to the minister at once, put this resolution on the order paper and it will receive immediate attention-
I am sure many hon. members are concerned that this legislation should receive immediate attention and should be enacted at the earliest possible date. Last week end I asked a farmer in my riding about this legislation. I have a very high regard for the opinion of this farmer. He is not one of my supporters, but that does not in any way affect the personal friendship which has existed for some time between us. I said to him, "How will this legislation affect you?" His answer was, "I do not think it will really help me very much. Maybe it will help the western farmers." I said, "I am not so much interested in whether it will help western farmers, because they are ably and forcefully represented in the House of Commons. I am more concerned about what it is going to do for the small family farms in the east. Would you use it?" He said, "How could I use it?" I said, "What are you worried about?". We chatted for a while about this and then he said, "I would certainly like to
Farm Machinery
get a backhoe to take care of the drainage problems on the farm my son is now farming, and my own, in order to deepen the ditches at this time of year. 1 do not think I will be able to hire enough help to do this".
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that a backhoe is an excellent example of the type of machinery that could be bought by a group of three, four or more farmers. This farmer's son could get together with his neighbours, purchase a backhoe, and they could use it very successfully. This machinery is not used exclusively at harvest time, and they could use it at slack periods. It would certainly help them to improve their operations. I have found in talking to farmers about this legislation-and I have not been talking to them in a partisan way-that they believe they could use it; they felt it was a good thing; they felt it was worth trying.
I realize the problems that have been raised in terms of the possible impairment of credit and the incurring of too much credit, misuse of the credit machinery, and so on. We all know that unwise people can misuse any good legislation or any measure to extend credit; but I am satisfied that the great majority of the farmers in the riding I represent-and it is a fairly substantial rural area-would be happy to see this bill enacted at an early date. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to support the amendment.


Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Mr. Speaker-


Auguste Choquette: I hope this legislation will be passed faster than the flag resolution.


Rémi Paul: Once again, Mr. Speaker, we hear the echo from Lotbiniere. Instead of such an echo we would prefer a contribution by the hon. member to the business of the house. In fact, if he took the time to look at the scope of the bill now before us, I would not be surprised to see him get up, like our hon. friends opposite, and tell us it is an excellent piece of legislation.
On the other hand, after listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Nugent), we readily come to the conclusion, once again, that the government, through this legislation, is only throwing a bone at the farmers to make them believe that it is concerned with the farm problem in this country although it takes no interest at all and the purpose of this measure, like all legislation introduced by the Minister of

Farm Machinery
Agriculture (Mr. Hays), is to foster centralization, which, unfortunately, will mean the end of the family farm, of the ancestral land.
I listened with much interest to the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Asselin). I know he is a gentleman farmer. He said that during the week end, he met farmers in his constituency and discussed this matter with them. I also had the same opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and I have the honour to represent a riding where farm lands are among the richest in my province. Indeed, it is a well known fact that this area extending south of the Laurentian plateau, between Champlain and Lanoraie, has the most productive and the richest farm lands in Quebec. Over the week end I met the farmers of my riding, and, strange to say, those who normally should hope or wish for such legislation are indifferent in this respect.
While the farms in my district, in the riding of Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere, are the most productive, their owners are indifferent to the proposed legislation. They even asked me to suggest to the government the elaboration of a farm policy which would enable them to get a good revenue from their farms, rather than the possibility of borrowing, which creates neither markets nor additional income for the farmer, which would justify further facilities for borrowing, as provided by the legislation now before us.
As far as the short speech of the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe is concerned, I very much liked his disguised but rather alarming invitation to the Minister of Agriculture, when he told him that the government should base its program on a national policy.
This is very serious, Mr. Speaker. This was a cry of despair from the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe which he was unable to conceal. Even though, because of cabinet solidarity, he dutifully commended the Minister of Agriculture, he became, at one point, the spokesman of the farmers in his district, when entreating the Minister of Agriculture to enact farm legislation based on a national farm policy. That is what eastern farmers in the province of Quebec and those of my own riding are hoping for.
I feel that the bill now before us further contributes to the disappearance of the old homestead because, at the federal as well as the provincial level, there seems to be less and less concern for the small farmer, while the development of large farm operations is fostered, so that the farmer will not be master on his own land any more. And yet they

used to tell us, in provincial politics, that one should be the master in his own house.
Ask the farmers if they are their own masters today. They have become the slaves of the feed mills and of the finance companies to buy machinery. And now the government introduces a disguised, camouflaged and ineffective piece of legislation which will supposedly save the farm economy in eastern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this legislation is highly disguised, as was so well pointed out by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Nugent). Farmers must be warned against the dangers of such legislation. The Minister of Agriculture will tell us that it is an excellent bill since it enables small farmers to get greater financial facilities towards the purchase of machinery.
Mr. Speaker, if the farmer derives sufficient revenues from the sale of his products, if he is assured of stable revenues, if he is given appropriate outlets for his agricultural products, I do not believe that he will be obliged to belong to a co-operative, a syndicate or a group, in order to purchase the agricultural equipment which will enable him to obtain a maximum output on his farm.
There is a danger, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to ask the Minister of Agriculture several questions, because this is another attempt to intrude into the field of companies which come under civil law.
Once more the government is invading the area of civil law. Who will be responsible for the commitments and obligations of those who will form those syndicates? We do not know. Will the formation of those syndicates come under federal jurisdiction? For instance, in the province of Quebec, will it come under the act respecting professional syndicates, which requires a membership or participation of 20 persons to form a company? Is this legislation intended to settle the matter of civil law concerning companies? Besides, everybody knows, and it is well specified in the bill, as the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona mentioned a while ago, that each farmer will be personally and totally liable, jointly responsible, for the commitments he made or will make with his two other associates.
Mr. Speaker, is that a legislative measure likely to promote, stimulate and encourage agriculture, or is it not rather another means placed at the disposal of irresponsible farmers to obtain machinery? Suppose that three farmers living in a certain range in my riding, I shall not name them, but who live on a

sandy farm where only potatoes grow, suppose those three farmers form a syndicate in order to buy machinery. They are quite insolvent, not because they are dishonest, but because the income from their farm makes them insolvent. They ask for a loan to buy farm machinery under the provisions of the legislation now under study. What will happen if they cannot meet their obligations? They will get deeper into debt in the hope of growing perhaps I do not know what, on their farms, and being influenced by an excellent vendor who will tell them about the advantages of soil changed by a certain piece of powerful machinery which will enable them to increase their production. Will such action help the farmer and his children? I say no, Mr. Speaker.
The proposed legislation is also dangerous, because the farmer would have to mortgage his personal assets in case his two associates go bankrupt or become insolvent; the farmer would then risk losing everything he has because of the commitments he would have made.
If the minister would tell us that this experiment was tried in other countries, that the setting up of syndicates for the purchase of farm machinery was effective, that it was tried and resulted in real advantages, that it increased substantially the income of farmers, then we might wonder if we are in error or if the government is sincere. But such is not the case. We are told: here is another means to help farmers. After all, it is only another means at the disposal of the farmer to get himself into debt, and nothing in the legislation allows us to believe that he will be able to benefit from this legislative measure and increase his income following the setting up of this co-operative.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the problems the government experiences in order to satisfy somewhat the needs of the farming class, since it had promised so much and it gives so little. It is not with a measure such as this that agriculture will be saved, and I shall say more particularly in eastern Canada, for, if agriculture prospers in western Canada, it has become an alarm and a worry sign for the eastern farmers.
Mr. Speaker, when we see, for instance, the Minister of Agriculture taking no interest in measures which could effectively assist agriculture, we are not surprised when he introduces a measure liable to destroy even more the family farm, the ancestral land where agriculture was flourishing, whereas, today, those who operate those
Farm Machinery
farms are not farmers but agricultural merchants.
This is why I wanted to specify that this legislation should be analysed and scrutinized from the standpoints of yield and profit. I was therefore pleased to support the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona. In the light of the information which may be provided by the agricultural experts and the farm machinery salesmen in the committee on agriculture and colonization, we may have more practical suggestions to offer to the minister before this legislation is passed, a legislation which by itself may be excellent but the administration of which may prove entirely inefficient and useless.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the previous speaker and incidentally, I was more especially interested as my hon. friend belongs to a school of public speaking made famous by the former attorney general of the province of Quebec, Hon. Antoine Rivard. If I am reminded of one of our most distinguished judges of the Quebec appeal court today, I congratulate him on his elocution and thank him for his comments.
However, at the earnest request of the hon. member, I wish to take part in the debate to tell him that this legislation, like any other farm legislation proposed by this government, is not meant to destroy the family farm, but on the contrary, to strengthen and to restore it as well as to promote its development.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere seems to fear the idea of a syndicate. In my opinion, we cannot urge enough farmers, more especially those of the province of Quebec, to co-operate. Selfishness or self-centredness should not be stirred up among our farmers. On the contrary, they should be encouraged to cooperate with each other, because even though a farmer is entitled to his farm and to his holding, he does not have to live in reclusion.
On the contrary, he should co-operate with all his neighbours. I feel that our Quebec farmers have shown a lack of community spirit, of co-operation, because they had a tendency to be rather suspicious. It is encouraging to see a provision which must necessarily urge them to co-operate with each other in order to extend their holdings. That is why we cannot do otherwise than to gladly welcome this legislation.
The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere is also a successful lawyer. He was so successful this afternoon that he managed to deliver a full speech without re-

Farm Machinery
ferring to the amendment he wanted to second, which proves he is an able lawyer.
Mr. Speaker, Conservative members are asking that this bill be referred to a committee. Yet the Conservatives accused us of being slow in providing assistance to farmers, especially eastern farmers. They accuse us of delaying our legislative program and of being slow to act. Now that we want to act, they practise obstruction. They want to put the bill off indefinitely, to refer it to a committee which will delay its passage when we are ready to act.
Where are those men of action? Where are those laggards who, for six years, put off giving eastern farmers an appropriate and adequate farm policy as claimed by them.
Mr. Speaker, it is asked to have this matter referred to the committee. I have very interesting statistics in hand. In January 1958, consideration was given to a piece of legislation called the Agricultural Stabilization Act. The opposition of that time, led by the present Prime Minister, asked that this measure be referred to a committee, and those who were then governing the country, those who are the Conservative opposition today, were opposed to referring this legislation to a committee for consideration.
Not long after, in 1959, the house had before it the Farm Credit Act and, at that time, the Liberal opposition asked that it be referred to a committee; but the Conservatives, then sitting on the treasury benches, objected.
A little later in the same year the Crop Insurance Act came before the house. The Liberal opposition of that time asked that consideration of this legislation, which was imperfect-since it was Conservative legislation-be sent to a committee, and the government of that time, now the opposition, objected.
In 1961, when the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act was being studied, the Liberal opposition asked that the legislation be sent to a committee, and then again, those on the treasury benches, those now in opposition, opposed that request.
Four times those who sit in opposition today objected to farm legislation being referred to a committee. And today they think they have to take the very opposite view, not to say an obstructionist stand, in order to try to stop the government from helping the farmers, and that for the sole pleasure of opposing the bill and asking that it be referred for study to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, the eastern farmers have waited and complained long enough; they

have long standing grievances and today it is time to act. We want to act without delay, we want to meet their needs adequately and I fail to see why this bill which cannot but contribute considerably to the prosperity of all Canadian farmers should be needlessly delayed.
The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere says that what the farmers want is income and not credit. That is true but that is a somewhat fallacious argument because any man who wants to go into a business that will do well necessarily needs at the start enough credit so that his business can develop and expand.
Following modern technological developments, farm mechanization has become an essential need, a commanding necessity. With all the machinery they need, farmers can enlarge their holdings and, thus, get a higher income which is what the government wants them to have.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere also objected to the setting up of new corporations. The government does not intend to do any such thing, because we already have the Farm Credit Corporation which will be asked to look after farmers seeking loans.
However, I should like to bring one point to the attention of the minister. I should like the corporation to show more eagerness than it does at present, when it is asked for a loan. In fact, several farmers of my riding and some who live in the respective constituencies of my hon. friends rightly complain that the officials of the corporation take too much time to come and inspect their farms when they apply for a loan.
That is most unfair to farmers. The best way to speed up the processing of loans by the Farm Credit Corporation is to pass this legislation without referring it to a committee, since that would only delay its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I have other remarks to make concerning this bill. In my opinion, the federal government does not give enough publicity to its legislation. I am not so sure it is advisable for the government to insert full page advertisements in large dailies to call the farmers' attention to the advantages of such legislation; I feel that efforts in that connection should rather be concentrated at the local level, so that farmers may take advantage of whatever benefits our legislation may offer.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, even though I am against the amendment moved by the opposition, I felt I had to make these remarks

and call on all hon. members to vote against the amendment, thus bringing this filibuster to an end.
The Canadian people long enough have had to bear the very futile discussions on the Canadian flag.
We now have the opportunity to do something for the farmers, after six years of inertia on the part of the Conservative government. Let us implement this bill promptly.
This does not mean that we must dismiss right off all the amendments that may be introduced, but of course this bill has been examined before, analysed in its different aspects, and it is also obvious that the amendment submitted by our friends opposite is simply a dilatory measure that must be defeated as soon as possible when we get the chance to vote on it.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, while it is not my intention to oppose the passage of this particular bill I should like to draw attention to the fact that it seems as though much of our time in parliament is being spent, and has been spent, in discussing measures to get people further and further in debt. This has been something that has been rather disturbing to me ever since I had the honour of becoming a member of this house. Time after time we have been faced with this particular type of legislation. I suppose it is based largely on the fact that this has become more or less an accepted way of life for practically all of us. I suggest something must be fundamentally wrong with the economy when it has to be based on this particular type of legislation.
Thinking especially about the field of agriculture, I believe it would be acceptable if the facilities for credit were to be guaranteed to those who were just starting up in farm operations, the young people. This would provide an opportunity for them to get established. When it carries on and becomes an accepted principle, a continuing process, then I begin to question the advisability of extending it any further.
However, we are faced with this particular problem, not only in agriculture but I suggest in every other type of industry. Extended credit facilities are being granted and are being required to meet changing times and changing situations. It has been suggested that the measure which is currently before us is more or less a recognition of the fact it has become common procedure for farmers to get together and arrange to
Farm Machinery
purchase machinery. I do not believe we are doing anything basically wrong. It has been pointed out to the house also that the number of times a farmer would use some of this machinery would not warrant his making the expenditure on his own. This is more or less a recognition of a common practice.
A question has been raised as to whether or not this legislation will assist the individual farmer to meet the competition of what can be called the company farm, or whether it will work out to the benefit of the company farm in opposition to the individual farmer and perhaps the family farm. This is something that possibly only experience will reveal. However, it should be borne in mind that there are dangers involved in this kind of legislative action.
Now, another question has been raised with regard to the liability of members of the syndicate in the event of one member dying or going bankrupt. I believe the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) the other day referred to the fact there should possibly be some type of insurance to cover such an emergency. I believe this is a suggestion that is worthy of consideration. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that an increase in production will tend to aggravate our problems unless the necessary attention is given to the distribution and consumption of the goods produced. I do not believe this aspect has been given sufficient consideration. If a farmer is assured adequate markets at adequate prices, then I believe the time will eventually come when he can take care of these additional expenses as they come up from time to time. I believe therefore we ought to have more adequate legislation or more consideration given to the matter of consumption in order that farmers will be able to obtain their fair share of the national income and be able to make provisions for expenditures on their equipment to meet their needs as they arise.
With reference to the amendment which has been introduced, I believe we should establish a principle whereby all legislation having to do with agriculture would be referred to the agriculture committee for consideration and detailed study. But as we are dealing now with Bill C-121 we must remember that extended debate has already taken place on it. I am not saying it has been too long a debate, but practically all the different aspects of the measure have been discussed. Questions have been raised, arguments have been advanced, and no useful purpose would be served by referring it now to the committee.

Farm Machinery
I understand that referring it to the committee at this stage would be tantamount to killing the bill, and I do not believe the farmers who are in need of this particular assistance would be very happy with any extended delay in the passing of this legislation. If the amendment had been brought in very early in the debate possibly we would have supported it and would have seen some advantage in it. However, at present I believe the people most concerned would be better served by passing the measure, giving time for experiment if necessary, and then bringing in amendments that might be required to make it more effective and more adequate to meet the needs of the agricultural community.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay indefinitely the passing of this bill, as I know that the farmers are waiting, but I want to say that the cat is now out of the bag.
The amendment that was just submitted by the official opposition, through the hon. member for Edmonten-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent), would, if passed, kill this bill and the farmers would be deprived of it, which proves once more the strange interest shown by the official opposition for farmers throughout Canada.
Since the beginning of the session the opposition has been claiming on television, in this house and everywhere else that the party in power is doing nothing for the farmers. Just a few minutes ago the hon. member for Ber-thier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere stated that we should rather be considering the establishment of a true farm policy. Now, the present government has introduced a bill to help the farmers and to facilitate the purchase of farm machinery which has become so costly today. This legislation is especially intended to help our farmers.
No later than yesterday I listened to farmers who told me they were satisfied with this bill introduced by the government. I was also told that the most serious problem which is facing the farmers today, and more particularly the small farmers, is the financial burden of the large investment required to purchase very costly farm machinery.
For instance, a farmer said to me: There are several machines that are used from time to time which farmers could use and pay for more readily if they were grouped together in a syndicate as provided in the bill.
The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere tells us that the family farm is

on its way out. I would ask the hon. member to move with the times, to keep abreast of automation and present-day developments both in agriculture and in the economy as a whole.
At this stage I want to say that I shall vote against the amendment, and, as soon as possible. I urge all the hon. members to give the bill the Minister of Agriculture has submitted their strong support, so that our farmers, and particularly those in the east who need assistance at the present time, may be relieved of the burden that is weighing them down and hindering them from cultivating their lands since to do so they need expensive machines which are a constant burden on their budget, as every year they are obliged to make payments and meet heavy commitments so that in the end their income is $1,200 or $1,000, an income that is quite inadequate to maintain a farmer and his family.
One of my colleagues tells me that in the Gaspe peninsula, the Catholic farmers' union has launched a campaign to collect $50,000 in order to help farmers get the heavy machinery they need nowadays on their farm and which they cannot get individually because their income does not allow them to do so.
In my opinion, this legislation is a step toward the evolution of our agriculture and toward success for our eastern farmers, because it will enable them to get a larger income so that they can support their large families.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a few minutes to express my views on Bill No. C-121, now before us.
Just a few minutes ago we heard the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). I must admit that his speech was rather eloquent and that it reminded me of those he made during the electoral campaign. I note, on the other hand, that what he promised during the electoral campaign he has not yet requested even once in this house, namely, the setting up of a department of agriculture for eastern Canada. Still, he did promise his constituents that, once in Ottawa, he would ask that such a department be instituted. The next time he addresses the house,
I should therefore like to ask him to tell the house what he promised during his electoral campaign in this regard.
If the bill we are now studying constitutes a real find for the Department of Agriculture, I must say that in my opinion it is not much of a find. Indeed, the thinking behind this bill does not reflect at all the

spirit of the province of Quebec or, perhaps I should say, that of eastern Canada's farmers.
I quite understand that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), being a member for a western constituency should be inclined to think and act as a man from the west; in short, he attempts to legislate in terms of agriculture in western Canada.
It is obvious that Bill No. C-121 will do no good to the agriculture of eastern Canada.
As pointed out by the member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) a little while ago, this measure is just an attempt to eliminate family farms in eastern Canada. So we ask ourselves whether the federal Minister of Agriculture has not been advised by the minister of agriculture of the province of Quebec to the effect that 35,000 farmers in the province of Quebec should, within a few years, leave their farms in order to make room for larger units and, to this end, 35,000 farmers must abandon their farms so as to permit others to buy, enlarge and transform them into some kind of collective farms.
What I find strange in this bill is that in the second paragraph, for instance, we read:
Where an individual has two or more major occupations, one of which is farming, the corporation may determine which of such occupations is his principal occupation for the purposes of this act.
There lies the danger. Anybody will be able to start farming knowing that if he declares that his main occupation is agriculture -even if he has another one-it will be sufficient to own a small farm to be declared a farmer, in short to be known as a person engaged in agriculture. So anybody will be able to avail himself of Bill No. C-121 to borrow from the federal Department of Agriculture or from the Farm Credit Corporation.
Under the circumstances, I do not think that this bill will prove useful to the farmers of the province of Quebec, because in that province agriculture is quite different from that in western Canada. I would be inclined to say that this legislation would be more appropriate to the western farmers, because they can join together to purchase heavy machinery, in view of the great size of their farms.
In that part of the country farming is not at all like that in the east where we have diversified agriculture. Moreover, the soil itself is more diversified. Our products are also much too diversified for farmers to take advantage of this legislation and purchase heavy machinery.
Farm Machinery
All production is not diversified. There is wheat, for instance, which may extend all over a province. The same is true for other crops. But it cannot apply in the province of Quebec, because we have too great a diversity of soil, products and crops. Therefore, I say that the legislation now before us does not apply at all to the province of Quebec, and will only push our farmers further into debt. We know that more than 98 per cent of our lands in the province of Quebec, are owned or operated under farm credit. How can our farmers get out of this economic depression in which they are today? Getting deeper into debt will hardly solve the problem.
We know that between 1940 and 1964, the prices of farm products remained practically the same, whereas during the same period, the prices for machinery or other equipment used for production has trebled. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that it is possible to make a profit when prices remain the same while the cost of machinery trebles?
Mr. Speaker, even if the purchase of machinery were made easier, and the farmers were authorized to go to Ottawa, or Quebec, for the money required to buy equipment and machinery, while the government did nothing to market our farm production, I hardly think it would help our eastern farmers.
Mr. Speaker, there is an obvious lack of co-operation between the federal and the provincial departments of agriculture. In Ottawa, there is a certain partiality towards the agriculture of western provinces. If western farmers produce wheat or anything at all, they can count on the required sympathy of the federal Minister of Agriculture to market their production; if the minister does not succeed in disposing of all their wheat, he will pay them a subsidy even if there is a crop failure because of drought, rain, grasshoppers, etc. And what is done for the farmer in the province of Quebec when he has a crop failure? The Quebec department of agriculture is blamed for it. Yes, I find that there is a lack of co-operation between the department of agriculture of the province of Quebec and the federal department in Ottawa to assist the farmers in the province of Quebec. But I wonder whether that was the policy advocated by Hon. Jean Lesage when, two days before the 1963 election, he told the people of Quebec: "Vote Liberal in Ottawa and things will go well with a Liberal government in Quebec." We now have a Liberal administration in Ottawa

Farm Machinery
and a Liberal administration in Quebec, and our agriculture keeps deteriorating.


An hon. Member:: How were things under a Conservative administration?


Pierre-André Boutin: When we had a Conservative administration in Quebec as well as in Ottawa, it was no better, but we find that things are even worse now that there are Liberals at both places.


Gilles Grégoire: It is true.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention here a formal promise made by the Liberal party, through the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette), namely that if the Liberal party were elected there would be a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada. Many farmers were trapped and voted for the Liberal party in the hope that it would set up a department of agriculture for eastern Canada. Today we know the disappointment of farmers, indeed the disappointment of farmers in the county of Lotbiniere.
Mr. Speaker, there is what I would call a western thinking on legislation introduced here, and I wonder if the best solution would not be to let Quebec look after its own agriculture. Some perhaps will shout "separatism" but I am not a separatist.
Because of its special agriculture, of the diversity of its soil, of its products and crops, why would the province of Quebec itself, and only itself, not look after its agriculture? Then the federal government might leave the administration of agriculture to the province of Quebec, since there is a complete lack of co-operation between both departments of agriculture? The provincial government does not want to ask the federal government and the federal government does not want to give to the provincial government. We always meet with difficulties. Would it not be better if the provincial government would look only after its agriculture and the federal government-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will allow me to interrupt for a moment in order to remind him that the bill before the house is Bill No. C-121, an act to provide for the extension of credit to farm machinery syndicates. Consequently, I would suggest that he limits his remarks to the principle of the bill.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, if you limit me to the principle of the bill, I shall be through with my remarks, since I see in it nothing

good or special to assist the farmers in the province of Quebec. And I should state that even if I am not in favour of this bill, I shall support it.


An hon. Member:: Be consistent with yourself.


Pierre-André Boutin: In two or three years it may be seen whether this bill was really favourable to the farmers of the province of Quebec, whether there has been an increase in profits for our farmers. Then our farmers may answer yes or no to the bill presently before us.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe, as I was saying a while ago, that to get the farmers even more into debt is a solution to get them out of the depression in which they presently stagnate.
I believe it would be preferable to find outlets for the products of our farmers in the province of Quebec instead of getting them even more into the red, as the Liberal government took pleasure in doing since it came into office.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much the statements the previous speaker made, with what is definitely a provincial and parochial attitude. I am not a farmer; I do not represent a farming constituency; but as a member of the House of Commons I have a great interest in, and I hope a knowledge of, the problems of farmers whether they be from western Canada, eastern Canada, from British Columbia or Quebec. A bill which is aimed at assisting many of the farmers of Canada, irrespective of the province in which they reside and operate, is most certainly worthy of the favourable consideration of this house.
In principle, sir, I am in support of the bill that is now before us, because it is an endeavour to meet one of the big problems of farmers in their operations in what is now an automated age. Automation hits farmers as well as industry. I am also in favour of the amendment which has been moved to have this entire question referred to the agriculture committee. It is basically on the amendment, in accordance with the rules, that I desire to speak.
Mr. Speaker, anyone who knows Canada and the problems of agriculture, the cost of machinery, the inability of an individual farmer to get machinery on his own, must know that in principle the bill introduced by the government is a step in the right direction; even if, as one hon. member a few days ago

described the measure, it is creeping socialism. We have had creeping socialism for a long time, and as a matter of fact every progressive move is a move toward socialist principles. The principle of the bill is good; it is in fact excellent, and I commend the government for introducing it. But I also commend the official opposition for recommending that it be now referred to a committee. Why do I take this position, Mr. Speaker? It is because without any doubt improvements can be made to the bill in the interests of the farmers of this country, and on the agriculture committee we have representatives from all parties of those who are interested in agriculture; we also have practical farmers who know farming and its basic operation.
I am convinced that a reference of this bill to the agriculture committee, if it is considered-as I am certain it will be-on an unbiased and non-political basis, will result in the bill being referred back to the house strengthened with the advice of the all-party committee. It will be referred back to the house with the changes required to resolve the doubts that are in the minds of some of us at the present time. I refer for example to the question of the interest rate. As I understand the principle of the bill and as I have discussed it with hon. members of this house, I am not sure what is the interest rate and whether it basically means that farmers co-operatively working under the provisions of this bill will not be paying a higher interest rate than that actually charged by the banks. I have not found one member of the house with whom I have discussed this question who can make it clear to me that this will not be the case.
Perhaps of even more importance than that however-and this is a matter that will be discussed if the bill is referred to the agriculture committee-is a principle that is most involved and, unless clarified, most dangerous. I refer not to any clause but to the principle of the bill, whereby a number of farmers, each of whom individually cannot buy the machinery needed to work in the agricultural, automated sector, can get together in order to buy this machinery. Let us say that one farmer puts up $1,000, one $10,000 and one $20,000. Each one, including the farmer who puts up $1,000, under the bill as I read it is responsible for the entire cost of the machinery to be used in their co-operative operation. In other words, if a farmer puts up $1,000 and goes to a bank for a loan for something else, his commitment is not for $1,000 but is for the entire
Farm. Machinery
cost of the co-operative enterprise in respect of the purchase of this machinery. That is the way I read the bill. I am certain that is not what was meant to be the principle when the government introduced this measure. I am sure it was not intended that one farmer who is part of a co-operative ownership in order to build up the efficiency of his farm should be held individually responsible for the entire cost of the machinery purchased. I raise this question, Mr. Speaker, because I cannot read this bill in any other way.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) wish to reply to a question from the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis)?


Harold Edward Winch: Yes.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I think I understand the effect of the amendment, which would be to refer not the bill to a committee but the subject matter of the bill. Does the hon. member not understand that this would kill the bill?


Harold Edward Winch: Does the hon. member actually want to put that question to me? Is he saying that on second reading of the bill reference of the subject matter to a committee means that the bill is killed?


John Watson MacNaught: Absolutely.


Harold Edward Winch: I presume the government are going to pass the principle of the bill. If they are not, then why in God's name did they introduce it? If the hon. member wants to raise a technicality then that is all right. But I am saying that the bill should be referred to the committee on agriculture and that that committee, which is representative of all hon. members of the house and composed mainly of practising farmers, would then have the opportunity of going over the bill and making representations to this house. It is on that basis that I am discussing this amendment. I agree 100 per cent with the principle of the bill and I am glad the government has brought it in. I also agree that it should be referred to the committee, because I think it can be strengthened, and the Minister of Agriculture will welcome that. The committee will take care of the phases of the bill which disturb some of us. I am not allowed to make reference to any of the clauses, but hon. members who have read the bill will know the clause to which I refer. Therefore I hope that the bill will be referred to the agriculture committee and that the government will give

Farm Machinery
consideration to the recommendations of the committee. In this way we will preserve not only the principle of the bill introduced by the government, but it will be strengthened in the interests of the farmers of Canada.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable discussion of this bill. The minister is well aware by now that there are some reservations to it and that some legal points have been raised. I believe the mover of the amendment in stating that there was a vast amount of credit tied up for the individual farmer which might go into these syndicates, stated a fact, but perhaps by some legalistic change in language this problem could be relieved. I would be prepared to support the bill and oppose this amendment if the minister would give us an assurance that the bill will go to the committee. I cannot imagine the minister would oppose that step. I know there would be a little delay, but this is one of the first pieces of legislation that the minister has moved and I believe there are serious reservations on this particular aspect of the bill.
It is unfortunate, our rules being what they are, that we are not allowed to do by motion what in fact we want to do. It is true that if we support this amendment in effect we kill the bill. I am not really worried about that because if the minister feels strongly enough about this matter he will reintroduce it in another form in such event. But if the minister would give us an indication whether he is willing to send this bill to committee it would save us a lot of grief and would also help the farmers who want to take advantage of it.
I do not think the minister is a lawyer and certainly I am not, but I did listen with interest to the point which has been made. It is not so much a question of liability because, as the hon. member for Cariboo said, we could insure against that. The difficulty is the tying up of a large amount of credit so that the farmer who takes advantage of these loans would not be able to get any credit from the bank to assist in other parts of his business.
It seems to me that what the minister is suggesting in principle-and I am in agreement with it-is that we make a loan available to allow farmers co-operatively to buy machinery above and beyond that which is purchased by, and is within the capability of, an individual farmer. If he does take advantage of it, then it does not necessarily mean that he has exhausted his capability in the normal sense. This legal point is so interest-

ing that I personally would like to see the minister indicate that he is willing to send the bill to a committee for consideration, even with instructions to the committee.
I regret that our rules are so stupid that we cannot do by direct means what we want to do. Doing directly what we want to do will not accomplish in the end what we intend to do. This is a quandary which could easily be solved by the minister giving us this assurance, that the bill will be referred to a committee. I suggest this is not asking for very much because this is new legislation. As I read the bill it is mainly directed towards the purchase of heavy equipment, a field in which the farmer is not normally able to participate, and a few days or weeks will not be that important. I believe the success of this type of legislation is important enough that the minister should give that kind of assurance. If he does not, then I can only come to the conclusion that he is not interested in giving consideration to the arguments which I think have legitimately and honestly been raised.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I just wish briefly to say that the members of this group have expressed their support in general of the principle and purpose of this bill. But we have also expressed a desire to know more about what the clauses of the bill mean, how the legislation will be administered, and we also wish to ask many other questions. We do not want to kill this bill. Unfortunately, the amendment moved would have that effect because it simply reads:
That this Bill No. C-121 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on agriculture for further study and report.
I am not sure whether the mover realized that if this amendment carried it would kill the bill. Therefore, in view of the criticisms which have been directed at the bill by members in all parties on the opposition side of the house, and their general desire for more information on the purpose of the bill, its administration and so on, I join with the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) in urging the minister to agree that this bill be referred to the agriculture committee for study and report after second reading.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, might I try to explain to the house what is the purpose of this amendment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) has al-

ready participated in this debate and under our rules cannot speak a second time unless there is unanimous agreement that the hon. member be allowed to participate in the debate for a second time.


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A point of order has been raised by inference as to the quality of the amendment which has been moved, and I think on this aspect of the matter the hon. member should be permitted to speak, as well as under the other heading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before an hon. member can speak a second time he must obtain the unanimous consent of the house. Has the hon. member the unanimous agreement of the house to speak a second time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, before unanimous consent is considered in respect of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) speaking a second time, I think we must very carefully consider the implications and ramifications of carrying the amendment. It seems to me it would have the effect of killing the bill.
I think there is some useful purpose to be served by referring Bill C-121 to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization for further study and report. However at the same time, if this bill continues through its normal course in parliament it will be considered by the committee of the whole house, at which time much of the discussion which would take place at meetings of the standing committee could take place. If it was desirable and possible to call expert witnesses in respect of the provisions of this bill, which certainly is the intent of sending it to a standing committee, that might be appropriate.
We all know there is provision for witnesses to be called before a standing committee of parliament and that it is not possible to call witnesses before a committee of the whole house. We must realize that the provisions of this bill to provide financing for farm machinery syndicates represent a complete and new departure from usual financing, and therefore as far as I am concerned, there are no experts as to how this could be applied. So who could testify before such a standing committee? Who could be called as an expert witness in this regard? Individuals could be called only for the purpose of obtaining their opinions of what might happen. This particular
Farm Machinery
method of financing has not been used in the past, and no one could therefore have any idea of how it would operate.
Rather than accepting this amendment, and in effect killing the bill, I think it desirable that this house accept the principles of the bill, go into committee of the whole and take advantage of the opportunity afforded at that stage to cross-examine the minister on the various aspects of the clauses, following which it should be passed and allowed to enjoy a trial run of a few months or a year.
Many questions exist in my mind in respect of the usefulness of the proposed legislation, and I can anticipate many problems. There is no way in which we can obtain satisfactory answers to those questions, both in my mind and those raised by other hon. members, by calling witnesses before a standing committee.
We have heard a great deal of discussion as to whether farmers can obtain loans and purchase certain pieces of equipment to be used on more than one farm. I suggest this is something which must be decided by experience. Certain implements used for the harvesting of crops are of sufficient capacity that they can be used by different farmers during different periods of time, provided the harvesting period is of sufficient length. However, I admit that when crops are ripe for harvest it is difficult for a farmer, who may have a joint interest in a piece of harvesting equipment, to stand aside and watch his neighbour use that piece of equipment at a time when climatic conditions are favourable.
Many other pieces of equipment, such as heavy motor trucks, can be used without difficulty for short periods of time on different farms by co-operation. I think that sort of co-operation in the use of machinery could be very effective toward meeting the needs and demands of farmers holding an interest in the equipment.
At this time we are not aware of the kind of corporate structure these syndicates or cooperatives are going to have, and I do not believe we are going to know after calling witnesses before a standing committee. We are aware of provincial laws which provide for setting up small corporations or co-operatives, and while this proposed legislation may be sufficient to meet the needs of incorporation, so that such an entity could take advantage of the credit proposed in this bill, I personally think that those provincial laws are of such a nature they will require amendment. Perhaps the provisions contained in this bill, in light of provincial legislation, would require too complex a structure, and

Farm Machinery
would involve a great deal of bookkeeping and organization. Perhaps we should ask the provinces to pass complementary legislation to simplify the structure of these syndicates, enabling them to qualify for this proposed credit.
Mr. Speaker, I think all these things will be clear after the bill becomes law and that law is subjected to a trial run. I think the farmers should be allowed to consider the law and test it to see what kind of problems will be created. Perhaps in a year or two after passage of this legislation it should be looked at again in light of experience and the knowledge of its weaknesses, and then amended. In the meantime I am convinced that we ought to accept the principles of this legislation, rather than adopt this amendment which could have the effect of killing the bill.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty pursuant to standing order 39A to inform the house that the question to be raised at ten o'clock on the adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)-[DOT] royal visit-omission in press release of reference to leader of opposition.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[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.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I had
completed my remarks at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, perhaps with the exception of saying that we cannot accept the suggestion this bill ought to take the course the amendment indicates which would, in effect, destroy it before it is accepted in principle.
[Mr. Olson.)


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I have been invited by several hon. members opposite to intervene in this debate at this stage to explain-


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to be clear that the minister is not closing the debate. I believe he is speaking to the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is quite so. In any event, the Chair is required under the rules to caution the house that the minister is closing the debate, and when the Chair does not the minister does not then close the debate.


Harry William Hays: I am more than pleased, Mr. Speaker, to accept this invitation to speak at this time. I think it is time I pointed out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all the farmers of this country just what is going on here. I know that this is legislation which all the farmers in this country, in eastern Canada as well as western Canada, need and want. Yet, first we have the Conservative opposition attacking this legislation as useless, as foolhardy, and even as communistic. Not only have the Tories delayed this legislation, but now they want to kill it. As every informed member of this house understands very well, the effect of the amendment moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) would be to kill this bill right here. Of course it would also bring down the government and force another election on the Canadian people. Is this what the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) talks about when he says he wants to see some action in this house?
Since the amendment was introduced, Mr. Speaker, there have been suggestions that the hon. member who moved it did not really know what he was doing. However, I believe the hon. member did understand that this amendment, if passed, would kill this bill without any further discussion. I would point out that from the hon. member's own lips this afternoon we heard about his legal training; we heard he was a lawyer, and he was going to tell us how he would protect the farmers from falling into the trap which, in his legalistic mind he thought he saw in this legislation. Let us make no mistake about this. He knew what he was doing when he moved this amendment. If he did not, then that is an even worse reflection on his capacity to come in here and speak for the farmers of this country. In addition to that, he is from my own province.

I suggest that this amendment is typical of the attitude of the official opposition all through this session. I suppose I have been subjected to as much criticism from the Tory benches this session as any other minister.
I have listened to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition condemn me for being an auctioneer, for travelling around the country trying to learn from personal experience and conversation with farmers what their problems are and what they need from this government. I have heard him say specifically that nothing is being done for the farmers: When are you going to bring in legislation?


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Tell us what this legislation is going to do.


Harry William Hays: I have even heard him say, bring it in and we will pass it. I have brought it in.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And we are in the
process of passing it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; may I bring it to the attention of hon. members that the Minister of Agriculture has the floor and should not be interrupted?


Harry William Hays: Not only have the Conservatives delayed this measure with long, repetitious speeches, but now they would go all the way and dispose of this legislation, which offers a completely new approach to this most basic problem, the cost of essential machinery. They talk about sending this bill to the agricultural committee for answers to their questions, and then they try and kill it before giving me even the usual opportunity that is provided to answer these questions. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is an experienced member of this house. Surely, he knows very well that once the principle of this bill has been approved we would go into committee of the whole house, at which time every member can ask the questions he wants to ask. I am prepared now to answer the questions that have been raised so far.
First of all, I should like to say that I share the view expressed by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) that we should first give this legislation a try. This is new, experimental legislation. After it has been in operation for a year or so, if we find it needs amending I will be pleased to introduce those amendments and submit them to the agriculture committee. However at this stage I believe the farmers of this country would like parliament to pass this legislation. Let us get it into operation in time to help them plan for their spring operations.
Farm, Machinery
Before I go into the questions raised at an earlier stage of this debate, let me refer to one raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. He suggested that this bill will tie up farmers' credit in syndicates and in machinery. This has not been the experience with the British farm machinery syndicates. In fact their experience has been exactly the opposite. They have found that when a machine is owned by several farmers, each will invest in it only his share of the purchase price. This will be a smaller investment than if he owned the same machine on his own, and may even be smaller than if he had owned a smaller or older model. The British experience has shown that this capital, which is not needed for investment in his own individual machine, will be available for investment elsewhere. In fact we found the large majority of British syndicate members considered the syndicates had enabled them to reduce the amount of their capital invested in machinery. For these farmers the British experience has shown that special credit to assist in the purchase of shared machines will, in fact, have the effect of increasing the amount of capital made available for other investments.
I have studied the remarks of everyone who has taken part in this debate, and studied them with great care, especially those who indicated they were either opposed to this legislation or not very impressed with it. I was disappointed to find not a single helpful suggestion or useful alternative proposal in any of the remarks of those who were most critical. The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) had a suggestion to make which could be considered as worth while. He indicated he supported this bill, and I will refer to his suggestion later in my statement.
I was especially disappointed in the contribution to this debate by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner). He has spoken twice on this measure already-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will speak twice more.


Harry William Hays: -but although he was extremely critical of it I could find nothing in his remarks that could be taken as a positive suggestion for some better way than this to relieve our farmers, especially our smaller farmers, of their high machinery costs.
I intend to give some specific examples in this statement, as to just how this legislation will help the small, family sized farmer improve his operation and increase his income. From my experience, they seem self-evident

Farm Machinery
to me, but for the sake of those who either cannot or, for their own, I think, rather childish political purpose, will not see these advantages to the family farm in this legislation. I want to spell them out.
To be perfectly frank, Mr. Speaker, I can't help but think that the hon. member for Acadia, and others on the Tory benches, cannot quite decide what to do about this legislation, whether to support it in the obvious interests of the farmers, or to attack it for whatever partisan political mileage might be made. As I will show later on, in his first speech on the resolution, even while being critical as he thought it was politically safe to be, the hon. member for Acadia himself mentioned several beneficial uses to which this legislation can be put by farmers in his own area. In what I can only interpret as the cheapest kind of two-bit partisan politics he described this as one more example of the millionaire's approach to our farm problems. Then in his second speech he turned around completely, and suggested that this is a kind of communist approach to farm problems.
Mr. Speaker, I wish he would make up his mind. In his second speech, he suggested this legislation would not only undermine our farmers' independence, but would lead to a communist type of collective farming. What surprises me about this kind of attitude is that I know the hon. member personally, and find him usually a reasonable and fairly well informed person outside this house. As I listen to him make this kind of an attack in here, on legislation I know will be most useful to farmers in every part of the country, I can't help but think that sometimes there is more political chinook wind blowing in this chamber from that hon. member's place than we ever get, even in southern Alberta.
This legislation will substantially reduce the investment small farmers have to make in necessary equipment. It will enable them to farm more efficiently and profitably, at a lower investment in machinery than ever before, if they take proper advantage of this legislation and are not misled and confused about it by the partisan politicking of certain hon. members opposite.
I found a very similar pattern in the two contributions made by the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Nasserden). Although he was critical of the measure at the resolution stage he did say, as recorded in Hansard on the top of page 8064, that he did not intend to indicate this is a useless measure, and further on listed specific items of machinery

he thought could usefully come under this legislation.
But then we heard the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who, of course, is a lawyer and not a farmer, and probably cannot be expected to understand these things. We heard him describe this, as recorded at page 8302 of Hansard, second column, as "ill-digested, ill-considered and completely insufficient".
Then we heard the hon. member for Ros-thern sing a different tune. Then he decided this would be useless and not worth voting for, and that it is "foolhardy" legislation. Well, I am perfectly willing to let the farmers in his constituency decide where the foolhardy name really belongs.
As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, some hon. members have raised some questions about this legislation, about the way it will operate and its possible results. I want to answer those questions and remove whatever honest concern members really feel about this legislation.
Let me emphasize again that this bill was designed primarily to assist the family farmer to cope with the new problems he faces in modem agriculture, and in particular the mounting cost of the machinery he needs to make a decent living. The federal government, as informed hon. members know very well, does not have the power to control prices, except in wartime. So we could not try to control farm machinery prices directly, even if that were considered desirable, which I am sure most hon. members would agree it is not. Short of price controls, this legislation can have as beneficial an impact on farm machinery costs for individual farmers as any other action the government could take.
This legislation was developed from the experience of farm machinery syndicates operating in Britain. It has been designed to meet the needs of Canadian farmers, but I think some points from a study of the operations and advantages of farm machinery syndicates in Britain, prepared by the department of agricultural economics at the University of Reading, England, are worth putting on the record.
To the question: "What happens when everyone wants the machine at the same time?" the report has this answer: From a technical point of view, the problem of arranging a machine's program to cover several fields on several farms is not different from that of arranging a similar program covering several fields on only one farm. The distance between fields is likely to be greater when

several farms are concerned, but with present day speeds of road travel, the time taken, even when farms are several miles apart, is negligible, and can often be done when the weather is bad or crops are not yet ready. The main requirement is that the total work load of each machine should be well within the capacity of the model chosen.
To ensure that each syndicate member has a fair share of the machine's use, specific provisions for sharing are spelled out in each agreement. But the British experience has shown that the general spirit of good neighbourliness and of give and take has proven a sufficient safeguard in itself.
What about disagreements among members of a syndicate? On this the British experience is that the risk of disagreement can be minimized, by ensuring that only those machines are selected which are able to deal comfortably with the total work load and the whole range of crops and soil conditions likely to occur.
What about loss of independence? The Reading University report says "sharing, by its very nature usually involves some loss of independence." Then it continues:
Whether this constitutes a serious difficulty depends on whether the inconvenience and cost of any independence lost ... outweighs the advantages gained by the sharing.
The report adds:
However, not a single member referred to loss of independence as constituting a difficulty. On the contrary, some who had previously been hiring or borrowing, said that by joining their syndicates, they had achieved greater control and certainty over specific operations.
In some areas-
-the report continues-
-it was claimed that good neighbourliness and co-operation generally had improved as a result of syndicates.
I have every confidence that these and other beneficial experiences of British farmers in the syndicate use of expensive farm machinery will also be the experiences of Canadian farmers who make use of this new legislation we are debating here today. I think the savings from co-operative ownership and use of farm machinery should be obvious to every hon. member.
To make it easier for farmers to co-operate in this way, the bill proposes the formation of syndicates. As the parliamentary secretary (Mr. Beer) indicated when he opened debate on the second reading of the bill, the syndicates as proposed in this legislation are, in effect, partnership agreements
Farm Machinery
between three or more persons engaged in farming.
Some speakers, and in particular the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) expressed fears that this would promote corporation farming. If you refer to the definition of syndicate, as contained in the bill, it will be noted that a syndicate is an association, formed by an agreement between three or more individuals who are engaged in farming. Because corporations are not individuals, it is apparent that corporations would not be eligible to be members of a syndicate. Furthermore as loans can only be made to syndicates, a corporation would not itself be eligible for a loan. However, a farmer who has organized his enterprise into a family farm corporation could, as an individual, co-operate with his neighbours, in a farm machinery syndicate.
The syndicate arrangement provides a simple and effective basis upon which three or more persons engaged in farming, in separate farm enterprises, may co-operate in the purchase and use of farm machinery. It does not involve formal incorporation, and it does not encourage or promote vertical integration, as has been suggested by some hon. members. It is a simple method for our individual Canadian farmers to join together in a co-operative venture, and in this way it will help them to compete against corporation farms. In this connection, I might refer any interested hon. member to the latest issue of the Family Herald and an article about the Knight family in the La-combe-Stettler area of Alberta. It tells how a farmer and five of his sons run a very successful co-operative family farming venture and in one paragraph it makes this point:
Such a farming venture has advantages for all partners, the machinery pool being perhaps the biggest one.
It goes on:
The hired help situation has been solved as they pool work. The young Knights have been taught to keep their credit in good order and such security makes financing easier.
At another point the article says:
Since the Knights avoid overlap in machine buying, they can afford some 'frill' machinery that the individual farmer cannot afford.
I would particularly like to recommend this whole article to the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) and the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) who described this legislation as "absolute non-

Farm Machinery
sense" as shown in Hansard at page 8307. I would like to hear hon. members tell that sort of thing to the Knight family.
The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) (Mr. Dan-forth) has questioned the fact that all members of the syndicate need not be persons whose principal occupation is farming. I would like to point out that all members must be engaged in farming and the majority of members must have farming as their principal occupation. We think it would be wrong to exclude from participation in the benefits possible under the proposed legislation those farmers who find it necessary in the initial years of establishment of their farms to hold a full-time job off the farm. We think this is one of the ways to help them to develop and establish their farm units. Furthermore it may frequently be a real advantage to fulltime farmers to co-operate in a syndicate with a neighbour who is farming but who has other employment and who may share in the use of the syndicate's equipment and in the cost of its operations. As the parliamentary secretary indicated in opening the debate on second reading, the bill provides for this kind of co-operation; but to ensure that fulltime farmers are the chief beneficiaries the majority of the members of any syndicate must be farmers by principal occupation.
Some hon. members have suggested that the bill is a method of compelling farmers into co-operative ventures. This is just more political chinook blowing. There is nothing in this bill which would in any way limit the rights of any individual farmer to obtain credit from any of the sources presently available to him, including those two measures which have recently been amended and brought up to date in this session, the Farm Credit Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The bill does not propose to remove the opportunities for the individual to carry on by himself if he wishes. It provides however the opportunity for individuals to co-operate with their neighbours where they find it to their advantage to do so.
Some hon. members have questioned the provision of joint and several liability of syndicate members. This is not an innovation but is a regular feature of partnership agreements. It has many advantages in a program of this nature. It will ensure that each member of the syndicate has a personal stake in its successful operation and a personal interest in the proper maintenance of the equipment. It has been suggested that one farmer in the syndicate might be stuck with the entire liability, in the event that all other

members default. Personally I have a high regard for the credit worthiness and integrity of Canadian farmers. I am convinced that the majority of them will meet their obligations and I believe they have sufficient business knowledge to refrain from entering into a syndicate agreement with the occasional individual who would not meet his obligations. Furthermore it must be remembered that all of the syndicate members will have an equity in the machinery and it will be in their own individual interests to meet their obligations to the syndicate.
The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) (Mr. Dan-forth) has questioned whether each member is to be assessed the same amount of the total debt. While the syndicate as a whole will be responsible to the corporation for the repayment of the loan, individual members may share this liability between themselves in whatever ratio they wish. For example, if a syndicate is made up of four members three of whom have 100-acre farms and one of whom has a 200-acre farm it may be quite natural for them to agree between themselves that the farmer operating the 200 acres of land will bear twice as much of the financial responsibility of the syndicate as each of the other members.
As I indicated, the syndicate agreement will be a form of partnership agreement. It is important to the successful operation of the program that these agreements between members be worked out to their satisfaction when the syndicate is being formed. Some of the terms and conditions which have general application will be prescribed by the Farm Credit Corporation. Many of the arrangements however, will be worked out in advance by the farmers themselves, to their mutual satisfaction.
Hon. members will appreciate that in a new program of this nature it is essential, particularly in the initial stages, to provide flexibility in the legislation so that the Farm Credit Corporation and the farmers who borrow from it can develop and improve the program as it goes along. While the corporation cannot prescribe any of the terms and conditions of syndicate agreements until after the legislation has been enacted, I can, in answer to the questions which have been asked, outline the general nature of some of the arrangements which are proposed.
The agreement will make it possible for a new member to join a syndicate with the approval of the other members, and the Farm Credit Corporation, on whatever terms may be mutually agreed upon at the time. A

member will be able to withdraw with the prior consent of the corporation and the remaining members and may be relieved of his liabilities if he makes arrangement for their assumption by a continuing member or another farmer who may take his place. In other words, since he will have an equity in the syndicate's assets he will be able to sell it to another farmer if the other farmer is acceptable, as a member, or to the other farmers already in the syndicate.
Upon the death of a member the syndicate will not automatically be dissolved, but the opportunity will be provided for the remaining members to make mutually satisfactory arrangements with the personal representatives of the deceased member. In the only worth-while opposition suggestion I was able to discover, the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) suggested that these loans should be insured against the death of one of the participants. There are some obvious problems in working out such a proposal when we are dealing with several members, each of whom is jointly and severally responsible for the loan, particularly since life insurance normally would be expected to benefit the heirs of the deceased rather than the syndicate. I believe the suggestion has merit, however, and we will see if a suitable plan can be arranged. If so, it can be put into effect without amending the bill, since life insurance would, in effect, be additional security for the loan and this is provided for in clause 3(2) (b) of the bill.
Some hon. members have asked what would happen if one member does not meet his obligations, becomes insolvent, or bankrupt. Members will be required to agree in advance on a method for establishing the net value of such member's equity in the syndicate, so that they or a new member will be able to buy out his interest.
Most of the business arrangements of the syndicates will be worked out by the members according to their own local circumstances. They will make their own arrangements for maintenance, operation and storage of the machinery and how they will share the costs. They will agree in advance how they will decide who shall have the machine, if two members want it at the same time. While there may be several ways of doing this, one arrangement could be the annual rotation of the order of priority of the various members, with the added provision that no one farmer would be able to take off more than half of his crop at a time if another farmer was ready and waiting for the machine. As
Farm Machinery
the British experiment has shown, the possibility of conflict will be greatly reduced by ensuring that the machines purchased by a syndicate have adequate capacity for the work they will be called upon to do. The farmers will decide the type and make of machines they wish to buy and whom they will buy it from. Their decisions will be made and incorporated in a local agreement which they can amend from time to time, if they wish, by resolution.
The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) (Mr. Dan-forth) asked whether, if a farmer had borrowed under the Farm Improvement Loans Act and had used his assets as collateral, the same assets would not be necessary for collateral for a loan under this proposed legislation. The primary security for loans under the proposed act will be the promissory note signed by the members of the syndicate. Collateral security will be taken where required on the machinery being purchased with the loan, but the corporation will not be taking security against any of the other assets owned by individual members of the syndicate. There should therefore be no conflict with the security requirements for loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
The hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) asked whether the syndicates moved be treated as co-operatives for taxation purposes and suggested that if so the legislation would discriminate against private enterprise. The syndicates will not be cooperatives but will be partnerships designed to reduce the operating costs of the individual members. Taxation laws which apply to cooperatives would not apply to syndicates and the individual members will remain subject to the same tax laws as they are at present.
Many speakers have raised the question of the type of machinery which may be included under the provisions of the proposed act. The definition of farm machinery is most difficult. Any attempt to list the items which might be included would, by itself, limit the definition by excluding any items which might be omitted from the list, or any new machinery which may be developed. Mr. Speaker, if hon. members will refer to the Farm Credit Act-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would permit a question at this point?


Harry William Hays: I have not much more to say, Mr. Speaker, and I do not have much time. I will be glad to answer the hon. member's questions afterwards.

Farm Machinery


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As soon as the minister is through, will he permit a question on this point?


Harry William Hays: If hon. members will refer to the Farm Credit Act they will note that parliament did not consider it necessary to define in detail in that act the items which might be considered to be farm machinery. Parliament in its wisdom recognized the necessity of providing a measure of flexibility in the definition by permitting it to be broadened from time to time by regulation, without the necessity of amendment to the act itself. I would like to assure hon. members, however, that it is the intention of the government, for the purposes of this act, to have farm machinery defined as broadly as possible so that it may include any item of machinery that a farmer can use in the development or operation of his farm unit. Farmers themselves know what they need and we want to be in the position to meet these needs.
Many hon. members have asked questions as to what sort of machinery might be purchased under this legislation. Several speakers have suggested items which they think should be considered. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) has referred to tillage and harvesting equipment, including types of equipment, for specialized crops such as sugar beets. He has referred also to the need for heavy equipment which could break the prairie, prepare a seed bed and seed tame grass in some of the submarginal land.
Even the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden), while describing this legislation as useless and foolhardy was able to see how useful it could be in the co-operative purchase and use of grain handling and grain cleaning equipment. He said this at page 8065 of Hansard. The big brother of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner), the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner), was also able to see the usefulness of this legislation by suggesting it could be employed In the purchase of land levellers, caterpillar tractors, feeding and grinding equipment and land clearing equipment. And even the little brother, the hon. member for Acadia, while fussing and fuming about this legislation as only he can fuss and fume, saw this legislation's usefulness in the purchase of brush clearing equipment, large grass seeding equipment, portable grain mills and grain driers, portable grain cleaning equipment and seed cleaning equipment. In the speech he made before we were treated to the agricultural wisdom of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, he even indicated that he would

like syndicates to be able to purchase their own pipe for watering livestock.
Mr. Speaker, as unworthy as I think some of the remarks of these hon. members were, I want to be fair and say that these are worthy suggestions, and in spite of their sources I can assure hon. members that the definition of farm machinery to be approved by the governor in council with respect to this legislation will provide for all these items. The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) (Mr. Dan-forth) has asked who will decide the type and make of machinery which will be bought. I can assure hon. members that as long as the type of machinery under consideration can be used in the development or operation of a farming enterprise and can be used co-operatively by the members of the syndicate, it will be the members of the syndicate themselves who will make this decision. As an example, take three farmers in the black soil zone of Saskatchewan, each with a half section grain-livestock farm with about 200 crop acres under cultivation. Farm management studies indicate that the investment of these farmers in a used swather and pull-type combine amounts to about $3,200, or $16 per crop acre. These three farmers might form a syndicate and purchase a good used swather and combine of a larger capacity for about $5,000, with a down payment of about $350 each. Their capital investment would be just over $8 per acre, or about half of their present investment. They could have a very efficient three-man harvesting operation with ample capacity to handle their 600 crop acres with a very substantial saving in investment and depreciation costs to each farmer, and by operating together might very easily avoid the need for hired labour at harvest time.
The same principle applies as well, or better, in eastern Canada. Dairy farmers in Quebec, for example, have much of their land in pasture and forage crops and might have only 25 to 30 acres in grain. It would not pay to buy a combine for such a small area. Three or four such farmers could join together and purchase a new eight-foot pull-type combine for about $5,000 with a down payment of about $1,000.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: An eight-foot combine? That must be wrong.


Harry William Hays: In this way, with an initial investment of $250 to $350 each they would have a combine which would quite easily handle all their work, and possibly do some for their neighbours on a custom basis. They would have effected a real saving in interest and depreciation costs. They could also co-

8S15
operate in the purchase and use of a forage harvester and self-unloading wagons, a hay-baler and possibly a large power unit. Their savings in machinery costs could be very substantial. They would have efficient machinery with the capacity to do their work in good time and thus would save labour.
Another possible use which farmers might make of a machinery syndicate in concentrated cattle areas in eastern Canada could be with feed mixing equipment. A farmer milking 40 cows would probably need to feed about 42 tons of grain, with added concentrate, a year. Most of this grain is home grown and the farmer now has to make arrangements to have it ground and the concentrate added. If 20 such farmers went together in a syndicate, the capital cost of a portable mill for the purpose would be in the order of $1,100 per farmer which, amortized over 10 years, would be $110 per year or 13 cents per hundred pounds as the capital cost of grinding and mixing the grain and concentrates for a 40 cow herd. To this, of course, would have to be added interest and operating charges. I think these examples should show just how wrong any member is who suggests that this legislation will not help eastern farmers or that it will help western farmers more than eastern farmers. The kind of co-operation envisaged under this legislation can be extended to farm operations in every part of this country. It can be used for the purchase of potato planters, sprayers and diggers in the Atlantic provinces, for com pickers and sugar beet equipment in the central provinces and elsewhere.
In summary, let me say that I believe very sincerely that this is good legislation for all our farmers from coast to coast. It can be especially useful to the family farmer by putting him in a stronger economic position than he has ever enjoyed before in his competition to survive against the large farm or the corporation farm.
Some hon. members have suggested this measure will encourage vertical integration and threaten the independence of the family farm. This is nonsense. It will have just the opposite effect. It will provide a new buttress to support the independence of our family farmer by reducing the amount of money he has to spend on machinery. It can encourage better farming management through the conditions that will be required for qualification for one of these loans, and this can improve the income of our farmers. It can help to relieve some of the farm labour problems our 20220-539
Farm Machinery
farmers now face, including a shortage of farm labour in some areas, by making it possible for farmers to help each other.
The use of the latest machines can lead to work being done more efficiently from a technical point of view, more quickly and with greater timeliness. As a result, the risks of crop losses and damage can be diminished and the quality of such products as hay and silage can be improved. By being able to have the use of new and better equipment cooperatively that they could not afford on their own, individual syndicate members should be able to increase production of their crops or, as in the case of one farmer with a share in a potato harvester, to sell their products on an earlier and better market. The examples I have cited indicate the very real reduction in machinery costs this legislation can mean for individual farmers. I think it should be obvious by now that it will be of more benefit to the small farmer who cannot afford to buy all the machinery he needs on his own than to the big operators who can.
This is something brand new in Canadian agriculture. It is an experimental type of legislation and we will be ready to make whatever changes in its operation experience indicates. We may need more than the initial $25 million fund to keep it operating and if that is the case this government will not hesitate to bring forward the necessary amendments.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I listened with sympathy to the valiant efforts of the minister in the fight which his natural modesty and humility waged with political partisanship of the highest order in his desire to construct a political halo around his head. Alas, we must confess that that humility and modesty, earlier evident at the beginning of his speech, soon disappeared. There are one or two comments I think I must make about what was said by the minister. He indicated that in his view too much time had been taken on this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: I hear hon. members applauding, which only indicates that in their view the members of the opposition are not entitled to exercise their proper function of critically analysing legislation brought before the house. I would point out that on September 21 this bill was brought down for second reading. At that time the parliamentary secretary spoke, and I would judge that some 35 to 40 minutes was devoted to the second

Farm Machinery
reading stage, practically all of which was occupied by the speech of the parliamentary secretary. Then on September 22 the debate was renewed and there was a particularly lengthy question period preceding it, occasioned as usual by the lengthy answers of ministers of the crown. The debate was also interrupted part way through by a statement on motions made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and replied to by members from each of the parties. Consequently, I submit that less than one full day has been devoted to the second reading stage of this bill, a bill which the minister has indicated is a very important piece of legislation and something in the nature of an experiment. I suggest that any intimation that time should be limited to less than one day on the second reading of a bill of this kind is completely improper and wrong. I think we would not be fulfilling our duty if we did not give to this bill the attention and the analysis it requires.
For example, Mr. Speaker, on the resolution stage I asked some questions. At that time we knew not what was in the bill. I asked what I thought were proper questions, but as yet the minister has not answered them. I referred, as did one other hon. member today, to the fact that legislation of this kind is probably the only way in which many of our native peoples-the Indians under the Indian Act and the metis under the metis colonies act of the province of Alberta-could have an opportunity to secure the type of financial assistance required for programs of this nature, which is denied them under other legislation owing to the fact that they do not hold title to their land, having only certificates of occupation. I hope the minister will take this matter up with his colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay), and I also propose to deal with it on the estimates of that minister and to ask him the same question. I think it is tremendously important to see that these people do have an opportunity, as do other people in Canada, of obtaining for themselves the benefits available under farm legislation.
During the resolution stage I also pointed out that under the Farm Improvement Loans Act approximately $100 million in one year alone had been made available for the purchase of farm machinery. I pointed out that under those conditions, using this as a yardstick, it was most unlikely that the $25 million would be sufficient for the job if it were to do the job which the minister said it would. I also pointed out that under the

Farm Credit Act, which was passed by the previous government, there is provision for loans to co-operative associations for purposes covered by the act, including the purchasing of machinery.
I thought we were entitled to be told why farm co-operative associations had not made greater use of the facilities of that act before legislation of this kind was introduced. These were questions which I think were reasonable and moderate, which might well have been answered, and which I hope the minister may yet answer before the conclusion of this debate.
With regard to the amendment before the house, I do not think I could vote for it as it now reads; but that does not mean that the subject matter of this bill should not be referred to the agriculture committee. The minister said that this legislation is important and is breaking new ground. It is legislation which is a completely new concept. Surely, Mr. Speaker, under those conditions it would be but right and proper that this bill be referred to the agriculture committee, where it would receive not too lengthy a period of debate but representatives of farm organizations, who after all are the ones who have the greatest interest in the bill, not us, would have the opportunity of appearing and making representations and suggestions. It is for that reason I am convinced that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) moved this amendment, because he thought that this bill would then have been likely finalized once it received second reading. I know the bill can be amended in committee, but once the house, and particularly the government, has given approval in principle on second reading of a bill there is a tendency for the matter to be crystallized and there is an unwillingness on the part of the government to accept any amendments. I think that is probably applicable to any government, and it is quite usual; but I hope to see in the future the subject matters of many more bills referred to committee for consideration before rather than after second reading.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down I propose to move an amendment to the existing amendment which I submit would have the effect of permitting both these desirable results to be achieved. I am going to propose, first, that the subject matter of the bill go to committee, there to be considered and to receive representations from farm organizations, at the same time the bill not being given approval in principle in this house on second reading.

Before I go on to what I consider a very serious objection to this legislation as it now stands, I want to pay some attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), who in his usual inimitable style saw fit to criticize the previous government by indicating that several legislative proposals dealing with agriculture which we had introduced when we were in office had not been referred to a committee. May I point out to him and, through you, Mr. Speaker, to all hon. members that the value of that legislation has been well illustrated by the fact that the present government have taken these pieces of legislation which we dealt with, have accepted them and have made some minor improvements, indicating their wholesale approval of the agricultural legislation which the previous government enacted. I say that because I think this bill presently under discussion has some limited usefulness.
In the part of the country in which I live there are hundreds of thousands of acres of arable land waiting to be put under cultivation and this bill might well have some usefulness to new settlers for the purchase of the expensive machinery required to clear the brush and cultivate this vast area. Each hon. member is properly entitled to express his point of view, and perhaps does so through the eyes of his own constituents. Legislation which may be of value to one area of this country may not necessarily be of equal value to another. Merely because the hon. members for Acadia (Mr. Horner) and Athabasca (Mr. Bigg), as well as others, have quite legitimately and honestly seen fit to criticize the bill, or at least parts of it, as being not applicable to their areas, does not mean a wholesale rejection of the bill. I think that fact was made quite clear by the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) (Mr. Danforth), who led off this debate on behalf of the official opposition.
While this act may not be too favourable, and I am quite sure it cannot be regarded as producing a very bright jewel, an emblem of which will be fixed to the diadem of agricultural legislation which the minister wears rather uneasily around his head, it might have some useful application in certain areas of the country. After this legislation has been exposed, analysed and been made the subject of constructive criticism in a committee I hope it will pass in an amended form.
I should now like to direct the attention of this house to what I feel is the most objectionable aspect of this bill. I am not in a 20220-539J
Farm Machinery
position to move an amendment at this time, but I will give notice now to the minister that in due course, when this piece of legislation has reached the committee stage, having passed a parliamentary committee, I intend to move certain amendments in respect of clause 9, about which I have certain reservations.
Clause 9 of the bill purports to give regulatory powers to the governor in council and in that connection I should like to read certain remarks made in a speech delivered by the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I am sure he realizes that on second reading one cannot discuss the individual clauses of the bill. Perhaps he will keep this in mind in the course of his remarks.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have completed my discussion of the particular clause which I feel is objectionable, and am now proceeding to a discussion of it in a general sense, Mr. Speaker, in the same way the parliamentary secretary did when he spoke on September 21.
I should first like to make this observation. In the sense that this purports to create a new concept of agricultural legislation there are three basic facts. The first relates to a definition of what shall be farm machinery. The second relates to a definition of what shall be a co-operative association entitled to take advantage of the legislation. The third relates to the circumstances under which an association shall be entitled to take advantage of the legislation, and includes regulations restricting the association in its incorporation and dealings with the government through the Farm Credit Corporation. Those are the three salient features of the legislation. They are the pith and substance of the whole matter. This is the heart of the whole issue.
In respect of each of these three facts I have outlined the government has seen fit to permit the governor in council to deal with these matters rather than this house, which has that legislative capacity, and is thereby legislating by regulation. I find that situation repugnant and objectionable. All too often members have been inclined to sit idly by through progressive erosion of their functions, allowing them to be usurped by the executive. This is another example of that situation. Surely it is for us as members of this House of Commons, elected by the people of this country, to decide what shall be farm machinery, what shall be the circumstances and terms of these agreements, and how shall

Farm Machinery
written arrangements be made under which syndicates are formed. Surely it is for us as members of this House of Commons to say what shall be an association under the terms of this act. We will be prohibited from doing so if the legislation in its present form is passed. In confirmation of that statement I refer all hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker, to what the parliamentary secretary said as reported in Hansard at page 8280. That hon. gentleman said this:
There will be authority in the bill to define farm machinery by regulation. We thought it best to do it in this way because we are entering into a completely new venture in which we will have to profit by experience-
The Minister of Agriculture repeated that fact today. I submit that if we permit power of this kind to pass from the hands of this legislating body to the hands of an executive body we may well be guilty of some of those deficits which have been ascribed to us and our functions in recent months. This situation goes to the very root of our duties as legislators. In this legislation, I submit it is for us to decide these important factors, rather than the executive.
The parliamentary secretary on September 21 then stated:
The intention however would be to define farm machinery very broadly, so that the bill might apply to any item of machinery which a farmer might use in the development or operation of his farm, and leave it to the groups as they are organized to decide the items which they feel could profitably be owned and used jointly.
Therefore the circumstances in respect of the establishment of these syndicates will be circumstances in a form satisfactory to the executive, but not necessarily to this house.
The parliamentary secretary then said:
Further, in the setting up of the syndicate there will be predetermined arrangements designed to settle in advance some of the problems which may later arise. There will first be some general provisions applicable to all syndicates, including such items as provisions for adding members, for reduction in membership, for the procedure in the event of death or insolvency of a member, and for the voluntary dissolution of the syndicate. There will also be provisions for such items as the appointment of a secretary, the maintenance of proper books of account, and so on.
The hon. member who seconded the motion which is now before the house made a very valuable contribution when he pointed out that this bill ventures directly into the realm of provincial jurisdiction. The provinces have legislation which defines co-operative associations, and sets out how they shall function and what their governing bylaws shall be. This legislation represents, if

not a legal usurpation of the rights of the provinces, certainly a factual invasion of their proper prerogatives. That fact was properly pointed out by the hon. member, and I lend my support.
The parliamentary secretary then went on to state:
Farmers forming syndicates will also be required to make arrangements in advance concerning their individual shares and responsibilities with respect to payment of capital maintenance and operating costs, and the responsibilities for operation, repair, maintenance and storage of the machines. They will need to agree concerning the priority of the right to use the machine in the event that two members wish to use it at the same time.
Those are the things which are to be determined by the executive, as this bill is presently worded. I submit with all the strength I can, Mr. Speaker, that these are matters which should be inserted and detailed in the legislation, which should then be brought before the agriculture committee and upon which farm groups in this country should have an opportunity of expressing their views.
Finally, before I leave the speech by the parliamentary secretary, I would point out that I think the minister was quite right in indicating that he does not expect too much from this legislation at the start. He suggests that this was based on legislation introduced in the United Kingdom. The figures which were given by the parliamentary secretary are most illuminating. Legislation of this kind was introduced, sir, in 1955 but developed slowly during the first few years. By 1962, only 293 syndicates had been formed. However, as a result of the program's successful operation it expanded more rapidly and since that time, in 1963, there were 341 syndicates and by August, 596 syndicates. After eight years of operation only 596 syndicates had been established. I suggest to the minister he should be most moderate in the claims he makes for this legislation if, in fact, it is based on the British system. This does not necessarily mean it cannot be of some value. I think we all accept the fact there must be a continual attack on all fronts of this agricultural problem. There is no one, simple, magical cure. Certainly, legislation of this kind by itself must be accepted in context as being narrow and not of too much value.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I indicated I proposed to move an amendment. I do make this final suggestion, particularly with regard to legislation of this kind, that when the government seeks to introduce and have passed legislation containing regulatory powers of this kind, the onus

should rest upon them to establish beyond any reasonable doubt the necessity for, and the reasonableness of, the powers they seek. This has not been the case here. I for one could not see my way clear to vote for this bill as it now stands. I, therefore, wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh):
That the amendment be amended by adding immediately following the last word, the following:
"Provided however that despite this motion the said bill shall remain on the order paper as an order for second reading, without prejudice to the right to proceed with a motion for such second reading."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will appreciate that the Chair would have some qualms about the legality of this amendment. Perhaps hon. members might like to indicate their views as to whether or not the subamendment is acceptable.


Gerald William Baldwin: Before Your Honour does decide, I have some precedents to argue. However, I take it that the silence in the house indicates the value, legality and virtue of this subamendment.


Mr. Favreau:: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the subamendment cannot be accepted as it stands because it contradicts the main amendment.
In fact, the subamendment would hide from the public the true consequence of the main amendment, which would remove from the consideration of the house the bill under discussion.
It is clear that an amendment to refer to a committee the subject matter of a bill is in itself a statement from the house to the effect that it is opposed to second reading and, therefore, to the principle of the bill.
In fact, the main amendment is a declaration made by the opposition-which it has presented as a motion-to the effect that the opposition does not accept the principle of the bill, does not accept the principle of a government guarantee for the financing of the purchase, joint or collective, of machinery by two or more persons. And the subamendment merely indicates, by way of an excuse, that although one is well aware that such will be the consequence, in fact one does not wish to see the bill killed as a result of that amendment.

It is clear from the reading of citation 386 in Beauchesne's fourth edition, that once the subject matter of the bill has been referred
Farm Machinery
to committee, and once the principle of the main amendment has been accepted, then there is no bill, in fact. I read from the second subparagraph of citation 386:
An amendment, urging the setting up of a select committee to consider the subject matter of a bill, might be moved and carried, if the house were adverse to giving the bill itself a second reading and so conceding its principle.
It would, therefore, I repeat be a clear declaration from this house that this house agreed with the mover of the amendment to the effect that the principle of the bill ought not to be admitted and that the house is adverse to second reading. This, I think, is just what the Minister of Agriculture has said, that under the pretext of forcing a further study of this bill, the main amendment only wants to deprive the house of the advantage of the possibility of thoroughly discussing the bill, giving it second reading, and then at the committee stage obtaining from the minister all the answers hon. members desire to elicit with respect to the application or consequences of the bill.
It is quite evident that a motion that denies that the bill must have second reading, and therefore denies the principle of the bill, is incompatible with the other principle, that the house retains the right to proceed with the motion for second reading. I therefore say that the subamendment is not consistent with or material to the amendment itself, that it is a clear contradiction, and that it is only an admission of the fact that the official opposition would like to have it both ways, to have its cake and eat it, to deprive the government from giving this important and useful legislation to the farmers and at the same time let everyone believe or think that in so doing they just wanted to serve the country. For these reasons I submit that the subamendment should not be admitted by the Chair.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two other sentences that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) could have read from citation 386, but before I refer to them I would like to say that I have always held the opinion that this house ought to have the right to send a bill to a standing committee for consideration prior to the adoption of the principle of the bill. Unfortunately this is not the practice which has been followed, and if we are not prepared to change the practice we have to be consistent in the way we proceed.
We have also to recognize that there will be an opportunity on committee stage for

Farm Machinery
specific amendments to be made to any clauses of the bill. We have to accept the fact that at this stage we are really doing nothing more or less than accepting the principle of the bill, and with that in mind we have to take into account the precedents. Further down in citation 386 subsection 3 says-and before I quote it I wish to say I do not believe the parallel and similarity between the incident cited and this one are exactly the same, but there are certain similarities. The subsection says:
The house cannot both refuse to give the second reading and refer some provisions of the bill to a committee. It shall have to make its choice.
Therefore I believe we have to accept the fact that at this stage we are simply indicating whether or not we agree in principle with the provisions of the bill, and if we refer it to the committee we are denying giving our acceptance to the principle of the bill and so the practice of the house would be, as noted in citation 386 of Beauchesne, that we would in fact refuse giving our consent to the principle of the bill, and thus would in fact kill the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise mainly to pose a question which I hope the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) will answer when he gives us the benefit of his study of this ingenious subamendment. It seems to me that the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) has stated the case very well. He has stated it well under two headings. First, he has indicated that there is a feeling on the part of many that a case could be made for having bills go to committee before we decide upon them in principle, but so long as we have standing order 77 that is impossible.
The second thing the hon. member for Medicine Hat pointed out is that under citation 386 we are told something that is awfully hard to accept in this life, namely, that there are some things we cannot have both ways. In other words, we have to decide whether we are in favour of the principle of the bill and then deal with the details in the way that is provided, or we have to take our stand as being opposed to the principle of the bill. I think that is what is behind the confusion that sometimes arises with respect to this matter. However, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) and the hon. member for Medicine Hat have developed all of this.
I merely want to ask the hon. member for Peace River if he has any precedents for the kind of subamendment he has moved, which are not based on unanimous consent. I recall

that in the first session of this parliament there was a bill-maybe two of them-which had to do with the islands of the Northwest Territories that might possibly become part of Quebec, or vice versa-I forget which it was -and there was a strong desire to have that bill, or those bills, referred to a committee before the bill itself was discussed on the floor of the house.
I believe the hon. member for Peace River and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill), who was then secretary of state, worked out an ingenius arrangement whereby this actually happened, whereby the bill, or bills, stayed on the order paper but the subject matter went to a committee for discussion. However, I believe that was accomplished on the basis of the unanimous consent of the house.
If the hon. member for Peace River can get unanimous consent for this tonight, the way he and the Minister of Transport got it then, we are away to the races, but if he cannot, I merely ask are there other precedents where anything of this nature was done without unanimous consent?


Gerald William Baldwin: I must say that what has been said tonight, and I say this in the kindest possible way, Mr. Speaker, confirms the impression I have always had that within the four comers of the official opposition lies most of the progressive and forward thinking elements, because it is we who are prepared, when necessary, to break new ground and to try and work out what would be a sensible and reasonable arrangement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To break new ground? You mean break the rules.


Gerald William Baldwin: However, I was deeply
shocked to find I did not have the support I thought I would receive from hon. members who examine the rules. I believe this house should be master of its own destiny. First, dealing with citation 386, and particularly that part which appears in paragraph 3, it says the house cannot both refuse to give second reading-and I read that word "refuse" in an active sense. We are not, as a result of the combination of the amendment and my proposed subamendment, refusing to give second reading. It is not even implied in this.
The very terms of the subamendment do not imply refusal; rather, we say keep this bill as an order for second reading on the order paper. Surely this is the very opposite of refusal? I submit that is a plain, simple answer to paragraph 3 of citation 386.

I now want to refer Your Honour to citation 201 in Beauchesne's fourth edition, which I think should be taken into consideration. It is as follows:
The object of an amendment may be to effect such an alteration in a question as will obtain the support of those who, without such alteration, must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon-
I detected in the remarks of members of the parties who sit to my left a great inclination to vote for the reference of the subject matter of this measure to the agriculture committee. However, they felt that under the terms of the original amendment they were unable to do so. All I am doing in my subamendment is to make it possible for them to do so under the terms of the citation to which I have referred.
Before I go back to the interesting conversation which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and I had last November, I would refer Your Honour to the third paragraph in citation 119. This deals with the rules of debate and relevancy. Of course there might be a distinction made, but I think these are important words which should be in the mind of the Chair on all occasions when a decision has to be made.
Relevancy is not easy to define. A wrong comprehension of it may have a serious effect on the freedom of speech. Members are often deprived of their right to speak on the pretext that their remarks are irrelevant when as a matter of fact they refer to matters perhaps remote but yet related, even indirectly, to the question under debate. In borderline cases the member should be given the benefit of the doubt.
I think these words can easily be applied to amendments as well. A paraphrase of this citation could be applicable. I submit that since it is the wish of all members of the house that this bill should not be killed and since it is equally the wish of what I think is the majority that it should be referred to a committee, it is my contention that this desirable result could be obtained by giving effect to the amendment as proposed.
Finally, in the Journals of the house for 1963 on page 559, appears the resolution which I worked out at the suggestion of the Minister of Transport and which he accepted as being in order. It does use the words "by unanimous consent".
By unanimous consent, on the motion of Mr. Pickersgill seconded by Mr. Laing, it was ordered- That the subjects dealt with in bills C-83 and C-84-
Hon. members will notice that it is done here with respect to two bills. Now we are
Farm Machinery
only asking that it be done in respect of one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: -be referred to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters for consideration; provided however, that despite this motion the said bills shall remain on the order paper as orders for second reading without prejudice to the right to make or proceed with motions for such second reading.
The Minister of Transport and I are suspender and safety pin men. The words "by unanimous consent" were only put in there to give that extra degree of safety, to remove whatever doubt there might be. It is not to be presupposed that without them the motion would be out of order. The house accepted the principle that it was possible and that it was, in certain cases, desirable for the subject matter of certain bills to be referred to committees while retaining their place on the order paper. It is my submission, based on these various authorities and on the general principle that wherever possible Your Honour should hold to be relevant amendments which are proposed, that this subamendment is in fact in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no further submissions to be heard at this time for the guidance of the Chair I am prepared to give my opinion as to the legality of the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
I am sure hon. members will recognize that the hon. member for Peace River has presented a strong argument for a case which is perhaps a little difficult. He himself recognized that he is breaking ground and this was perhaps an unwilling recognition that there is a difficulty facing the Chair. He drew attention to citations 201 and 119 (3) of Beauchesne which lay down the general principles by which we should be guided. Certainly the Chair is prepared at all times to take these general principles into consideration. But there are precedents, rules and standing orders which must also be kept in mind when dealing with specific cases. In this particular case, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has mentioned, there is standing order 77 to be taken into account. There is also, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) has mentioned-and this argument was further advanced by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson)-citation 386(2). I might be allowed to follow the lead of the Minister of Justice and quote in French from the French edition of Beauchesne:
Farm, Machinery



I quote from Beauchesne, citation 386:
An amendment, urging the setting up of a select committee to consider the subject matter of a bill, might be moved and carried, if the house were adverse to giving the bill itself a second reading and so conceding its principle.
And the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) pushed the argument further by quoting subsection (3) of citation 386:
-the house cannot both refuse to give the second reading and refer some provisions of the bill to a committee. It shall have to make its choice. The amendment was ruled out.

In other words, the difficulty we face is that there seems to be inconsistency between the amendment and the amendment to the amendment. This subamendment proposes at one and the same time to take the question out of the house and to keep it here. So we can visualize a situation where the house will proceed with second reading while at the same time the bill is before the committee, still under discussion. On this point I would like to quote Beauchesne, citation 203, which states:
(1) Every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
It seems to me this is the difficulty the house would face if the subamendment were to be accepted along with the amendment.
The hon. member for Peace River when challenged by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to submit a precedent, referred to the Journals of 1963 at page 559. The relevant extract, as he himself recognized, begins with the words "by unanimous consent". It is true the house did set a precedent of some sort in agreeing to do exactly what is now proposed by the hon. member, but of course it did so only by unanimous consent, and I have a suspicion that if on that occasion the house decided it was necessary to obtain unanimous consent before proceeding on that basis it was because it was felt that the rules precluded proceeding otherwise.
I feel that the procedure proposed by the hon. member for Peace River is definitely inconsistent with the procedures of the house. In view of the learned arguments advanced by several hon. members in opposition to the legality of the subamendment I must declare it out of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: With the greatest deference to your judgment and in the hope that the house may seize this opportunity to remove the words "by unanimous consent" and break new ground, I must appeal Your Honour's decision.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker put the question as follows:
The question is an appeal to the house from a ruling of the Chair.
To the motion for the second reading of Bill No. C-121, an act to provide for the extension of credit to farm machinery syndicates, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) proposed as an amendment the following:
"That this Bill No. C-121 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on agriculture for further study and report".
In amendment thereto the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) proposed the following:
"That the amendment be amended by adding immediately following the last words the following:
'provided however that despite this motion the said bill shall remain on the order paper as an order for second reading without prejudice to the right to proceed with the motion for second reading' ".
The Chair ruled the subamendment out of order as being inconsistent with the amendment; that the amendment proposed to refer the subject matter of the bill to a standing committee, whereas the subamendment purported to allow the house to proceed with the second reading of the said bill and subsequent stages. Whereupon the hon. member for Peace River appealed to the house from the decision of the Chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the decision sustained.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Associate Minister of National Defence. Had I voted, I would unfortunately have voted against your decision.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. Millar). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. Lloyd:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Otherwise I would have voted in favour of upholding your ruling.


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. If I had voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house prepared to vote on the amendment to the main motion?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to speak on the amendment.


An hon. Member:: It is ten o'clock.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Greenwood. Is the hon. member rising to declare a pair?


Mr. Brewin:: No, Mr. Speaker, I was rising to speak on the amendment and motion now before the house, although I was going to bring your attention to the fact that it is now ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair was under the impression that the hon. member for Greenwood was rising on a different question. The Chair is now prepared to recognize the hon. member for Acadia.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to note that the government voted against referring the subject matter of this bill to the standing committee for study. They suggest that this is new or experimental legislation, but by their actions they have indicated they do not wish to expose the provisions of this bill to close scrutiny by that committee. This bill could have been referred to that committee by unanimous vote in favour of the subamendment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Business of the House


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May we have order in the house. The hon. member for Acadia has the floor.


An hon. Member:: It is ten o'clock.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I can only assume those hon. gentlemen did not like what I was saying and attempted to drown out my remarks.
It is evident from the manner in which they rejected the subamendment that they do not want this proposed legislation subjected to close scrutiny by the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, in spite of the fact that, to use the minister's words, it is experimental legislation. That fact does not speak well for this legislation.
May I call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader to outline the business for the rest of this week?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, we will carry on tomorrow with the business as announced, in an attempt to obtain second reading of this
farm machinery bill. It will then go to the committee stage, following which we will deal with legislation relating to the Crop Insurance Act. On completion of that we will deal with a bill relating to amendments to certain acts administered by the department of insurance. On Wednesday, in order to give members of this house an opportunity to express their views in respect of amendments to the constitution of Canada being made in Canada, I intend to have the estimates of the Department of Justice placed before the house, but only for that purpose. We will use whatever time available on Wednesday for that purpose. The estimates to follow are those of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Postmaster General, who is responsible as the minister in charge, for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation regulations. A consideration of those estimates will be followed by a consideration of the balance of the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the estimates of other departments to be announced tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 29, 1964