1964-06-11

Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, representatives of the governments of Canada and the Hungarian People's Republic have held a number of meetings in Ottawa between May 20 and June 9 to discuss problems of common interest in the fields of trade, financial claims, consular matters and diplomatic relations.
In addition to an agreement on trade on which my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be making a statement, we have also agreed to an exchange of diplomatic missions with Hungary as soon as convenient to each party.
We have reached agreement with the Hungarian government to negotiate at an early date a settlement of outstanding financial claims between the two countries. I shall shortly be making an announcement of the type of claims which might be eligible for consideration under this agreement.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have reached an understanding with the Hungarian government on a number of consular matters which will, among other things, clarify the position of Canadian citizens, including those of Hungarian origin, who may wish to travel in Hungary.
I propose now, Mr. Speaker, to table the letters I have exchanged today with the Hungarian vice minister for foreign affairs covering these various subjects.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the three year trade agreement signed this morning between Canada and the Hungarian People's Republic is the first such agreement between the two countries in the post-war period.
The agreement is based on an exchange of most favoured nation treatment. At the same time Hungary has committed itself to purchase Canadian wheat and other goods to a total value of $24 million over the period
of the agreement. I would draw the attention of the house to the mixed nature of this purchase commitment, marking a departure from other recent agreements. Since Hungary itself is normally an exporter of wheat, that portion of its commitment involving wheat is to amount to 250,000 metric tons, a somewhat smaller quantity than has been involved in recent purchases by other countries. Hungary has the choice of taking one half of this amount in the form of feed barley. The remainder of the purchase commitment will be taken up by Hungary in the form of Canadian goods of its choice. These goods are not specified, but it is hoped that on the basis of past Hungarian interest, new and continuing markets will be opened up for a wide range of Canadian goods.
In addition, the agreements signed today provide that a Hungarian trade office may be opened in Canada and a Canadian trade office may be opened in Hungary for the purpose of market exploration and trade promotion. Both governments have expressed the wish that through these agreements trade between Canada and Hungary may be expanded on a mutually satisfactory basis.
The establishment of trade relations with Hungary represents yet another step in the development of closer trade links between Canada and the countries of eastern Europe. In recent years our long standing trade relations with Poland and Czechoslovakia have been further strengthened through our sales of wheat to these countries. Poland is currently discussing in the GATT the basis of its participation in the Kennedy round, and Canada has expressed support for this initiative. Our trade agreement with the Soviet union signed in 1956 has been twice renewed, and the first trade agreement between Canada and Bulgaria was concluded last year. I am sure that our new trade agreement with Hungary will make a further valuable contribution to the expansion of Canadian trade.
With the permission of the house I should like to table a copy of the trade agreement and other correspondence exchanged between the two governments.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to the tabling of these documents?

Canada-V.K. Income Tax Agreement


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in view of the statement he made concerning the trade agreement between Canada and Hungary. He outlined the major exports to Hungary under the agreement, and would he like to tell us now what are the major imports into Canada from Hungary?


Mitchell William Sharp: The only concession made by Canada under this agreement is to accord most favoured nation treatment to goods from Hungary.


INCOME TAX
Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I thought I should announce briefly to the house and to the public that it is the intention of the government to seek the revision at an early date of the Canada-United Kingdom income tax agreement. An announcement that this agreement would be revised was first made by the then minister of finance in December, 1960, following his proposal that certain special rates of non-resident withholding tax on dividends be withdrawn and that a rate of 15 per cent thereafter be imposed on all dividends paid to non-residents. The intention to revise certain international income tax agreements was also stated in the budget speech of 1963.
1 have recently written to the chancellor of the exchequer in the United Kingdom suggesting that the discussions which were commenced in 1961 concerning the Canada-United Kingdom income tax agreement be reopened as soon as possible. If any hon. members or other persons or business firms wish to submit suggestions concerning the revision of this treaty, I would be glad to receive them during the next several weeks.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Walter Lockhart Gordon: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the

following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to make capital expenditures and to supply the financial requirements of affiliated companies in the year 1964, not exceeding $155,000,000 and to make certain capital expenditures and enter into certain contracts prior to July 1, 1965; to provide for the financial requirements of Trans-Canada Air Lines in an amount not exceeding $5,000,000, either by means of loans from Her Majesty to the National Company or by means of issues of securities of the National Company, authorized and guaranteed as to interest and principal by Her Majesty, the cash proceeds by either method to be used only for the financial requirements of Trans-Canada Air Lines, the capital needs of the national company itself being met entirely through the sale of preferred stock to Her Majesty and from reserves for depreciation and debt discount; to authorize Her Majesty to continue to purchase until December 31, 1964, Canadian National Company 4 per cent preferred stock in an annual amount not exceeding 3 per cent of the gross revenues of the company; to extend until December 31, 1964, the moratorium on interest on the loan of $100,000,000 to the company authorized by the Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act of 1952; to authorize Her Majesty to make loans to the Canadian National Railway Company and Trans-Canada Air Lines to meet deficiences in operating revenues to June 30, 1965, any such loans to be repaid from revenues of the railway company and Trans-Canada Air Lines or, if revenues prove insufficient, by subsequent deficit appropriation by parliament; and to raise the limit on the Canadian National Railway Company's authority to refund matured, maturing and callable securities from the present level of $480,000,000 to $680,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask whether representations have been received by him for the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on most drugs on which it is levied. Also, was such a resolution brought to his attention from the recent meeting of the Ontario pharmacists' association, and will the minister say, in view of the fact that this tax actually rests particularly on those of low income, whether consideration will be given by the government to the removal of what is in effect a tax on sickness?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, no representations have been made to me. They may have come to my department during the last day or so, but not to my knowledge.

In answering my right hon. friend's question I would point out that there has never been any general exemption from sales taxes for drugs. This particular tax to which he refers has been in effect for many years. I would also like to emphasize that it is a general tax and not a tax that is specifically imposed on the sale of drugs.


Mr. Rheaume:: It is on building materials too.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It applies to everything, like clothing, shoes-


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Building materials.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The Leader of the Opposition asked whether consideration would be given to the exemption of this tax from drugs, and I would be very glad to give that consideration prior to the next budget.


Mr. Real Caouetle (Villeneuve):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister just said that this tax has been in effect for many years. Now, could the minister tell us whether it was in effect when the Leader of the Opposition was prime minister of Canada?


Mr. Habel:: Certainly.


John George Diefenbaker: Nice co-operation.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked the minister particularly whether there has been a request for the removal of this tax. The press said there had been. I would point out that under his government he raised the amount of the sales tax.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I answered the first question, that to my knowledge there have been no representations. The right hon. gentleman is mistaken in his understanding of when this tax was increased.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the fact that Nelson Mandela and seven of his associates have been found guilty of contravening the apartheid laws of South Africa. They are to be sentenced tomorrow, and the death penalty could be imposed.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will make vigorous representations to the government of South Africa urging that they exercise clemency in this case, having regard to the fact that if these men are executed it will shock the conscience of the civilized world and sow the seeds of a terrible day of reckoning in Africa.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that while eight of the defendants in the Rivonia trial, to which my hon. friend has referred, have been found guilty on charges of sabotage and conspiracy, the sentences, as has been indicated, have not yet been pronounced. When they are pronounced they will be subject to appeal. While the matter is still sub judice it would, I believe, be improper for the government to make any public statement on the verdict or on the possible sentences.
I wish to assure the house, however, that the government is following this matter with grave concern in the light of the resolution passed by the security council of the United Nations last Tuesday. If circumstances make it desirable the government, after the appeal has been heard, will take whatever action it can to assist in avoiding the result to which my hon. friend has referred.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan-Boundary):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister advise the house whether representations have been made to Canada relative to improper incarceration under our immigration law and, if so, what countries have done so?


Lester Bowles Pearson: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, no such representations have been made, but I will be very glad to look into the matter.


BILINGUAL QUALIFICATIONS OF CANADIAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning bilingualism in his department. I think the minister is highly qualified in that field, since he is himself perfectly bilingual.
Could he tell us whether Mr. Roberts, who was loaned to NATO to act as undersecretary, is bilingual and whether such a qualification was required by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs): I understand he is bilingual.


RECOGNITION OF QUEBEC DELEGATION IN PARIS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice  Cole@Chicoutimi: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Is it true that the federal government has been obstinately refusing for two years to grant the statute of general consulate to the Quebec delegation in Paris, as reported in the press and apparently confirmed by the premier of the province of Quebec?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I feel this matter should be given serious consideration, and that is what I intend to do.


IRELAND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister about last week's visit of the President of Ireland, whom everyone had the pleasure to welcome.
Can the Prime Minister tell the house if the present government intends to support Mr. de Valera's claims to the British government for the reunification of the two Irelands, since there are over two million Irish people in Canada? I feel that we should favour this unification as much as that of Berlin or Germany.


Mr. Speaker:: It does strike me that though this question is most interesting, and even very important, it would take considerable time for a considered answer to be given.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: 
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman has asked me that question as a member of parliament and not as a journalist. It is not a matter of concern to me. Whatever decision the C.B.C. makes, it is their decision and I will be very glad indeed to accept it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State. I know you will not mind, Mr. Speaker, if I express my appreciation that the Prime Minister himself can make the distinction. Would the Secretary of State ask the C.B.C. whether they are now prepared to review their original decision not to show this film, and to look at the situation again?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: I will be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Just for the sake of information I should like to ask the minister whether the five ministers and their ancillary troops, who previewed the film before anyone else had an opportunity to see it, asked for a repetition of the showing five times because of the enjoyment it gave them; and why are the Canadian people to be denied the enjoyment that caused these cabinet ministers to ask for this quinquennial repetition?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am not aware of this, Mr. Speaker. All I can do is repeat what I said yesterday. As far as I am concerned, I did not see the film.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In relation to the restricted classification given to this film by persons unknown, will the minister consider the adage "You've read the book, now you should see the movie", and let M.P.'s in on the delights of this surreptitious film?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question last week on behalf of the C.B.C.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay Wesl):: wish to address a question to the Secretary of State. Has the British Broadcasting Corporation made an offer to the Canadian

Broadcasting Corporation for the purchase of the now internationally known program "The Prime Minister"?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not see any particularly pressing need for an immediate answer this afternoon. Would the hon. member put this question on the order paper.


INQUIRY AS TO COMPLETION OF FRENCH NETWORK
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquelte (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Secretary of State?
Could the minister tell the house whether the C.B.C. will soon be ready to extend the French radio network from coast to coast?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I think that this is still the C.B.C.'s intention. I must add however that this very important question will no doubt be fully looked into by the advisory committee on broadcasting established a few weeks ago.


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can he advise this house why in 1961 the Department of Transport granted an exclusive privilege to Air Terminal Transport Limited to operate a limousine and taxi service at Malton airport, when the company does not hold a taxi licence from either metropolitan Toronto or the township of Toronto in Peel county?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member would be delighted to put this question on the order paper.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I give notice that I should like this question debated at ten o'clock.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: I have
a question which is of concern to all members in this house, Mr. Speaker. I should like the Prime Minister to inform the house at what stage the negotiations are between the Liberals and the N.D.P., and what progress is being made.
11.	1964	4181
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT


CONTINUED SUSPENSION OF INCREASES IN EXPORT GRAIN RATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the hon. gentleman received a communication from the maritime transportation commission requesting a further suspension of the proposed increases in export rail rates on grain after June 30? If so, when can we expect an answer?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I should like to make a careful reply to that question, and I hope I can do so tomorrow.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Now that we have some of the details of the revised Canada pension plan through the medium of the Prime Minister's letter to the provincial premiers, can we, as members of parliament, be given more of these details either by way of a white paper or some other document which could be distributed among all members?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, we hope to have a white paper ready very shortly. It was not possible to do this until we had had an exchange with the provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, and I put it as a question rather than as a point of order at this time. Does the Prime Minister not think he should have informed the house yesterday that he was tabling the letter to the premiers? Standing order 40 hardly covers putting something on the table about which we know nothing until we see reports in the press.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry if the procedure was not satisfactory. In future I agree that if we are tabling important communications such as these it would be well to inform the house the day they are tabled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.

Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLICATIONS



REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING IMPLEMENTATION OP ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders oi the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether representations have been received by him or by other members of the government within the last few days from representatives of various publications in our country to the effect that unless early action is taken upon the O'Leary report, two very important publications-I will not identify them unless asked to do so-in the city of Toronto will find themselves in a position where they will face the danger of having to close up.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have received no such representations recently. I will make inquiries of my colleagues and if any have been received I will inform the house tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: Can the Prime Minister say whether, in view of the pressing need for action in this regard, this is one matter which deserves priority?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is certainly an important matter and we hope to bring it before the house before we adjourn-if we are able to adjourn-for any summer recess.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I should like to direct this question to the Postmaster General, of which I have given him notice. Are all rural mail carriers informed that mail addressed to members of parliament at Ottawa does not require postage?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: I thank the hon. gentleman for having given notice of this question to my office. Unfortunately I did not receive it until the bell was ringing and I was on my way to the chamber, so I have not had an opportunity to make full inquiries. However, I can assure the hon. member and other members of the house that if rural mail carriers have not been so advised they will be advised immediately.


Raymond Langlois: I wish to address a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Can the Secretary of State

assure the house that the austerity program affecting the office of papers and circulars is over so that we may get the necessary paper on which to write to our constituents whenever we wish?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Baffle River-Camrose):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Is the minister aware of the recent flood of hate literature in the capital as well as in other centres in Canada directed against Jews and negroes, and the implication of the connection with the Social Credit party through one Neil Carmichael, the approved Social Credit candidate in the Toronto-St. Paul riding, as reported by C.F.R.A.'s parliamentary press correspondent?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: am not aware of the latest literature specifically referred to in the last part of the question. I will look into it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Can the Minister of Justice tell us whether he has inquired into the matter of the literature of Reverend Ewin which was distributed through the royal mail, as per copy sent to him the other day? If so, what are the results of that inquiry?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for sending me copy of that text the other day but, as I said in the answer given at that time, I have passed it on to the officials of my department and I am unable to supply him with an answer today.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PROVINCIAL PARTICIPATION IN FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielfe-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: 
Walter Lockhart Gordon: I had a very interesting and friendly conversation with Hon. Mr. Kierans a week or two ago, I think it was. He assured me he was just delighted with the way everything is going.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Would he consider asking his good friend Mr. Kierans if he and his colleagues in the government of Quebec would be prepared to consult with the government of Canada and with the government of the province of Alberta before passing legislation or dealing with matters which could have an adverse effect on Canadians outside of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Undoubtedly this question is an interesting one, but it does raise a matter of policy far too large for an answer to be expected on orders of the day.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I have a question for the Prime Minister. If there is a division of the flag resolution by a decision of the house, will the Prime Minister consider that to be a question of confidence in the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend should wait until the resolution is before the house.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforlh):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he is ready now to answer my question of yesterday concerning a change in the design of the distinctive Canadian flag, and whether this will be considered a matter of confidence.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said I would answer this question subsequently, and "subsequently" has not yet arrived.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Liberals are never in a hurry.


Reid Scott: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether today is the day the proposed new Canadian flag will be flying in front of the parliament buildings; or will that day be "subsequent", too?
20220-265i
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Following a request made by certain hon. members, it is intended to fly the flag referred to in the resolution tomorrow evening, I think from 5 p.m. until flag lowering time.


Reid Scott: In view of the increasing national support for a flag with a single maple leaf, would the Prime Minister reconsider his announcement the other day that a flag of this design might not also be exhibited for public view?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not have a copy of that design.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Now that the right hon. gentleman has announced his intention of flying an unauthorized piece of bunting over the parliamentary grounds, is this being done under the authority of the Prime Minister or by order in council?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is being done at the request of certain members of parliament made in this house, replied to by me and not objected to by my hon. friend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Actually, Mr. Speaker, we understand the fine spirit of co-operation between the two parties, but I ask the Prime Minister this. What possible justification is there for flying this flag? Has there been an order in council passed? If not, it cannot be justified; that is all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is the same justification as for making available to members a pictorial representation when the resolution was introduced, which my hon. friends were very glad indeed to receive to assist them in their consideration of this resolution.


John George Diefenbaker: What about answering the question as to what justification the Prime Minister has to fly this on parliament hill before it has been accepted? Has he arrived at a point where he is the boss and determines these questions, I would like to know, without order in council?


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege. The Prime Minister said that no objection had been taken in the house to flying this unauthorized flag on parliament hill. I want to voice an objection personally right now that no unauthorized flag should be flown on parliament hill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is, of course, well known that a question of privilege should be raised at the time the matter arises in the House of Commons. This matter arose last week and no one raised a question of privilege or an objection at that time.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has taken this attitude, I suggest that every one of the 3,000 flags which have been presented to the government be flown for 15 minutes every day until they have all been flown.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister has said it is only proper that members should have an opportunity to see the flag the government has in mind displayed on a flagstaff, may I ask him why the government should have any monopoly in this regard, and why other political parties which may have different designs they wish to display are not to be given an opportunity to do so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government has no claim to any monopoly in this regard, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. friend wishes to fly a design at any place in any circumstances, he is at liberty to do so. But the government has taken its responsibility of putting a resolution on the order paper submitting to the House of Commons a flag of a certain design. Some hon. members thought it would aid in the consideration of that design, submitted by the government for parliamentary decision, to have the flag flying so they could see how that particular design looks.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is quite right, but all I am asking him is this. Since there are a number of flagpoles, why are the other political parties which have other designs not to be allowed to display them?


John George Diefenbaker: I return to this matter, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister tries to laugh it off, but I ask him what possible justification is there, in view of the order in council of 1945 respecting the flying of the red ensign, to fly what is at the present moment the Prime Minister's personal choice, and to fly it on parliament hill? Tell me what vestige of parliamentary government still remains, with the Prime Minister exercising such a right?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is still, surely, a free country, and if members of the House of Commons request the showing of a design

which is referred to in a resolution before the house, surely it is a matter of courtesy for the government to accede to that request.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Liberal propaganda.


Mr. G. L. Chailerion (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister received a request from a larger number of members not to fly the new flag, would the Prime Minister give equal consideration to that request?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Answer.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Could he have put up, in front of the parliament buildings, all the poles that we see on United Nations day? By so doing, we could fly about 85 or 90 flags and allow the members who so desire to fly a flag of their own choice and to look at them one after the other.


David Vaughan Pugh: have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Prime Minister has acceded to the request of members of parliament to fly the flag on parliament hill-one member or more; it doesn't matter- would he now accede to the request of the member for Okanagan Boundary to have his latest moving picture shown in the house?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: There's a chance to get an Oscar.


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Does he not feel that in flying the new national flag the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) will be convinced and will love it?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, lest that some time be regarded as a question unanswered, may I say no; it looks too much like a trade mark.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Two nations; two flags.


Mr. Speaker:: There are two hon. members who wish to ask questions. The first is the hon. member for Danforth and the second is the hon. member for Churchill.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether his justification for flying the proposed flag is that by reason of the resolution having been presented, that particular flag is before the house for adjudication?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is clearly out of order.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he could inform us of the exact location at which this flag will be flown. Which flagpole on parliament hill will be carrying this flag?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a suitable occasion, Mr. Speaker, and I think on a special flagpole erected for the occasion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Retreat again.


John George Diefenbaker: Backing up again.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On this question I rise alone, on my own responsibility. I want to say, sir, that sincere and emotional as all are in this House of Commons, with questions on the flag being asked every day on orders of the day, though we are at a point where a date is set for a discussion of the resolution, the way we-I say "we" and I include myself-are now carrying on in my estimation is bringing the institution of parliament into disrespect. Can we not get on with the business and deal with the motion concerning the flag when it comes before the house?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the question of privilege raised by my hon. friend I suggest to Your Honour that the question in point is whether or not this new proposed flag should be flown on government property. I suggest to the right hon. Prime Minister that as long as the order in council is on the statute books no other flag but the Canadian red ensign should be flown on government property-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alfred Dryden Hales: -and he has no right to fly this flag on government property.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the remarks of my hon. colleague from Vancouver East I think I have a legitimate question on the flag. The point has been made that only the
Inquiries of the Ministry red ensign, which is authorized, be flown. The union jack is mentioned in the resolution. Can the Prime Minister tell me whether there is any authorization for flying that flag on the hill, as some hon. members ask?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps at this time it would be useful to recall the attention of hon. members to the fact that most of these questions in my humble opinion are out of order, in that they anticipate an order which is on the order paper and which will be before the house very shortly; but due to the emotional impact of this issue the Chair has been, I think, more than reasonably lenient.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council.
He was asked recently about the civil servants working in some ministers' ridings, and he said that he would inquire and give an answer to the house.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The practice of appointing persons to the staffs of ministers outside of Ottawa is a long established practice which goes back many years. When this government took office it reviewed the practice followed by the previous administration and continued to maintain it in force. There was one change; now the appointments have to be approved by treasury board before the order in council is submitted to the governor in council.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. By what authority and precedent did the cabinet pass orders appointing staff to the constituencies of cabinet ministers; and is this practice to be continued by the government?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, staff are not appointed to constituencies, they are appointed to ministers. With regard to the point being raised as to the authority for such appointments, section 71 of the present Civil Service Act makes provision for this. Prior to the present Civil Service Act, authority was given in the section which had to do with

Inquiries of the Ministry exempt positions. There is no question about the legal validity of the appointments.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. There may be no question about the legal ability of the government to do it but there is some question about the moral right of the government to do it. The minister says these people are appointed as assistants to ministers, but do not the orders in council specifically state that, in these two instances, the staff to be appointed is to serve in the constituencies of the ministers and not in Ottawa?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not quite accurate. In one case at least the appointee is not serving in the constituency of the minister, and that may be the case in the other. I have not the orders in council before me, but in any event the point I wish to make is that the staff may be serving the minister in any area of Canada.
I think the point bothering the hon. member is whether or not they are doing government work; that is the test. I may say that this is an old practice which has gone on for a great many years, as the Leader of the Opposition knows. However, I will look into the whole question and find out exactly how it has been done in each instance.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as I was gratuitously brought into this matter may I say that throughout the entire period when I was a minister I paid for my own office assistance in Prince Albert out of my own pocket.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, if my remarks were taken by the Leader of the Opposition as a reflection upon him, they were not intended in that way. The fact is that objection was made by him to this practice when he was prime minister and also to the practices of his ministers, which practices, notwithstanding his objection, were carried on. The point is that the practice now being carried on follows that carried on previously.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to prolong this debate, but I would ask the minister whether he would be prepared when we get into interim supply to give us more information. Because if this has been the practice in the past, I think any person who examines it and what the practice could lead to, would insist that it stop.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss the matter further on interim supply. I do not yet have all the information I want. Since this question was raised in the

house I have had the appropriate officials get the information and put it together, but it is not complete at the moment. However, I will be able to give more information later.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, since the President of the Privy Council indicated that the question is whether these people are working on government business, perhaps he can answer the question I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration two days ago concerning the appointment of a man to serve at Baie des Sables, I think it was, as a special assistant. Perhaps he could also tell me whether there has ever before been an immigration office at that place, and exactly what are the duties of the gentleman who has been appointed at a salary of $7,500 a year, which is provided out of the taxpayers' money.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not have here that particular order in council-or any of them as a matter of fact-but I would repeat what I have already said two or three times in the last few minutes, that the present practice exactly follows the former practice.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


George James McIlraith: The Leader of the Opposition says "not at all"; I am sorry to have to differ with him. I said I would look into the whole matter, and I repeat that this practice follows precisely the practice followed by the former government.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I immediately answer that, as I did a moment ago, by saying that statement is without justification. May I ask the minister of immigration to tell us something about this man who is going to work at this place for the immigration department. The minister is here; let him answer. He is of age.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has had someone appointed in his constituency, which is an area not noted as a place where immigrants land. Would the minister say what is the purpose of this appointment? What will the duties of this gentleman be? Surely the minister is not going to adopt the same answer he did the other day, that "Whatever I do is right". Tell us the facts.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration what will be the duties of Mr. Cote who has been appointed at Baie



II, 1964

[Stage Direction]
des Sables, in his constituency, and what will be his duties as special assistant to the department of immigration?
Mr. Speaker:: I think all these questions illustrate the fact that when detailed information is needed, either notice should be given or the question should be placed on the order paper. It may be possible that the information is known by the minister, but I do not think it is reasonable at this time to expect a detailed statement on a matter of this nature. I suggest that these questions should be put on the order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I say that surely the minister, who is spending $7,500 of the Canadian people's money to have what looks like a patronage appointment made in his own constituency, should rise and give us the facts. The answer he should give is not very intricate, but he should tell us the facts.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: It is patronage.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we accept the principle that you set forth a few minutes ago, but we believe we would be entitled to know from the minister on what date he will make a statement about this. At the present time the minister remains seated and does not say whether he will make a statement and he declines to say when he will give information to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is argument, not a question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we are not asking the government to give us any detailed information. We are simply asking a very easy question, and it is why did order in council P.C. 1964-5/490 appoint a Mr. Andre Cote as a special assistant to the office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration at Baie des Sables? Why is the government appointing, at public expense, an official who resides in the minister's constituency? Surely that is a simple question to which the minister ought to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked the question twice, I believe, and if I understood the President of the Privy Council he said he had taken full notice of the question and would reply in detail, either on his estimates or very shortly.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is in exactly the same position. Perhaps she is prepared to give an explanation which would save the house waiting for the President of the Privy Council.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to me we have had a full discussion of this point at the moment.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the question put to me by saying that I have engaged someone as a part of my clerical staff, as part of my ministerial staff, which happens to be located there, in Niagara Falls, to look after the responsibilities of the department in my constituency, and that I did this in pursuance of the practice-which I checked into first-of numerous ministers in the last government.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not so.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Including my immediate predecessor.


Mr. Monleilh:: Very definitely not.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that she-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do think we have had more than sufficient discussion on this point, in view of the fact that details will be furnished, and of course I assume full details, by the ministers concerned.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether an assistant of that kind to her department will be appointed in the Lapointe constituency.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, parliament
deserves answers from ministers on simple questions, and I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether this Mr. Cote, for instance, is one of those who look after the imprisonment of people in Toronto over a period of time. Is that the type of duty he is going to exercise, or what will his duties be?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the implication in that question was not intended.

Farm Credit Act


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to get some information from this silent minister who spends $7,500 of the people's money and won't tell us what for.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that I represent a riding 3,000 miles from Ottawa, would she support the principle that I could appoint a public relations officer in my riding at government expense?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, it is not my responsibility as a member of the privy council to decide whether the hon. member needs a public relations officer. The individual I have appointed is a widow with two children-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: -and she is, as I said, a member of my secretarial and clerical staff.


Harold Edward Winch: As a supplementary question, can I appoint a widow with five children?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



FARM CREDIT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-100, to amend the Farm Credit Act-Mr. Hays-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Farming.
Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying yesterday, war should be declared against the agricultural depression prevailing in Quebec ridings, an unrelenting war where technology, financial resources and all our talents would be used to find solutions acceptable to our farmers. At the same time we would wage war against hunger, want and collective poverty. As legislators, we should be more conscious of our responsibilities and we would perhaps be more worthy then of our title of representatives of the people.
Before I conclude, I should like to direct one question to the minister. Could he tell us whether he will consider the possibility of having the corporation reduce its interest rates, change the conditions concerning loan applications and see how it could contribute

financially to the establishment of markets for farm products? When can we expect a reply?
I am also asking the minister whether the government will soon make a decision as to the possibility of granting subsidies for grain shipping by truck right to the farm. Such a measure, requested by several farmers' associations, would be a great help, and I cannot see why the government could not comply with such a request.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few comments on this particular item, and I am going to relate my remarks rather exclusively to the particular clause itself although I may have to wander a little bit in order to make the point I think I should make. Subsection 2 raises some questions in my mind as to whether this amending bill is departing from the original purposes for which the legislation was conceived.
In order to refresh our memories as to what that purpose was I would like to refer to section 16 of the act which, as I understand it, has not been amended. If it has been amended I would be glad to have the minister tell me. Section 16 (b) reads:
Loans under this act shall be made only to farmers who are actually engaged In or are shortly to become engaged In the operation of the mortgaged farm and whose experience, ability and character are such as to warrant the belief that the farm to be mortgaged will be successfully operated;
These are wise, sensible and realistic provisions, and should be the kernel around which all this legislation is built; but looking at some of the amendments proposed in this bill I am wondering whether we are in fact departing from that particular principle. My reason is not only a general one in so far as the value of the legislation to the country as a whole is concerned, but I think I am entitled to relate this to the situation in my area and in the northern parts of Canada.
To emphasize this point I want to refer very briefly to a pamphlet issued by the Canadian council of resource ministers, volume 1, No. 3, for March, 1964. In that pamphlet there is a comment with regard to the particular area in which I am interested with respect to the application of the act and this particular amendment to the act. I am only going to give a digest of it, but I think it is quite important.
Homesteading, the historic method of settlement on the prairies, is undergoing a revival in the virgin lands of northern Alberta. A farm land boom has been under way since 1961. In

that first year, 1,371 applications were recorded. During the next year, to March 31, 1963, a total of 2,350 applications were received, and in the current year, to February 26, 2,350 applications have been filed.
In other words, in something less than three years over 6,000 applications for new land have been received from people proposing to go on the land and farm it. I think this area is probably one of the few left in Canada where we find a variation from the normal pattern of people leaving farms. The minister visited this area last winter and will bear me out in what I say. Here in the northern part of Alberta people are going on the land. But having in mind the nature of farming, the cost of breaking, brushing and clearing land and the cost of machinery and equipment, in order to farm the land effectively, produce efficiently and make a contribution to the economy of the country, certain financial assistance is required, and this legislation has been most effective in providing it.
I can say that in the quarter of a century before this act came into effect less than half a million dollars was lent under the old farm loan board in the entire northwestern part of Alberta, including all of Peace River constituency. I do not have the precise figure, but I believe that in the last four years loans have aggregated approximately $12 million. So we have the striking contrast of half a million dollars lent in 25 years and $12 million in four years. This indicates the intense interest that I, on behalf of the people of my constituency and in other northern areas, have in this matter, and why I question whether in what the minister is proposing we are not possibly departing from the main purpose of the legislation.
What is this purpose? If one looks at the annual reports of the Farm Credit Corporation over a number of years we find a very interesting contrast. In the fiscal year 1957-58 moneys used to purchase land were limited to 27.7 per cent of the total amount lent. For the fiscal year 1962-63 the amount for land purchases and improvements represented 66.8 per cent. In other words there has been a doubling.
This is the manner in which the utmost value will be obtained from this legislation, by the money being used to buy land, to make improvements and to purchase cattle. On the reverse side of the picture, in 1957-58 the amount of money used to pay off land and other debts was approximately 56.6 per cent. In the last fiscal year for which we have information, 1962-63, this was reduced to 20220-266
Farm Credit Act
approximately 30 per cent. I think this is also a very necessary and wise change in the trend.
Having laid that foundation, let us look at this particular clause, and I am going to deal particularly with subclause 2, which reads as follows:
For the purposes of part II the corporation may deem the executor or the administrator of the estate of a deceased farmer to be a farmer within the meaning of paragraph (e) of subsection 1.
This raises two sincere questions in my mind which I think the minister might consider. First, what about the situation of an executor or administrator which is a trust company? As I understand the legislation, it is not intended to be applied to limited corporations save only those corporations which are defined as family corporations under the pertinent regulations. I have not the section at hand, but I am sure the minister can ascertain what it is from his officials. The legislation is applicable to farm corporations as defined in the regulations.
I pose this question to the minister. A trust company, which is a limited company, of course, either by act of parliament or under the pertinent companies act of the province or of the federal government, is certainly not a farming corporation as defined by the regulations. I am not opposed in a limited way to what is suggested here, but I wonder whether the minister in his consideration of this particular subsection would not find it necessary to spell out the matter in detail if it is proposed to extend this particular benefit to an executor or administrator which happens to be a limited company.
I am thinking of the responsibility which otherwise might be thrust upon the very hard working and efficient officials and employees of the Farm Credit Corporation who may have to decide questions of this kind, which I think should be decided here in parliament and not left to the discretion of the officials.
Second, I put this question to the minister. In doing so I have in mind the purpose of the act as set out in section 16 (b) where it is provided as follows:
Loans under this act shall be made only to farmers who are actually engaged in or are shortly to become engaged in the operation of the mortgaged farm and whose experience, ability and character are such as to warrant the belief that the farm to be mortgaged will be successfully operated.
I can visualize cases where the farmer has made his application and while the documents are in the process of being prepared he passes away. His administrator or executor would then be able to apply under this

Farm Credit Act
particular amendment. How would the officials deal with such a case, having in mind the fact that they must take into consideration the provisions of section 16 (b)? Take the situation where there is a widow with young children. How would it be possible for the officials to be able to say that the particular loan was being made to a farmer actually engaged in or shortly to become engaged in the operation of the mortgaged farm?
Certainly the particular circumstances will have to be considered. If the deceased farmer left an adult son or sons who are on the farm and who have made their intention to continue the farming operation plain to the corporation, then discretion could be exercised and there would be compliance with the principle of the act which is the kernel of the whole scheme. But if this is not done I can see situations arising where this particular subclause could be invoked and could be used only for the purpose of settling estates.
As I pointed out before, this places the very considerable onus and responsibility upon the officials of having to make this decision, a decision which I think parliament should make by including apt words in the legislation. How would the departmental officials deal with a situation where there was an administrator or an executor but nothing specific to indicate that farming operations were going to be carried on by the beneficiaries of the deceased?
The minister might not be able to answer right now, but I would ask him to consider the matter and, at least before the amendments are passed, indicate if other changes or other amendments in the regulations may be considered which will make it quite plain that we are not passing these amendments to depart from the original principle that these moneys are to be available only for the purpose of carrying on farm operations, and not to settle estates.


Mr. Hays:: With great respect for the hon. member's point, Mr. Chairman, may I say that we have gone into this matter with our legal people. The Farm Credit Corporation has had to deal with many of these cases of hardship. We feel that the point has been taken care of quite well. A question has been raised in connection with a widow with a very small family, but this is not the type of case with which we hope to deal although these cases will be taken care of as well. Where there is a son 17, 18 or 19 years old, not of

legal age, then the executor acts on his behalf until such time as he can legally take over the farm.
Then, there is the case of a widow who may have a vested interest in the farm, possibly for as long as she lives. In that case it may be that, in conjunction with the executor, the farm could be operated for her protection. Our legal people have taken a long look at this provision and at the cases of hardship that have been brought to our attention. We are merely trying to broaden the provision so that it would take care of these cases of hardship. I appreciate the inquiries hon. members have made, but we feel we have adequately provided for these cases.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to briefly make one or two suggestions to the minister. First of all, as one who is interested in the tree farming aspect of farming, I may say that I was pleased to hear the minister read the regulations yesterday. I am sure this knowledge will be welcomed by a number of persons who were quite uncertain as to just what was intended in so far as the application of this section and the definition of the word "farmer" was concerned.
I am interested in tree farming operations all across Canada. I notice that in eastern Canada you call them woodlots, but in British Columbia we call them tree farms. They are a great source of winter income to many types of farmers in the interior of British Columbia. I am not one who believes that everyone living on a farm is required to have an economic family farm according to the business interpretation of those words. There are many types of farms. We have gentlemen farmers, you know, who have private incomes and treat the farm as a hobby. Then we have maintenance farms. I have a number of people whose incomes, compared with those in urban areas, would be considered very low, but whose relative income would be about three times as high because they have a high standard of living. Then there is some place for the part-time farmer and the maintenance farm.
A number of these smaller farmers are taking an increasing interest in tree farming. I know a number of persons in my constituency who have five acres in fruit or 50 acres in a general farm, and who have anything from 100 acres to 1,000 acres in tree farming or woodlots as they are called in Ontario. They are combining these operations very successfully. It is on that account I was pleased to hear the minister read the regulation. In

fact I have some farmers who are cutting all the way from a few thousand feet of lumber a year up to one or two million feet a year. This illustrates how this type of farming has developed in recent years.
I urge the minister to provide for a study of the various aspects of tree farming in Canada. The circumstances vary so much in the various localities from the maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, and the prairie provinces to British Columbia. I believe we should study the relationship of of the various types of tree farming to the various types of agriculture in the areas concerned. I am not sure whether the minister has the officials within his department to make such a study; they may be in the Department of Forestry.
There has to be some attention paid to this increasingly important section of farming. There should be some study of the types of tree farming, the types of production, the types of markets available for these products in various areas. I believe some consideration should also be given to research into the application of the principles of taxation to meet these various circumstances. I suggest it would be a good idea for those interested and the officials concerned with this study to look into the principles of taxation applied in Great Britain and Europe to those persons who are considering trees as a crop and maintaining their capital for future generations.
I believe there could be more attention given by the corporation to this aspect. I am speaking not only as the member for Kootenay West but as the president of the Canadian tree farmers' association, which offers its full co-operation to the minister in anything he may do in this respect. I believe if this study is undertaken, more information will be available to those who are interested. What the corporation is willing to do for this aspect of farming could be greatly assisted as a result of the amendments to this act.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the hon. member has said. We have an interdepartmental committee working on the problem, and I will be glad to bring these remarks to their attention. It seems, as a result of our studies in the last year, that some of the questions the hon. member has raised are of great importance, because if these woodlots had been extended into economic units many of the problems would have been resolved. We have the manager of ARDA on this committee, because it relates very closely to forestry.
20220-266J
Farm Credit Act
I believe that as a result of this study and the extension of these loans by the Farm Credit Corporation we will accomplish what the hon. member has suggested. Certainly we have this in mind. Personally I feel it is a very good suggestion, and we will pass it along. I am sure we can resolve some of the problems we have had in the past from coast to coast.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to personally thank the minister for his remarks and assurances in this respect, on behalf of those who have been particularly interested in the application of this act to the tree farming 1 have mentioned.


Mr. Korchinski:: I should like to make a few remarks on this first clause. I am concerned over v/hat may happen in the case of a widow with a few children when the estate is not settled. The administrator may feel that a loan may be necessary and the officials of the corporation may agree with him. However, some of these loans are taken out for 30 years, for example, and the members of the family, as they become of legal age, may want to have the estate settled. They may feel they are not going to get a fair share of what might have been the value of the property at the time the father died. In some instances the property may have lost in value as a result of poor management or unfortunate circumstances.
I am concerned that in such a case the department may find itself a contributor to a grievance in later years. I am wondering whether there will be some strict provision made in order to avoid legal entanglements in future years.


Harry William Hays: I think this is the same problem as we have been debating ever since we began to consider clause 1. We shall certainly take these things into consideration and make sure that there will be no such difficulties as the hon. member suggests.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am just wondering
whether the minister intends to make strict provisions either in the regulations or by some other means for setting out the rules, which will have to be followed closely. Otherwise I can envisage many complications arising in later years.


Harry William Hays: Every necessary precaution will be taken and we shall bear in mind all the points which have been raised in the last two days in this connection.
4192	HOUSE OF
Farm Credit Act


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief. I simply want to commend the government and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) for the fine legislation submitted to the house, to double the borrowing power of our farmers.
To my mind, Mr. Chairman, this legislation will be a stimulating one for our farmers, and more particularly those of the province of Quebec, who, I think, suffer from an "inferiority complex".
Too many farmers in the province of Quebec are afraid to increase their farming operations, and if today, there are complaints that so many farms do not pay their way, for instance in the riding of Lotbiniere, 1,100 farms have a gross income of less than $2,500 a year it may result from certain farm policies, but it is also due to the fact that too many farmers do not want to expand their operations, enlarge their acreage.
Consequently, the fact of granting them increased borrowing power will incite them to extend their acreage and to own larger farm units, thus increasing their productivity and, hence, their income.
I therefore congratulate the government for introducing such a measure and, if I may, I shall make a suggestion to the minister. Our farmers have vented certain grievances, which, I think, are quite justified, and I would more particularly draw the minister's attention to the following case. Several farmers in my riding who made loan applications to the Farm Credit Corporation, complain, and rightly so, that the evaluation process is very slow; too much time goes by before someone comes around to set a value on their farm and tell them whether they are entitled to a loan.
I therefore call the attention of the minister to this situation which affects our farmers, and I would ask him to have the procedure accelerated, so that the evaluation of those farms is done more quickly and that the farmers who apply for a loan get their answer sooner.


Mr. Cardiff:: Perhaps I can claim to have more knowledge of farm loans than any other member of the house. Certainly I had more to do with the veterans farm loan board than any other member remaining in the house at the present time.
From 1943 until 1950 I was trying to rehabilitate the boys who came back from the war. At that time we had men in the field


who very often knew little or nothing about land values. We had difficulties in getting these boys installed on farms which were suitable for making a living. We had to intercede for them, otherwise they would have found it almost impossible to get the land. I have had a lot to do with the Farm Credit Corporation and with the farm loan board before that. I have great respect for the men who have been at the head of that organization, Mr. Rutherford, in the first place and then Mr. Owens. I know both of these gentlemen very well. They have been doing an excellent job. One cannot expect these men to be responsible for all the mistakes which are made. They have field men out in the field who make many of these decisions. They should be very particular men and do their jobs well.
You cannot always judge these matters strictly according to the value of the farm; you must take into consideration the man who is seeking the loan. Sometimes you get a young man who wants to start farming but he does not have any considerable amount of money. Yet his reputation is good and if given a chance it is not long before he makes a name for himself. The point is this; It is getting harder and harder to start boys on a farm if they do not have money. When I started farming I started with practically nothing and worked my way up in a few years so that I was able to get a little credit. But a boy cannot even start farming nowadays unless he has, say, $10,000. A boy who is inclined to favour agriculture finds it difficult to get enough money to start, and his only hope lies in the farm loan board. You cannot get private mortgages any more because the money lenders will not lend money to farmers.
I have read over this bill and I am not entirely against the amendments being sought. However I have not studied them sufficiently well to pass an opinion on them. I am inclined to be dubious about parts of the bill and I think perhaps I will wait until the other clauses come up for consideration before I pass judgment on them. I wanted to say something because of the fact that I have had so much to do with farm loans during the years trying to get these boys started on farms. Many of the older men who have boys coming along find it difficult to carry on without the help of the boys, and the boys find that unless father has a little money to give them they cannot get started on their own.

The minister said he was anxious about boys 16, 17 and 18 years of age. Mind you, there is an awful lot of difference in boys. You get a boy sometimes who is almost a man by the time he is 16 and you get another who does not develop until he is 20, 21 or 22. Take a boy who is level headed and interested in farming. At 16 he is as good a man as he will ever be and can do as much work. I think the minister is justified in looking after loans of this sort.
I am not so sure about how the interest rates are to be arrived at. I think it should be set down in clear words; there should be no guesswork. I agree that the interest rate is not to be increased above 5 per cent in respect of loans up to $20,000 and, in another case, up to $27,500. But 1 am not sure what the intention is with regard to loans outside that category. I will try to find out before the bill goes through.
Let us bear in mind that for as long as I can remember-and that is a long time- farmers have always been short of money. Some farmers of course have been lent money. But the man who has to earn his income on a farm is generally short of money and the only way in which he can get along is by means of loans from the government. I do not want to see interest rates jacked up until the loan is impossible to repay. Some people say: What about industry? That is another matter. Industry makes more money than farming does, and a farmer cannot be expected to pay the kind of rates expected from industry. I hope that when the other clauses come before the committee I will be able to understand them a little better.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, rising to take part in the debate on clause 1 of Bill No. C-100 I would first like to congratulate the farm credit officials for the wonderful job they have done in administering this act and making it applicable to many of the farm areas throughout Canada. Certainly, no matter how good the act is, amendments are required from time to time to keep up with and ahead of the expanding economy and the expanding circumstances of farming and agriculture. I think, though, that in some respects the amendments before us today will have a tendency to narrow the application of the Farm Credit Act, rather than widen it.
I am somewhat concerned to see in the 1962-63 annual report, the last one that is available, that on page 5 it states that during the fiscal year some 21,000 farmers consulted
Farm Credit Act
the corporation, and it goes on to state that only 9,875 received loans; 46 per cent completed formal loan applications. I am concerned about the other 11,000 people who did not get loans and whether the act was suitable for the type of loan about which they consulted the corporation. I think that, rather than increasing the amount available we should make the money that is now available applicable to more farmers in more areas of Canada.
It pleases me a great deal to see at the top of page 5 that the Farm Credit Corporation in its fourth annual report had this to say with regard to the amendments brought in in 1962. It is said that the amendment of the Farm Credit Act in November, 1962, "will considerably enlarge the scope of the corporation's future lending activity". This is the type of legislation we brought in at that time; we allowed farmers to borrow money on the income they earned outside of their direct income from the farm. This in some way must have brought in some of the 11,000 persons who approached the corporation the year before last-and in fact approach them every year-and did not get a loan because their cases were perhaps not suitable for receiving a loan from the corporation.
While I have this annual report in my hands I think it should be pointed out, as it probably has been a number of times already, that of the some 7,000 loans approved, the average loan was a little better than $12,000. As the minister pointed out in his speech opening this debate, only some 11 per cent of those who applied for a loan asked for the maximum amount available. This makes me wonder whether increasing these loans to $40,000 and $55,000 is actually meeting the requirements of the many people who applied for loans and did not receive them. I think perhaps the Farm Credit Corporation's greatest benefit to farmers is its attitude toward establishing young farmers, farmers on uneconomic units and small farmers; to get them on their feet and up to the standard of an economic unit. There has been a great deal of talk regarding what is an economic unit. I imagine the minister has his own views in this respect I am led to believe that in the minister's view an economic unit would be a very large one indeed, as he is sponsoring maximum loans of $40,000 and $55,000. It is not that I have anything against loans of this size because I well realize that many farms cost a great deal to maintain and operate. However, I also realize that in order for a farmer to borrow $40,000 or $55,000 from the

Farm Credit Act
Farm Credit Corporation he must himself have in the neighbourhood of from $10,000 to $20,000 to apply to the farm.
This brings me to the point, Mr. Chairman, as to how many small farmers can take advantage of a $40,000 loan when they must have 25 per cent of that amount in cash or negotiable securities in order for their application to be approved by the Farm Credit Corporation. Certainly not many farmers in my area have $10,000 in negotiable securities which they could put forward on an application for a loan of $40,000 from the corporation.
I am greatly concerned that making this large amount of money available will be of direct benefit to the large farmers and of no real benefit, or very small benefit, to the small farmers. Some 54 per cent of the people who consulted the Farm Credit Corporation nearly every year find that the corporation does not meet their needs with regard to loans. Perhaps the same 54 per cent reappear the next year and are able to find their needs fulfilled; I have no doubt that this is the case on many occasions. But I am concerned about the 54 per cent who are turned away or who leave on their own account. I do not think a $40,000, or a $55,000 loan under part III, will in any way help these 54 per cent who are turned away every year and find that the Farm Credit Corporation is not meeting their needs.
One must look at farm income, at the products produced in the various areas of Canada, to see whether the farmers in these areas would be able to pay back a loan of this large amount. When you consider the statistics of the last census in 1961 you realize that some 480,000 farmers in Canada had an average realized net income, even in the more prosperous provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the prairies, perhaps, of less than $3,000 a year. This leads me to believe, once again, that the average farmer cannot make use of a $55,000 loan which will be the maximum obtainable when this measure is passed. We realize that in some areas of Canada agriculture lags behind other areas. Some parts of Quebec and the mar-itimes have not really taken full advantage of the Farm Credit Corporation. In 1962-63 only some 60 loans were made in the province of Nova Scotia; this compares with some 2,000 in Saskatchewan, I think. When one looks at the income figures for these provinces-I think the realized net income figure for the average farm in the province of Quebec was something like $1,200, and the maritimes was
[Mr. Horner (Acadia) .1
not too much higher-he understands why farmers in those areas cannot pay back a huge loan of $40,000 or $55,000. This convinces me that these amendments will be directly aimed at benefiting the large farmer.
When the Farm Credit Corporation was set up in 1959 I thought its main purpose was to help only those farmers who needed money, those farmers who were farming on what could be termed relatively uneconomic units. I thought this was a wonderful principle which would help raise the standard of living on farms all across Canada, and in it I saw hope for many farmers and particularly those who most needed a loan.
I have the feeling, in view of these amendments to the act, that the principle of the Farm Credit Corporation will slowly change and go back to the old idea that those who have the most will get the most by way of loans. This is a fear which I feel I should express at this time. Up to this point I think the corporation has done a wonderful job to help farmers who really need a loan, but I fear that increasing the amount of the loan will perhaps destroy the initial principle on which the Farm Credit Corporation was founded.
I also think that under clause 3 a greater erosion of this principle is feasible. The clause suggests that a father, uncle or brother can borrow money on behalf of a son, son-in-law, daughter, daughter-in-law, nephew, niece and so on. This may sound good, but it may well allow-and I should like to know whether or not it will allow- a farmer operating what is now classified as a commercialized enterprise and who is not entitled to a loan from the corporation, to borrow money for his son who, by reason of age, is not yet able to carry on the farm. Perhaps the son is 12, 14 or even 16 and still at school; and we all hope that he will stay at school for as long as he can. But this clause may well allow a farmer who was not otherwise entitled to a loan to borrow money on his own credentials for his son, son-in-law and so on, and in fact create even a larger corporation around him and his family. Perhaps I see greater dangers in the clause than are evident to the minister.
The hon. member for Peace River suggested that the settlement of an estate could also lead to a corporate type of operation in a case where the initial borrower dies, leaving a wife and several children to carry on the repayment of the loan while the farm operation is managed in trust, perhaps by a trust company for all we know. This would tend to

direct money advanced by the Farm Credit Corporation into the more commercialized operation, the sort of operation which really would not qualify under the initial principle of the Farm Credit Corporation, which was to help those who needed help most.
I noticed that at the beginning of the minister's remarks in introducing the debate he stated that the principle of the Farm Credit Corporation was to make loans for the buying of livestock and equipment, as well as to improve farm buildings and houses. If one looks at the money which has been paid out by the Farm Credit Corporation, some 80 per cent of it has been directed toward paying land debts and buying more land, whereas only some 3 per cent was applied to the purchase of livestock.
The minister went on to point out that another principle of the Farm Credit Corporation was to assist the small farmer to expand his enterprise to an economical size. I wonder whether the minister could give us some idea as to what he feels is an economical size, not in acreage but as far as capitalization is concerned. Perhaps the corporation have some figures they use as a rough guide which in turn will guide the committee this afternoon in its discussion of this bill.
I am also concerned at the rate of interest payable on loans over $20,000 and $27,500 under part III. In some respects perhaps it is an established principle that, if one has a sound credit rating, the more money one borrows from the bank the lower the interest rate. But here it is the opposite: the more money one borrows the higher the interest rate. A high interest rate on a large loan makes it all the more difficult to meet the repayments. One hon. member mentioned that a loan of $55,000 taken over 35 years would mean that a borrower had paid back $125,000 at the end of the term. This gives the committee some idea as to what this interest rate means; it means a lot of money to the person who is repaying the loan.
I, like the former speaker, should like to see the interest rates spelled out in the bill so that the farmers would know exactly what this means to them. A farmer taking a $25,000 loan under part II of the act would perhaps be better advised to borrow the money under part III of the act unless the interest rate made a great difference. He would have to get advice from the corporation, but it might save him the difference in interest between the rate on $20,000 and that on $27,500. That may be an avenue which could be explored.
Farm Credit Act
The minister stated that in some respects these amendments are reinforcing the position of family farms. I have grave doubts whether this would be accomplished. The average family farm, judging from the 480,000 farmers in Canada, involves a capitalization around $30,000; and nearly half our farmers have an acreage of 250 acres or less. As a result of the amendments I am afraid that the capital will be slowly drawn off, and perhaps not immediately but in the ensuing years there will be a tendency for the corporation to place large sums of money in good secure hands, but it will not bring about the improvement in over-all farm standards which we should like to see.
I realize that the Farm Credit Corporation is sometimes rather a stickler, with regard to making loans, in ensuring that a farmer borrows enough money to establish himself on what the corporation calls an economical unit. I have had a number of farmers come to me and tell me they want to borrow only $3,000 or $4,000, but that the corporation has said that that was no good, that they should find a farm value at $20,000 and that they would receive a loan of $20,000. That is why these amendments concern me today. There are a number of farmers-I am sure this is the case in many areas of Canada-who, having farmed a half section of land for the last ten years, suddenly find available a quarter section of land adjacent to their own farm.
They want to buy this and it can be bought for $5,000 or $6,000. However, the corporation says, "No; this still does not give you an economic unit in our way of thinking and we would not lend you $5,000 or $6,000, but if you find a bigger farm, a well established farm, we will lend you $20,000." This may sound good in principle but many cases have been pointed out to me where a farmer, who has existed for ten years on a half section of land, sees a piece of land adjacent to him that he wants, but the corporation will not lend him the money to buy it. As the years go by maybe another quarter section would become available and eventually he would be able to establish himself on a full economic unit.
I also believe the corporation should continue to make and process loans throughout the winter. It has been its policy not to make appraisals after the first snow flies, but at times it is pretty difficult to shut down and wait until spring. You have other agencies and departments of government saying, "Do it now; why wait till spring?" But the

Farm Credit Act
corporation takes the attitude that once the first snow flies it must shut down on appraisals and wait until spring.
Perhaps the Farm Credit Corporation might not be as brave in its winter appraisals as in its summer ones, but it could process applications and perhaps not pay loans on as large a scale as in the summer months. In this connection I am thinking of a particular case of a farmer who had rented a place for five or six years. He knew it as well as he knew his own place. The owner died and, in order for the estate to be settled, the farm had to be sold, and this man could not wait until spring to obtain the money to buy the farm. If the corporation had been taking applications and appraising land during the winter months he could have enlarged his farm. I am sure this situation exists in many parts of Canada.
In Alberta last winter many southern parts had no snow, but the corporation claimed the ground was frozen and it could not make an appraisal. There is no real difficulty in taking a chunk of frozen ground into a house, thawing it out, and conducting a soil test on it. For that reason I say this is one particular regulation that could be removed.
Under the terms of this bill we are asked to place our judgment in the hands of the corporation with regard to estate administrators, and with regard to people borrowing money on behalf of their sons or sons-in-law. Up to the present time the corporation has done a real good job in administering the act. I have full confidence in it, and I believe it could process many applications throughout the winter months in many parts of Canada. This would be an additional benefit to small farmers who need money during the winter when pieces of land come up for sale.
In closing I say that if the minister is trying to assist the small farmer, to strengthen and reinforce the family farm, he should give further consideration to the amendments he proposes. To me it appears that increasing the amounts of loans to $40,000 and $50,000 is a millionaire's approach to the solution of agricultural problems. It may be of real benefit to some farmers, to a small percentage of the applicants, but I greatly fear that many of the 55 per cent of the applicants who are turned down, or who go away from the corporation of their own accord each year, will not benefit very much from this proposal.
The minister has said further amendments will be necessary. I hope he gives greater

consideration to some amendments which would be more beneficial to the small farmers across Canada.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I assume the hon. member is opposed to the larger loans, and I think I should explain our thinking in this regard. Last year we loaned $108 million to the Farm Credit Corporation across Canada, and we have about $378 million, as of this week, at loan to the corporation. Last year, outside of this, the farmers used another $235 million worth of credit. They borrowed another $235 million at interest rates over 10 per cent. These are the figures obtained by the corporation in its study, and this is part of the reason why we are increasing these loans.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: For the purchase of land?


Harry William Hays: For the purchase of chattels and that sort of thing. Under the terms of the legislation 60 per cent is for land and 40 per cent for other chattels. Further, a recent study made by the Quebec department of agriculture into what an economic unit should be, showed that a dairy farmer, with 100 acres, must have a contract for the supply of between 200,000 pounds and 400,000 pounds of milk a year. The cost of such a unit in Quebec is about $40,000. If it is an economic beef operation the same study shows that a farmer will require between 200 and 300 acres of land for 50 head of cattle. Further, in the eastern United States their loans total $60,000 for land, plus an additional $35,000 for livestock, $95,000 in total. It was in this context that we brought forward these amendments. There is nothing to say a smaller farmer cannot use this, and this was our thinking in introducing the amendments.


Mr. Rynard:: I have a case of a man starting to organize a dairy farm, and he has some money. He has enough to make a start and he is going to build a unit where he will keep around 75 head of dairy cattle on a 25 acre farm, with about 25 more acres in timber or woodlot. He figures that he can buy feed for the cattle, keep a milker to do the job with the equipment he is intent on providing, and make it an economic operation. Is it possible for this man to secure a loan under this legislation?
As the minister knows, his cattle will cost him around $30,000, and he estimates another $25,000 for equipment. He figures that he can run this unit more economically by paying the cost of labour than by buying a lot

of machinery to harvest a two or three hundred acre farm to supply his cattle with feed. Does this fellow qualify?


Harry William Hays: I realize the hon. member is raising a hypothetical situation.


Philip Bernard Rynard: It is only in part hypothetical; this question has been posed to me.


Harry William Hays: In discussing this with the officials we have discussed many cases so that we would know how to broaden the act. I believe that the Farm Credit Corporation has more trouble in eastern Canada in suggesting to an individual applicant that he should borrow a greater amount of money. If he is to have an economic unit in order to repay the loan, he probably needs $40,000 and not $10,000. An applicant will refuse $15,000, but oftentimes he cannot pay back $15,000 if he does not have $30,000 to make his unit economical. The Quebec department also learned this from their study. The whole problem with farming is that those farmers who are operating at a subsistence level must have their operations converted into an economic unit, and certainly it will take a great deal more credit if he is going to be able to repay.


Philip Bernard Rynard: There is only this further point. What about the case of the farmer who feels he has an economic unit and can prove to the Farm Credit Corporation with facts and figures that he can operate his farm as an economic unit? I am sure the minister knows as well as I do that there are people operating farms of this type in Ontario today who are doing very well. What I want to find out from the minister is whether they will consider these highly specialized farms for farm credit?


Harry William Hays: Yes, Mr. Chairman. An economic unit is a unit where the man can meet his obligations, pay his taxes and keep his family. Anything that will do that certainly is an economic unit.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, the more I listen to the minister the more I am convinced that he has completely missed the purpose of this legislation when it was first introduced in the House of Commons. I do not take exception to legislation which will provide an increase in the amount of loans where a larger loan can be made use of, unless we are to have the increase without also broadening the scope of the act to take care of the 11,000 farmers per year who have
Farm Credit Act
been unable to take advantage of the act as it is now constituted.
A few minutes ago something was said by the hon. member for Lotbiniere about the problems in his area. I listened to the minister's remarks yesterday and today and it seems to me that the whole situation has escaped him, so far as the need of people faced with a particular problem is concerned. Before we proceed to broaden the act to make loans in excess of $27,500 available and double the amount available for individual farm units, I believe that something should be done for the vast number of farm people to be found in every part of the country who up to now have been unable to benefit from the legislation.
In saying that, I am not discrediting the legislation that has been brought forward or the good work that has been done by the officials who have tried to put the legislation into effect for the benefit of agriculture. All of us know that the legislation introduced in 1959, and amended later, requires further amendment from time to time to meet situations as they arise. Surely we have learned something from the experience of the last few years. In looking at the record of loans the thing that impresses me most is that the losses have been so small. That being so, it would seem to me that because of the regulations that have been in effect we surely must have been bypassing a great number of farmers who deserve loans.
I should like the minister to give more than passing consideration to this problem. I am disturbed by the legislation as presented, particularly clause 3 which enables the borrower to acquire farmland for his son or daughter, and so on. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, but it indicates the trend of thinking of the government. We must realize that land is getting scarcer in Canada today and that the purpose of establishing the Farm Credit Corporation was to bring as many people as possible into active agricultural production. The amendments before us today have the reverse effect. Unless the minister is prepared to introduce more lenient regulations so as to make loans available to those who have been unable to qualify in the past, I believe that the amendments before us today will have a very serious effect on the agricultural situation in Canada. They can only have one result, that there will be fewer farmers. Perhaps some people think this is inevitable, and maybe it is; but surely we should try to see that the development of these resources is

Farm Credit Act
left in the hands of as many families as possible and not try to funnel these resources into the hands of a smaller number of families.
I think it is a well known fact that the farmer who is well established is better able to establish his sons, daughters and other relatives in agriculture or, for that matter, in any other business. Those who need help are those who are not as well established. Perhaps this whole point is not making a dent on the minister at all but I hope he will take it under consideration and give it the attention it deserves.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few comments on the bill to amend the Farm Credit Act. My only purpose in rising is because of certain statements made by the hon. member for Essex South yesterday. As found on page 4162 of Hansard, he said:
All that was said yesterday by the members of the opposition added up to one thing, that for the last six years they have recognized that the Farm Credit Corporation was not meeting the needs of agriculture.
He made that statement just after talking about a windstorm, and I think that windstorm must have affected his words. The Farm Credit Corporation deserves a tremendous amount of credit. I think members have only to recall the old Canadian farm loan board, which in its day did a good job within the limitations placed upon it. But when the Farm Credit Corporation took over in 1959 it adopted a new approach to the credit and other needs of farmers all over Canada. I do not want to make a political speech but I would remind members opposite who have been criticizing the Farm Credit Corporation that it was set up by a Conservative administration.
The basic difference was that, instead of just looking at loans on the basis of proper security, as the farm loan board did, the Farm Credit Corporation looked at the needs of the farmers from the point of view of what constituted an economic unit. The minister has made much of the fact that the farm must be an economic unit in order to repay the loan. I think that has been the basis of all loans made by the corporation to date.
As far as my area is concerned, we do not have too much mixed farming. There is a certain amount of lumbering and some raising of cattle but mainly we have orchards. The benefits which have accrued to these orchardists in British Columbia through the Farm Credit Corporation are immense. In many cases the whole picture has been
[Mr. Nasserden.l
changed, and this has continued year after year.
One has only to examine the loans made to see what an excellent job the Farm Credit Corporation has done. I was extremely pleased to hear the hon. member for Huron speak this afternoon. Because of his great knowledge of farming I was particularly pleased with the pat on the back he gave the Farm Credit Corporation. He comes from eastern Canada and I felt that his words supported what I intended to say this afternoon. There have been complaints with regard to the time it takes to have appraisals made. I have checked into a great many complaints over the last number of years and I would say that if all appraisals were to be made quickly, in the rush of the season, the corporation would require a staff far greater in numbers than what they now have and they would have to be on the job 24 hours a day. I do not blame the Farm Credit Corporation at all for this. We have a longer period during the year in which appraisals can be made. However, you cannot just go out and pick up people off the street and say, "You are an appraiser; go out and look at farms." You have to have men with proper training and an understanding of farm problems.
I must say that in my area of British Columbia the appraisers are good. I can say they are men of understanding, Mr. Chairman, because they are faced with a great many problems when men cannot understand why their application for loans have been turned down. Certainly, we have a backlog of applicants for loans, but you cannot have an immediate appraisal. I would say offhand that there seems to be some concern about the number of applicants who were turned down last year. However if I am any judge of the applicants, the type of men who are processing and of the type of men who form the administration of the Farm Credit Corporation, I would say that the vast majority of the applicants are requesting loans on non-economic units.
I thought the hon. member for Acadia and the hon. member for Rosthern made excellent points. I should like to refer the minister to the amendments made in 1962. These were good amendments; they were broadening amendments. They gave applicants a better opportunity to qualify for loans, because income from other sources was considered to be income available for the repayment of the loans. I do not believe the doubling of the amount of credit available is the answer to this problem. I believe this is a good measure,

but I do not believe it will apply too much to my area. I can see that for the larger units on the prairies these provisions would be excellent.
The hon. member for Acadia and the hon. member for Rosthern both emphasized the fact that there should be a stronger attempt to keep the family on the farm. This might not be economic if credit were required to achieve this objective. 1 think the minister might look over the regulations under which this administration operates. Actually, I believe the administration is not hidebound. I believe they have a flexible way of looking at the requirements for credit of the individual orchardist or farmer. I feel that when a man makes application, if he has anything remotely resembling an economic unit he will get extraordinary consideration. It is true that in my area probably as much as anywhere, because of the nature of fruit farming and because of the nature of the economic unit needed, people asking for loans have been told that these loans will not do them any good. That what is needed is a larger loan so they can be put on an economic basis.
At the moment, as has been pointed out, there has been little if any loss to the Farm Credit Corporation because repayments have been made on a regular basis. May I say, in closing, that we have had a great many congratulatory messages to the minister from Liberal members? I do not want to detract in any way from those words but I should like to add that the work which was put in earlier made the Farm Credit Corporation an extraordinarily good means of extending credit to farmers all across Canada. Finally, I should like to say to the hon. member for Essex South that he should spend a little time talking to some of his colleagues, or some of us over here, in order to find out exactly what the Farm Credit Corporation is and just what it has done since its inception.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, since February 21 we have spent five days on the supplementary estimates for agriculture and four days on the main estimates. This is the fourth day upon which we have been dealing with the Farm Credit Corporation. We have the Crop Insurance Act coming up shortly and some of the provinces are very anxious to do something with it this year. We have the farm improvement loans amendments coming up soon on the order paper. Then, there will be the farm machinery bill, and I am sure farmers would like to take advantage of it
Motions for Papers
this fall. In view of all this, perhaps we could get on with the point by point discussion of the bill and get it passed. I have indicated many times that we are running out of money. We are lending about a million dollars a day. There will be ample time to discuss these very important problems in agriculture. I realize, and hon. members realize, that this is one piece of legislation that is most necessary and most important.


George Robson Muir: I should like to cooperate with the minister. I see no reason why this measure cannot be handled this afternoon or this evening. However, I have a couple of questions that I cannot properly put under the other sections. They have to do with insurance on the loans. As I understand it, insurance is taken out on the borrower for the life of the loan. I should like to have on the record an answer to these questions: Is the amount of the insurance reduced as the loan is reduced?


Harry William Hays: Yes, it covers the normal amount outstanding and it decreases as the loan decreases. It is compulsory on part III but not on part II.


George Robson Muir: That is the other question I was going to ask; supposing a man wants to take insurance for his own benefit, but he is turned down on a medical examination, will there still be a loan granted?


Harry William Hays: Yes, he still gets a loan.


George Robson Muir: Does this apply to part III?


Harry William Hays: There is no medical examination under part III.


George Robson Muir: I think that probably answers the questions I have on the first clause. I do have some questions about interest but I can probably take them up later.


The Chairman:: It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Smallwood:
That an order of the house do issue for the production of all flag designs or models which have been received by the Prime Minister, members of the cabinet or the government, as models for a Canadian flag.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: By the terms of the motion which the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood) has put before the house I take it he is hoping to have the property or ownership in every such flag design or flag model transferred to parliament. This may not have been the hon. member's intention, but I submit it will be the effect of ordering the production and tabling of more than 3,000 flag designs which, we are told, have been sent to and examined by the government, more particularly by the department of the Secretary of State.
In this situation I think the hon. member should consider whether such action does not in itself amount to an infringement or expropriation of copyright and be actionable in the courts in each case by writ of summons or petition of right. Further, even if no action were brought in respect of an individual design there likely could be no redelivery to the sender or author upon request unless this house, which is sovereign, ordered such redelivery. All hon. members might just imagine for one moment the effect of having individual writs of summons issued or individual requests made to obtain these numerous flag designs and models. Failing an order by the house for redelivery in a particular case, the government could again be faced with a writ of summons or a petition of right in many cases. I do not argue that a writ or petition would be issued in respect of each flag design or model, but there could be a sufficient number to make this house regret the day when the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose bestowed himself on his electors and inflicted this motion upon the house.
The likelihood is enhanced by the publicity which has already been given to this motion. I am sure that many authors of flag designs and flag models which have been submitted are now acutely conscious of their proprietary interest in their creative work, both by virtue of common law and by virtue of a federal statute, the Copyright Act. Furthermore, many authors who have sent in their submissions specifically requested that their designs be returned to them. Thus, to impound their creations by passing this motion would, I submit, amount to an inexcusable breach of faith as well as a breach of this federal parliament's own law.
I have grave doubts-and I am sure they are shared by most hon. members-whether flag designs and flag models come under the definition of "papers". I would think that the rule might be applied to the letters and the briefs or instructions which accompanied
[The Chairman.)
these submissions, but not to the actual artistic works themselves. Certainly with respect to some designs and models at least, they are not papers at all-they are articles. We have heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) describe one as being executed on a piece of plywood; I think it was six feet by three feet, or eight feet by four feet. This is certainly not a piece of paper.
All hon. members are aware-or they ought to be-that the guiding principle is that when papers are sought to be produced they should be of a public or official character, not of a private or confidential nature. In this case, the government did not invite, request or advertise for the submission of the thousands of models which have been sent in, as distinct from the case in 1946 when those who were asked to submit flag designs and models were told that they would be further submitted to a committee. In this case the government did not stipulate any use to which these designs or models might be put. They were sent in, for the most part voluntarily by public-spirited citizens who had a burning desire to see a distinctive national flag for this country. They were sent in also by professional designers and artists, all of them hoping, no doubt, that their work might be accepted either in whole or in part by the government when reaching its decision.
I believe, therefore, that implicit in the submission of each designer was the understanding that only after his work had been chosen, either in whole or in part, would there be any publication, reproduction, transfer or use of his design or model. Thus if it were thought desirable to produce and table these flag designs and flag models-and I do not agree with this assumption-I say that the only reasonable and proper thing to do would be to contact each of the authors and obtain a written assignment of ownership and copyright in each case. This would of course involve a delay of unforeseeable length, particularly because some of the authors would, no doubt, be extremely difficult to locate. In some cases, executors of estates would be required to sign. It is indeed unlikely that all the designs and models could ever be tabled with permission.
This motion has been a waste of the time of this house and it is no tribute to the mover's sense of responsibility or to that of his party. If, by some inconceivable circumstance, it were allowed to pass either in whole or in part, it would amount to a costly exercise in sheer futility. A flag design has already

been chosen by the government in pursuance of its commitment and responsibility. The situation as I see it is that the hon. member would like to hold his own beauty contest and select his own beauty queen, after the beauty queen has been chosen by the proper judges.
At this stage the motion would tend towards chaos rather than order in the field of choosing an official national flag for Canada. I am sure the house will see it simply as a clumsy attempt to postpone further the selection of a Canadian flag which should have been selected many years ago. The position of the mover with respect to this motion is currently far worse than it was last Thursday, because the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Stewart) in his usual inoffensive manner then offered to let the hon. member personally see and analyse all the designs and models in the hands of the department. The hon. member for Battle River-Camrose has not to date availed himself of this golden opportunity to exercise his flag picking fingers. Some people having this same opportunity might be tempted to design and obtain a copyright on the new game of "flagpik" and sell it to the Eskimos.
Mr. Speaker, without admitting that a flag design or flag model is a paper within the rules, I would probably not be so disturbed about this motion if it sought the production of flag designs or flag models within the public or international domains. I am thinking of such things as a black flag, either with or without the skull and crossbones, which in days gone by was the symbol of the pirate, or the plain yellow flag which was and still is the sign of infectious illness aboard ship-


An hon. Member:: That is the Liberal flag.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: You are looking through a jaundiced eyeball when you say that. Another is the white flag, which is universally used as a flag of truce or to show peaceful intentions. Striking your flag, whatever its colour may be, denotes surrender. None of the authors of the private and confidential flags in question here have struck their flags, but the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose, to save his face and possibly his seat, should strike this nuisance motion.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: A great contribution; you should be proud of yourself.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I believe that seldom has parliament heard a more arrogant construction of straw houses than we heard today and the other day when
Motions for Papers
this question was under debate. For members across the way to suggest that those who have sent flag designs to the Canadian Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), to the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) and to parliament for consideration as the national flag sent them in confidence is indeed something that is very hard to understand, particularly when most of these designs have been given wide publicity not only in the localities from which they originated but in many other parts of the country as well. This afternoon we heard the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) tell us that the government had chosen a flag and he suggested that no other flag should be given the same kind of publicity as that chosen by the government. Indeed he indicated, if I understood his words correctly, that the very fact the government had chosen a flag meant that parliament had already endorsed it-and that certainly is not the case.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; the hon. member is speaking on a platform of thin ice and I think he has a little too much heat in his shanty, because I did not say that at all.


Edward Nasserden: The ice may not be as thin as the hon. member tries to make out at the moment, when he takes a look at the words he uttered in this house a few minutes ago. All I want to say on this question very briefly is that the Canadian people should be given a chance to look at all the designs and these designs should not be hidden from them by an arrogant government.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost, on division.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Trained seals.

Unemployment Insurance Act


Hon. J. Watson MacNaught (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, could I make a motion that public bills Nos. 13 to 70 inclusive stand?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that these bills stand at the request of the government?


Mr. Rapp:: I intend to go on with mine, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Reynold Rapp: the second reading of Bill No. C-45, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (agricultural employees' coverage).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I had not expected that my bill would come up today. However, as it has been on the order paper for many sessions and parliaments I am prepared to suggest to the house that serious consideration be given to bringing agricultural employees under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Agricultural employees are the only employees not covered by unemployment insurance. This creates hardship on farmers who want to hire employees in the spring or fall, but because these employees are not covered by insurance the excuse is made that when their seasonal employment on the farm is over they will find themselves in a position where they are unable to keep their families, because during the time they were employed their incomes were too low. Consequently these people are not available, and they will not be available unless agricultural employees receive the same coverage under the Unemployment Insurance Act as do other employees.
The excuse has been made many times both by the minister and other government officials that no action can be taken until the Gill report is received, so that they can study the recommendations made. I have not got a copy of the report before me at the present time, but I might point out that the report recommends that all employees be covered by unemployment insurance, provided there are the proper administrative procedures or processes available. I cannot see why the administration of unemployment insurance for farm labourers should be so difficult or so different compared with employees in other industries.
For many years we in the west, where agriculture is perhaps on a somewhat larger scale than other places, have run into diffi-


culty at seeding or at harvest time when the rush is on, of being unable to get help. Many times farmers contact the unemployment offices in the cities to no avail. I should like the government to give serious consideration to the recommendation of the Gill commission to which I have referred, because the commission stress the point that agricultural employees and all other employees should be covered by unemployment insurance where the necessary administrative procedures are available. Therefore I ask the minister, or in his absence the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Byrne), to give serious consideration to this problem.
I well remember that in another parliament when I presented this bill many members of the party which now forms the government wholeheartedly supported its purposes. Now that the Liberal party is in power, I should like the members of parliament who so vigorously supported my bill previously to stand up and speak in its support as they did before. This bill raises a serious problem. It is most important that farm labourers be covered by unemployment insurance.
The agricultural industry in the west is becoming more mechanized, as a result of which it is difficult to get employees who know how to operate these big combines, tractors and other machines. Many farmers have incurred great losses on account of being unable to get help. As time goes on I think the need for agricultural employees able to work on these big farms will become smaller.
In conclusion, I should like to direct the attention of the parliamentary secretary, in the absence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), to the Gill report and I invite him to tell the house that my bill, Bill No. C-45, will be sent to the committee for discussion, instead of talking the bill out, as I expect will be the case. At the same time I would urge the government to give serious consideration to this matter and bring farm labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member in moving second reading of this bill. We are all sympathetic to any objectives which try to develop the broadest possible coverage to employees under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and which try to see to it that every class of employee in Canada in gainful employment gets equal protection and rights

under our social security legislation, of which the Unemployment Insurance Act is an important part.
As a member of the house sitting on this side I have some reservations in my mind about the piecemeal attack on the problem of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act. The hon. member who proposes this legislation made reference to the report of the Gill committee in which was a general recommendation that the principle of extending insurance coverage should be given sympathetic consideration. The government is looking very carefully and systematically at the recommendations in the Gill report, and we would be more than irresponsible were we not to do so. But it is the intention of the government at the earliest possible date to place specific measures before this house involving a fairly substantial series of amendments to the act and changes in the operation of the fund.
We all know what happened to the unemployment insurance fund. We recall rather painfully that in 1957-58 there was close to $1 billion in that fund. We also recall very painfully that in 1963 the fund had to borrow money from the government of Canada to sustain its operations, and at one particular juncture in 1964 we had a rather embarrassing experience concerning the approval of the necessary authorities to make payments under this act.
There is no question, when looking at the extension of coverage of unemployment insurance, that we have to look at the record of the industry which is being covered. We know the problems of agriculture, that agriculture represents declining employment, that at present it means increasing size of farm units. Increased mechanization is becoming more and more a part of agriculture, and agriculture requires more and more capital. It is for these reasons that we have been debating authority, under another piece of legislation, to provide additional capital loans to farmers in order to help them increase their efficiency.
We know there are times of the year, as was pointed out by the hon. member proposing this bill, when there is a shortage of farm help. We are of course well aware of all this; but it does not necessarily follow that we can take the simplest and easiest type of resolution, which simply says we will give these benefits to this category of employees. We cannot do that, in view of the history of the unemployment fund.
Unemployment Insurance Act
If we believe in the principle of unemployment insurance-and I am very sure there are very few hon. members in the house who do not-then it follows that when we propose amendments to the legislation we have to look in an over-all way at the fiscal implication of what we are doing. The bill before us does not do that.
It has one curious clause which I personally found difficult to understand, and though I am sure the hon. member has taken professional advice on the matter, I have some doubts in my own thoughts as to whether this would stand up in the courts. The problem relates to private members' limitations in regard to the initiation of money bills. This clause proposes to restrict the payments that could be made to the amounts contributed by private individuals, to make sure that the contribution from the government of Canada is not paid out. The hon. member is making gestures. Does he disagree?


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, I thought-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has already spoken in this debate but, on the other hand, if hon. members agree, he can certainly ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) has said this will probably not stand up in the courts. What is the difference between an unemployed labourer on the farm and an unemployed fisherman or an unemployed industrial worker? There is no difference, except that these classes have been covered under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and the farmers are the only large group that is not covered.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member asked me what is the difference. I have to say, of course, that if they had been included as part of the initial legislation, or as part of a series of proposals laid before the house by the government, there would be no problem; but there is a problem and this relates to the fact that it is initiated in a private member's bill. There is a reservation in my mind as to whether the type of solution proposed in this clause overcomes that difficulty. I do not know how you could make such a clause work, how you could restrict benefits which are paid out of the unemployment insurance fund and relate them in some way to private individual's contributions, exclusive of government contributions. The problem is

Unemployment Insurance Act one of trying to identify contributions from a specific group and relate them to benefits, which is contrary to the principles established under the Unemployment Insurance Act in the form in which it has been developed, to date.
I am aware that in other parts of the world a factor known as experienced rating by industry has been adopted as a feature of unemployment insurance-


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to draw attention again to the bill, I would like to read the explanatory note concerning this clause. It says:
The unemployment insurance fund is 80 per cent private moneys and 20 per cent public moneys. To avoid having this bill infringe the rule against the introduction of a so-called "money bill" by a private member, this clause provides that employees in agriculture shall be paid benefits out of the contributions by private citizens (the employee and the employer) but not out of the contributions by the taxpayers.
This bill is trying to avoid making the government responsible for it. If the hon. member would read this clause and study it, I think he would know his argument is falling through.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I have read the clause and I come back to my point. It suggests a procedure which is foreign to the administration of the act today. It suggests you can somehow identify one particular group of contributions, and relate benefits paid to one particular category of beneficiaries to a particular group of contributions, and I am suggesting to the hon. member that this has not been one of the principles of administration during the development of the act.
As I was saying, there are parts of the world where a feature known as experienced rating has been made a part of social welfare or unemployment insurance. It has not been part of Canada's philosophy to incorporate this kind of thing into its legislation.
The provision which the hon. member proposes would suggest that the benefits which are going to be paid are somehow going to be limited by contributions which could be identified. I think I can read as well as the hon. member, and if he has a contrary interpretation that is his right. As a member of this house I can only say to the house that my interpretation of this clause raises a very serious doubt in my mind as to whether it is administratively feasible. I believe this clause is dealing with a point of principle in terms of our Unemployment Insurance Act which has been in operation since 1940-with a

series of amendments-but substantially the same in principle. The hon. member, in attempting to bring his bill within the four corners of what is permitted to a private member, has done some things which I contend are contrary to the spirit and intention of the original act. For this reason I do not think it is sound to proceed in this way. .
I come back to something which is more substantial and basic, and this is the intention of the hon. member in introducing this private bill. He is using the device of private members' hour to call attention to a problem. This is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. It is done on many occasions by many hon. members in different groups in the house, and to the extent to which the hon. member represents an agricultural riding and is bringing the problem of his electors and his riding to the attention of the house, he is certainly to be commended. I for one would be delighted to see the government, as part of its over-all package, make recommendations which would deal with the kind of problem the hon. member is bringing to our attention.
But I cannot help recall that the hon. member sat on this side of the house for some years. During that time a series of amendments that were rather general in character were brought forward on behalf of other groups, but apparently the hon. member was not able to use his persuasiveness with the ministers of his own government to get his problem remedied.


Reynold Rapp: We waited for the Gill report.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: It is true the Gill report was an excuse for inaction, and that action was delayed far too long. We are now trying to cope with the Gill report and to bring in recommendations which are very sweeping in character and which can be implemented. There is no question in my mind, as a result of reading the Gill report, that a revision of the unemployment insurance fund is long overdue. Certainly it cannot be left just hanging in the air, particularly when the fund itself is so perilously close to being insolvent and is living from hand to mouth far too frequently.
I commend the hon. member for calling attention to the problem. It is perfectly legitimate on his part to use the device of drafting a piece of legislation, however imperfect, and dealing generally with the problem, as a means of calling attention to it. But we have to be responsible in this house too, and it is much too easy to say, "Let us do this;

let us give this benefit." In the case of the unemployment insurance fund we could not have a clearer warning that we cannot proceed in a piecemeal way without making the necessary fiscal recommendations for the solvency of the fund itself, to make it as solvent as it used to be at one time, to make it the kind of fund which serves the purpose of insurance and does not pervert the concept of social insurance to a form of welfare measure, which perhaps might be more appropriately administered under one of the other social welfare programs being developed in Canada. I for one cannot accept the bill before us. While the intention is perfectly legitimate and I have the deepest sympathy for it, I do not think that clause 3 of the bill achieves the purpose which the hon. member has in mind and in my view it negates to a substantial degree what he has tried to do.


Edward Nasserden: May I ask the hon. member a question? Has the hon. member forgotten so soon that he was elected on the pledge to provide unemployment insurance for employees in agriculture?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I have not forgotten that in any way, but 1 do not think the way to bring about unemployment insurance coverage in agriculture is by a private member's bill containing such a clause as clause 3 in the bill before us, which purports to introduce a device whereby, within the four corners of what a private member can do, the hon. member introduces a totally new concept in the administration of the law. That is not my idea of how to meet the problem.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group have long advocated the inclusion of agricultural labour within the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and on that basis we support the purpose of the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp). I have no hesitation in complimenting him on his consistency, his persistence and determination, whether he is on the government side of the house or on the opposition side. I also compliment him on his ability to find it possible to make two or three speeches on his own bill during private members' hour.
I am going to be brief, Mr. Speaker, because I know the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) is just bursting to rise. He represents a lot of farmers and I know of his sincere interest in their welfare and in the need for this legislation. I am sure he is going to support the members of the opposition in this case.
Unemployment Insurance Act
In my view the hon. member who has just taken his seat took a rather technical approach to this matter. I am not sure the method set out in the bill is the exact way we should do this, but the hon. member who introduced the bill has brought it forward in the only way he can as a private member. We know his intention and we know the necessity. I thought the last speaker took a rather technical approach, but I am sure his approach will not be the same when he goes around among the farmers of Carleton county. He lacks feeling for the farmers. He has a legalistic approach, which has been the reason for this matter being delayed for many years.
None of us on this side of the house wants to see something placed in legislation that is unsound or unfair or is going to cause an unexpected charge on the public exchequer. We know that this is a particular problem and we think it should be given early consideration, and that the whole question should be studied. I know that the farmers themselves do not want agricultural labour to come within the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act and create an unfair burden on the rest of the taxpayers of the country, but we have discussed this subject year after year and nothing has been done to date to remedy the situation. I judge that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) is not a farmer.


Mr, Francis:: I was born on a farm.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member in commencing his remarks almost suggested that the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale was trying to commit a parliamentary fraud, but he did withdraw somewhat and compliment him tenderly before concluding. I can see that on reflection the hon. member for Carleton realized that the hon. member's intentions were of the best and that he was trying to do the best he could. I simply rose, Mr. Speaker, to express our support for the purpose of the bill and the hon. member who has proposed it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am just dying to hear from the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette).


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. member speaks, I wonder whether I could put a question to the hon. member for Kootenay West. Is he speaking for all the serried ranks of farmers behind him?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking for all the serried ranks of members behind me that understand the farm problems of this country and have always supported the representations of the farmers organizations in this house.

Unemployment Insurance Act


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be very brief in speaking on this private member's bill. So far as the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned, I believe it is the desire of every hon. member that Canadians everywhere, regardless of their particular vocation, should all share equitably under the provisions of this act. Therefore we support the objective and principle of the bill and commend the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) on introducing it once again.
As has been pointed out today, we understand that the Gill commission report has advocated a thorough study involving the extension of unemployment insurance to agricultural workers. Farm organizations have also indicated their support of the principle. Therefore we feel that careful and urgent consideration should be given to this matter because it is hardly fair that those engaged in agriculture should be deprived of legislative benefits now extended to those in other industries. Therefore I urge the government to take this matter under immediate consideration and introduce legislation as soon as possible to effect the purpose of the bill now before us.
I can see that there may be some problem in the operation of the fund as outlined in clause 3. I should imagine it would be very difficult to put that clause into operation, but I do not think that any of these problems are insuperable if there is a will to surmount them. Therefore I think that what the government needs is the will to extend and expand the coverage to include agricultural workers, and we urge them to do that very thing.


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take much time of the house at this particular juncture in the debate, but I rise to support this motion for the second reading of Bill No. C-45, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. In my first words I too wish to compliment the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) for his persistence and studious effort each year in presenting this very important piece of legislation for the consideration of the house. In my view it is high time that the house took steps to adopt legislation to implement the principle involved in this bill.
Reference has been made to the Gill committee report. This committee was established by the former government, of course, to study the whole problem of unemployment insur-
[Mr. Herridge.l
ance. Their report has been made and, like many other members representing agricultural ridings, I was disappointed to find that they did not make a definite recommendation that farm labour be included. I am thinking now of the members opposite who support the present government and who in the election campaigns of 1962 and 1963 went across the country telling the farmers that, if elected, they were going to bring in legislation amending the Unemployment Insurance Act so as to cover farm labour. I suggest to them now that they should make this promise good, take this matter under serious consideration and see to it that at the earliest possible date legislation is introduced into the house to provide unemployment insurance coverage for farm labour. That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit me to ask him a question. As an influential supporter of the former government a little over a year ago, did he urge such action upon the government he supported, and with what success?


Richard Russell Southam: We certainly did, and the minister knows quite well that because of our representations the Gill committee was set up to study the whole proposition. He knows what is in their report. As I said a few moments ago, members on that side went across the country suggesting in farm ridings that this was one of the first things they were going to do.


Edward Nasserden: The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has also forgotten his promise.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not forgotten what was in the Gill report about fishermen.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, this morning, we sat on the agriculture committee, this afternoon, we came back to agriculture to discuss farm credit and tonight, between five and six, the private members' hour, another bill on agriculture is presented to the house.
And yet today, which I might say is "devoted to agriculture", I am sorry to note the absence of the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) who always makes it a point to stress the presence of his colleagues, to denounce the absence of government members; and when agriculture is discussed during a whole day, when extremely important problems are discussed to help

the farmers, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska is not here. His absence is unfortunate and I congratulate all the Liberal members who are here, especially the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) who made a very good speech, because he dealt with the matter quite objectively.
In fact, this bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act involves a measure quite acceptable in principle, because it is a very ticklish problem and our farmers often have cause for complaining about their plight, since they cannot draw unemployment benefits. If there are qualified workers, if there are people who spend their energy with dedication, with fearlessness, I might say, they are our farmers and they deserve from the government all the assistance they should get.
Let us read together the preamble of the bill:
Whereas, since the coming into force in 1941 of The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, economic and social pressures and technological changes have reduced the number and increased the size of farm units and have swollen the migration of excess farm population to urban areas;
Such is indeed the case. This paragraph is well written and gives a clear account of the facts. A great number of farm units are being abandoned; the farm population migrates to urban areas, thus reducing-


Mr. Alkenbrack:: I rise, Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, to point out the most unethical practice being followed by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. He mentioned the name of the hon. member for Nicolet-Ya-maska (Mr. Vincent), my seatmate, who is unavoidably absent. I think that is very unfair and very poor practice on the part of the hon. member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I may say that I have had the opportunity before of bringing to the attention of hon. members that they should not refer to the absence of other members. I am sure, as the hon. member says, this is a rather unacceptable practice and I feel members should stay away from it. On the other hand, I suppose the hon. member for Lotbiniere felt he was justified in using this method of retaliation. I do feel that the moment an hon. member refers to the absence of another member he is, ipso facto, from that moment forward out of order. I certainly agree that members should always refrain from referring to the absence of other hon. members, which I am sure in most instances is quite unavoidable.
Unemployment Insurance Act [Translation]


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, one cannot do otherwise than commend you for making such a ruling, because there is actually nothing shabbier than a member contriving to note the absence of a fellow member-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to revert to the matter now before the house.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, this ill-timed interference prompted me to make remarks that should really be avoided. I immediately revert to the matter and congratulate again the hon. member who has called the attention of the house to a situation which deserves serious consideration.
In my constituency of Lotbiniere, for instance, there are a number of farm labourers who, having no farms of their own, are hired by farmers to do farm work. They are not farmers, but they are workers who would like to be covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act. Lacking the necessary security, they find themselves in an unfair situation, because once their employers are no longer in need of farm hands, they have nothing to fall back on. They have no protection whatever. A number of them came to see me, saying that they would like to draw unemployment insurance benefits and had applied to the commission. But since they were considered as farm labour, as farm hands, they were deprived of the security to which every citizen should be entitled.
That is why I agree with the principle of this bill but I suggest that the Unemployment Insurance Act should not be amended without further consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; perhaps before I call it six o'clock I may be allowed to allude in one word to the reference made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) that the bill now before us appears to infringe upon the financial initiative of the crown. I wanted to say that there was some doubt in the mind of the Chair as to whether or not this bill was acceptable. On the other hand, in view of the very special circumstances under which the discussion was initiated, it was felt by the Chair that we should proceed with the discussion.
At this moment I only want to reserve the right of the Chair to express a formal opinion about the matter, if this bill appears again on the order paper or later comes before the house.

Farm. Credit Act BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock p.m. this day are as follows:
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), social assistance in Saskatchewan; the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie), date of payment of winter construction bonus; the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), airports, Malton, taxi service by Air Terminal Transport Service Limited.



FARM CREDIT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-100, to amend the Farm Credit Act-Mr. Hays-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Stanley James Korchinski: Shortly before five o'clock the Minister of Agriculture suggested that some $230 million in loans-I believe that was the figure he used-have been taken out by farmers from sources other than the Farm Credit Corporation. I do not know whether it was his intention to give the impression that with the passage of this bill the situation would be corrected or not, but if this was his intention I wish to make a few remarks at this moment to suggest something to the contrary.
I am suggesting that the reason $230 million was taken out in loans from sources other than the Farm Credit Corporation or other sources, such as those available under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, is that the provisions of the existing act do not permit farmers to obtain loans. The minister is aware that some 55 per cent of those who have gone to credit advisers for loans have not been able to obtain them. It is for this reason that they are obliged to resort to other sources. Many farmers with whom I am personally acquainted have had their applications for loans turned down by the Farm Credit Corporation for one reason or another, in most cases because in the opinion of the credit adviser the unit which is proposed to 
set up would not be an economic one. I know that in many cases farmers have had opportunities to acquire land adjacent to their own. While it is true that this particular purchase might not result in an economic unit in the eyes of the Farm Credit Corporation adviser, the farmer himself might have seen a possibility that in a few years someone else might have some suitable land to sell, and that the loan would place him in a better position to set up an economic unit later on. But because he is refused a loan by the Farm Credit Corporation, and because he feels his opportunity slipping away, he turns to other sources for finance. Many farmers in this situation turn to sources such as the credit unions. I understand that in most cases the credit unions charge a higher interest rate than that charged by the Farm Credit Corporation. But these farmers feel that unless they go ahead and borrow the money everything they had planned and hoped for will be lost; their chances will have slipped by, and henceforth they will be going backwards instead of forwards.
A farmer who has not been able to get a loan under this legislation certainly will not be able to do so as a result of the amendment proposed now. Nothing has been done to meet such a situation as I have described, and I suggest that next year we shall be able to look up the record and find that the situation is unchanged, that these people have had to go to other sources, and that because of the attitude taken by the farm credit board there has been a refusal to make loans where the proposition does not lead to the establishment of an economic unit.
I suggest that what has happened with regard to the bill before us is this: The minister found that in a few days the corporation would be short of funds. Thus, he had to come to parliament and ask for more funds. This is a necessary step, and I agree with it. At the same time, the minister felt he should, perhaps, throw in a few amendments for the sake of appearances. This I believe is exactly what he has done. In the first clause we find what in future years will amount to a lawyers' bonanza. I am sure the minister is trying to get across to the country that he is doing something for the farmers, but we shall find that the situation as it affects the 55 per cent who have been refused loans by the corporation has not been changed.
If the minister had made proposals for the setting up of an appeal board, for example,

it would have been a move in the right direction. An applicant whose request for a loan had been refused by a credit officer could then turn to a group of people and put forward his case with a view to having the decision reversed. If the minister does not want to set up an appeal board, I will make another suggestion. He could arrange for applications to be heard by a group of, say, half a dozen people, as is done by the credit unions in every community. They have groups of interested people and they perform this service for nothing, in a sense. They would, possibly, be familiar with the operation which the applicant had conducted and would be in a better position to know whether or not he was a good risk. If it were felt that the man could be regarded as a fair risk, the decision made by the credit officer could be reversed. This would constitute one method by which farmers whose applications for loans have been turned down in the past might qualify. I suggest this is the area in which there is most irritation.
I might just as well put on record a few of the other objections I have to this bill; it will save my having to get up later. I understand that the loans which may be made above $20,000 to $27,000 under the terms of the bill may amount to something in the order of 7 per cent, according to the figures I have been able to get from the minister's department. These figures would indicate that a loan of $55,000 over a period of 30 years under the new provisions would cost over $12,000 in interest, and so on. The former Conservative administration set the rate at 5 per cent. If the rate is going to be in the neighbourhood of 7 per cent, it will cost a farmer over $12,000 more for a loan of the same size as one he might have obtained under the provisions of the act as administered by the former government. This is a great deal of money when one considers that for a $55,000 loan he will repay almost $125,000 in 30 years.
I have another question for clarification, Mr. Chairman. When a farmer obtains a loan of over $27,500 under part II of the act I wonder what rate of interest the corporation will apply in collecting the money. If the farmer has finished paying off $27,500 at a rate over and above 5 per cent, will he be paying a lower rate of interest every year or will the calculation be made in such a way that each year the payments will be at the same rate? One other objection I have to the increase in the interest rate is that it will be a deterrent to the borrowing of
Farm Credit Act
money. Farmers will hesitate if the interest rate is higher than it was the previous year; they will say, "Perhaps it will be lower next year, so I will not get a loan this year". This in itself will have a deterring effect. I think the minister wants to leave the impression that he is doing something for the farmers, but certainly this provision, whereby the farmer will not know what the rate is going to be and will perhaps assume it will be lower next year, will mean he will not rush in to get a loan and in many cases this could mean he would be giving up an opportunity that might never again occur in his lifetime.
I wonder whether the minister would consider giving at least an idea as to whether the interest rate will be set for one year and the next year it might be changed, or whether interest rates will be changed monthly or every half year. These are just a few of the objections I have in this connection, Mr. Chairman, and any other questions I have I will raise at the appropriate time.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say only a few words on clause 1 of Bill No. C-100.
The day before yesterday I said that the purpose of this bill was to encourage and to assist the family farm, the small farmer. We feel, Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out the other day to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), that the time has come for the government, not to show compassion for the condition of eastern farmers, but to give them a fair and equitable treatment.
When we refer to farming, in eastern Canada, at the present time, we mean chiefly the ARDA program. I can see a full-fledged minister who could deal with the farmers' problem regarding the ARDA program; the government's advisers claim to help agriculture by getting rid of several small farmers, going in for farm centralization as never before in Canada which means that a prosperous farmer could take over a number of farms around his own and turn those dispossessed farmers into ordinary employees.
Mr. Chairman, in this era of automation, technology and machines, the minister who is actively involved with the ARDA program at the present time will eventually be able to deal with a larger movement of farmers who have become employees and who will become then regular unemployed or people living in the most abject misery. Why? Because we are now trying harder to dispossess

Farm Credit Act
them, allegedly because they cannot live on the income from their farm. Everyone knows that and everyone knows that in eastern Canada, in Ontario, Quebec and the mari-times, the farm problem is becoming more and more acute, harder and harder to solve because of the methods and suggestions coming from the government.
That reminds me of the Quebec farmer who took the plane for the first time and who, while flying at 15,000 feet-


Mr. Boulanger:: That is an old one.


David Réal Caouette: My hon. friend from Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) says that it is an old one; it is younger than he is. Anyhow, the farmer walked into the washroom and saw written above the door: Please do not use over towns and villages. Quite naturally the farmer said to himself: "That's it! It is us, farmers, who will get it again on the head."
The solution offered by Bill No. C-100 rather confirms the fears of the farmer in the plane.
Mr. Chairman, any legislation to assist agriculture should not tell the farmer what he must do but should provide the latter with the means to do as he pleases and to plan his operation as he sees fit. No one in Canada is in a better position to appreciate the farmer's problem than the farmer.
Even though the Minister of Agriculture owns farms in western Canada and employs a lot of people, such as a managing-director, a sales manager, etc.-


Mr. Gauthier:: He is no longer a farmer.


David Réal Caouette: -as my hon. friend for Ro-berval just said, he is no longer a farmer but a contractor. However, the man who operates his own farm knows what he needs.
I would say the same thing about the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), who is responsible for ARDA. It is easy for one who has never been a farmer to tell the farmer what to do. But Bill No. C-100 should give the farmer the means to set up his farm as he sees fit, the opportunity to operate and modernize his farm and to plan and improve his farm production.
The clauses of this bill should include ways of actually helping the farmer. But, no. We have, as I said on many occasions, economists like my excellent friend for Matapedia-Ma-tane (Mr. Tremblay), others like my very good friend the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), especially of the forests of Iles-de-la-Madeleine, able to suggest plans to farmers. We are satisfied and we rejoice when we see

the ARDA program being organized in eastern as well as in western Canada, but ARDA was more particularly established to help underdeveloped and depressed areas of our province.
We have had a great number of agricultural plans from economists, sociologists and others in Canada for the last 25 or 30 years. Suggestions and plans have not been lacking. But there has been a terrible and complete lack of suggestions liable to really help the farmer.
Of course, we have heard these people, like others, during election campaigns, bewailing the farmer's lot, stating energetically that farming was the basis, the foundation of the whole economy and of the social and economic structure of this country. However, in 1964 more than ever, we find that agriculture is slowing down, that the farmer is getting less recognition than ever, that the farming class is the most scoffed at and the least considered, the most ill-treated by the government at present.
Mr. Chairman, the farmer deserves more than what he is getting at the present time.
The other day, I referred to some facts concerning colonization and agriculture. In those days, with the assistance of the federal government, we implemented plans like those of Rogers, in Ottawa, and Auger, in Quebec, to promote the back-to-the-farm movement in the northern part of the province; we told people living in the cities of Montreal, Ri-mouski, Three Rivers, Quebec and elsewhere: Come and settle on farms, join the back-to-the-farm movement; it is the only way to fight effectively against the unemployment crisis in Canada. At that time, especially during the years 1934 and 1935, we promoted colonization in the province of Quebec and in some other provinces. Today, we visit those same settlements where 200 or 250 families had settled in 1934 and we find hardly 50, 60 or 75 families. Why? Because the farmer can no longer earn his living on the farm. In fact, he has to leave it, wander in the bush and work in mines or in factories, in order to earn enough money to allow him to carry on the operation of his farm, where he can no longer earn a livelihood for himself, his wife and children.
Mr. Chairman, is this Bill No. C-100 likely to help that farmer? Is it also likely to help to house or to settle farmers on those farms which have been vacant for ten years? No.
A bill is introduced which in its simplicity tells us all the good will of the Minister of Agriculture to help the farmer by allowing

him to borrow larger amounts than he used to do in the past, to help him in borrowing for his son or a member of his family who wants to settle on a farm.
But such is neither the problem, nor the solution.
Even if we would help with $10,000, $15,000 or $25,000 a farmer to settle his son or settle himself, if he had no assurance that he will be able to sell his production, in five, ten or 15 years from now, we will still be faced with a more acute problem, more serious than the one facing us now.
As I said, there are possibilities to help the farmer, but not with half measures, nor by introducing in the house a bill like Bill No. C-100, because in itself this means that it is absolutely necessary to increase the indebtness of the farmer.
I had the opportunity to visit farmers in western Canada. I went to Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and also to Manitoba. I saw there farmers who though owning thousands of acres of land, nevertheless have been deeply in debt for the past 10 or 15 years, since the massive crop failures, or since some crops did not sell, or ever since the crops have been sold to China, or communist Russia.
The problem of the western farmers is far from being solved. The same is true for the problem of the eastern farmers which was never considered until 1964.
I very much doubt that the Minister of Agriculture is quite aware of what is happening in eastern Canada. I am rather inclined to believe that the minister who is actively responsible for ARDA knows more about the needs of the eastern farmers in this country than the present Minister of Agriculture. That is, to a certain extent, why my good friend, the minister responsible for ARDA was, earlier today, sitting beside the official Minister of Agriculture, to brief him on what is happening in eastern Canada, and more particularly in the province of Quebec.
The bill in which we are asked to award generous, or more important, loans to farmers, has our approval, except for one or two clauses where we cannot accept the interest rates suggested by the Minister of Agriculture.
It is not only in respect of the Department of Agriculture that we object to interest rates which will double any debt in 20 years and treble it in 25 years. We are opposed to all those interest rates suggested by any department or minister who would introduce such bills.
We are in favour of the spirit or the principle of this bill which is aimed at helping the farmer, but we are firmly opposed to the
Farm Credit Act
hidden spirit of the bill, which is to take unfair advantage of the farmer. We are going to stand up against it. In fact, we are going to move-I think the hon. member for Comp-ton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe) is going to do it -an amendment to do away with the rate of interest which will oblige a farmer to repay 20 years from now twice the amount borrowed in 1964.
This is all I have to say on the bill at this stage. When the agricultural question is more thoroughly discussed, I will come back to it, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will listen carefully to our suggestions. In certain circles, there is still a tendency to ridicule our suggestions and proposals, but the time will come soon when the minister, as well as the government, will have to face the financial problem which prevents agriculture to progress as it should, as the system which prevents all departments, the Canadian legislation and all Canadian economy from developing as it should be possible in our country.
Let us save agriculture first and then we will save the whole country.


Edward Nasserden: I shall be very brief, Mr. Chairman. One thing just occurred to me after I sat down, and it is with regard to the $235 million which farmers receive at present from sources other than government sponsored lending services. I believe the minister sought to leave the impression that this legislation would take up most of that slack, if you want to call it that. That was a misleading impression to me because most of the people who have borrowed this money have gone to other sources as a last resort. In many cases they first approached the banks, the farm improvement loans authority, the Farm Credit Corporation, credit unions and so on, and when they exhausted these they went to other sources to get the money, sometimes at higher interest rates.
If I draw the right conclusion I take it the government will have legislation to introduce to increase the amounts available under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Such legislation, in my opinion, should have come before us prior to this bill. On reading clause 16 in particular I cannot help but wonder whether the government is contemplating an increase in the interest rates on farm improvement loans. Could he let us know whether this is so or not?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, when I indicated that farmers used $235 million worth of credit over and above government sponsored

Farm Credit Act
loans, I should have made it clear that we hope, with the three pieces of legislation we are going to bring before parliament, they will take care of most of it. We know this particular piece of legislation will not take up all of the $235 million, but our best studies indicate it will take up a substantial portion. I am sorry we cannot discuss the legislation that is yet to be introduced. We have to deal with what is before the committee this evening, but within the next ten days I hope some amendments will be placed on the order paper concerning the farm improvements loans legislation.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Can the minister assure the committee that the interest rate will be maintained at 5 per cent, thus continuing the same policy we had?


Harry William Hays: 
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I address my question to the minister because he knows very well that the income of farmers in eastern Canada is very low. I appeal to the minister and the government not to change the policy with respect to the 5 per cent loans. We spend lots of money on defence, and I urge the minister to adhere to the policy of 5 per cent interest rates on loans to farmers.


Harry William Hays: We feel quite strongly about this and we believe the farmer should be looked after, but when he gets a loan over $27,500, a supervised loan, we feel it should be made at an economic rate. When I speak of an economic rate I mean the amount which the government has to pay for money it borrows, plus the cost of operating the Farm Credit Corporation and a reasonable amount for bad debts, possibly not more than one quarter of 1 per cent, and probably not less than one eighth of 1 per cent. This would give us an opportunity to take more risks so far as loans to farmers are concerned.
Again I go back to the study which the Quebec department of agriculture made. With all respect to my hon. friend who has just spoken, I am a little familiar with farming in eastern Canada. At one time I owned six farms in eastern Canada and I had to make a living farming.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: How often have you visited the province of Quebec since you became minister?


Harry William Hays: In all humbleness, I have been to many of the farms in Quebec, and discussed agricultural problems with the deputy minister of agriculture from Quebec. The Quebec study indicates that their whole salvation is dependant on larger economic units. They feel quite keenly about this. They feel that a farmer, if he is a milk producing farmer, must have at least a minimum 100,000 pounds contract a year, with a 100 acre farm, to make a go of it.
If he is going to produce beef cattle, if he is involved in a cow and calf proposition, then he has to have a minimum of 50 cows

and at least 300 acres. 1 might remind hon.
members that from 1941 to 1956 we lost an average of 1J per cent of our farmers per year to the urban centres, and in the period from 1956 to 1961 we lost 3J per cent of our farmers because of their moving to urban centres. This process is just not going to stop. The number of farmers moving off the land is going to increase. I do not think there is any doubt about that. So far as the interest is concerned, we feel that this is the proper approach and we would hope that hon. members would feel the same as we do.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: One last question. Suppose under the bill you fix the interest rate at 5 per cent with no restriction. What amount of money will the government lose if the interest rate is fixed at 5 per cent generally?


Harry William Hays: In the operation of the corporation last year the amount was something over $1 million, which represented the difference between what the corporation had to pay for money and what it received on loans, plus the cost of operation. I do not have the exact amount but it was very close to $1,100,000. Above the $20,000 and $27,500 the increased rate would apply to the extent that the borrowings were above those figures.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I address this question because I remember that the late C. D. Howe said in the house a few years ago, "What's a million'', in regard to the army and navy. However, so far as the farmers are concerned the income of farmers in eastern Canada is so low that I think it is the duty of the minister and the government to make sacrifices for the farmers. The average income of eastern farmers is about $1,200 a year. That is why I address this question. We spend $1J billion for defence, and I am surprised at the minister's interest in the farmers when the income of eastern farmers is so low. I prefer to fight for Canadians rather than to spend money for nothing sometimes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Farm Credit Act


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Before we proceed to change the act would the minister answer this question? How much money has been lost since the act came into being in 1959?


Harry William Hays: I think the figure is something like $6,000 a year. Inasmuch as the number of loans has been rising rapidly, it is a negligible amount. The hon. member is talking about bad debts, not about operating costs?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The money that has been completely lost.


Harry William Hays: It is very small-about $7,000 per year.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before we proceed with the details of the bill I should like to comment on what the minister said with regard to the $235 million. He suggested the bill would help to alleviate outside borrowing of this $235 million. Surely he must realize that the greater part of the $235 million is short term credit. He himself has said, as found in Hansard, that the act is in no way designed to meet the short term credit requirements of farmers.
I am also concerned about his remarks a few minutes ago with regard to the $27,500 limit. He suggested that an interest rate of 5 per cent was a subsidized rate. He suggested, too, that anybody borrowing more money than $27,500 did not need the subsidized rate. Do I gather correctly from his remarks that anybody borrowing more than $27,500 was borrowing for an operation large enough that he did not need the subsidized rate and could well afford to pay what he termed the economic rate? If this is so, then I can only assume that the large amounts of money provided by these amendments are, in the opinion of the minister, a direct help for the large farmer. This is what I have suspected all along.
Certainly, the minister suggests that 5 per cent interest on $27,500 is a subsidized rate and that anybody borrowing more than that can well afford to pay the going rate. If I interpret him correctly, the going rate will be 5f per cent plus .87 per cent, plus { per cent for bad debt writeoff. This would make the total interest close to 6J per cent. If one takes the difference between 5 per cent on $40,000 or $50,000 and 6 J per cent on the same amount of money over a 30-year period, he will find that it amounts to close to $15,000 more the farmer is going to have to earn from saleable products to pay the interest. I should like to see a provision for the 5 per cent interest rate written into the bill.

The minister said that he gathered from my remarks that I was against raising the ceiling on loans to $40,000 and $55,000 under part III. I am not against it. However, I have a suspicion that in doing this we will narrow the field of the Farm Credit Corporation. I appreciate the fact that there are many young farmers who, in buying a well established farm, will need more than $20,000 or $27,500.
I suspect that these amendments will narrow rather than broaden the field of activities of the corporation. I gather from the minister's remarks that anybody borrowing less than $27,000 does not have an economic unit and therefore deserves the subsidized rate, whereas anyone borrowing more than $27,500 has an economic unit and can borrow at what he calls the economic rate. I suggest this is not a good rule of thumb to apply. There may well be many a young farmer who wishes to buy his father's farm or his neighbour's farm, and who may well need to borrow $40,000. However, such a farmer will need a stabilized rate of interest at 5 per cent.
I should like to think that the minister wholeheartedly believes that agriculture needs a stabilized rate of 5 per cent. I suggest this in all seriousness. Let us suppose that a young farmer under 45 years of age wishes to buy a farm. He is prepared to buy a farm that is a going concern, which will cost about $40,000. If these amendments are passed the farmer can borrow $40,000 from the Farm Credit Corporation. However, he could also borrow $27,000 at 5 per cent from the Farm Credit Corporation and borrow the other $13,000 to buy equipment from the bank through the Farm Improvement Loans Act, after the government has increased the amount available under that act. He can borrow this money at 5 per cent, too. He therefore saves himself money by breaking the deal into two parts and borrowing the total amount at 5 per cent interest rather than paying the 6| per cent on that additional $13,000.
If the minister follows my quick calculations, I am sure he will realize that in introducing this bill providing for two rates of interest he does not simplify farm borrowing; he complicates it. He does not do away with the red tape which the farmers hate so much; he adds to the red tape and the difficulties connected with acquiring a loan. I am very much afraid that he aids more large farmers than he does small ones.
There is another point I hope the government has considered, and that is the effect the availability of these large amounts of

money will have on the cost of land. We farmers realize that the price of land has risen tremendously in the last few years. The high cost of land is, perhaps, beneficial to those elderly farmers who are about to sell their property. However the high cost of land is a burden which the practising farmer must bear, and it brings him no real benefit. Certainly there is some fear in my mind as to the effect this $40,000 and $55,000 provision will have on the price of land. This fear was substantiated when the farmers union was in Ottawa about a month ago and suggested that the ceiling on loans from the Farm Credit Corporation remain as it is. They thought if there were an increase it would cause a tremendous increase in the price of land. I throw out this suggestion to the minister and I hope he and his officials will consider it, because the cost of land has risen tremendously in the last six or seven years. It is a burden around the necks of the farmers now operating land and certainly we, as legislators, do not want to add to this burden in any way.
While I believe that the amendments may be needed, I do not think the interest rates should fluctuate on the higher amounts. If the minister is determined to increase the ceiling on loans to $40,000 and $55,000, and I am not opposed to that although I do not believe the increase needs to be that high, then the interest rate should be spelled out in the bill. It should remain at the flat 5 per cent which is the rate charged for a farm improvement loan. If an increase is brought about, that will not necessarily reduce the loss the Farm Credit Corporation has suffered this year and the year previous.
I can remember that when I first came to Ottawa the old farm loan board was making money and, in fact, paid income tax I thought this was an error. While we have not seen much evidence of it yet, this government was supposed to be against high interest rates and was going to make every effort to reduce operating costs. Perhaps in the foreseeable future the government will be borrowing money at less than 5 per cent and will thus reduce the loss suffered by the Farm Credit Corporation. I can see that with the amount of money the Farm Credit Corporation is lending and the amount that is being repaid them every year, they will be able to lend money at 5 per cent in the near future and still break even. This is all we want to see them do. I hope that before we continue a clause by clause study of this bill the minister will make a decision with regard to the 5 per cent 20220-267J
Farm Credit Act
interest rate which will be applicable to these larger loans. I should like to see the government set the rate of interest by statute on all moneys borrowed from the Farm Credit Corporation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before the minister answers, I wonder if he would clear up this point with regard to the interest rate which is to apply on that portion of the amount in excess of $27,500? Perhaps I misunderstood the minister. I thought the .87 per cent included losses. Do I understand that in addition to the .87 per cent there is still an amount to cover losses, and if so, how much is it?


Harry William Hays: We say that the proportion for losses will not be more than one quarter of 1 per cent. It may be as low as one eighth. Throughout the years the Farm Credit Corporation has borrowed money as low as 4J per cent, and still indicated 5 per cent. This is natural. It may be that at some time in future years we shall be borrowing again at 4i per cent and, of course, the farmers would receive the benefit of the lesser rate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
Harry William Hays: That is right. It is the same as the National Housing Act provisions. I think that a farmer who needs $27,500 over 20 years is in much the same position as a truck driver or the owner of a supermarket who is buying his house through the N.H.A. He also pays 6| per cent, and up to 7J per cent.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is he in the same position as a man who borrows money under the Small Loans Act which parliament has on the statute books?


Harry William Hays: I should point out that our statistics indicate that farmers pay between 10 and 15 per cent on the $235 million which, as I mentioned earlier, are borrowed outside the Farm Credit Corporation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On short term loans.


Harry William Hays: As far as farmers are concerned, we have been able to borrow as low as 4i per cent. The amounts we are speaking of are subject to repayment over 20 years and the rate would be 5| per cent, as I indicated earlier.
When we were putting together the amendments to this act we were thinking about

Farm Credit Act
eastern farmers in particular, farmers in Quebec and adjacent areas. Take a unit in Quebec of 300 acres of land; we know that in most of these areas grass will support between 50 and 75 cows on a unit of this size. If farmers are engaged with a cow and calf proposition, add something like one and a half tons of hay throughout the winter. If they are trying to sell the calf as part of an operation where it is given to the feeder, gross earnings from this land would be about $7,500 a year. If a farmer were to borrow $40,000, his payment on the first $20,000 would be $1,322 a year and his payment on the other $20,000 would be $1,551, so his gross payment plus taxes would be $2,873. If he were a fairly good operator and he had a good average crop he should net somewhere between $4,000 and $4,500. This process would certainly lift him out of the economic position in which he finds himself today, a position which it is almost impossible to sustain. It is very similar to the project in the Abitibi area on which ARDA was doing a lot of work this year. In this instance the farmer had a minimum of 50 cows. We felt this would be a step in the right direction, together with other bills and amendments such as farm improvement loans, the machinery bill, and so on. This will not mean a cure overnight but it seems to me it is the proper approach.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A millionaire's
approach.


Harry William Hays: Well, the hon. member can speak for himself. I know he does not need this sort of loan-he owns half of the Hanna district; I realize that. My feeling is for the farmer and I think we can do something for him on this basis.
In answer to the hon. member's question in connection with interest rates, we think it is reasonable to think that the man who can afford this $25,000 will receive a good deal less criticism if he can stand up and face the world and say: I am paying what I am supposed to pay and I can make a living doing this.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was thinking that we do not make this kind of distinction in connection with the Small Businesses Loans Act. As I recollect it, loans are made there up to $50,000 and I am almost certain-I read the act some months ago-that there is no distinction between the rate of interest for any part of the loans. The loans are guaranteed by the government at a fixed rate of interest and it is not required that up to $27,500

one interest rate will be charged and that over this amount another rate will apply. It seems to me that when we are making loans to farmers the same interest rates should apply throughout. Why do we make this distinction with reference to farmers borrowing these larger sums? The ceiling for the farmer in part II of this bill is lower, as I recall it, than the ceiling in the Small Businesses Loans Act.


Harry William Hays: I am busy trying to run the Department of Agriculture. They have not promoted me that far yet.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To close the matter as far as I am concerned, let me say that the minister may be busy running the Department of Agriculture-that, of course, is his job- but the government surely has the responsibility to preserve some degree of equity in treating the different economic groups in Canada. It seems to me that in the new provisions which the minister is introducing he is inserting a principle which is different from that which applies to other economic groups and I hope when we get to the various clauses he will reconsider his stand on this matter.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister indicated that the increase was intended particularly to aid farmers in Quebec and to help them establish economic units. Can he tell the committee how many loans were made, or what percentage of the loans was made, to farmers in the province of Quebec at the present limit of $20,000?


Harry William Hays: In the year 1962-63 the average loan in Quebec was the highest in any province of Canada, with the exception of British Columbia. There is a great need, and these people appreciate how to use credit. I think this is the very thing they need to help them out of many of their difficulties. The government of Quebec has recognized this with regard to these loans of $20,000 by paying 2i per cent of the interest rate. I think this is something other provinces should consider in their programs to help farmers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In what province were the highest losses? Did they correlate with the highest loans? Can any comparison be made?


Harry William Hays: When we are considering a total sum of approximately $350 million and losses amount to only $6,000 I would say they are negligible in every province. I suppose I could get those figures.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Do I gather from the Minister's remarks that he thinks farmers borrowing more than $27,500 can well afford to pay these high interest rates? This is the impression I had. Is it a correct impression?


Harry William Hays: Yes. I think it is a big step forward, when we know he was paying between 10 per cent and 18 per cent for this money.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You do not know anything of the kind. You suggested that $235 million was borrowed outside the Farm Credit Corporation; but these were short term borrowings, not long term. I gather from the minister's remarks that he believes anybody borrowing $27,500 is a big farmer and can well afford to pay a higher rate of interest. This is my interpretation of the minister's remarks, and I would like to know if this is correct.


Harry William Hays: As I suggested, we are not changing what has taken place before. The farmer can borrow $27,500 at 5 per cent; the act will not change. What we are doing is broadening it to help the farmer who is operating a good, economic unit. There is provision in the act whereby under certain circumstances you cannot even borrow money. I do not suppose the hon. member could obtain a loan; he is in such good shape that he would not be permitted to borrow money under this act. But this provision is for farmers who need help. I am saying, Mr. Chairman, that we are not changing this provision, but any additional amount shall be borrowed at an economic rate. I think this is justifiable and we stand behind it. I think the farmers will accept it and will think it is a great deal better than they had before.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, the minister has perhaps led the house to believe that I am not in need of a loan. I would like to correct that false impression; I certainly am in need of a loan. I live in the dry part of Alberta where the grass is short and the water is scarce, and if the minister can do anything to help us in that area, I would greatly appreciate it. If he could give me a loan under the Farm Credit Corporation, my banker and I would both greatly appreciate it, but being a member of parliament I am excluded from obtaining a loan. However, I would like to think that many of those borrowing more than $27,500 would be small farmers, young farmers who need that much money and cannot afford to pay a high rate of interest on a high borrowing. This runs
Farm Credit Act
into a terrific amount of money. As I suggested, the difference between a $40,000 and $55,000 borrowing is $15,000 over 30 years, which comes to something like $500 more interest each year than a young farmer who is buying an economic unit would have to pay in interest alone to Harry Hays & Company, if I may use that term. I say that this high rate of interest on high borrowing is a millionaire's approach, and only a millionaire would think this would benefit the small farmer in any way, shape or form.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I shall not be very long, but I want to say a few words on Bill No. C-100 to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski)-which, to my mind, seems most logical-to set up, if need be, an appeal board concerning loans of the Farm Credit Corporation.
A while ago, the minister said that he knew the Quebec region fairly well and he even informed us that, at one time, he had owned five farms in that region. That assertion puzzles me a little. I wonder whether he owned those farms to operate them or to trade them. There are so many of those people, especially in my riding. Indeed, I could name large land buyers who have never seen the colour of the land and evidently never farmed it, and who own up to 40 lots in my region. The fact that they own them is precisely detrimental to those lots, since they bought them for a few hundred dollars from their owners, and they claim three times what they paid. If that is how- I do not mean, far from it, that he proceeded in that way-but if that is how the minister, at one time, owned farms in the province of Quebec, I don't agree with him at all, because we have too many of those people who own farms and who are not farmers.
What we want-and let us hope this will be made easier by the amendments brought in to Bill No. C-100, is to establish average units, but not everywhere, obviously, because all Quebec farmers would not benefit from them. In fact, most of our farmers own family farms, and we cannot rely on those larger units the Quebec minister is now trying to lure us with, those units of at least 500 acres.
If you want our Quebec farmers to stop thinking of the land and of the family farm as it stands now, if you keep on trying to impose upon them a minimum of 500 acres

Farm Credit Act
for each farm, all you have to do is to introduce here the Russian plan and your success is guaranteed.
As for us, we are in favour of the family farm system and so are our farmers. For two years, I have been actively looking after farm loans in my riding, and I must say that we succeeded last year, by our efforts, in having 15 per cent of the applications accepted by the Farm Credit Corporation. I want the minister to note these figures and to consider that if only 15 per cent of the applications were accepted by the Farm Credit Corporation in the Lake St. John area, there is certainly something wrong.
1 heard the minister say that over 40 per cent of the loans were accepted. This is certainly not the case in the province of Quebec.
In my riding, hardly 15 per cent of applications have been accepted and still, the amounts have not all been paid, because only 10 per cent of loans approximately have actually been made.
After looking into the matter and having talked to farmers in an attempt to find the trouble, I reached the conclusion that credit advisers were to blame. I feel that the trouble lies with credit advisers. The minister said earlier that he was familiar with certain areas of the province of Quebec. I am convinced, however, that he does not know it through and through. The minister is not aware of the partisanship existing in the province of Quebec. This is not to our credit, but I must say this, because I found last year that half the applications for loans were being turned down because of political partisanship.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is wrong.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Fifty per cent of the applications for loans were not accepted because of party politics.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is wrong.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Fifty per cent, and I can prove it. That is why, in my last speech the other day, I asked the minister to launch an inquiry. I know he can conduct a serious inquiry in my constituency, and I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that he would be shocked if he could see how some applications were refused, as I did last spring. He would then have proof. I think of the farmer who owned three lots of good tillable land, more than 200 acres of which was farm land, 32 heads of cattle, some dairy cattle, and was refused an aggregate loan of $13,000. There are several cases like that in my riding. Why? Probably

because the farmers in question are not of the right party.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is untrue.


An hon. Member:: It is so.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I have proof of it. Unlike the people out west, we live as if we belonged to the same family. Our parishes are controlled by four or five families but if four of them do not belong to the party in power, they will never get a loan. Such a situation is simply amazing but it must be pointed out. I have been fighting against such partisanship ever since I entered this house. Do not seek the cause elsewhere because, as far as agriculture is concerned in our province, the cause is that if you do not belong to the party in power, you have only one choice: to starve to death.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege-


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: It is even worse, because the
province of Quebec-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege in the interest of all members of the house.
The hon. member for Roberval has just made serious charges against the government and the Farm Credit Corporation. I say, even if I am a member of the opposition, that the statements made by the hon. member are an insult to all hon. members of the house. They are false, because the officials of the Farm Credit Corporation are honest. They are conscientious and they work in the interest of all citizens without any political considerations.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I did not assert anything, I just assumed. I only wanted to know which one had been most guilty and I found out.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are wrong. Withdraw.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I have nothing to withdraw. If the hat fits you, wear it. I found out certain things in my riding. I looked for two years to find out what was wrong, and, today, I say to the minister that the wrong exists at the level of the farm credit counsellors, because, as counsellors, they must give guidance.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I should like to give the committee some details concerning the hon. member's riding. Out of 1,500 projects he said that barely 100 were accepted. The corporation reports that for the four constituencies in the Lake

St. John district there were a total of 369 persons who contacted the local credit adviser for loans during the fiscal year. The dominion bureau of statistics figures for the census of 1961 indicate that there were 1,244 farmers in the municipality of Lake St. John West who had gross sales of over $1,200. During the fiscal year ended March 31, 1964 the corporation approved 121 loans for an amount of $1,293,900 in this country, or about one loan for every ten farmers with a gross income of over $1,200 or more.
The hon. member related loans in his constituency to the number of loans being made in the province of Saskatchewan. The d.b.s. figures show that in 1961 there were 82,285 farmers in Saskatchewan with gross sales in excess of $1,200. During the last fiscal year, the corporation approved 2,332 loans in Saskatchewan, or about one loan for every 40 farmers. From this it will be seen that the rate of lending by the corporation in the hon. member's constituency is about four times as high as that in the province of Saskatchewan, in spite of the fact that there is a provincial lending agency in Quebec very active in the field of farm mortgage credit. I can assure the hon. gentleman also that opinions of agricultural people, provincial agronomists and farmers in general indicate that the staff of the corporation working in the Lake St. John region are performing their duties in a competent and efficient manner.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Withdraw.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I am very glad that the minister gives us those figures.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You should be ashamed.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I worked all summer and fall.


Mr. Dupuis:: Doing nothing.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Making inquiries. The minister told us that last summer, only 408 applications had been submitted in Quebec compared to over 2,000 in the English speaking provinces and, today, he tells us that there have been 200 or 300 applications. I do not know who is making a mistake, but I spent two days in the office of the loan counsellor in Roberval. There were about 800 applications, but today the minister says 200. The figures supplied by the loan counsellor in Roberval do not agree at all with those given by the minister. Why did you not say so. We filed 300 applications and 200 have been accepted. When I visited the counsellor about
Farm Credit Act
loans, I gave him these figures and I told him: What are you doing, you are not working? He answered: Look at that, more than 800 applications.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I think the debate has taken a turn away from the question which is before us. I should point out to hon. members that the question before the committee is the bill to amend the Farm Credit Act, not a discussion on the general application of the act. I hope the hon. member for Roberval will make his remarks apply as closely as possible to the first clause of the bill before the committee.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The minister has involved me in this. He quoted figures concerning my constituency that I do not accept.
I spoke about loans to farmers and I asked who was preventing these loans from being granted. Advisers, high officials are the ones who approve these loans and I simply appeal to the minister to make it clear to the advisers that they are being appointed exactly to guide, to assist the farmers in requesting and securing the loans they need to get out of the hole and not to recommend to them or to tell them: In your case, it would be better to sell your farm and to settle in town.
Their role is precisely to encourage farmers to stay on the farm. That is why we say that credit advisers must organize their work so as to put an end to farm abandonment. In fact, that makes ten families which have been chased away from their farm when they should have been provided with the necessary means to stay on the farm.
It is rightly said that the purpose of the amendments under consideration is to help our farmers. Well, then, let us help them properly. At present, they are given loans, about the same way a real estate agent would do it, and they are told: "You wish to get out of the hole? Then borrow now and borrow again tomorrow."
Moreover, it is said that agriculture is the basis of the economy. If we really want to help the farmer, since agriculture is the basis of the economy, let us help them by the granting of a monetary contribution.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard the minister state a while ago that he borrows money at 4 or 4J per cent. I ask him whether he ever

Farm Credit Act
helped farmers, whose production is the basis of our economy, through our monetary system, namely the Bank of Canada? There is the means. Let him stop borrowing money. The situation is such that in order to help the farmer, the government makes him borrow money and it borrows money itself so that it may lend the farmer more money.
Does the minister work for the finance companies or for the farmers?
We want him to work more for the benefit of the farmers and, to do so, he should make better use of the Bank of Canada. If only he would grant loans at the administrative costs he would then really help them. In fact, it is the only way to help them; he would thus grant them loans on the very basis of our economy.
But if he wishes to continue to use our silly financial system, he should at least lend at a rate of interest of 5 per cent, but he should exempt farmers from taxes. The government gives industry such an exemption. He should exempt farmers from taxes during a five or ten year period, to give them an opportunity to recover and then he would really come to the farmers rescue. As for the suggestion of the hon. member for Mackenzie who would like to establish an appeal board, I suggest that in the Lake St. John area, in Chicoutimi and Roberval, which he seems to know fairly well, the minister should appoint the county council, an organization entirely free from political affiliations, because members of the appeal board should not have anything to do with politics. The farmer who will apply for a loan must also obtain justice from this non-partisan group, not to mention that the county council is a regional organization which knows farmers well and will do them justice.
I feel that this suggestion of the hon. member is the best one made tonight. The appointment of such a group would finally help farmers whose applications for loans have been turned down for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
I would say to the minister: "Why not take the trouble to send into our area someone who would examine the situation on the spot. Stop relying on such and such an official. Go and examine the situation yourself and you will put your finger on what is wrong now." I could tell him that today, instead of helping the farmer, we are making things more difficult for him.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I rise on a point of order also, Mr. Chairman.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, while the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) was making his speech, I heard unbecoming remarks being made by some government members, namely, the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote), the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) and the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Emard), who apparently wanted-


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, when I am through with my point of order, the hon. member for Longueuil can rise, but until then, let him remain seated-


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, when I am through with my observations, the hon. member for Longueuil can speak.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: On a point of privilege-	|


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Villeneuve is already on a point of privilege and the Chair would like to hear him first.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I cannot pass over the behaviour of those three members who tried to ridicule the hon. member for Roberval. Neither can I do anything but protest against the attitude of those three members who never saw a carrot grow in their own county and who know absolutely nothing about agriculture, but who tried to ridicule the hon. member for Roberval. Those people should be a little more responsible than they are now.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege. If I did utter some improper words, as the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) just stated, I would like him to repeat them and I shall be ready to withdraw anything I might have said which the hon. member would deem offensive.
As far as the speech that has been delivered is concerned, I think I have the right to qualify it as I wish.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, for five
minutes the hon. member has been laughing and trying to ridicule the member

who just resumed his seat. These expressions are not recorded in Hansard and for that I am thankful, because the terms used by him and by his colleague, the member for Hull (Mr. Caron) who is sitting in the back, seemed quite improper under the circumstances.


Mr. Caron:: What terms have been used? [Text]


Mr. Rock:: On a point of privilege-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


Raymond Rock: The hon. member for-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Hull.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, since I have been involved, I should like the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) to give a single example of an improper remark I have made. He may be full of improper words but he does not know what "improper words" are.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, on that same question of privilege, this is the first time in three years that I have seen the hon. member for Hull rise to speak, and yet he could do no better than make the incoherent remarks we have just heard.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The debate has got to the stage where there are charges and countercharges, and I think we have heard sufficient on the point of privilege.


Raymond Rock: I would like to mention the fact that there has been an error made by the hon. member for Villeneuve. He had also named the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges and he is not even in the chamber.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is not in the house at this time, but he was here a while ago, I think.


Raymond Rock: No, apologize, he is not here, he is not present.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, only one word to express all my admiration for the authorities of the federal Farm Credit Corporation. They are honest, conscientious officials, and I regret the remarks made by the hon. member for Roberval.
The authorities of the Canadian Farm Credit Corporation swore to dedicate themselves to the interest of all Canadian farm-
Farm Credit Act
ers, regardless of political or other considerations and, as I say, I regret the speech made by the hon. member for Roberval.
I hope the Canadian people will forgive the irresponsible remarks just made by the hon. member for Roberval and I am hopeful that after the next general election that corner of the house will have completely disappeared and it will be a blessing for the Canadian people.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I again rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is surely not dealing with the bill before us. He is another one who, apart from the tobacco question, does not know anything about agriculture in the province of Quebec. He is the first one to blame the government when it introduces any legislation, but he did not have the courage to protest against his own government when it was legislating on Canadian agriculture.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must ask the committee to exercise its good judgment.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a question of privilege-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I must ask the committee to exercise its good judgment and come back to the bill before the committee.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I rise on a question of privilege. I hope the house will pass this bill, even if I do not agree with some of the opinions expressed concerning some of its details.
I hope the house will pass this bill as soon as possible, because I have full confidence in the officials of the federal Farm Credit Corporation, and as an agronomist and a farmer's son, I question what the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) said.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I cannot accept the remarks the hon. member is making now as a point of privilege.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could continue with this point by point discussion of the bill. May I remind hon. members that this is the fifteenth day since February that we have discussed agriculture, including the supplementary estimates, the main estimates, two days on the supply motion, and now four days on this bill. As I pointed out earlier, we still have the amendment to the crop insurance bill, the

Farm Credit Act
machinery bill, farm improvement loans and also another supply motion, at which time I am sure hon. members will be able to discuss agriculture in all its ramifications. I must point out again that the Farm Credit Corporation is running out of money and I am sure the farmers would appreciate it very much if we could get the bill through. Some of them may even need money to finish putting in their crops.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think a statement like this from the minister, which is inaccurate, should be corrected immediately. When he is recounting the time spent on the subject of agriculture he might restrict himself solely to this bill, and also be accurate in his statements in that regard. I have the record here. We passed the resolution stage of this bill without debate in order to speed up things. We began debate on second reading of the bill on the 2nd of June at eight o'clock and continued for two hours. On the 9th of June we returned to the debate on second reading at 4.30 p.m. and debated the bill for two and a half hours that day. As hon. members will recall it was at my request that the bill was then given second reading. We spent another one and a half hours yesterday on the committee stage and we have been on the committee stage today. Surely this is not too long a time to spend on a bill of this importance. We made a concession with regard to the resolution stage and completed the second reading stage in order to speed things up. The minister's friends on that side have been participating to a very great extent in the debate on this bill, and I wondered yesterday whether they were attempting to delay its passage.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Chairman, before clause 1 carries I should like to address a few remarks to the minister with regard to the additional legal costs that are going to be involved. As he knows, I had some questions on the order paper with regard to solicitors and their fees under the Farm Credit Corporation. I am particularly concerned about the use of solicitors that are available in rural areas.
The minister and I both know that the local patronage is handled by groups in the cities and has nothing at all to do with the people in the rural areas. Surely a qualified lawyer in a particular area, regardless of his politics, should be able to act on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation. We spent a great

deal of time trying to decentralize this thing. The minister also knows that farmers 200 miles from Edmonton do not like having to drive into the city. They are not accustomed to it and feel out of place in the city.
I hope the minister will have another look at the question of the government paying solicitors' fees on behalf of the farmers. The farmers have to pay them in the end, and I know what happens in my area and other areas as well. There are only five accredited lawyers in my whole constituency. It so happens that all of them are Liberals. It so happens that we appointed them farm credit solicitors. When the government changed, the new government changed all the solicitors and cut off these lawyers regardless of whether or not they were doing a good job. It was pure and simple patronage.
The minister has said on many occasions that he does not want any part of political patronage, and I agree with him. As a fellow Albertan he is on the right track. But let him talk to the political organizers, particularly in the cities of Edmonton and Calgary, who control the legal patronage lists. Let us talk in practical terms. Let him not supply answers like he did to me, saying the Barrhead is 25 miles from Edson and the farmers can go over there. I am sure he appreciates where the rivers run in Alberta. I am sure he also appreciates where the roads are. If he is going to continue to make these farmers drive 125 miles to see a lawyer in Edmonton who is no more competent than the lawyers we have in Edson and Barrhead, it is absolute nonsense and a farce.
The minister is increasing the limits under the act and this is fine and dandy. I agree with it; but in increasing the limits he is going to increase the fees paid to the lawyers. He and I also know that these contracts are drawn up by clerks in the offices of the lawyers. They are simply a standard form, nothing specialized, and all the lawyer has to do is check them over and O.K. them. Let us not have this kind of political patronage nonsense. In my own home town we have three qualified lawyers. Are they not qualified to handle the business of the Farm Credit Corporation? What nonsense. Instead of using them the minister makes the farmers drive an extra 50 miles. These three lawyers are all Liberals, so appoint them. They will not hurt you. They will never get elected anyway.


An hon. Member:: How did you get in?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Come and run against me. The minister has said he is not

going to belong to the gang to which the hon. member tor Kootenay East belongs, the old political gang that played this patronage game before. We expect an Albertan to be above that. We expect the minister to live up to what he has said he is going to do. We expect him to have another look at this matter and to appoint lawyers who are competent in the areas that are involved. Let us not have any more silly answers that the farmers can drive 25 miles. They cannot drive 25 miles because there is a river in the way.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I would be very pleased to take the hon. member's suggestion into consideration. All we are interested in is cutting down the time. Certainly we are not interested in political patronage, so far as farm credit is concerned. I might remind hon. members across the floor that they were elected on June 10, 1957, took office on June 21 and 35 days later every lawyer formerly employed from coast to coast was without any further work.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Prove that.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: If the minister will allow me to say so, under the old farm loan board only one group of lawyers in Edmonton was allowed to do the work. It was all centralized in the city of Edmonton and, whether you lived in Edson or in Medicine Hat, you had to drive to Edmonton to get a farm loan. One group of lawyers did the work and they were Liberals. We fought to get this decentralized, because one of the things that was wrong with the old farm loan board was that you had to go to Edmonton to get a loan. The minister knows, and so does the chairman of the corporation, that we got it broken down. If you want a nonsensical situation, we have a farm credit officer in this town with three lawyers, but since the Liberals came into office apparently not one of these lawyers is considered capable of handling these mortgages. The minister denies there is patronage, but if this is not patronage I have never seen it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A scandal.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member that there has been no change in the system.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: No change in the system? Come now. For heaven's sake, can the minister stand there and talk like that?
20220-26SJ
Farm Credit Act


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, I find I must raise a question of privilege with regard to the remarks of the minister concerning the alleged changes made by our administration in 1962 after we were elected in June. I beg to point out to the committee that the lawyer in Napanee handling the Farm Credit Corporation work in our area was appointed by the Liberals prior to 1957, and is still acting.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Mr. Chairman, the minister has made the statement that there has been no change. That is absolute nonsense. I can give him the name of the town. There were three lawyers there in 1963 when the minister took office and one of those lawyers was doing the farm credit work. I wrote to the corporation and said I did not care who was appointed. The chap who was appointed was a good Liberal and he was a member of the executive of the Liberal association. He was also a competent lawyer so we made him a solicitor for the Farm Credit Corporation.
Along about April 10, the minister took over and this fellow lost his commission to survey mortgages for the Farm Credit Corporation. Instead of a farmer having to drive 10 or 20 miles to see a lawyer to get this work done he now has to drive 150 miles. For the minister to say there has been no change is absolute nonsense. In the town of Edson there are two lawyers and we had appointed one of them to do the farm credit work. He was also a fair Liberal but he was appointed because we did not think it was right that these farmers should have to drive 150 miles to Edmonton to arrange for a mortgage. At the time the government changed, these people were cut off completely. You say that there has been no change, and that is an absolute prevarication.


Harry William Hays: I think I should correct this statement. My officials tell me, and they run the corporation, that there has been no change in the system. I tell them to run it on merit. There has been a reduction in the number of lawyers and also a reduction in the time that it takes to service a loan. This is the very operation we feel we should do. We are working for the farmer and nobody else.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I rise on a question of privilege. The minister is now coming up with a statement that his officials have said there has been no change. This is absolutely incorrect because his answer in

Farm Credit Act
this regard is on Hansard. His officials have [Translation]
already told him he is incorrect in making Mr. Caouelie: Mr. Chairman, on a point that statement. They changed the solicitor. or(jer They wiped out the solicitor in the town of	'
Barrhead. There were three lawyers there. The Chairman: I recognize the hon. mem-This does not make any sense.	her for Villeneuve on a point of order.


Harry William Hays: Let us correct this again. I said we did not change the system.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harry William Hays: That is what I said. There is a reduction in the number of lawyers and a reduction in the amount of time it takes to service a loan.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I ask the minister if he submitted the list of lawyers to the board, yes or no?


An hon. Member:: The list has been in Hansard for some time.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: The Minister of Justice submits the list to the Minister of Agriculture and it is O.K.'d by the legal department of the Liberal party. This is how lawyers get appointments. Let us not fool ourselves. We know how they get appointed.


Lucien Lamoureux: I wonder if the members of the committee do not feel they have discussed this particular point long enough? I realize it may be of interest and importance, but perhaps we could move along a little bit and go to another point. Then, if hon. members want to come back to this a little later on, we will do that.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We are against patronage, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Ricard:: I just want to clear up this question of patronage. I should like to ask the minister the reason Mr. Oliva Blanchet of La Presentation, Quebec was replaced by Mr. J. E. Lafleur from St. Denis as a member of the advisory board.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is patronage.


Harry William Hays: This question has been answered, and it is in Hansard.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to ask a question-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Where is this answer in Hansard-*


David Réal Caouette: Apparently the Conservatives do not want this bill to be discussed any further tonight or to be passed. It is probably to follow up what the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) told me about ten minutes ago, that the Conservatives want to wait until the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) is back, before this bill is passed. That is why they discuss-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege-


Lucien Lamoureux: Would the hon. member please resume his seat?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Lucien Lamoureux: One moment. The hon. member for Villeneuve has the floor now on a point of order, and when he has finished, we can hear the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, you were no doubt in the chair a while ago when the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm came to my desk to tell me that the bill could not be passed tonight because the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was still away and that we had to wait for his return before passing the bill.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has the floor to explain a personal matter.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I must say that the hon. member for Villeneuve's remarks are not in keeping with the facts. His statement is entirely inaccurate; in fact, the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, is in the house at present and is carefully listening to the discussion.
The hon. member for Villeneuve, knowing that his whole political venture is crumbling under him and that he himself will be eliminated in the next election, takes the liberty of jeering indiscriminately.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Speaking to the point of order, I may say that I do not really believe it was a point of order. However, Mr. Chairman, I believe it would be nice if the whole house were to welcome back these people who have returned to enliven and enrich our agricultural debate.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the appointment of lawyers, and more or less speaking horticulturally, I would say that the minister does not know his aspidistras from his hollyhocks in a greenhouse. I can sincerely say that many of the residents in my constituency formerly served by lawyers now have to travel up to 50 miles to get service. This is in the whole of the Okanagan Boundary. It is ridiculous for the minister to say that there has been no change made. This area was well served by lawyers of all political faiths after 1958, and particularly after the formation of the Farm Credit Corporation. I say "all political faiths" because I know this to be a fact. There has been a change and a concentration, just as the hon. member for Jasper-Edson has said. If the minister has not heard of this, then I suggest he look into it. I suggest that he made changes which were political. I do not know whether or not there is any patronage and I would not like to go so far as to say that. Previously, this organization was serving the people who were supposed to be served, namely the farmers.


Lucien Lamoureux: It being ten o'clock, shall I rise and report progress?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, would it not be possible for us to consider sitting a little longer to pass part of this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lucien Lamoureux: There is not a unanimous consent to this suggestion.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the acting house leader if we continue with this bill tomorrow, followed by interim supply?


John Watson MacNaught: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
11. 1964	4225
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:



SOCIAL ASSISTANCE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 8, as recorded at page 4033 of Hansard, I put this question to the government:
Is the federal government aware of the declaration made by a minister of the Saskatchewan government that it intends to require recipients of social aid to work for relief? Have any proposals been made to the federal government regarding this matter, and what is the attitude of the federal government toward such a proposal?
It was felt by Mr. Speaker that the question was not one to be dealt with on orders of the day so I asked that it be transferred to be taken up in one of these overtime periods.
I hope we may now get an answer from one of the ministers or from one of the parliamentary secretaries.
It seems to some of us that this announcement from Saskatchewan is a very serious one, and that every effort should be made to prevent such a retrograde step being taken. It is our hope that the federal government will have no part in any such proposal. All of us believe in work rather than relief, but we do not believe in work for relief. This was well put on Monday of last week in an editorial in the Toronto daily Star, a sentence or two of which I should like to read. Speaking of this Saskatchewan proposal the Star said:
If it meant that a concerted effort should be made to find normal jobs for the unemployed and thus take them off the relief rolls, every reasonable person would be for it. What the advocates of this policy really want in most cases, however, is to make everyone on relief who can walk put in a few hours every day at some kind of physical labour, however pointless.
Later in the same editorial I note the following sentence or two:
A program of forced labour for people on relief can only serve as a means of punishment and humiliation for those involved, while disorganizing the province's regular public works system. It also has possibilities of course, for getting certain jobs done on the cheap, and undercutting the wages of civic and provincial workers.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
(Subject matter of questions debated under adjournment motion).
I believe this editorial and others which I have seen in various newspapers make it very clear that any step of this nature would be thoroughly retrograde in character. It reminds us of policies which were practised
[Stage Direction]
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion by a number oi governments in the 'thirties. We have got over those policies; let us not go back to them. A policy of this kind is against everything that people who are practised in the field of social welfare stand for; they have already made it clear that they hope such a policy will not be pursued. I should like to remind the house, also, of the statement made the other day by the Canadian Labour Congress in which, among other things, it was pointed out that this practice would be contrary to the universal declaration of human rights which declares that everyone has a right to work, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment, but also that everyone has a right to free choice of employment.
So, because we feel this is a backward step which should not be entertained, and because it would seem to us that if any change in the Unemployment Assistance Act is to be made, the federal government is involved, we hope the federal government through its spokesman tonight will make it clear that it will have no part in a retrograde policy of this kind.
Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I am not too sure that this is the proper place in which to conduct a campaign against the government of Saskatchewan which, in effect, is what the hon. member is doing. As far as I am aware, all that has happened is that some statements have been reported in the press, some of which have not been very complete. Certainly, the federal government has received no firm statement or declaration from the government of Saskatchewan even one asking for consideration of a change in the type of the present program. So I think the point made by the hon. member is academic at the moment.
I do not know what the hon. minister- Mr. Boldt, I believe it was-said. Perhaps the hon. member knows no more than we do, except that from various press reports he read or heard over television or radio. I do not know if he has a word for word statement of what the minister said; the government has not, to my knowledge.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister said he wrote to the federal government.


John Carr Munro: Well, we have not received anything; we have received no communication setting out any type of proposal which he would even like us to consider. The last

discussion there was on these lines was of a most general nature. It took place at the last welfare conference with federal and provincial ministers a week and a half or two weeks ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What was the position of the government at that time?


John Carr Munro: It was just a general discussion at that time on the Unemployment Assistance Act and what changes may be necessary, without really any detailed reference to this question of work for relief. Various provinces were asked to submit their views on it. They indicated they had certain views, and in a spirit of federal-provincial co-operation, I suppose, their points of view on this question have to be considered. At the time of the conference no specific proposals were advanced. I think the stand any federal government would have to take, in view of the fact that this is a shared field, would be that their proposals would have to be considered, once we have any proposals. We have not even received a proposal from the province of Saskatchewan; therefore I do not think there is any justification for the hon. member's alarm, certainly at this point.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What position did the federal government take when this matter was discussed at the conference?


John Carr Munro: It really was not discussed. It was indicated by certain provinces, I believe and I could not even tell you which ones now; perhaps it was one at that time, and it was not Saskatchewan-that they had some views on this subject. That aspect of the matter having been opened up, the provinces were asked to submit their proposals and have them ready for the next meeting. Since one province had views on this question it was felt it should be discussed. And that is about where the matter stands.



HOUSING


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Mr. Speaker, on June 8 I asked this question of the Minister of Labour:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that many persons living in houses completed before March 31 have not received the $500 bonus yet, and can he inform the house when these bonuses will be paid?
Mr. Speaker then said:
This is a question for the order paper.

This somewhat disappointed me, because I do not ask questions very frequently and I try to observe the rules. I felt it was a question of concern to everybody in all the provinces. However, Mr. Speaker, I repeat the question at this time so that the Minister of Labour can make a statement on just what is the status of the payment of these bonuses. I have received information from the west coast that quite a number of people have been waiting for this bonus, and I should like to hear what the position is at the present time.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, since the Hansard record did not suggest or indicate that the hon. member was going to raise this matter this evening, the notice I received at 5.30 did not leave much time in which to gather statistical information.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The question was asked on June 8.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: However, Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that the cheques have been going out within three to five weeks after receipt of the application upon which determination can be made as to whether these people qualify. In the case of any bona fide applications submitted regarding houses completed before March 31, where the cheques have not yet been received, this should certainly be brought to the attention of the Department of Labour. I am sure they would be happy to investigate such cases immediately. March 31 is some time ago, and if there are home owners or contractors who have not received their cheques, I wish the hon. member would bring the specific details to the attention of the Department of Labour.



AIRPORTS-MALTON-LIMOUSINE AND TAXI SERVICE BY UNLICENSED COMPANY

Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon during the question period I asked the Minister of Transport whether he could advise this house why the Department of Transport in 1961 granted an exclusive privilege to Air Terminal Transport Limited to operate a limousine and taxi service at Malton airport when the company does not hold a taxi licence from either metropolitan Toronto or the township of Toronto in Peel county.
This question has been prompted by a situation which has arisen in Toronto where the Toronto taxicab conference is demanding
11. 1964	4227
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion that they be given fair treatment in this Canada of ours, and that a monopoly that was granted by the previous government should be broken. I was amused a moment or two ago to hear the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm yell across the aisle his opposition to monopolies, and I heard two speakers on farm credit from Alberta claiming that they were also opposed to monopolies. Yet here we have a monopolistic agreement between the minister of transport for 1960 and 1961 and Air Terminal Transport Limited of 30 Howard Park avenue, Toronto which gives them, if I may quote from the front page of the indenture, which I was not able to secure from the previous government when I sat in opposition but which I got with ease from the present President of the Privy Council, (Mr. Mcllraith) in his earlier capacity of minister of transport, in December last year-
-the exclusive right and privilege (hereinafter referred to as the said right and privilege) to maintain and operate a limousine and taxicab station at the Malton international airport, at Malton in the province of Ontario, for the operation of a limousine and taxi service.
In this agreement between the then minister of transport and Air Terminal Transport Limited, which runs for ten years from 1960 to 1970, the word "taxi" is used ten times. The word "taxi" appears ten times in seven pages. This organization does not hold a taxi licence, either from the township of Toronto, in which Malton airport is situated, or from the municipality of metropolitan Toronto from which 98 per cent of their business originates.
There are 1,100 taxicab operators in the city of Toronto, all of whom are experienced and all of whom are seeking to give the taxicab service which this indenture is supposed to cover. I ask the Minister of Transport whether he will not look into this situation, which appears to be nothing but a dog in the manger attitude based on an exclusive franchise granted by the previous government.
This company do not supply a taxi service, yet they are given a contract which says that they alone shall supply a taxi service. I state that the 1,100 taxicab operators in Toronto who take fares out to Malton airport but are forbidden by the terms of this contract, it would appear, to pick up fares at Malton and bring them back into Toronto should be allowed to give the taxicab service people expect.
Why in the name of heaven should a monopoly be granted to a firm in Toronto to
4228	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion give taxicab or limousine service from the Malton airport? We do not do that here at the parliament buildings. If an hon. member wants a livery or taxicab at the front door of the buildings, this is government property and one of the officers at the door will call a number and summon one from downtown Ottawa. Or you can give him the number and he will call it. But at Malton airport and I am told the same situation prevails at Dorval and at Uplands, there is an exclusive agreement with one monopoly outfit to provide the service. Under the terms of the contract, whereby they pay 3f per cent of their gross revenue to the Department of Transport during the present five year period, X calculate that their gross take is $1,800,000 a year, and they do not have any competition, with the protection of the Department of Transport as per the agreement signed by the former minister of transport in 1961.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a nefarious attitude to take. I have gone to the trouble of looking up the taxicab bylaw of the township of Toronto, in which township the Air Terminal Transport Company have their offices. Under the old taxicab bylaw dated March 8, 1948 it is distinctly pointed out that,
-no person shall keep any motor vehicles whatever to be used for hire in the conveyance of persons from place to place within the township of Toronto or from any point within the said township to any point beyond the limits of the said township unless duly licensed therefor under the provisions of this bylaw.
The township of Toronto is a semi-rural district between Toronto and Hamilton. On December 31, 1956, a new bylaw was brought into effect covering taxicabs, and one clause which was added is very interesting.
"cab" means any vehicle used for hire for the conveyance of passengers either wholly within the municipality or to any point not more than three miles beyond its limits and includes a taxicab, ambulance, funeral hearse and sightseeing coach-
And note this:
-but does not include a limousine unless the limousine is equipped with a taxi meter;
Yet if you walk into the parliamentary library, there you have Webster's International dictionary, which is the first book you see in the library, and you will find it says a taxicab is a chauffeur driven automobile "'with or without a taxi meter." The general acceptance is a cab for hire with or without a taxi meter, but in the township of Toronto some fine hand, with a fine pallette, has painted a pretty picture, and has produced this clause which does not include a limousine unless it is equipped with a taxi meter. Therefore this

agreement that it shall provide a taxi service does not apply to a company which operates only limousines.
There are 16 hon. members from the Toronto area in this house, and since I was contacted this morning by the Toronto taxicab drivers conference I have spoken to six of them, and all of them advised me they are opposed to a monopoly operation in the city of Toronto at Malton airport.
There has been absolutely no tender on this $1,800,000 a year contract. Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter from the Department of Transport which contains the following paragraph:
When the agreement with Air Terminal Transport Limited was up for renewal in 1960, a tender call was considered but it was not possible to proceed on this basis because of the position taken by the provincial department of transport in respect to franchises.
I telephoned the Ontario provincial department of transport this morning and asked if there would be any trouble in securing a franchise to operate motor vehicles from Malton airport to Toronto if the federal government should issue a franchise, and I was advised there would be no trouble at all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have to interrupt the hon. member to tell him his time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have not had very much opportunity since the hon. member asked his question this afternoon to do any lengthy research into the matter. It is quite correct, as the hon. gentleman has said, that this particular company does have a contract which was renegotiated some years ago, I think in 1960. It is also true-at least I assume it is true because I read it in the Ottawa Journal this evening, that-
-eight taxi drivers seeking a test case they hope will permit them to pick up fares at Toronto international airport got what they wanted Wednesday-two summonses and eight $5 parking tickets.
I assume, therefore, this case is going to come into the courts and it would be perhaps unwise for me, under the circumstances, to attempt to say anything at this stage which might in any way prejudge a case that is going to be heard in the courts. But I listened with a great deal of interest to what the hon. member has said, and I will naturally continue my research into the subject and see whether there is in fact a situation which should be remedied and, if so, what the appropriate remedy should be.

Of course hon. members will realize that people travel by air presumably to get to their destinations quickly, and that there would be a great deal of dissatisfaction on the part of the travelling public if they arrived at an airport on a day which was stormy, when perhaps it would be more profitable for taxis to carry passengers in the metropolitan areas instead of going out to the airports to wait
11, 1964	4229
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion for passengers. In this case there might be nobody there to carry them. It is important to have some means of assuring the public that there will be a means of getting to and from airports at all times, but whether the present system is the best one I am not prepared to say.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Friday. June 12. 1964