1964-06-09

LORD BEAVERBROOK


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the house will permit me, in the Prime Minister's name, to do something which is rather unusual, about a man who was certainly unusual. I refer to the death of which we learned, in some cases, just a few moments ago, of Lord Beaverbrook who, like many a native of Ontario, was perhaps rather more attached to another part of Canada than to his native province, but whose attachment to Canada throughout his long and remarkable life gives us a reason for referring to his death after that long and very full life.
All of us recall, either in our own experience or as students of what has happened in the past, the great services Lord Beaverbrook rendered to the cause of his adopted country, to the cause of his native country and to the cause of freedom in two world wars.
We also acknowledge that he was one of the foremost native sons of our country, and I am sure we would all wish to express our sympathy to Lady Beaverbrook and all members of the Aitken family.


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: The
death of Lord Beaverbrook will come as a great shock to all Canadians, but especially to those of us who live in the province of New Brunswick. Lord Beaverbrook was one of four men who came from that little province and who made their mark-Bonar Law, R. B. Bennett, James Dunn and himself. At one time three of them studied in the same small law office in Chatham, N.B.
For more than 30 years his benefactions to his native province were many, especially in the fields of education and the performing arts. Recently he built in the city of Fredericton a new theatre, which has not yet been officially opened. Hon. members will, of course, be aware of the Beaverbrook art gallery which he established. Lord Beaverbrook was especially interested in the field of education for more than 35 years, during which
time Beaverbrook scholarships helped hundreds of young men and women to better lives. I join with all other hon. members in paying tribute to the memory of this great man.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: As a
former professor at the University of New Brunswick who knew and appreciate the benefactions of Lord Beaverbrook, and as one whose ancestors were, a long way back, those of Lord Beaverbrook-I remember talking to him a number of years ago and he said that at one election campaign some of his political opponents said that this man's forebears were poor peasants from the isles of Mull and Ulva-so were mine-I should like to join in the tribute being paid today.
I should like to say, as an educationist, how much all of us who are interested in education appreciate what Lord Beaverbrook did himself in this field, and how by his example he prompted other men of largesse to do the same for all good causes, the first of which was education. I join with the Minister of Transport and my hon. friend from York-Sunbury in mourning today a great Canadian who was always prepared to support great causes vigorously, effectively and courageously, whether they were popular or not. I should like to add my voice to those of the two members of the house who have preceded me in expressing my regret at the loss of a great Canadian, a great friend of scholarship and, above all, a great friend of the maritimes.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: The; members of this party would like to associate themselves with those who have paid tribute to the late Lord Beaverbrook. He was a man who made a great impact on the business life of Canada and upon the world of journalism in the United Kingdom. It is to his credit that he never lost his interest in Canada and that he spent much of his wealth in furthering education and learning in the province of New Brunswick, where his heart always remained.
He leaves behind him a recollection in the minds of all who knew of him of a man whose colourful and flamboyant career in the field of journalism left an indelible mark on that

Tribute to Lord Beaverbrook profession. We join with those who have spoken in extending our deepest sympathy to his family.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I join with other members of this house who have spoken regarding the passing of Lord Beaverbrook.
He was a man dedicated to his convictions, courageous and charitable in a truly Canadian way; a man who was not always right, but a man brave enough to fight for what he thought to be right.
As one who knew him as a personal friend, I count his passing as a great loss. It is, indeed, a loss to Canada, to the commonwealth and to the world which will surely not soon be forgotten.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, as a native son of Newcastle, New Brunswick; as one who studied law in the same office to which reference has been made, in Chatham, New Brunswick, and in fact used the same desk and the same chair; as one who entered the university on a Max Aitken scholarship before there was a Lord Beaverbrook; as one who received a cablegram from his lordship within the last 72 hours expressing appreciation for a message I sent him on his birthday, I would like to associate myself with other hon. members of the house in their tributes to this great Canadian.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1964-65

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates A for the financial year ending March 31, 1965, was presented by Hon. G. J. Mcll-raith (President of the Privy Council), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

['I can assure the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that the morale of the Canadian troops serving in Cyprus is high. In respect of the suggestion that a small group of parliamentarians visit the island, we will be glad to take that into consideration.']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely Sherwood Hayes Rideout, Esq., member for the electoral district of Westmorland, by decease. Accordingly I have addressed my warrant to the chief electoral officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I am wondering to whom to direct a question respecting the situation in Cyprus, in particular the observation made by a Greek official that that country is in imminent danger of an outbreak of war. I hope there is some minister here today who will be able to enlighten the house in this regard.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the situation is being very closely watched by the government, and I would be pleased to take this question as notice so that a fuller reply may be given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he is in his place.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the minister able to tell the house whether, in view of Cyprus being one of the countries within the commonwealth, the Canadian government has brought to the attention of President Makarios its strong feelings against his utterances, which were reported to have been that assistance would not be unwelcome from the U.S.S.R.?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs, on behalf of the government, has taken all reasonable steps to maintain peace in that strife-torn island and to exercise his responsibility in a most efficient fashion.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question of efficiency and the like does not enter into an occasion as serious as this. I ask the minister this. Has the Canadian government, as a government which has made a great contribution to Cyprus in the peace keeping force, made clear to President Makarios its strong feelings at his reported statement- and I am going to keep within the limits of parliamentary speech-that he would be calling upon the U.S.S.R. or would welcome the U.S.S.R. to settle a matter which is particularly dangerous at this time?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, on the specifics of the question I think it would be wise to leave it until the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who has been conducting the negotiations on behalf of the government, is in his place and is able to give a full reply.


John George Diefenbaker: Will he be here today?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, he may be here later. He is out at the airport now meeting the German chancellor, but he will be back as soon as it is reasonably possible lor him to do so.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake SI. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether his department, in view of present developments in Cyprus, has taken special steps to ensure the safe withdrawal of our Canadian citizens from the island should an open conflict occur between Turks and Greeks?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the department has tried to take all possible contingencies into consideration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand the minister of defence is planning to visit Cyprus fairly soon. In view of the concern which the Canadian people feel about the situation in Cyprus, has the minister given any thought to the idea of a small non-partisan committee, such as the steering committee of the defence committee, visiting Cyprus, with the double intent of helping to boost the morale of the Canadian forces who are there in knowing that members of parliament are interested in the service they are performing, and also of allaying any fears which the Canadian public may have that the status of the U.N. force is not being fully recognized?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I can assure the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that the morale of the Canadian troops serving in Cyprus is high. In respect of the suggestion that a small group of parliamentarians visit the island, we will be glad to take that into consideration.



REPORTED REQUEST FOR CANADIAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norlh):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Did the government of the Congo request direct military assistance from Canada? If so, what form of assistance was requested, and what answer was given to the Congolese government?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as some hon. gentlemen know, the Congolese originally asked the 20220-259
Inquiries of the Ministry United Nations to arrange a training program. When the secretary general, after consulting the Congo advisory committee, replied in the negative, Prime Minister Adoula asked five countries to give training assistance on a bilateral basis. Those countries were Belgium, Italy, Israel, Canada and Norway.
Prolonged consultations were held with the Department of National Defence about the Congolese request. It was decided there were not sufficient instructors available in the Canadian army to undertake the task of training. It was felt also it would not be appropriate to undertake training assistance outside the United Nations when the request had come to and through the United Nations. It was for that reason decided not to accede to the request.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer one part of the questions concerning what type of assistance was requested.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was understood the Congolese authorities were primarily interested in Canadian assistance in the field of military communications training.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Yesterday I raised the question of the treatment of a Greek seaman, Mr. Thomadakis. I should like to ask the minister how he can square his statement yesterday that Mr. Thomadakis was informed of his right to be represented by a lawyer and that Thomadakis was satisfied with the qualifications of the interpreter who works for the department, with Mr. Thomadakis' habeas corpus application filed with the Ontario supreme court in which he states:
On April 9, 1964 I got a letter saying I would go to court next day. I had not a chance to get in touch with anyone as the letter came in afternoon and jail regulations say I must put in requests in the morning.
Mr. Thomadakis' application further states:
No one told about legal aid....I went to court on April 10 (38 days after my arrest) for the first time. I had no lawyer and interpreter for immigration told me to plead guilty and I go home. If I make trouble and plead not guilty I go back to jail until the case comes up again and maybe I get a heavy prison sentence.

Inquiries of the Ministry
This is a pretty serious allegation. I wonder whether the minister can make any statement on it.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the case is now before the court. Moreover, I think that the allegations just made by the hon. member are part of a document which has just been submitted to an Ontario court. I wonder if it would be in order for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to comment on that matter at this stage of the proceedings.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to explain to the house that the hon. member came to my office this morning to discuss this question. I thought it was a very serious matter in principle and that if he would ask a question, even if it was slightly longer than usual, he would be justified in the circumstances rather than trying to adjourn the house under standing order 26 or raising a question of privilege.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister this question. If he feels he cannot make a public statement, will he at least investigate what kind of advice Mr. Thomadakis was given by the interpreter, and whether he was in fact informed that he could get free legal aid?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement in the house about this and I think the answer was given at that time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister is looking into this particular case will he also look at the much wider question which has been raised by legal aid lawyer Allan Mintz, who has made the statement that he visited the Don jail and that he finds there are 20 prisoners there, all of whom have informed him they were never told at any time that they were entitled to legal counsel? The names of ten of them are listed, and he is investigating nine others he has found are in Don jail. Could the minister give us a report on this matter at an early date?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by officials of my department that, in every case, detained persons were told that they could secure legal counsel to present their case.
As for the report purporting that my statement to the house was contradictory in so far as the number of persons detained under the Immigration Act and the number of persons imprisoned in the Don jail in Toronto are concerned, I wish to point out to the house that, when I mentioned those cases, I was referring to detained persons awaiting deportation and not at all to those who had sentences to serve and who, therefore, are imprisoned for relatively longer periods according to sentences passed by the court.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider the suggestion made the last time we discussed this matter and which we make again today, that he arrange to have inquiries made about this very serious matter by people outside of his department, who can be somewhat more impartial than the officials who are involved in these cases?


René Tremblay: I have full confidence in the officials of my department in that connection.


Mr. Peters:: Nobody else has. It's about time you guys over there smartened up or you won't be there long.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): I should like to direct a question to the minister of immigration and ask him this. In view of the very serious allegations that have been made against conditions in his department which, if true, ought not to exist, will he not, in the public interest, have an investigation made into these questions? I suggest a one man royal commission. It would not take long. The minister smiles about protecting the subject in this way. I am very surprised to see him smiling and sneering.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask him this. Does the liberty of the subject mean nothing to him? If it does, will he appoint a one man commission, perhaps a member of the bar? There

will be a lot of them available to look into this and ascertain if this type of tyranny does exist.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister, is this the answer he gives when the liberty of the subject is at stake; silence?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the principle of the freedom of individuals and of Canadians is respected by every official of my department, and I do not need any outsider to inquire on that matter. It would be an insinuation that we, in my department, are not respecting that principle. All the officials of my department are guided by this principle. Besides, every time a mistake is made I call it to the attention of my senior officials, as I am responsible for this department.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources?
Is the Quebec department of natural resources being approached with a view to renewing negotiations on the transfer of the administration of Eskimo affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this question has been asked during the last two days. I do not believe there is that pressing urgency that requires a detailed answer at the moment. Would the hon. member put it on the order paper?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on the same subject.
Would the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources inform the house whether the Minister of Justice is now in Quebec to carry on negotiations on behalf of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources?

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to extend the question period but, in my opinion, my question would allow the house to be informed first of a fact, before it appears in the newspapers of the country.
20220-259J
Inquiries of the Ministry I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the minister tell us whether it is true that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) went to Quebec today in order to resume negotiations with the province of Quebec regarding the transfer of the Eskimo administration?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea why the Minister of Justice is in Quebec. I was in Winnipeg when he left, and I did not ask him. I suggest that the hon. member wait until the minister comes back and then ask him.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to transport a very serious question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the very serious statements made by the minister of highways in British Columbia to the effect that numerous airports in British Columbia which come under the minister's jurisdiction are in a hazardous condition and unsafe, has he had this question looked into? This is a serious charge which a minister of the crown in British Columbia makes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did notice the statement, sir, and I have caused an inquiry to be made into it. I hope it is not based on that minister's piloting of planes if it is anything like his driving of cars.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence?
Is the decision taken by General Bernatchez to resign from the armed forces related directly or indirectly to the minister's decision to reduce the army establishment?
Hon Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend read yesterday's press release, he knows the reasons which brought about General Bernatchez's retirement.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomption-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Could the minister tell the house what position had been offered to General Bernatchez?


Mr. Cardin:: As General Bernatchez refused the offer, I do not think it would be fair to the person who will accept the position to make this information known to the public.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think the house is entitled to know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no question of privilege.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is discrimination. Mr. Speaker, may I deal with that question after ten o'clock?



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Yesterday the hon. member for Grey-Bruce asked that a list be tabled showing the number of returns still to be made from the last session and this session. With the permission of the house I should like now to table such a list. This list will show one return outstanding from the last session and 26 outstanding from this session, a session in which 119 orders for returns have been made.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TARIFF CONCESSIONS TO AUTOMOBILE FACTORIES LOCATING IN QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I wonder if the minister can state whether the government has reached a decision on tariff concessions to be made to the Renault and Peugeot car manufacturers so they can establish themselves in Quebec?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, no firm proposal has been received upon which the government could take a decision. Any proposal that

may be received will be given careful and sympathetic consideration.


Léon Balcer: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister tell us whether he or the government has received any representations from the Quebec government on this matter?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would be glad to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker, but I repeat that the government has received no specific proposal.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Can he tell us whether his department would be ready to give French automobile firms the same tariff reductions as those granted to the Volvo company which established itself in Nova Scotia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question, it seems to me, is out of order.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. In view of the recent order in council which authorizes the appointment of civil servants to the personal staff of certain cabinet ministers to serve in their home ridings, could the minister explain on what basis such appointments were made?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was engaged in-


Mr. Starr:: If the cap fits wear it.


Robert Norman Thompson: If the Secretary of State is unable to answer the question, could the President of the Privy Council answer it?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look into the question and see what answer can be brought forward.


Some hon. Members:: The truth.


George James McIlraith: The question contains certain allegations of fact, and I am certainly not prepared to admit those allegations without examination.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonlon-Sirathcona):: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. As the minister has just seen fit to appoint a special assistant to work in his riding, I wonder if he can tell the house whether there was ever before an office of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in Baie des Sables; and since this man is to be paid $7,500 by the taxpayers of Canada, can the hon. gentleman tell the house what job he is going to carry out?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether this question is in order. In any event, would the hon. member kindly put it on the order paper.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The hon. member for Red Deer has already asked a question of the President of the Privy Council along these lines, and this is a specific question on the same subject. I intended to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a further specific question, both of which would provide the basis-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows there are other means of getting this information.



POSSIBILITY OP CHANGE IN HOUSE LEADERSHIP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister, who I take it is the Minister of Transport, whether the announcement of the Minister of Justice last night that he was apparently being relieved as house leader, or wanted to be relieved, has any foundation in fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman, who I believe is a greater amateur with respect to television than I, saw the program last night, but I did happen to see it and I heard what the Minister of Justice said. He was asked whether it was possible for him to carry on for any length of time with the multifarious duties he has undertaken; and he did indicate, as I listened to it, that he was considering asking the Prime Minister, if at a convenient time he might be relieved of the position of house leader.
I can understand his feelings in that regard because I shared them not very long ago, but
Inquiries of the Ministry of course this is a matter between my hon. friend the Minister of Justice and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, on which I would not presume to give an answer.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman having
spoken with that voice of experience that applies to all departments, may 1 ask him as Acting Prime Minister, and one experienced as house leader, whether there is any foundation for a statement made by an hon. member of another place that the government's intention is to proceed on Thursday with the flags resolution and then, after discussion for one day, to postpone further discussion-indeed, almost to leave the matter in cold storage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the vast experience I have had in many fields, of course I have had nothing like the experience of the right hon. gentleman. I have never been prime minister, and I imagine any prime minister would realize that, in this house, we do not debate the proceedings in another place.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not say it was in the
other place. I said it was said by an hon. member belonging to another place. I now ask the minister, is it a fact that the government intends to go ahead for one day and then take no further action for several months on the flags resolution?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a supposition, and I am very glad the right hon. gentleman did not deny himself the privilege of his usual flag question for the day.


John George Diefenbaker: I am trying to find out if the government is going to put its flag up to the mast, or pull it down even before it has been put up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, it is not going to fly it at half mast, as the right hon. gentleman did in this country for six years.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, in order to please members on the government side I wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government drew its inspiration from the proposal made to the house, on March 21,

Inquiries of the Ministry 1946, by Mr. Bona Arsenault, a member oi parliament at that time, in which he suggested two flags, that is the union jack and the maple leaves?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. gentleman on his futile researches.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: As a supplementary question, I ask the Minister of Transport if Mr. Smallwood knows something about that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Could he tell us whether resolutions 44 and 45 listed on the order paper today will meet a fate similar to that of the resolution concerning the appointment of an eastern and western minister of agriculture, which stood for eight months on the order paper last year and was never considered?


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the lack of exact information as to when the flag resolution will come before the house, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman has yet prevailed upon the Prime Minister and the cabinet to take away the two-flag resolution and replace it with the three-flag resolution for which he expressed a preference-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is out of order.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on May 5-


An hon. Member:: Over a month ago.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: -the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre inquired about a possible fraudulent use of the mails by a finance company in Winnipeg, which allegedly resulted in severe financial losses to a victim. I thank the hon. gentleman for having sent me a copy of the newspaper in question which gave him the information.

I have looked into it, and I might say that a month has not elapsed, because I communicated with the hon. gentleman within two weeks and advised him what was being done. I believe that the important consideration in this case, based on the information I have received, does not lie in the mailing of the circular as referred to in the newspaper article. Rather it arises out of a series of conversations that took place between representatives of the organization in question, the First Financial Federation, and one Benjamin Ivison, the victim, and transactions did take place as a result of these interviews rather than as a result of the use of the mails.
No action could be initiated by the Post Office Department with regard to an alleged misuse of the mail unless we were in a position to prove that the transactions arose out of the use of the mails rather than a personal interview. As a result we have not been able to take action. I have been informed, and this information has been passed on to my hon. friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the attorney general of the province of Ontario, whose responsibility it is, is looking into the matter to determine whether any action can possibly be considered against the firm or its representatives.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I assume the reference was to the attorney general of Manitoba, but that was not my point in rising at this moment. Was it not established that the victim in this case received his first invitation to approach this firm through the mails?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That is not my information, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE CHANGES IN POSTAL RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: realize that Your Honour pointed out that the question period was very long, but I have been trying to get the floor for 45 minutes. I have a question for the Postmaster General concerning his statement on postal rates at Charlottetown. Does this mean that the government intends to drop its plans to increase local first class rates and increase the rates of second and third class mail?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, Mr. Speaker.



YUKON-INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TO MEET SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the very serious flood conditions in Mayo and elsewhere in the Yukon, could the minister inform the house of any action the officers of his department might be taking, or are taking in this regard?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I thank the hon. member for having asked this question, because I am quite certain that if the hon. member for Yukon had been in the house today he would have asked it.


An hon. Member:: He is out looking at the floods.


Arthur Laing: If he is on the way there, then I commend him. The circumstances of the flood at Mayo are that this is an occurrence not unusual in the area but of more than usual severity this year. I have been talking within the last hour to the commissioner of the Yukon, Mr. Gordon Cameron, and find that he not only took immediate action but that he took action beforehand inasmuch as he set several men to repairing dikes a number of days before the occurrence.
Certain people have been moved out. Mr. McIntyre, our mining recorder in the area, is in complete charge and he has authority to make all commitments and to spend funds which are necessary for the protection of the people and to relieve the situation as quickly as possible.



WATERTON LAKES PARK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It arises from reports I have received only in the last hour or two by long distance telephone of disastrous flood conditions in Waterton Lakes national park. This is, I believe, the first serious flood in more than 50 years. Would the minister indicate what steps his department intends to take to alleviate this disaster?


Arthur Laing: I have been talking within the past hour to Mr. B. I. M.
Inquiries of the Ministry Strong, our regional supervisor in Calgary, who reports that this flood has occurred as the result of an unprecedented downpour of more than seven inches in 24 hours.


An hon. Member:: You prayed for rain too hard.


Arthur Laing: We might possibly get a transfer made. We are faced with a very serious overflowing of Cameron creek, and considerable damage has been done. Mr. Strong has been in touch with our superintendent there, Mr. F. C. Browning, who is now accompanied, and has been since yesterday, by Mr. Tom Fenton, the regional engineer of my department and by the regional engineer of the Department of Public Works.
It would appear that considerable damage has been done to bridges and, again, Mr. Browning has been authorized to make whatever commitments are required to take care of the situation. Happily the crisis is now over, and there has been a reduction in the water level by some 10 inches in the last four hours.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Would the minister indicate whether funds will be available to help those residents and businessmen who suffered as a result of flood damage?


Arthur Laing: I do not wish to make any comment on that until an assessment has been made of private damage.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I wish to ask the Secretary of State if he can find out from the C.B.C. whether the corporation plans to make any kind of public reply or response to the claim put forward by the association of Canadian television and radio artists that $4 million more a year is being spent by the C.B.C. on French talent than on English talent.


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


Douglas Mason Fisher: I suggest that you look at the question, Mr. Speaker. I was not asking for specific information; I was asking if the minister could get a reply. I have not been able to get one from the C.B.C. on this matter.


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: I will certainly make an investigation

Inquiries of the Ministry and give a reply. In the meantime, I understand that the C.B.C. itself intends to issue a statement, or perhaps has already done so.



CONSUMER CREDIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister authorized the payment of salaries to the extent of $250 per day and $100 per day respectively to Mr. John J. Urie, a lawyer, and Mr. Jacques L'Heureux, an accountant, who are acting as advisers to the joint committee on consumer credit?


Mr. Speaker:: It does seem to me that this question is important but not so pressing as to require an immediate answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would put it on the order paper.


Alfred Dryden Hales: With all due respect, I think this is a matter of great interest at the moment. I think we should know, before we proceed, whether it is correct.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be glad to look into the situation and report tomorrow.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Following a certain statement to the effect that he must reconsider unemployment problems and measures to cope with them, is the minister able to inform the house as to the measures he intends to use against unemployment, one of our main antagonists?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Remove the 11 per cent tax. [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this question has been asked several times this session. In any event, would the hon. member put it on the order paper.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. This statement was made recently and it ap-
[Mr. Lamontagne.l
peared in yesterday's newspapers. I believe that it indicates progress in government research to solve unemployment problems. It seems important to me that the members of this house should be informed of such progress, since we have all been waiting a long time for these solutions.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Remove the 11 per cent tax. [Text]



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister say whether it is true that federally appointed judges serving on conciliation or arbitration boards are now allowed living expenses of up to $100 a day? If so, by what authority are these payments made?
Hon. A J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):
No. My information is that this is not of general application. Such an allowance was made to one particular justice because of the extraordinary demands made on his time and the additional expenses he had to incur. I refer to the conciliation procedure respecting non-operating employees of the railway companies. In that case an additional allowance was made. The regular allowance was paid in all other cases.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the minister confirm what is that regular maximum allowance?


Mr. MacEachen:: To my knowledge the amount is 60 a day, but if that proves to be incorrect I will advise the house tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister advise the house by what authority even that amount is paid?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That involves a legal opinion which I would hesitate to give in the house. I understand the background of this question; I know the Auditor General has made some comments on this matter. But it is a legal question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there an order in council providing for this?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that these questions be put on the order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I have a question for the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in his dual capacity as Acting Prime Minister and Minister of Transport. I wonder if the hon. gentleman could bring us up to date regarding the negotiations which I hope are still going on between the telecommunications branch of the Department of Transport and the United States weather bureau and the national aeronautic space agency with regard to the proposed Nimbus satellite tracking station, about which we have not heard anything for some time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think I could embark on so large a question on the orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Exactly.


Robert Muir: With all due deference to you, sir, this is not a new question. Precedent has been set for it. This is both a national question and an international question. I realize the minister may not have everything in his nimble mind at the moment, but even so he could take the question as notice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe that under the rules the proper place to give notice of questions is on the order paper.



SOCIAL ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since the new minister of welfare in Saskatchewan has decided that people now receiving social assistance and able to work would be assigned to public work projects specially designed for them, could the minister tell us whether her department was consulted by the new welfare minister of Saskatchewan before he announced that decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put this question on the order paper. Orders of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I might point out to hon. members that we have been on questions now for just short of one hour, and the question period seems to be lengthening each day. It is not up to me to stop questions, but on the other hand we do need the co-operation of all hon. members if we are to carry out the business that is before the house.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: I would like to ask my second question of the session if you don't mind, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has anything to offer the house in connection with a report on the lifting of the freeze as far as community antennae and closed circuit television are concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I hope there will be a possibility of making a full statement on that subject before the end of the month.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. On May 12 the minister gave that exact answer to me, or at least an answer along that line, and said that within two weeks he would make an announcement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken. I think I said that I hoped to do so, and hope springs eternal.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles Lamb (Victoria. Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, but in his absence I would direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. As I have had many inquiries, and time is important, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he could say when the loans will be available to students so they can make arrangements for their university enrolment.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe this question was asked about two weeks ago. I realize the

Inquiries of the Ministry importance of trying to find out by a certain date, but would the hon. member put his question on the order paper for a detailed reply.


Charles Wesley Lamb: Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked before and we have received no answer. It is a very important question and I would like an answer today if I could get it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps Your Honour
would permit me to answer this question since the hon. gentleman very rarely asks questions and also because there is a great deal of interest in this matter of student loans. The government is making every possible effort, but it will be appreciated that there has to be discussion with the provincial governments. We hope to get the necessary motion on the notice paper just as quickly as we can, and after that it will depend on the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister whether he has now received the consent and acquiescence of all the provincial governments with reference to the legislation which the government has in contemplation in this regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand not, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then could the minister tell us how many provinces are still withholding agreement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it is a matter of consent at all; it is a matter of the discussion of arrangements which are in their essence rather complicated.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether he is now in a position to answer the question which I posed to him last Thursday in relation to which provinces have signified they are ready to attend the federal-provincial conference on Indian affairs and which provinces are not ready to do so until October.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer that question tomorrow.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 8, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-102, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954-Mr. Nicholson-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-102, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954. When the committee rose last evening we were about to consider clause 8 on page 9 of the bill. Shall clause 8 carry?
On clause 8.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to ask the minister further information concerning the designated areas mentioned yesterday.
I should like to ask the minister whether he means by designated areas the 35 areas designated by the federal government as depressed areas and whether they will have to be designated by municipalities or the province following agreement with the federal government. Is it one or the other?


Lucien Lamoureux: Does the question of the hon. member refer to clause 8 of the bill?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, it refers to it generally. I meant to ask it last night. I simply want to know who will designate those areas.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, in answering the hon. member's question I would say that it does not refer to the 35 designated areas. It refers to areas that may be designated after a municipality has conferred with the province, and in some instances with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This would be done only after the province has approval of the designated area. There could be any number of them within a province.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister whether in clause 8 of the bill, consideration was given to meeting the request of a committee from the city of Toronto to include day care centres within the realm of housing projects under the act.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, in answering the question put by the hon. gentleman I would say that I explained to the delegation

that was here that full consideration had not been given to that particular subject, but that it was an important one and merited serious consideration; that if we had to open up negotiations with all ten provinces we might lose several months' time, and I understood that the delegation were in agreement that we should proceed with the resolution that was on the order paper and give consideration to their proposal perhaps next year or at a later date.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
On clause 11-Loans for university housing projects.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, in the course of the discussion yesterday I assured the hon. member for Grey-Bruce that I would deal with his question in the clause by clause discussion. If hon. members will look at clause 11 they will see that provision is made for loans to universities, co-operative associations and charitable corporations for the purpose of assisting in the construction of a university housing project or the acquisition of existing buildings.
Answering the hon. member's specific question, technically it is possible for C.M.H.C. to lend money for the purpose he has mentioned, but in view of the continuous demand for the money of C.M.H.C. and the criticisms which have been made in the past in the case of properties which have been acquired with C.M.H.C. funds and allowed to stand idle, I doubt whether too much help will be made available under this section for the purpose suggested by the hon. member.
However, I would point out that, in the same clause in the bill, provision is made for the acquisition of existing buildings to be used for such a purpose. I have had discussions, both before and since the question was asked, about the possibility of universities acquiring existing buildings for such a purpose, using the new provisions of the bill when they become law, and at a later date either remodelling these buildings or replacing them with new ones. In my view that is the only practical way in which this provision is likely to benefit universities at the present time.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Is the interest rate spelled out a little later on in the bill; and what percentage can universities borrow on the cost of an existing building?
20220-260J
National Housing Act


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The interest rate is dealt with in the act as it now exists. Provision is made in this amending bill, in one of the clauses which were approved last night, to ensure that the rate would be no higher for new undertakings, whether they be university housing projects or homes for senior citizens, than it is under the original act. The rate is flexible. It is tied in with the rate at which the federal government borrows money. But the assurance is given in one of the clauses approved last night that there would be no increase in the rates for any new projects covered by this bill over rates for existing projects.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the explanation of the minister, but he was certainly non-commital with regard to the acquisition of lands for the purpose I referred to yesterday. I think the minister realizes, because of the understanding which was inherent in his words, that it is not always possible to budget within a given year or two years with regard to the projected plans of a school or university, a difficulty to which I referred in my remarks last evening. However, I believe that the points I have in mind can be dealt with privately with the minister, since he appears very amenable regarding the jurisdiction of this particular clause, so I will deal with these points on that personal basis.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
On clause 14.
Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make on this clause with respect to the sewage disposal program. This program was initiated for two purposes:	one, to
provide the facilities which were so lacking in municipalities, and two, to assist in their financing. I am referring to the construction of sewage disposal plants which would help alleviate the pollution of the waters of this country. Originally the intention was that in order to speed up the construction of these sewage disposal plants, a date was set by which a plant had to be completed in order to qualify for the forgiveness clause. I notice that in the amendment on page 15 of the bill the government is prepared to forgive 25 per cent of the moneys advanced up to March 31, 1967 irrespective of whether a plant has been completed. I am wondering what is the thinking behind this. Does the minister not think this might slow down this construction program to the extent that it would be negligible?
40S6

National Housing Act


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Originally, Mr. Chairman, it was hoped that this forgiveness feature would encourage the municipalities to take advantage of it and thus provide employment. However, experience to date has shown that the utilization of this section is even more important than the incentive to employment at a time when the low employment feature is important. The pollution of water and other matters have now superseded the urgency of providing employment. There are a number of municipalities which are realizing, as the result of the experience of others about which they have heard, that they should take advantage of the facilities, as provided under the act, and rather than chop it off, it is the government's decision that municipalities should be allowed until this date in 1967 to complete such works.


Michael Starr: In view of the fact that this date is now extended to March 31, 1967, which in fact provides a further three years of opportunity, does the minister not think that since a plant does not necessarily have to be completed to qualify for this forgiveness clause it might in fact retard construction? I am not thinking of the employment aspect here because in fact there is very little labour content, in my estimation, in these plants; but it would help the pollution problem in this country.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The advice I have received from the experts advising me in the matter is that the Canadian public have become so conscious of the dangers of pollution that that need in itself will take care of the situation. They feel that it is more important to encourage people to use the facilities and provisions of the act to install pollution control and sewage facilities than to chop off loans at the earlier date, or at least to eliminate the forgiveness feature at an earlier date.


Michael Starr: Is not the minister saying that in accordance with the present provisions this program only is extended to March 31, 1967? In other words, that is the chopping off date in any event.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That is right.


Michael Starr: Is the minister saying that the intention of the government, or the intention of the experts in his department, when that date expires, is to extend the time still further?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No. We have no intention of holding out any hopes that there will be any extension beyond that date. We intend to

give adequate publicity to the fact that it is now being extended to 1967, assuming that this bill passes, in the hope that municipalities in every part of Canada will be anxious to take advantage of it, and to take advantage of the forgiveness feature before the extended time expires.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the minister not agree that there seems to be some overlapping here? The government instituted the municipal loan fund, which itself seems to provide these facilities which are outlined in this provision of the bill. Why is this necessary when use can be made of the municipal loan fund?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is quite possible that these facilities could be provided under the municipal loan fund procedures, but Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have been doing certain work for other agencies of government as well as this particular work since Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation embarked upon a sewage disposal program, and for that limited period, whether it be March 1965 or March 1967, it was felt better to leave it in the hands of an organization which we think has done a very good job for Canadians in years past.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I quite agree with the minister, but it does appear that the municipal loan fund is superfluous in this regard.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: As regards sewage, possibly, yes.


Mr. Pugh:: In view of the extension of time I wonder whether the minister can tell me how many projects are now actually under construction.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I cannot answer that, Mr. Chairman, but I will be glad to get the information and see that it is furnished to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall I report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: That is an example of how a good minister can get legislation through the house.
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now, by leave?


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FARM CREDIT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hays for the second reading of Bill No. C-100, to amend the Farm Credit Act.
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I understood that another member adjourned the debate the last time this matter was before the house. However, if he is not prepared to speak at this time I should like to say a few words. There seems to be a feeling that bills have to be passed in a hurry for fear that one may be accused of holding up legislation. However, with the record set by the government of introducing legislation and having to withdraw some of it after scrutiny, I feel I should say a few words at this time.
My first words are of commendation of the farm credit advisers within the department. They have done a fine job with the existing legislation. In the last year some 21,000 would-be applicants consulted with the advisers. Of these some 9,800 completed the forms. Some 3,000 did not complete the forms, but they were either ineligible or were merely seeking some advice in respect of financing. This in itself is an invaluable service to the farming community.
In the few years that the Farm Credit Corporation have been in existence they have made a substantial number of loans. In 195960 there were 5,339 loans made. There were 5,597 loans made in 1960-61, 5,885 in 196162, 7,438 in 1962-63 and 8,689 in 1963-64. This indicates that there is increasing interest in the availability of loans to farmers. But what is remarkable is that of some 24,000 loans that have been made in the last five years, only eight properties are at present being held by the corporation. This in itself speaks very highly for the farm credit advisers and for the farmers who have obtained these loans.
In the fiscal year 1962-63 some 94.3 per cent of the loans were in good standing. It is understandable that there may perhaps be certain cases where the payments could not be made at the required time because of circumstances that may have arisen. However, a record of that type should commend
Farm Credit Act
itself to the house. It arises out of the fact that the legislation makes it quite easy for farmers to repay their loans, and at the same time the legislation performs a great service for the farming community.
As I listened to the Minister of Agriculture when he introduced the bill on June 2, I noted that he said there was some $22 million still available in the fund. This is running fairly close to the line. He also indicated that loans were being made at the rate of about $1 million per day. It would seem, therefore, that as of today there should be some $14 million available in the fund. To me this is reminiscent of the Easter recess that never was, because a similar situation arose with regard to the unemployment insurance fund. In the rush to get the legislation through at that time the government wanted the opposition to close its eyes to some of the weaknesses inherent in the legislation and in the organization and operation of the unemployment insurance fund at the present time.
It is interesting to note that this is the first legislation the Minister of Agriculture may hope to have passd by the house. I can recall other days when one of the suggestions made by those who form the government today was that bold and imaginative legislation would be forthcoming. I fail to see that there is anything of that nature in this instance when the government waits until a few days before the deadline and then introduces legislation in the hope that no opposition members will speak for fear they will be criticized on the ground that they are holding up legislation. I fail to see that there is any imagination when all the minister is doing is doubling the amount of money available in the fund. Not only is he doubling the amount of the fund; he is also increasing the interest rate under this legislation.
I would have thought that the minister would have come forth with something revolutionary, something new, something that the farmers did not even expect from the government. However, he has to rely on amending a piece of legislation that was introduced in 1959. Because it was a new venture in farm credit at that time, naturally certain things came up which could not have been foreseen. Amendments were introduced in 1962. Because the minister now finds himself short of funds and because he wants to make it appear that he is really doing something for the farming community, he introduces an amendment to double the

Farm Credit Act
amount of money available in the fund and then claims that he is really doing something for the farmers.
While many may express the hope that this legislation will do a lot for the farming community, I fail to see it from that point of view. My point of view may differ from that of some who have already spoken, but I feel I should point out certain things that will arise as a result of this type of legislation. I have always been one who has believed that credit is essential. Having used it myself, I am a believer that it can be helpful to the farming community. However, one can reach the point of diminishing return.
I asked question No. 981, which was answered by the Department of Agriculture. At this point I should like to incorporate in my remarks the table that the department provided to me in their answer, so that I
incorporate this table in Hansard. I have also added to the table figures showing the percentage of loans made under $20,000 and the percentage between $20,000 and $27,500.


Mr. Hays:: Where does this report come
from?


Stanley James Korchinski: It was an answer to question No. 981, supplied by the Department of Agriculture. I am just asking permission of the house to have it incorporated in my speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley James Korchinski: This table shows the number of loans in each of the provinces in certain categories.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to
the permission of the	house I	should like to	is as	follows:]	Less	$10,000 but	$15,000 but	$20,000	than	less than	less than	to	$10,000	$15,000	$20,000	$27,500	TotalBritish Columbia	58	81	111	71%	105	29%	355Alberta	576	693	487	86%	287	14%	2043Saskatchewan	1115	686	359	93%	172	7%	2332Manitoba	258	193	123	92%	51	8%	625Ontario	463	555	412	80%	366	20%	1796Quebec	486	373	225	90%	137	10%	1221New Brunswick	43	20	10	88%	10	12%	83Nova Scotia	37	14	8	80%	15	20%	74Prince Edward Island	113	25	12	97%	5	3%	155Newfoundland	1	2	-	60%	2	40%	5National	3150	2642	1747	87%	1150	13%	8689


Stanley James Korchinski: From this table, it can be seen that only 13 per cent of the loans that have been taken out have been in the order of $20,000 to $27,500. This means that 87 per cent of those who have taken out loans were quite satisfied with less than $20,000. In my opinion, this indicates that up until now a large group of farmers who have not had economic units have benefited. It seems to me that from now on those farmers who will benefit will be those who have larger holdings. They will benefit at the expense of the smaller farmer.
Perhaps the minister, in drafting this legislation, had in mind the fact that he has had a tremendous success in his farming ventures and he felt there were others in the same category. Perhaps he feels that this is the

only answer to the problems of agriculture. I fail to see how this type of legislation will benefit the smaller farmers who, up until now, have not had economic units and who, when they have applied to the farm credit advisers for a loan, have been turned down simply because they did not have an economic unit. There is nothing in these amendments which would take care of that situation. As I have said only 13 per cent of the farmers have taken out loans between $20,000 and $27,500. Even if I were inclined to be generous, I would say that in the future no more than 10 per cent of all loans would be in the category above $20,000 under part II of the act or over $27,500 under part III of the act.

I have another answer here which was provided for me by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). This was an answer to question No. 982. If I may, at this point, I should like this answer incorporated in my address, and I should like to refer to it as I am going along. May I have the permission of the house?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should bring to the attention of the hon. member the fact that it is against the general practice and traditions of this house for individual members to table documents or tables of this kind. Perhaps the hon. member might want to read this table into the record and then it would become, ipso facto, a part of the record. On the other hand, in order to save time, it may be that the house would want to consent to the tabling of the document to which the hon. member is referring. However, I think hon. members should be cautioned that, generally speaking, only official documents proffered by ministers of the crown can be tabled. I suggest that we try to follow the practice as much as possible.


Michael Starr: I should like to speak to this point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that to expedite proceedings an hon. member should be permitted to incorporate lists of figures in his speech without reading them. I think the house should give permission that they be taken as read. I believe the practice has been to give general agreement to this course.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: That is quite correct, but I thought this word of caution should be given because I feel that, in recent years, perhaps we have been getting away from a practice that goes back many years, as I am advised. Hon. members making speeches in the house should make their own speeches and, as little as possible, quote from articles or newspaper reports or tables of this type. I am in full agreement that it would probably save the time of the house if in this particular case the hon. member were allowed to incorporate this table in his speech rather than read it.


Stanley James Korchinski: All I was trying to do was save the time of the house by not reading this table into the record. However, in view of the amount of time that has been taken I might just as well have read it. Since this was just going to form part of my speech, I did not feel it was necessary at this moment to read all these figures. It would save a lot of time if I had permission to incorporate it in my speech.
Farm Credit Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is what I was suggesting, that to save time, if hon. members will agree, the hon. member for Mackenzie be allowed to incorporate these figures as part of his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley James Korchinski: The following tables show the number of farms by selected size groups, and their average capital value.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to is as follows:]
1. Number of farms by selected size groups, Canada, 1961-
Size group	Number of farms
Under 70	acres	67,18370-239	acres	204,159240-399	acres	82,626400-559	acres	44,764560-759	acres	31,860760-1,119	acres	27,6421,120-1,599	acres	13,0911,600 acres	and over	9,578
2. Average capital value of farms classified by size group, Canada, 1961-
Size group		Average capital value per farm
Under 70	acres	$ 17,05270-239	acres	20,936240-399	acres	24,627400-559	acres	30,037560-759	acres	37,104760-1,119	acres	46,7581,120-1,599	acres	61,9111,600 acres	and over	113,468
It will be noted that according to the 1961 census report there were some 480,000 farms in Canada. There were some 430,000 of these farms with acreages of less than 750 acres. In fact, there were 400,000 farms with acreages of less than 550 acres. Now we come to the average capitalization of farms of 750 acres or less and we find that the average capitalization was $37,000. The minister is increasing the availability of funds by making loans in the order of $40,000 to $55,000 available. If one takes into account the fact that a loan may not exceed 75 per cent of the appraised value, he finds that a farmer will have to have to farm with a capital value of at least $50,000 to $60,000 to take advantage of these amendments. According to the 1961 census table, farms with an average capital value of $61,000 contain 1,120 acres to 1,600 acres. I suggest to the minister that despite the fact he may wish to

Farm Credit Act
say he is doing a lot for the farmers, I am suggesting that he may be doing something for those farmers in the higher income group, but he is not really helping out the ones who are in difficulty at the moment. The minister may be able to produce statistics in a few years which will indicate that the average farm income has gone up as a result of an increase in the number of these bigger farms, because the cost of production on these farms will naturally be far less than the cost of production of the average smaller farmer.
However, the minister has not yet solved the problem of the average farmer. It is interesting to note, as I said earlier, that there are some 400,000 farms with less than 550 acres. The average capital value per farm of less than 500 acres was $30,000. At the moment there are provisions making loans available to this type of farmer. I repeat that the minister, in introducing this legislation, is not helping the small farmer. There may be specific types of agriculture that might require this type of legislation. However, I do not want the minister saying in the future that he is doing something for everybody. I think we will find that there will be specialized farm groups who will perhaps require this type of loan. I do not want the minister expanding it to include everybody.
One other thing we will have to guard against in the future is the fact that these larger farms are going to be incorporated. In the last few years, we have heard a considerable amount about vertical integration. I point out that according to the poultry market report for June 5, the price of eggs in Saskatchewan on May 30, 1964, was 14.8 cents per dozen. Why were these eggs sold at this price? It is for the simple reason that some farmers who have gone into egg production in a big way have over-produced, and the end result is that the smaller farmers cannot compete against these bigger producers.
In the field of turkey production those with capital available and who are already established have also gone into it in a big way. I can point to many farmers in my constituency, as I am sure other hon. members can in theirs, who have had up to 1,000 turkeys. If they got $5 per turkey this gave them $5,000 at the end of the year, but this was not $5,000 profit. They had to depend on the sale of their eggs, wheat and other produce to make an adequate living for their families.
Credit may now become available to establish these large farms which the minister has been used to, and which in his experience

he has found to be profitable operations. If a farmer has 60,000 turkeys and makes 25 cents on each turkey, he has $15,000 profit, but the return to a man with less than a thousand turkeys is $250, which is very little. He has to have additional income. The minister and the farm credit advisers must take this fact into account when they are making this credit available, so that we will not end up with a group of land barons, a select few owning all land while all the rest have to work for them.
If the minister does this, then he will create another problem. There will be a greater demand for unemployment insurance to be paid to these people, something which the government is not prepared to pay now. The Gill commission did not recommend it. If the government is not prepared to subsidize agricultural produce it will have to take other measures such as providing unemployment insurance. I hope the minister will take note of these remarks because I feel very strongly about this thing.
Another problem which I feel will arise is that land values will increase. If this happens, then those who are already established on economic units will be able to outbid those others who would like to establish themselves on economic units. In other words, they will be quite prepared to take a lower return per unit than those seeking to make their present units economical, and these smaller operators will be forced out of farming.
A practice has been established whereby, for example, if a man wants to purchase land valued at $10,000, the Farm Credit Corporation is prepared to give him the money, but if he makes a deal for land valued at $15,000 he has to put up $5,000 of his own. It is unreasonable to expect a small operator to be able to put up $5,000. The larger operator will, and he will outbid the small farmer who will be driven out of the business; and if he is driven out of the business the government will have to provide a subsidy for him in some other form.
There will have to be a complete review of all existing farm legislation. One point that bothers me is the 5 per cent provision on loans up to $20,000 under part II, and loans up to $27,500 under part III. This is one of the stipulations we fought for and placed on the statute books because we felt it was a fair amount to charge.
You will find that over the years the interest rate will fluctuate, and the amount the corporation might be expected to lose,

while it might appear great at the moment, if interest rates go down will not be so great, and in the end will balance up. Now, under the proposed amendment, the charges will be-
-an amount equal to the cost of the corporation of any money borrowed for the purposes of the loan and the expenses of the corporation in respect thereof, including a reasonable reserve against loss.
There are two reasons why I would object to this. I feel this may be a deterrent to small farmers, and I feel that any person who finds it necessary to take a loan of over $20,000 under the new provisions, or over $27,500, may have to carry in his interest charges sufficient for all the losses which may be incurred with respect to loans that were formerly made up to $20,000 and up to $27,500.
If $10 million in loans were outstanding, in order to recover this amount in some cases you would have to charge up to a rate of 10 per cent, and it is estimated that $1 million is lost every year under the provisions as they exist now. If as I believe only 10 per cent of the farmers will be in a position to borrow over $27,500, and if they are to make good this loss, you will have to charge them a rate of over 10 per cent.


Harry William Hays: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I should explain this because I think the hon. member is interpreting it wrongly. We say that the first cost up to the present limits is 5 per cent. The cost of operating the corporation and the cost of obtaining money is one thing, and for loans above the existing limits, $20,000 and $27,500, we say they shall be made at an economic rate. That is the price that the government has to pay for money; but the loans will be made with exactly the same conditions as the other loans, and the costs of operating. There are no provisions made, or intended to be made, in an extra amount to take care of losses to the corporation.


Stanley James Korchinski: It is not the intention of the bill now before us that any money which may be lost under existing provisions should be recovered under the new provisions?


Harry William Hays: No, this is not the case.


Stanley James Korchinski: If that is right, then I have no particular argument with it. We will then still end up with a loss of approximately $1 million a year.


Harry William Hays: We have an operating loss-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I be allowed to bring it to the attention of the minister that we have not yet reached the committee stage.
Farm Credit Act
Unless it is the desire to have the minister reply to points as they come up, I feel it would make for orderly procedure if he answered these points when he closes the debate.


Stanley James Korchinski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to clarify one thing so that I might not persist unduly, if that were not the case.
There is another problem which arises. Apparently, the minister hopes to get the corporation into a position where it will suffer no losses. However, there will still be a loss. If I am correct in assuming that only 10 per cent of the people affected will take loans over and above the amount presently available, there could conceivably be added another 10 per cent to the $1 million presently being lost by the corporation. This, in itself, would amount to $100,000. It seems that to recover a loss of $100,000 we go to a lot of trouble. But this, in itself, is not the point. If the minister feels the royal commission on banking and finance has recommended such action, and it is essential, he may be relying on this recommendation to strengthen his argument. But I say that if this is a first step toward a move which will unjustly penalize farmers, it cannot be supported. I am afraid the minister will say that if interest is not being charged at 74 per cent, or 7 per cent, or anything above 5 per cent we will lose money. And in a few years he will suggest to the house again that we should withdraw the 5 per cent provision and charge according to the rate which the corporation must pay in order to get it.
I suggest strongly, for this reason, that a first step should not be taken in this direction. I do not want the minister to say at a later date: We have found out we do not have to lose money on the Farm Credit Corporation. The commission on banking and finance told us what was the practice to be followed. If we continue to do this we shall find ourselves in another awkward situation. Someone will want a loan, and will be charged 7 or 8 per cent. In a few years we shall be able to borrow money for less than that. As the minister well knows, interest rates have gone up-from 4J to 5 per cent to 54 per cent and so on. If a farmer has agreed to pay interest at 7 per cent and then finds the corporation is able to lend him the money at a lower rate of interest he should be able to recover the amount he is overpaying. I think provision should be made for this, and I do not see any such provision in the bill before us enabling a farmer to recover any funds to which he may rightly be entitled.

Farm Credit Act
I see my time is running out, but there is one other matter with which I should like to deal briefly. It appears there were some 77,000 farm improvement loans taken out last year while there were 8,000 which might be considered long term loans. I think the minister will have to introduce legislation to make provision for an increase in farm improvement loans, because this is an area where I feel availability of credit can do far more good than action in other directions which might tend to create land barons at the expense of small farmers.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert in agricultural matters and I will not speak about them very long either.
I wanted to add to the reason you gave for preventing the minister from answering questions addressed to him the fact that he does not occupy his seat now, thus being forbidden to speak. If you examine Bill No. C-100, you will find that beekeeping has been added to the special agricultural fields, which will enable beekeepers to take advantage of the Farm Credit Act.
I am very pleased with this amendment because there are in my riding some well-known beekeepers, and I am convinced that they will be happy to find that they can benefit from the advantages offered by the Farm Credit Act.
As far as the increase in the amounts specified by the legislation is concerned, I believe that the minister tried to sit on the agricultural fence. That is good, very commendable to try it, but I believe that in increasing the amount of the loans, we want to help those who, in theory, should be well off since we include them among the most prosperous farmers. While helping them, at the same time we tell them: You have enough money to pay the additional interest. Therefore, we will lend you the $27,500 and we will charge you for the cost of the loan.
This means that the Farm Credit Act would be no longer a legislation intended to assist the farmers, but simply a measure replacing the banks and other finance companies.
In my opinion, the government should not substitute itself for the banks in such cases. The purpose of the act is to help farmers and if it is felt that farmers who need as much as $40,000 or $55,000 should be helped because they are not rich, then the rate of interest on their loans should not exceed 5

per cent. On the other hand, if some farmers are rich enough to pay more than 5 per cent interest, they should not be allowed to borrow as much as that under the act.
One of the recommendations of the Porter commission on banking deals with the removal of the maximum rate of interest applicable to bank loans so that banks may raise their rates. If an individual borrowed more than $27,500 because he thinks he will be charged about 6 per cent interest on the amount outstanding and if that recommendation of the Porter commission is acted upon by the government, the borrower will find that he is actually paying 10, 12 and 15 per cent interest.
I submit that this provision can lead to difficulties and I would ask the minister to give it full consideration before putting it into practice.


William Arnold Peters: I know many people will be very interested in the bill now before us which contains provision for increasing the amount of money which can be made available under the act. However I think there are many who begin to wonder if credit is really being considered in terms of assuring the agricultural future of our nation.
Canada is of course a young nation, and I presume we have much to learn from what has been done elsewhere. In the last 40 or 50 years a problem has been facing other countries which is not dissimilar to that which faces Canada. In Great Britain, over the years, it was felt that the democracy of the nation hinged on the English countryside. However, as the small farms disappeared over the years, democracy was considered to be no less prevalent in that country. France, on the other hand, went to the other extreme. Larger and larger farm units were developed in that country, as we are developing them in Canada, until there was a very large and easily controlled agricultural population. It could also be said that by developing themselves on a family farm scale they were in the process, because of government control, of losing real democracy in the agricultural field.
The United States has also been concerned with this subject and it is interesting to note in a book "Farming and Democracy" by Griswold that the author, speaking of the Truman economic report, states:
Thus, it completed the definition of a policy that had begun with farmers in general and ended with farmers in particular, that in the beginning

had taken the family farm for granted and in the end had made it a specific item of national interest. On this high level it was incorporated in President Truman's economic report of 1947.
The cycle of policy thus concluded sets the United States apart from both England and France. It shows a national concern for agriculture as a state of society, for private property in land, and for family farming as their mainstay, that has simply not existed in England-a concern that played little part in the development of British democracy and almost throttled its development in France.
He goes on to say:
The British experience shows us that it is possible to reduce the farm population to an irreducible minimum, and small, owner-operated family-size farms virtually to extinction, and still have democracy. The French contrast shows us that it is possible to maintain a maximum farm population and carry family farming to its extreme logical conclusion, and all but lose democracy in the bargain.
I believe it is very simple to change the rules and regulations of farm credit, but I think the government certainly has some responsibility in deciding what is to be the basis of agriculture in Canada and just what we are trying to work toward. I believe that the agricultural development of Canada, which is extensive and has been the mainstay of our economy for many years and has probably been the basis of our development, has been and has to be in the future a partnership of three large groups, the farmer and the rural community, the markets and the marketing agencies and their operations, and government itself, because government policies play a great role in where agriculture is going. One might ask why we should discuss this when we are deciding on the extension of credit, but it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if we are not willing to take a look at it we are being very unfair to agriculture and we may in effect bankrupt it.
I would like to give an example, Mr. Speaker. If tomorrow a car manufacturer was able to find a credit agency that would grant credit on a new car on a ten year basis, you might think this was a very reasonable way of buying that car. But if you were doing very much travelling as a salesman or in many other fields, you would find the profitable lifetime of that car to be probably only three years. So during the last seven years of the loan you would be paying for a car that had long disappeared, and the problem would arise at least twice following that situation. This applies to farmers in particular. I am sure there are dairy farmers today who, knowing the changes the minister has made in agriculture, will be worried about whether some of the commodities they are
Farm Credit Act
producing have remained economic. If the government is going to lend this large amount of money to a farmer in order that he may develop an economic farm unit, the government also has an obligation to take some action in the marketplace and in the direction of the national economy in order to provide some protection for the farmer to whom they have lent money to set up an economic farm unit; that is to say, protection so that this economic farm unit will not be destroyed by their allowance of change in these other two fields.
I suggest this has already happened in vertical integration. The farmer was given an unlimited amount of credit; he was given so much credit that it was only a matter of a year or two before he lost the farm, and in many cases these farms are no longer in operation. This was repeated in the field of poultry farming, in the production of pork, and it has been repeated in regard to many other crops, such as potatoes and, I understand, tobacco in some areas. So vertical integration provided a very large amount of money, too large an amount of money to be economical for the operation and the maintenance of the farm for the farmer who borrowed the money. The government has responsibilities in the field of crop failure which may be general or local. It has a responsibility when it withdraws support prices for a particular commodity, and it has a responsibility when a change takes place in the rural aid development programs. Each of these have a reflection on the ability of the unit to remain an economic farm unit and each makes all the difference between whether or not the borrower of the money under farm credit is able to make a success of his venture.
It seems to me that if the government, the market place and the farmers are not brought together and the matter discussed, a problem is going to develop with regard to many of these farmers that has not been contemplated.
I also read further from this book called "Farming and Democracy". This relates to an incident which took place when the small, non-economic units were being removed to make way for progress, and much more suitable economic units. The book quotes the famous colloquy between one of Steinbeck's Okies and a tractor driver whom he has threatened to shoot for knocking over his buildings and plowing up his land and shows the direction, if not the precise location, in which the blame lies. The conversation is quoted in this way:
"It's not me. There's nothing I can do."

Farm Credit Act
This is the tractor driver talking:
"I'll lose my job if I don't do it.-And look- suppose you kill me? They'll just hang you, but long before you're hung there'll be another guy on the tractor, and he'll bump the house down. You're not killing the right guy".
"That's so", the tenant said. "Who gave you orders? I'll go after him. He's the one to kill".
"You're wrong. He got his orders from the bank. The bank told him-'Clear those people out or it's your job' ".
"Well, there's a president of the bank. There's a board of directors. I'll fill up the magazine of the rifle and go into the bank".
The driver said, "Fellow was telling me the bank gets orders from the east. The orders were, 'Make the land show profit or we'll close you up' ".
"But where does it stop? Who can we shoot...?"
The Okie could not shoot the industrial revolution. He could not shoot our failure to devise a public policy that would put that revolution to the advantage of our whole population. But he could, and did, testify to the fact that, in his case, and the cases of a million or more of his fellows, agriculture by itself had performed no democratic miracles.
The previous speaker mentioned the fact that this may do just what the tractor driver was going to do to the Okie's shack; it may eliminate many of the small farms in the community as increased loans are provided. It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that in order to do something about this the minister should suggest that supervisory boards be set up that are, again, made up of three parts: government policy, represented by government representation; the farm problem, represented by the rural agricultural groups, federations, farmers' unions, and so on; and the market place has to be represented, because unless the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) is going to sell the products we manufacture, we are dependant upon our domestic market, with its rapid fluctuations.
I know that increasing the amount of money that can be borrowed is a very easy way for the minister to make himself popular, and it is probably an easy way for me, speaking in opposing it, to make myself unpopular. I am not really opposing it, because I am sure there is a certain merit in classified cases; but it is very easy to go out and offer somebody a lot of money. Household Finance is doing it every day successfully, at a very high rate of interest, and the people who are borrowing this money know that by doing so they are just putting themselves further into debt.
I think we should guide some of the thinking in this regard. I refer to not only the thinking between the farmer and the advisory board that we now have, but be-

tween the agriculturists of Canada and the government, in terms of what we want agriculture to provide Canada.
It is all very nice for us to say, "Maintain the family farm", but this is not maintaining the family farm. A $55,000 loan means a repayment, at the end of 30 years, of well over $125,000; that is what a person will have to pay back. If you look at the statistics for Canada and the amount of money being received in the way of farm income, you will understand that this type of loan will be limited to very few people on an economic basis. Therefore this is not a general policy; it is not going to apply to too many people. The previous speaker also mentioned that 87 per cent of the people receive less than $20,000 in loans; that this was a very satisfactory arrangement for many people. I am not suggesting there should be no extension but I think the government must take some responsibility to provide a loan for those who want it.
I am sure everyone is aware that many of the farmers who want to operate an economic farm unit today, perhaps in the $40,000 or $50,000 class, will not be able to operate that unit, if we provide them with enough money to make the expansion allowed under the terms of this act, unless as an agency we are willing to provide them with managerial training to handle such a large business. Everyone is aware that some small businesses in a small town operate successfully until the boss becomes unaware of the names of his employees and of what is going on. I did some negotiating with one company, and the boss said to me that he did not trust the accountants or any of the people working for him, because he asked them for an inventory check and was told that there were no parts in stock which were not included in the inventory. Yet he told me that he could produce some parts not in the inventory at all. Therefore, in an expansion of this kind one requires managerial training, which I am sure many farmers have not had.
We are not being fair to many of these people, if as a national policy we try to increase the size of the farms to provide a more healthy agricultural economy, unless we provide this type of training; and the government shirks its responsibility in this as in many other fields. An agricultural unit of $100,000 or $150,000 could be made completely uneconomical if tomorrow the government increased the tariff on farm machinery and the farmer had to pay 30 to 35 per cent more on the cost of a combine. If

the farmer has economically geared his operation to the costs of today, then obviously the government will play an increasing role in what he does. But we must try to meet rural sociological problems and provide solutions for them.
In offering the farmers more money we are creating a hazard in many areas. I am sure that the government receives more requests for money from people in the lower income groups than from those in the higher income groups. It may not be a good thing, but it it true that some farmers seem to get along with a reported income of $1,000. The majority of farmers in many areas are reporting incomes to the income tax department of around that amount. If that is so, and if these units appear to provide the basis of our rural economy in many areas, I suggest that that minister take a look at the other extreme in considering this matter of credit, and gives some of the farmers in my area who are asking for $2,000 or $3,000 a little more consideration. There is a kind of grand and glorious attitude on the part of many officials that if a farmer wants the maximum they will consider it; but if a farmer is interested in only a minimum amount he obviously has an uneconomical farm unit. I believe there are considerations at both ends of the picture. We want to expand the economic farm unit, and in many areas that unit is some 160 acres whereas in others it is 320. There are many places in western Canada where a unit would not be considered economical unless it exceeded a section of land. Many of my farm friends in western Canada have said that if a unit is not at least three sections it is not sufficiently large enough to carry the capital expenditure for the type of equipment they have on their farms.
The sociological change in rural Canada is a factor in the decision to grant and extend credit. I believe the government has completely failed to give guidance and leadership in this field. It has been said that to grant a large sum of money only means the extension of the principle of vertical integration; that one farmer who has proved competent to have his farm paid up will have enough land to enable him to borrow the maximum amount from the government, and this will enable him to squeeze out all his neighbours because he can outbid them in the marketplace as a result of the money he borrowed under the act. This creates a social problem which the government has a responsibility to meet.
Farm Credit Act
I imagine that the minister has not enough knowledge of the whole subject to understand this particular problem. I imagine it has been very hard for him even to understand some of the problems put to him which contradict the principle of extending credit, particularly at the lower end of the scale. But there are those in the universities of Canada, as there have been in the United States, who have been appointed to commissions to study the problem and have made recommendations not in keeping with the recommendations now being made regarding the extension of large amounts of credit. The Canadian Senate over the years has discussed land use problems and the maintenance of our rural economy. Representations have also been made by other bodies, including this house, to the effect that owing to the distribution of seats this house had a predominantly rural representation. Yet I wonder whether many rural representatives have really considered what the extension of those large amounts of credit has meant to the rural communities. The farm communities themselves are tending to disappear, and in some areas just one or two farmers own a whole township. People nowadays prefer to sell ice cream along the highway on Sundays rather than general hardware, groceries and other commodities in a rural oriented economy.
It is easy for the Liberal party, as was the case in the last election, to offer to extend credit to every Tom, Dick and Harry whether or not it would be of any value to them, to the community or to the nation. But I believe the minister has an obligation to bring in legislation to relate the total development of rural Canada to the credit needs of the nation so that we do not continue to give credit to those who do not really need it, such as the type of person who could put up his own collateral at the bank. We should give more consideration to the little farmer on the back concession who only wants a couple of thousand dollars to buy the farm across the road. It may not be an economical farm unit, but it has probably supported his father and his grandfather, as well as providing for the education of three or four generations of Canadians, and with a small expansion will be able to continue to support a family for some years to come. In my experience very little consideration has been given to this aspect of farm credit.
It seems to me that this is one of the areas in which the Farm Credit Corporation has

Farm Credit Act
failed to function to advantage. Some farmers with managerial ability will be able to take advantage of the increase in the maximum amount of loans to $55,000. There are many farmers who, before they borrow $55,000, would be well advised to think about retiring the debt in an organized manner, because I am aware of the fact that without supervision, without the support of a government that is prepared to look 30 years ahead, many of those who will borrow larger sums of money from the Farm Credit Corporation will find themselves in difficulty.
Those who do not realize the vast change in agriculture that will take place in the next few years need only look back 30 years when almost all agricultural work was done with horses. Today the horse is an oddity that is shown at agricultural fairs throughout rural Canada through grants being made to entrepreneurs in other fields to maintain the heavy draft horse breed. I think this indicates the changes that have taken place and it is prophetic of the changes that will take place in the future. Unless the government is now prepared to make known an agricultural policy that will make it clear what the government hopes to get out of agriculture in Canada and what the future for agriculture will be, I and many farmers will interpret the increase in the maximum amount of loan, together with the fact that the minister has tied with this an interest rate in keeping with the full costs rather than the original rate of 5 per cent, to be a trend in the development of rural Canada that is not designed to maintain the family farm and the family farm unit.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a very few questions that I wish to ask the minister arising out of his speech on June 2. I know he cannot answer them right away but I would appreciate it if he would take note of the questions on which I seek clarification and answer them when he closes the debate.
First of all I should like to compliment the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation and his staff upon the excellent work they have done. I can speak from personal knowledge of the officials in my own area. I think they have done a marvellous job, and I think the house will agree that any advancement in the administration of this program must be brought about by means of changes in the act. I am very pleased to see that the minister has taken these requirements into consideration.

In the minister's speech the other day he made reference to an economic unit. I should like him to define what he means by an economic unit, and indicate how it is determined. I should also like him to relate that to the reference he made to a family farm. Are an economic unit and the family farm the same thing? I would also ask the minister to say a few words with regard to whether he has given any consideration to the idea that loans should be based on the ability and record of the applicant. At the present time they are based on the security of land. I suggest to the minister that the aspect of security could be covered by the applicant taking out life insurance.
At the present time we find that the difficulty with the Canadian Farm Loan Act is that the present high market value and the conservative agricultural production value reduce the number of qualifying farmers considerably, and to obtain the maximum amount of loan requires a fairly large unit. A farmer operating a large farm cannot obtain a loan, since he already owns what the officials consider is an economic unit, and the smaller farmer cannot obtain a loan large enough to purchase even a quarter section since he has not sufficient land.
I understand that Ontario has had a scheme for a number of years under which a young farmer can apply for a loan from the provincial government. His application is then referred to a board consisting of his neighbours or the municipal authorities in that locality to determine whether this man will be a good risk, and on the basis of their recommendation he is allowed to obtain a loan. I also understand that under this system there have been very few losses in the province of Ontario.
The difficulty that members of parliament encounter with regard to loans from the Farm Credit Corporation is that the officials are hamstrung by the restrictions in the act. This issue has come up time and time again. However, most members know that these applicants are conscientious people with good farming records, but because of the lack of capital they do not have what is considered to be an economic unit. I refer again to that term, "economic unit", because it seems to vary according to localities.
I was very interested in what the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) had to say with regard to interest rates. To my mind the proposal in the amendment to the act is discriminatory. I say this because the minister has not actually laid out what the interest

rate can be. As I read the legislation it can be based on three different qualifications. It is set forth that the rate will not be more than the interest charged to the corporation, plus the cost of administration and a reasonable reserve against loss. That could vary anywhere from 6 per cent up to 8 or 9 per cent, and that is why I say this provision is discriminatory.
If it is necessary to increase the rate from 5 per cent I think it would be more advisable to set out the rate in the bill. Then there would be no danger of one farmer taking a loan this year and because of these three factors having to pay 8 per cent, and another farmer taking a loan next year and finding that a rate of 6J per cent will cover the loan on the basis of a period of 30 years.
I should also like to ask the minister what he means when he refers to the interest rate as an economic rate. That is a very elastic phrase. As I said before, economic farm units can vary from locality to locality. Would the same rate apply to loans in Ontario and loans in Saskatchewan? Would there be a different interest rate?
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-23, to incorporate Seicho-No-Ie.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. S-23 is somewhat unusual in that it seeks to incorporate a religious body of Japanese origin. For that reason my explanation may take a little longer than would otherwise be the case. The religious movement from which this religious body emanated was known as Seicho-No-Ie and was founded in 1930 by Dr. Masaharu Taniguchi, who lived at that time in the town of Sumiyoshi, Japan. Taniguchi was a scholar who was born in Kobe, Japan in 1893. He majored in English literature at Waseda university in Tokyo. When he started Seicho-No-Ie, he was a translator for a subsidiary of an American oil company in Japan.
He was a student of many religious philosophies. It was his aim to seek the truth where-ever it may be found. He named the religious body that he founded Seicho-No-Ie, which
Private Bills
means in English, "The home of spiritual growth and prosperity" and is sometimes also referred to as "The house of life, wisdom and abundance."
This Bill No. S-23, is in the usual form of a bill incorporating a religious body. It is the first incorporation by the parliament of Canada of a religious body having its origin in Japan. However, there is a precedent for the incorporation of a religious body from another area of the world. In 1949, the parliament of Canada passed a bill which is now chapter 25 of the statutes of that year, to incorporate The National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada. This bill was assented to on April 30, 1949.
This organization has a membership of two million people, although it should be noted that all of its members are free to belong to other religious faiths as well, and many do. Japanese religious ideas are somewhat different from those prevailing in Christian countries and one is not tied down in the matter of membership, as is the custom in Canada. Originally, the founder, Taniguchi, was more interested in proclaiming his religious and philosophical ideas rather than in setting up a religious system as such. He started out first by publishing a monthly magazine that he called Seicho-No-Ie.
Taniguchi was influenced by Mary Baker Eddy, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Ernest Holmes and other writers of that group, and he acknowledges openly his debt to them. His ideas on religion resemble the ideas of Christian Science and of the unity school of Christianity. He has, however, made a very distinct contribution to Japanese religious thought by introducing Christian ideas developed in the nineteenth century in the United States into Japan in a form that proved acceptable to Buddhists, Shintoists and other Japanese who would not normally be inclined to subscribe to foreign religious ideas.
In order to get his ideas across to the Japanese public, in addition to this monthly magazine, Taniguchi encouraged visitors to come to his home to consult with him. Eventually he set up regular subscribers meetings, as he called them, in his own home. He then proceeded to give lectures in various centres at the request of people who were sympathetic to his ideas. He developed a form of meditation called Shinsookan, which might be described as a form of prayerful meditation, with the purpose of bringing the individual consciousness of the practitioner in contact with the absolute. The members of this organization regard this approach to religion as

Private Bills
analogous to the approach of the mystics of medieval Christianity. This is the way they look at it.
Taniguchi has written several religious poems which may be recited in approximately 20 minutes to half an hour. These have come to be used as texts for common recitation in the study groups and subscribers groups of the religious body. These poems actually summarize Taniguchi's doctrinal position.
Within five or six years after he started his organization Taniguchi added another magazine which was meant more entirely for women, and in a few years more he added a magazine edited for children and for people who were incapable of understanding very difficult Japanese. He also added a magazine for educators, and another which has a strong philosophical orientation.
He has always welcomed people from other religious groups and assured them that they do not have to sever their connections with their family religions. In fact, he has persuaded them to continue holding their funeral and marriage services in the religions to which they belonged before joining his group. In order to get away from the traditional religious atmosphere of Japanese religions, he refused to call his congregation churches, temples or shrines. Instead, he talked about subscriber groups, fellowship groups and branches. As this religious movement grew, he eventually transferred its headquarters to Tokyo.
The leaders of groups are called lecturers, not ministers, priests or anything that would remind one of traditional churches. He was at all times trying to emphasize content rather than form. However, the Japanese ministry of education was at a loss as to how it should consider or treat this organization for administration purposes, and eventually his organization was persuaded to register as a religious body in Japan. Today it is so registered, and it includes shrines within its branches. It accepts donations and it operates as a religious organization in Japan. It is recognized as such, although its earlier spirit of emphasizing content rather than outer form has remained.
Dr. Taniguchi is referred to as the president of the organization. The affairs of the organization are managed by a board of directors, under his chairmanship. The Tokyo head office pretty well controls the entire religious activities which are carried out in Japan, Brazil, Peru, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Canada. There are approximately 1,200 members in

Canada with groups in Vancouver, New Westminster, Richmond, Slocan, and Steves-ton in British Columbia, and others in Hamilton, Montreal and Toronto. The organization is incorporated in California, Japan, Hawaii, Brazil and Mexico. Its main centre in North America is Los Angeles. Its head office, as you will see from section 3 of the bill, will be in Toronto.
A point which will be of interest to all hon. members is that during the last war, when Japanese activities in the United States were carefully watched and controlled, the Seicho-No-Ie organization was permitted to function by the government of that country, and its books were allowed to be published and distributed in normal fashion. I believe this should be some guarantee.
The movement seeks a world of perfect harmony for all men. It is non-denominational. It neither bars nor excludes any true religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism or otherwise. In a sense, it may be said to seek to be an umbrella over all true religions. It seeks a world describable as the kingdom of God on earth and endeavours to have man recognize his own perfect and divine nature, and to steep himself with the conviction that he is a child of God.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have made no great personal study of this religion, and I do not intend to go further into its teachings and characteristics. However, I should like to say that the members of this organization consist of well educated and highly respected people. Included among their members is a former prime minister of Japan, lawyers, school teachers, doctors and university professors. Personally, I believe it to be a peaceful, nonviolent and sincere religious movement and that in the spirit of the Canadian Bill of Rights it is a movement that is entitled to incorporation in this country.
I would ask that the bill be given second reading and then referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills where all members of that committee will have a good chance to ask questions and obtain more detailed answers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: the second reading of Bill

No. C-34, respecting employment of bilingual persons in the public service and in crown corporations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill No. C-34 entitled:
An act respecting employment of bilingual persons in the public service and in crown corporations.
Allow me to read a few excerpts from this bill:
... it shall be the duty of the person or persons responsible for such appointments to give a preference to bilingual persons so that there shall be in the public service, in crown corporations, in works, undertakings and businesses above mentioned, a number of bilingual persons proportionate to the number of French speaking Canadians throughout the country. The purpose of this bill is to correct, in so far as it is possible to do so, the discrimination which now exists in the public service and in crown corporations in the recruiting and employment of persons of French origin, and to give a preference to bilinguists.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, this bill requires that a third of the employees in all government services, including crown corporations, be bilingual.
To give you an example of the present shortage of bilingual employees in those services, allow me to quote from a brief published by the Conseil de la vie frangaise. Concerning the Department of External Affairs, the linguistic knowledge is as follows:
Knowledge of languages among officials of the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa.
		Bilingual
Total number:	217	56English speaking:	174	13French speaking:	43	43Knowledge of languages among	Canadian repre-	sentatives abroad.	BilingualTotal number:	387	92English speaking:	325	30French speaking:	62	62Heads of missions abroad.	BilingualTotal number:	44	19English speaking:	30	5French speaking:	14	14
Mr. Speaker, the law provides that all French Canadians must be bilingual in every government department, including crown corporations. However, this provision does not apply to other elements in our country.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) promised that a bonus would be paid to bilingual civil servants. Besides, this was included in the platform of the Liberal party during the last election campaign, according to a newspaper advertisement. I am very much surprised at the position taken by the
Private Bills
present government in an attempt to improve the situation and to place it on a more logical basis.
I have here copies of notices of competition issued by the civil service commission of Canada.
For instance, the Department of Agriculture is looking for someone to head its information division in Ottawa; the position carries a salarly of $8,760 to $10,300. Even though the successful candidate will be working for the information division of an important department, that of agriculture, posters advertising the position do not require applicants to be bilingual.
Another competition advertised by the civil service commission concerns building construction inspectors in Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Montreal and Ottawa, positions to which a salary of $6,300 to $6,960 is attached. I notice that in that case also, applicants are not required to be bilingual.
As for the competition for the position of co-ordinator of transcription, typing and reproduction services, administrative services, Department of Public Works, in Ottawa, which carries a salary of $5,760 to $6,210 candidates do not have to be bilingual. Knowledge of English is sufficient.
Another poster has to do with senior positions in nursing, public health and hospital services which command a maximum salary of $6,240 a year. Applicants will have to work in various provinces including Quebec, and yet they are not required to be bilingual.
The civil service commission has also announced a competition for foreign service stenographers for the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of External Affairs. The starting salary ranges from $3,150 to $3,750 a year and, there again, applicants are not required to be bilingual.
The civil service commission also requests a head for the information service of the Department of National Revenue. Now, this head of the service must meet the requirements of the public, those of French Canada as well as those of English Canada. It was stipulated in the qualifications required of the candidates that it was essential to know both languages; but following this competition, the person who got the position is unilingual. I asked a series of questions in the house on this matter; yet, it was spelled out, in the competition notice, that candidates should have a knowledge of both languages.
I have also before me another competition notice from the civil service commission, in

Private Bills
which applications are invited for the position of "head of the editing section of another department", and there again, it is the same thing. In fact, for hours, I could list competition notices published by the civil service commission and in which it is not required that applicants have at least a knowledge of both languages. Yet, these civil servants have to work in the public interest throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, on March 5 last, in Toronto, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) lashed out at the civil service commission, which he charged with bringing about separatism among French Canadians. But I wonder what action this government means to take to remedy the present situation in the civil service commission. Reforms in this respect had been promised in order that French speaking Canadians might be on an equal footing with English speaking Canadians, as concerns civil service positions.
Mr. Speaker, at a meeting of the committee on privileges and elections, we heard some witnesses, and more particularly Mr. Keith Davey, chief organizer of the Liberal party. I asked Mr. Davey whether he received a government salary; he answered no. However, following a question I put on the order paper, as reported on pages 3354 and 3355 of Hansard for October 9, 1963, the answer given to me was that Mr. Kent was attached to the office of the Prime Minister and that his salary was $20,000 a year. On the other hand, in the committee on privileges and elections, Mr. Keith Davey said his main responsibility was-


Mr. Choqueite:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is out of order; his remarks have nothing to do with the matter under consideration.


Mr. Coie (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm mentioned Mr. Keith Davey, and now he speaks about Mr. Kent. I think he is confusing the two men. Mr. Davey does not receive a salary from the government.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I want to be frank with hon. members. I made a mistake, I confused Mr. Kent with Mr. Davey, and the hon. member who just sat down is quite right.
The Secretary of State spoke of measures to improve the situation, and some government employees are now attending courses in a Hull school. Now, those courses are paid by the federal government, and I am asking hon. members whether they think it fair
(Mr. Pigeon.]
and reasonable that the Canadian government, under the pretext of helping our English speaking fellow citizens, should put at their disposal, during their working hours, teachers paid out of public funds.
French Canadians had to pay out of their own money to take courses after working hours in order to learn the English language, while our English speaking compatriots are learning French at the expense of all Canadian taxpayers during hours which should be used for their office work. I wonder whether that is fair or whether it is essential, to settle the bilingualism problem existing in the federal civil service. We know that the minority Therrien report is quite explicit on that matter. In fact, Mr. Therrien stated;
French Canadian civil servants cannot freely use the French language as a means of communication within the federal administration.
Federal civil servants from the province of Quebec asked for a special consideration and indemnity, in other words, that a bonus be paid to them because they are bilingual. I wonder when the government will take action and give effect to its promise, because we who sit on this side of the house are despairing and we wonder if this will not be another promise put off indefinitely, as the government did when it promised to appoint two ministers of agriculture, one for eastern Canada and one for western Canada.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm tell us whether he considers himself a bilingual person, as stipulated in the bill he is introducing?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member for Carleton that I am not perfectly bilingual, but that I speak English well enough to make myself understood. If all English speaking civil servants in Canada were able to speak French as I speak English, that is well enough to be understood, I think that the situation would be greatly improved in this country.


Mr. Dupuis:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. If I am not mistaken, he said a while ago that the present Minister of Justice stated in Toronto that he held the civil service commission responsible to a certain degree for separatism, did he not? In that case, is not the hon. member surprised to see

that the French Canadian ministers at the time of the Conservatives, for six years, did not have the courage of the present Minister of Justice to put the record straight?


Mr. Valade:: Mackenzie King never said a word of French in 25 years. He never spoke French in the house.


Yvon Dupuis: I have no interest in what you say. I am directing my question to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm.


Georges-J. Valade: That is the Liberal party for you. Hypocrisy-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use wounding words about the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville. I wish to congratulate him on his remark, because it is his first since he was appointed Minister without Portfolio-


Yvon Dupuis: Another lie.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: When we were in office we had distinguished ministers who could express themselves in both languages more easily, I think, than the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville.


Yvon Dupuis: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is not answering my question. I am asking him why, in six years, under the Conservative administration, the French Canadian ministers did not show the same courage as the present ministers. The hon. member is not answering my question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.
I should point out that we are now on second reading of this bill. If there are some members who would like to ask questions of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm there will be an opportunity for a reply to be given to those questions when the hon. member closes the debate on second reading.
[Translation1


Mr. Maurice Rinfrel (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) has been a member of the government for six years and he never suggested any positive approach to improve the recruiting of French Canadians for the civil service. In fact, I wish to draw to the attention of the hon. members of the house the fact that the previous government refused to set up a commission on bilingualism in Canada-


Auguste Choquette: Hear, hear.
Private Bills


Maurice Rinfret: We know that the Leader of the Opposition is now persistently reproving the work of the commission on bilingualism.
Mr. Speaker, bilingualism is the characteristic of a country where two languages are spoken and officially recognized. Bilingualism in Canada is a fact arising out of historic circumstances; two linguistic communities have lasted side by side.
The French community has taken root in the soil of North America 350 years ago. Today, descendants of that ethnic group exceed 6 million in Canada, that is 30 per cent of the total population. They have succeeded, in spite of difficulties, in maintaining and developing the integrity of their culture. The English community settled later in Canada and it expanded through immigration from the British isles.
The English as well as the French communities have rights that are recognized under the confederation pact, which was an agreement between two provinces, but also between the two founding groups. Today, Canadians of good will are trying to find ways and means of developing within the Canadian confederation a partnership of two nationalities sharing equal rights and equal opportunities.
Every Canadian citizen has the right to speak his own language and also the right to be served in his own language by every administrative body in his country.
The Civil Service Act confirms this principle under section 47, as follows:
The number of employees appointed to serve in any department or in any local office of a department who are qualified in the knowledge and use of the English or French language or both shall, in the opinion of the commission, be sufficient to enable the department or local office to perform its functions adequately and to give effective service to the public.
While we are considering this bill, we reiterate the principle of French Canadian representation and we say that this representation is not, at present, what it should be as far as number and appointment to key positions are concerned. Mr. Eugene Therrien, member of the Glassco commission on government organization, gives us some revealing figures. In 1961, out of 5,000 civil servants paid more than $8,000 a year, there were less than 600 French speaking Canadians-


Auguste Choquette: Shame on the Conservatives.


Georges-J. Valade: Could you give us figures for previous years under Mackenzie King?

Private Bills


Mr. Rinfrei:: I have here the figures for 1961.
In 11 departments, six French Canadian civil servants out of 163 were paid $14,000 or over a year. Several departments do not have a single French speaking high official. The same applies to crown corporations.
Nobody can blame French Canadians who try to improve their lot when it is a known fact that the federal government employs 334,000 persons and pays salaries amounting to $135 million a year.
The present government, through the cabinet, the Secretary of State and the Civil Service Commission of Canada is conscious of the situation and has taken immediate steps to create within the departments and the civil service, a state of mind and an awareness designed to promote a greater participation of the French element and a higher proportion of French Canadian high officials.
In order to promote bilingualism throughout Canada, the government has set up a commission to conduct a survey among the public with regard to this problem. The present government has recognized the principle of bilingualism by establishing a commission made up of an equal number of French Canadians and English Canadians, speaking both official languages. The terms of reference of this commission are specific with regard to bilingualism in the federal civil service.
May I be permitted to quote from order in council No. 1106, of July 19, 1963, the following:
-to report on the state and practice of bilingualism in all federal government services and institutions, including crown corporations, as well as in their contacts with the public, and to make recommendations to ensure the bilingual and basically bicultural character of the federal administration.
Mr. Speaker, here is a firm and resolute expression of the government's intention to respect the equal status of the founding groups of this country, and to add thereto the contribution of other ethnic groups living in Canada.
The government is building hopes on the practical findings of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, but is adopting immediate reforms.
To permit higher level employees to learn a second language, either French or English, the civil service commission has established in Hull a bilingual school, where 460 civil servants followed a three month course. Moreover, every department offers in service courses in French and English,

Under the leadership of the Secretary of State, a cabinet committee is endeavouring to establish, on a practical level, an equal status for French and English as regards the printing of documents in every department.
To back up this cabinet committee, an interdepartmental committee composed of high officials from departments and crown corporations has been set up to bring forth concrete recommendations concerning the recruiting, the examination system, the training and promotion of personnel, to fulfil the requirements of bilingualism. To attain that objective, the government gets the full cooperation of the civil service commission and high officials.
The government is anxious to promote the recruiting of French speaking employees. The civil service commission has invited about 20 professors of the four main French speaking universities in order to give them information concerning working conditions and careers opened to university graduates.
In addition to that meeting, officials of the civil service commission go to universities and classical colleges to create interest in federal civil service jobs among the professors and students. Our French language universities and teaching institutions must increase their efforts to guide our graduates towards careers in the federal civil service. The civil service commission did make some changes in the examination procedures to take into account the Quebec education system. It must keep on playing its part by giving training and promotion opportunities to French speaking civil servants.
Mr. Speaker, there is a new determination to get a proportion of French Canadians within the federal civil service. In the present circumstances, the French speaking members of this house have to look up the civil service competition notices and encourage people to apply for these competitions by going around the teaching institutions in their riding or area, and advising their electors of the employment opportunities.
Under the leadership of our religious and civil authorities, the candidates will be more numerous and more qualified and our representation within the civil service will increase in numbers and influence.
It is the responsibility of all Canadians, from all parts of this country, to fully realize the benefits of bilingualism, to try and practice it ourselves, to encourage our young people to learn the official languages of our country, and to make known everywhere the benefits of bilingualism.

It is true that treaties, agreements, laws lay down a policy about the status of the official languages in this country, but it is above all a spirit of understanding and justice that must dictate the efforts of those who want to see the development in Canada of a spirit of greatness and unity, so that, as stated by the present Prime Minister:
All Canadians can feel confident that, within our nation, they can, protected from all discrimination and enjoying the status of full partners, build a wonderful future for them and their descendants.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie).


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Just one question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I think the proper procedure during the hour from five to six is to allow, as far as possible, one member from each party in the house to speak. We have now had one member from the official opposition and one from the government side of the house. The Chair now recognizes the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I listened in French but I will speak in English during this debate. Very frequently in this private members' hour we have very little to guide us by way of party policy, but I did take the trouble to check our policy on this matter concerning bilingualism in the federal civil service. I find it is this, and I quote from our program:
Within the federal civil service the equality of both cultures should be established and the following steps taken to that end:
(a)	after a reasonable period of transition, bilingualism would be a qualification of appointment or promotion to higher posts of the federal civil service:
(b)	a language school would be set up for federal civil servants wishing to become bilingual which could be attended during working hours;
I know that this has been done, but the Liberal party are always doing a year or two afterwards what we have advocated.


Mr. Byrne:: What you have advocated after we have done it.


Robert William Prittie: No, that is never the case. You are the greatest platform stealers there are. But I will go on, Mr. Speaker.
The requirement that people in the higher grades of the civil service, particularly those who aspire to positions in Ottawa, should be
Private Bills
bilingual is, I think, a good one. I refer to those people who are, or may in time become the heads of departments, directors, their assistants, chiefs of branches, ministers, deputy ministers, and so on. These people should make it their business to become bilingual. I am very glad the government have established the school that has been established, and send certain civil servants of executive rank to this school in order to effect an ability in the other language. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) referred to this school and seemed to indicate that only those who are English speaking and wish to learn French are attending the school. But this is not the case, as I understand it, because there are young people from Quebec and from the other provinces who speak French only and are perfecting their English at this school.
Unless you live in a bilingual atmosphere in this country, acquiring the second language is very, very difficult. If you live in Calgary, Vancouver or Halifax, to learn the French language is an extremely difficult process; and I know because I have been working at this for many years I must say that in the atmosphere of Ottawa, in two years I have learned more than in my years of high school and university in Vancouver. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not easy. I know this applies more to the English speaking civil service than it does to the French, but not entirely. The people who are attending this school are expected to become top flight civil servants. If they are going to be really bilingual, this means more than mere conversational ability; it means the ability to write letters and prepare reports in both languages. I suggest that many of the graduates of French universities coming into the civil service, who may be able to speak English but have not that ability to which I have referred, will perhaps be helped by this school.
However, the point of the bill is that all persons in the civil service who are bilingual should receive additional pay because of this ability. With this I do not agree, and for this reason. I would suggest that where the job requires two languages, yes, they should receive additional pay. This would require a determination as to where the two languages are required. Throughout Canada there are many places where a civil servant will never have any occasion to use the French language or be required to use it. A person working in a post office in Victoria, for example, or at a border crossing point between Alberta and

Private Bills
British Columbia would use the French language only on very limited occasions.
Similarly there are many places in the province of Quebec where very little English is spoken; I believe in the Saguenay region and the lower St. Lawrence around Rimouski. If the English speaking people in that region did not know French originally they would have learned it by this time. There are other places, such as Ottawa, Hull, Hawkesbury and Sherbrooke, where postal clerks or custom inspectors should know the two languages, and in this case such persons should receive extra pay for the extra qualification.
The definition of bilingualism given by the hon. member is not sufficient. You have to define bilingualism for the particular job. Let us consider the persons working around parliament hill, the constables, elevator operators, the people in the cafeteria.. To be reasonably proficient in conversation in both languages is sufficient if you do not have to write letters or to draft memoranda. In a great many other positions the ability to write letters and to prepare reports should be a bilingual requirement. Many people who consider themselves bilingual cannot write complex letters or prepare draft memoranda in both languages.


Auguste Choquette: What about the page boys?


Robert William Prittie: I will not comment on that. So that we have to set up a standard of testing. If only conversation is required, there would be one test. If conversation and writing ability is required, there would be another test. A person should be required to pass a test for a particular job. If we are going to give them extra pay they must pass an extra test. They must meet the requirements in order to receive extra pay.
My main objection to the bill is that it really does not mean completely bilingual persons. In the definition part of the bill, under clause 2(a) the following appears:
2. In this act,
(a) "bilingual persons" mean persons who are capable of speaking and writing fluently in both the English and the French languages:
That in itself is all right; but clause 3 goes on:
-it shall be the duty of the person or persons responsible for such appointments to give a preference to bilingual persons so that there shall be in the public service, in crown corporations, in works, undertakings and businesses above mentioned, a number of bilingual persons proportionate to the number of French speaking Canadians throughout the country.

In the explanatory note the following appears:
The purpose of this bill is to correct, in so far as it is possible to do so, the discrimination which now exists in the public service and in crown corporations in the recruiting and employment of persons of French origin, and to give a preference to bilinguists.
This is making a French speaking Canadian synonymous with the word "bilinguist". I realize that the great majority of civil servants who are bilingual are of French speaking origin; but not all, and the two should not be made synonymous.
Another point has come to my attention, and it is that there is a general tendency on the part of some French speaking Canadians to regard only people of French origin as bilingual. I have heard a couple of civil servants with European background, from Poland and Czechoslovakia, speaking French very well, but they are not considered bilingual because they do not have a Canadian accent. This is a form of snobbery which we could do without.
To sum up, as the bill stands I do not agree with it; but I do agree that we should recognize that there are certain bilingual jobs, and where bilingualism is required there should be a proper test. In such cases persons should be paid for their extra ability and for being proficient in the other language.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) is quite complex and requires, I believe, a more elaborate study than that provided in the bill. I have a great respect for the hon. member and for his remarks and speeches which often make his colleagues' hair stand on end. But in my opinion, the problem should be considered from another point of view.
Incidentally, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) for his splendid contribution as well as the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) who was, himself, a distinguished bilingual official.
To ask for a proportional representation of French Canadians within the civil service regardless of competence is perhaps to venture a little too far. Of course, it must also be recognized that the civil service commission often requires for certain positions qualifications based on personal characteristics, competence and schooling of the applicant. It must be kept in mind that the Civil Service Act, as provided in chapter 48 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, as well

as in regulation 21 of March 30, 1962, allows practically full discretion to the civil service commission.
I would be much more in favour of an investigation being conducted within the civil service commission as such, regardless of the matter of languages, so as to know what qualifications are required and what standards are applied before a position is given to an applicant.
There would also be the question of salaries. When we know, for instance, that someone in Quebec or in Ontario may earn $6,000, $7,000 and $8,000 in a certain position and that someone, with the same qualifications, in the maritime provinces or some of the western provinces may be satisfied with a salary of about $5,000, we realize that the Quebec candidates, who might be bilingual, may not be interested in applying for those positions. This means that it would be extremely difficult to find some empirical common ground as suggested. In my opinion, it would be necessary to study that matter in depth, rather than on the single aspect of bilingualism.
There is, for instance, in Quebec, a crown corporation whose name I shall not mention and whose English speaking employees, after attending French classes at university, are the proud holders of a certificate showing that they are proficient in the French language and therefore eligible for a salary increase or a bonus because they are bilingual. However, nothing has changed in their own attitude. They do not speak a word of French in their work and all correspondence is done by all employees in English only. Even when they do business with French Canadians who speak to them in French, they do not try to answer in French; they give negative replies or even answer in English to French Canadians.
All this means that the problem is very complicated and that we should dig much deeper.
I would now like to deal with another aspect of the matter but, as I have the impression that the hon. member for Carleton wants to take part in the debate, I will shorten my remarks. In spite of the government's good intentions, in spite of some policies it might want to convey to the civil service commission, I think that, in many cases, it will become obvious that the government is unable to realize its objectives. However, there are certain cases where it may succeed. For instance, out of the 25 ministers, 15 are English speaking, including one who died recently and nine are French speaking.
Private Bills
This indicates that the proportion has been well maintained, and I wish to commend the government for that.
On the other hand, what surprises me the most is that the Minister of Industry, Mr. Drury, who is bilingual, does not seem to be willing to recognize that French speaking Canadians can be competent enough to perform certain duties in his department. Quite recently I was reviewing the different positions granted to French speaking Canadians in the Department of Industry and I saw only two French names on a total of approximately 25-I speak from memory-including one French speaking Canadian from Sarnia, Ontario, so that we can assume he is probably more proficient in English than in French, and another from the Montreal area.
I wonder why the minister has been unable to find more than two French Canadians to hold key positions. Those positions were filled through a competition of the civil service commission, I know, but I am also aware of the fact that the qualifications were undoubtedly set by the commission at the request of the minister. It is the minister who should have insisted, since he is bilingual and especially since he comes from French Canada.
If my understanding of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm is correct, the purpose is not to have all English speaking officials become bilingual, but to provide that about one third of all civil servants must be French Canadians. Naturally, that would not stop French speaking officials from being bilingual, in the sense that they would know English; on the other hand, the remaining two thirds of our civil service, the English speaking employees, would be able to speak French. I wonder why the Minister of Industry has not seen fit to demand a greater use of French in his department, especially as he is from Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, there are so many things I should like to say that I hope a further similar bill will come up at some later date, so we can go further into the matter, as I am not at all anxious to kill this bill. I shall leave that job to others. So let me point out once again that this is a very complex problem indeed, and that all I have said so far can be summed up in one sentence; let a thorough inquiry take place within the civil service commission, not only to look into the matter of bilingualism in the civil service but also into the operation of the commission itself.
If we study the legislation, we always find some little chapter which enables one to

Private Bills
evade the law or to create an exemption of some kind, such as an order in council, to get round the act. I feel the government should make a thorough investigation of the civil
service-therein lies its basic work.
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot: Mr. Speaker, I only have a few words to say about the measure now before us.
First, I should like to congratulate my friend, the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) for introducing a measure intended to increase bilingualism in the civil service.
I would not let such an opportunity go by- that is why I rose to speak-without making a few remarks following those of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) and the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie).
For the few minutes he took part in this discussion, the hon. member for St. James upbraided us. He said that when we were at the helm, we did very little to favour bilingualism. Now, I should like to point out to the hon. member for St. James and to all hon. members the initiatives we took in this respect. For instance, we introduced simultaneous interpretation and bilingual cheques, we corrected the forms of the last census in 1961; we appointed a French Canadian governor general. Moreover, I avail myself of this opportunity to remind the house that, when I came here in 1957, practically all notices on parliament hill, inside as well as outside, were in English only. I took action to obtain the required change and, today, we can see that all, or almost all, such notices are bilingual.
And I shall ask those who might question what I am now saying to give a telephone call to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets), to whom I recommended as recently as last week to replace a unilingual by a bilingual plate.
As far as the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond is concerned, I think that his way of looking at bilingualism would result in encouraging separatism.
According to his theory, bilingualism should be confined to the province of Quebec, or to those localities where French is needed. Now, Mr. Speaker, how could bilingualism be favoured throughout the country if you adopt an attitude which would limit bilingualism to a single area?
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make, and I beg the hon. member for St. James not to look for any bitterness where
[Mr. Marcoux.1
he is concerned. I wanted simply to remind him of some facts which he probably knew anyway.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, it is now three minutes to six o'clock. There are many things I should like to say about the bill but the time remaining to me unfortunately does not permit. Many points have been made in the debate concerning the development of a bilingual policy in the public service. I should like to say at the very beginning that I do not think there is any doubt whatsoever in the minds of the overwhelming majority of members of the house that we are determined to promote the highest possible degree of bilingualism so that a person communicating with any department of the government will have the right to receive full and complete information in whichever official language the correspondence is initiated. I am sure that every department is actively recruiting with this in mind to make sure that the service which is the right of every taxpayer is rendered, according to fundamental respect for this principle.
But, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there is a great gap between this principle and the legislation before us. The legislation before us would in effect adopt a quota system. It would say that within a quota the language requirement would take precedence over all other requirements for appointment. I have serious doubts whether this is administratively feasible. If it is feasible, there are certain absolutely minimum requirements which would have to be respected by the civil service commission.
The first of them, Mr. Speaker, is the definition and determination in the language of the bill of who is competently bilingual, which language refers to people "who are capable of speaking and writing fluently in both the English and the French languages". I ask my good friend, the mover of the bill, if he considers himself to be a bilingual person and I understand that his answer is yes. I respect his competence in the two languages, but I would point out to the hon. member that I know there are circumstances where he has some difficulty with the English tongue, just as I have some difficulty with the French tongue. I have made an effort as a member of the house and as a citizen of Canada to try to understand the two languages as best I can.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If you will use your brains you will see what I mean by bilingual.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will bear with me, 1 simply wish to say in the very short time remaining that it is not easy to say who is bilingual. There must be some objective measurement, both written and oral, which means that the civil service commission has to adopt certain procedures which are beyond any question of not being objective. This is what has not been done in this measure.
I want to say one other thing, Mr. Speaker. I know I am stretching my time, but under this legislation the number of French speaking Canadians throughout the country has to be determined. How is this to be done? Are you going to take the last census? Will you accept mother tongue according to the census as the basis of the proportion? If this is to be so, then in the last census of June, 1961, 28.1 per cent of all those in Canada replied that their mother tongue was French.


Mr. Ricard:: Don't ask questions; give answers.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I think at this stage I have to face the fact that it is now six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows:
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), income tax, hospitalization plan payments by employers treated as income; the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), labour relations, British Columbia, freedom of workers to join union of choice; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), discussions respecting future correctional policy.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hays for the second reading
Farm Credit Act
of Bill No. C-100, to amend the Farm Credit Act.
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few remarks to make on this bill before it is considered clause by clause in committee. At the outset, I should like to say that I welcome the amendments which have been introduced, especially the provision whereby loans under part II are to be increased to $40,000 and under part III to $55,000. There is only one reservation that I have and that is, since the interest rate is not spelled out in the bill it could mean that the interest rates charged could vary from 6 to 7 or even 8 per cent. I do not believe this is a desirable thing to have. The interest rate is set at 5 per cent in the act now. However, when the bill comes before the committee for clause by clause discussion I shall be urging the minister to make provision for a definite interest rate in these regulations.
Another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister is that the definition of a farm is being broadened sufficiently to include beekeeping. I come from a province where beekeeping is a secondary industry for many farmers. In Saskatchewan we have the Saskatchewan honey co-operative which produces the so-called Sasco honey. This provision will be welcomed by the beekeepers, because they will be classified as farmers and will be eligible for loans, the same as the grain farmer or the livestock raiser.
This beekeeping industry is a very important one. In the three western provinces we have the interprovincial honey sales co-operative. It may be of interest to note that the exports of this honey amount to something like three million pounds a year, most of which goes to Britain. Since this is such a valuable source of income to the farmers, even though to some of them it may be a secondary industry, I think provision should be made in this act whereby, although a farm may not be classified strictly as a beekeeping farm and even though it is secondary to some other branch of farming such as livestock, these beekeepers should be able to obtain loans.
As I said before, this beekeeping industry is a very important one and brings in quite a bit of income. As time goes on, I am pretty sure that this interprovincial honey co-operative will expand. At the present time it is more or less the sole supplier of the market in Britain. The United Kingdom has long been

Farm Credit Act
an important market for Canadian honey and at the present time we are the exclusive suppliers of Canadian bulk honey. In my opinion, this is the appropriate time to have the beekeepers included in this clause under which they would be classified as farmers and be eligible for loans just as other farmers are.
There are many other points about which I should like to speak when we come to the clause by clause discussion. I should like to stress the fact that these loans will be increased, but since the minister will not be setting the interest rates for the loans they will not be of any help to the farmer. For instance, there might be a time when interest rates are high. After all, these loans are not taken out for only four or five years; they are taken out for 20 years or more. After some time has passed, for some unknown reason interest rates may be lower and the farmer who obtained a loan on which the interest rate is 7 per cent will be out a great deal. Therefore I urge the minister to give serious consideration to having the interest rate set the same as it is at present, namely 5 per cent.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say it is now over a year since the government assumed office and we have looked forward to the presentation of legislation as an indication of the direction it would take in regard to agricultural policy. The production of any particular piece of agricultural legislation igives an indication of the direction the government is taking, and it also affects other legislation that might be brought forward from time to time.
The bill before us, if it indicates anything, indicates that the government is going for larger and larger farms, and for the ultimate elimination of the smaller farms in this country. For that reason I am deeply disturbed at the effect this legislation will have among those vast numbers of smaller farmers in my own province of Saskatchewan, farmers who have been unable to make use of the Farm Credit Corporation up to the present, and also at the effect it will have on small farmers in other areas of Canada, of whom there are great numbers in parts of the maritimes and the province of Quebec. These people at present are unable to utilize the Farm Credit Corporation under the regulations now in effect.
If I might have the minister's attention I would like to suggest to him that before the limits on the amount of loans are increased, a good long look should be taken

at the plight of those farmers who are unable to benefit from the legislation we have. These farmers are very numerous and form the bulk of the community known as the agricultural community of Canada. They have a great part to play in the orderly development of this nation in the years ahead. I do not believe the government should forget them in its haste to bring forward some legislation so that it can say it has done something with regard to agricultural problems.
Hardy farmers who at present are unable to benefit from existing legislation must know that raising the limit of loans to $55,000 is not going to mean anything to them at all. Yet these people remain the source of the greatest problems facing the nation and the Department of Agriculture.
The other matter which engages my attention is that of the interest rates, which was raised by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp).


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: By the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Edward Nasserden: That may be so, but unfortunately I was not in the house this afternoon when he made his speech. When the Farm Credit Corporation was set up a few years ago, interest rates became a subject for discussion, and at that time it was felt a 5 per cent interest rate represented a fairly good average of what interest rates might be over a long period of years. For that reason, and after a great deal of discussion as hon. members will recall, the corporation was set up and the interest rate set at 5 per cent.
The bill before us does not change the interest rate on the existing loans, but it does open the door to increased rates. I believe it will also be an incentive for an increase of interest rates in other aspects of the economy. For that reason I would like the minister to take this matter into consideration before that part of the bill is debated in committee. Most people borrowing money like to know what they are going to have to pay for it.
As the bill presently reads, a situation could be created where one farmer would be paying one interest rate and his neighbour paying another rate, depending on when each took out his loan. This would lead to some inequities that would be very difficult to explain.
I hope the other legislation that the minister has promised will be a little more productive than this because, after all, this [DOT] bill hardly touches the problems of agriculture as they

exist today. All it will do is aggravate some of the problems. The man who presently can qualify for a $27,500 loan is in a good position to help himself, and it is the position of the other farmers which we should be concerned about.
The record of the Farm Credit Corporation has been a good one, but some of the risks that might have been taken have not been taken. It may not move as quickly as some of us would like, but we hope it and the government, stage by stage, will try to make loans available to the people who require them. I may have further remarks to make later on, but that is all I have to say at present.


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, under this bill to amend the Farm Credit Act, it will be possible to increase the operating capital of the Farm Credit Corporation out of the consolidated revenue fund. The maximum amount of loans will also be revised upwards.
As far as the first point is concerned, that is, taking money out of the consolidated revenue fund, I feel that such a step is not an innovation. It does not take a genius to think of that. The inventor of the wheel rendered a greater service to the human race than those who think of drawing on the consolidated revenue fund.
Everybody is aware of the iniquitous scheme which consists in taxing the Canadian people more and more as, for instance, in the case of the 11 per cent excise tax on manufactured goods.
We know that once it has reached its destination, in the hands of the consumer, that tax has already cost over 40 per cent to the consumers, according to calculations made by eminent accountants. To increase the operating capital of the Farm Credit Corporation through the proposed method is the same, all in all, as digging a hole to fill another. Such a step is both sterile and infantile. By resorting to the sovereign powers of the Canadian parliament, we could take back the regalian prerogatives to issue credit that were handed over to chartered or commercial banks and transfer them to the appropriate government agency, that is, the Bank of Canada, which, under the high authority of the national credit council, would supply the Farm Credit Corporation with the credit required for the smooth operation of that undertaking. This could be done at a nominal cost. Thus, the Canadian farmers could be allowed loans at a reduced 20220-261J
Farm Credit Act
rate in order to sell their production at a profit.
The great problem in agriculture at the present time is that farmers do not make profits. They leave their farms and give up their land for the simple reason that it is not a paying proposition. Let us give them the opportunity to make profits as any other normal enterprise. Is there anyone who likes to work for nothing? Profit is the rightful purpose of all transactions and undertakings.
According to the latest statistics, the net income of Canadian farmers has decreased by 5.4 per cent, which represents a loss of $80,700,000, while the Quebec farmers have lost more than $3 million in net income.
Those figures speak clearly and are a good indication that agriculture is now in a state of regression. It is not by increasing the debts of farmers that we will be able to develop agriculture.
It must be considered that agriculture is the most important branch and even the basis of the Canadian economy. If that branch of the economy is in a state of regression, what will happen? Will we be able to continue the development of the national economy? At the present time, this slackening is caused by the high inflation pressure on our monetary system. Canadian finances are really in an incredibly bad shape.
With this measure and similar ones which have been presented to us for some time or will eventually be introduced, the government is increasing monetary inflation. That does not solve the basic problem; it only helps to displace it.
I read the other day in Le Soleil of May 29, 1964, a newspaper of my area, that farmers were complaining, through the Saguenay federation of the U.C.C.; and they had reason to complain, because the federal Department of Agriculture had eliminated a subsidy to dairy products. This question was asked:
Strangely enough, we are told that two years ago, one of the biggest cheese dealers in Canada had a lot of cheese to export. Now, the export subsidy for that year was 4 cents a pound.
At the present time, that same firm would sell all its cheese on the national market.
Is it by a mere coincidence in the federal policy that the cheese export subsidy is high when capitalist concerns have cheese to export, and that the subsidy is low when producers export their cheese themselves?
Those are rebukes which are justified. I am deeply convinced that increasing the debts of the farmers will not help us settle those problems.

Farm Credit Act
During the discussion on agriculture estimates, I observed, on several occasions, that it was practically only with subsidized products that the farmers could make good, while as regards non-subsidized products, farmers lose too much money and give up production.
In concluding, I should like to raise another point which to my mind is extremely important. Looking into the balance sheet of the Farm Credit Corporation, I noted that among the ten members of the board, there was only one French Canadian. I feel that here again racial discrimination prevails; it is an odious and revolting treatment, and I hope that this inequality will be corrected.
It is amazing to see how, in all businesses, crown corporations, all kinds of corporations concerned with farm credit or anything else, that systematic ostracism has been applied for a number of years. And yet there are parliamentarians and Canadians who are amazed to hear about separatism or to receive representations from the province of Quebec, against that sort of treatment applied to French Canadians who are full-fledged Canadians.
I hope that such an absolutely inconceivable situation will be corrected.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Cenire):: The hon. members for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) and Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) gave a clear outline of possible defects or weaknesses in the farm credit program envisaged in Bill No. C-100. I agree with their contention that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) has apparently made very little attempt to tackle the main problem confronting agriculture which is, of course, the increasing cost of farm operations. What the minister has done is to double the amount which can be lent to farmers by the Farm Credit Corporation.
Bill No. C-100 might be described as a grandstand play by the government. I am expressing my own opinion when I say that loans of $40,000 or $50,000 may assist some farmers. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that loans of this size will greatly help a certain proportion of our farmers. But they are not the answer to rising farm costs. Although the minister has almost raised a club over our heads by indicating that there is very little money left from which to make farm credit loans, I think he is moving too quickly with regard to this bill. On occasions he has indicated a move to lighten the load of farm machinery costs. 1 think he should have re-

vealed these plans first, because they could cut operating costs and thus reduce the need for large amounts of farm credit.
If farmers could be assured in the years ahead of $2 wheat, as promised by the government, the need for farm credit would be reduced. If they could be assured of wheat markets in the years ahead, the need for large farm credits would similarly be reduced. My main objection to this bill is that, though credit facilities are so greatly expanded, little action has been taken by the government to guarantee that farmers will be able to repay their loans. Credit, in the absence of a definite, long range economic program for agriculture, will not provide for family farm security.
In this connection I found the following report as to the plans of the agricultural economics research council of Canada most interesting. I may say that this council is supported by the federal government, provincial government, farm organizations, cooperatives, and business and industry associated with agriculture. If I may I should like to read a few excerpts from this report. It states:
The first project will be a study of the relationship between Canadian agricultural policy and what is generally referred to as the farm problem. The purpose of the study is to analyse the objectives of past and present farm policies and relate them to the programs which have been implemented to achieve these objectives. The emphasis will be upon determining the economic effects of current policies. Furthermore, the study will try to add to knowledge of why a fundamental problem of major significance to the economic well-being of farmers continues to persist.
The third project-
And I think this is a very interesting one in connection with Bill No. C-100:
-is a study of the capital supply for Canadian agriculture.. .The study will assess the earning power of capital and relate it to the problem of creating new forms of credit which will be adequate for modem farm businesses.
The fourth study is designed to study the place of agriculture in the national economy.. .The purpose of this study is to analyse the position of agriculture in present-day Canadian society with a view to providing information which would assist agriculture, the general community and government to cope with the strains imposed by the changes which are taking place.
Mr. Speaker, the minister does not appear to be very interested in these remarks. I would draw to Your Honour's attention that we are speaking of Bill No. C-100, and if I could have the minister's attention for a few moments I would appreciate it. In the light of these research projects 1 say again that the Minister of Agriculture is attempting

to supply large amounts of farm credit before the whole future farm program is worked out. The government should concentrate on these research studies regarding loan repayment possibilities. Piling up credit debt is not the answer, although adequate credit facilities certainly are part of the long range farm program.
I would ask the government to produce its plans for lower machinery costs. As I said before, what about the promise of $2 wheat as a guarantee for future sales? A large amount of wheat has been sold in this crop year at good prices, so there should be a great deal of the farmers' own money standing to their credit. I suggest the government make an interim payment now to the farmer growers. With assured markets for $2 wheat and a good interim payment each summer, the farmers may not need $55,000 loans.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I support a program which will provide reasonable farm credit, but it should be only one part of the whole agricultural program. The complete program should have been made known before we were called upon to pass Bill No. C-100.
Mr. Speaker, those are all the remarks I want to make now, but I intend to make more specific comments when this bill is studied in committee.


Mr. John Mullally (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, like all hon. members who represent rural agricultural ridings I am very much interested in anything which has an effect or bearing on agricultural problems of our farmers. First of all I think the minister should be commended for bringing this legislation before the house, as well as for the other legislation which he has prepared, some of which is already on the order paper. I am sure the minister has the confidence and the respect of the farmers everywhere in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Cooney Mullally: This is very evident, Mr. Speaker, when one attends an agricultural meeting, discusses matters with farmers, reads the editorials in our agricultural newspapers, or indeed in any press in Canada. The minister is a farmer at heart, a very successful farmer indeed, with a deep knowledge of farm problems and I am sure he is able to bring forward many measures will be to the benefit of farmers everywhere in Canada.
The legislation we have before us at the moment, to provide amendments to the Farm Credit Act, is one of four measures being considered at the present time to assist
Farm Credit Act
farmers throughout the country. With regard to the others, I would first refer back to what the last speaker said. He said we should have presented our program before presenting various pieces of legislation. However I think our program is very well known; it was made public to the people and to the farmers of Canada during the last two election campaigns. The people of Canada endorsed it and decided this was a very acceptable program and we are proceeding with that program. This is the first step. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, farm credit is not entirely confined to the Farm Credit Act; there are other methods of providing credit for farmers. I am thinking particularly of farm improvement loans. The minister has indicated that he will be bringing in improvements to this legislation as well. Also on the order paper we have a resolution preceding the introduction of legislation to deal with crop insurance. I think this is most important, to assure farmers that they will not suffer disastrous losses in the event of some natural disaster which could wipe out their crops. The minister has also announced that he will bring forward, as soon as the opportunity is available, an act to assist in the very difficult problem of the high cost of farm machinery; that is, measures to assist in some way to overcome the very difficult problem farmers are facing today with the high and rising costs of farm machinery.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think these four measures are certainly a good initial step in our program for rural Canada and the farmers of Canada. I realize there is much to be done. I am sure all those who have spoken today and who will speak in this debate are aware of this and have the same thought in mind. It is extremely difficult, as they are also aware, to bring forward in this parliament all the legislation one would like to see enacted. We have a very crowded schedule and some things have to take priority. We are satisfied that the minister is doing a very excellent job for the farmers of Canada. I think the farmers of Canada are aware of this and are showing their appreciation of what the minister is doing.
I would like to comment very briefly on the four main improvements this piece of legislation attempts to provide to the Farm Credit Act. First of all it increases the capital fund of the corporation to $600 million. At the present time it is $400 million. With the rapidly increasing use of credit by farmers everywhere in the country it has become necessary to increase the capital fund which is available to the corporation in order to

Farm Credit Act
provide the loans farmers require. I think a mere glance at the statistics and figures which are available indicate that in the year 1959-60 the corporation lent a total of $40 million; in 1962-63 this was increased to $90 million, and for the year just ended on March 31 it is anticipated that this amount will be $106 million. So we see that there has been a tremendous increase in the number of loans made and the amount of money which farmers are obtaining from the Farm Credit Corporation. Therefore it has become necessary to increase the amount of money available to the corporation to meet these demands. I think this is a very necessary and a very excellent step.
Second, the measure before the house at the moment will double the amount of money a farmer can borrow from the corporation. As we are all aware, at the present time under a part II loan a farmer can borrow $20,000; under part III it is $27,500. Some members who have spoken today have been rather critical of this effort by the minister and the government to increase the amount of money available to a farmer; in other words, to double the amount of money a farmer can borrow from the Farm Credit Corporation. I think this increase is very necessary, is very essential and will be very beneficial to the farmers of this country.
I am sure we are all aware that with the increasing value of land and the increasing cost of everything a farmer has to buy as a capital investment, it is necessary, even for the farmer who has not a large operation, to be able to borrow amounts larger than those previously provided under this act. Therefore I endorse this measure to increase the amount of money which an individual farmer can borrow from the corporation. It was mentioned just a few moments ago that this is an effort to eliminate the small farmer. I certainly do not think that is so, because I cannot see that this provision would in any way eliminate the small farmer or make it more difficult for him to borrow money. This would probably make it a little easier to operate, because any time the standards at the top are raised you make it easier for those borrowing lesser amounts at a lower level to obtain their loans.
I heartily endorse this provision. At the same time I would impress upon the minister and the officials of the Farm Credit Corporation, that they should give the most sympathetic consideration to the small borrower. They should be as lenient as possible within the limits of the act and regulations and give

the small farmer as large a loan as possible consistent with his needs. But I do not think that increasing the limits as in this particular case, which I think are very essential and necessary with the increasing cost of capitalization for the average farm, will in any way place any greater difficulty in the way of the farmer to borrow the money he needs to conduct his farm operation.
The third amendment in clause 3 enables a farmer to borrow from the corporation for the purpose of advancing such loans to a member of his family who wishes to acquire farm land. I think this is a most important amendment. We are all concerned at this time with the great trend away from our farms, particularly in the case of young people. This provision enables a father to borrow money to finance his son, his son-in-law, daughter, daughter-in-law, or his nephews, nieces, brothers, sisters, stepchildren or foster children, in establishing a farming operation. This measure I strongly commend both the minister and the corporation for bringing into effect. This will do a great deal to keep many young people on the farm as well as to encourage others to take up farming as a vocation. It is most discouraging in my area, and I think the same is true in all areas in eastern Canada, to see so many of our young and intelligent people who were born on farms moving away from farming to take up some other vocation. We think that farming is the best and most satisfying and rewarding vocation in which to engage, and any effort made to keep our young people on the farms is to be highly commended.
The fourth amendment which this legislation provides enables a borrower who receives a part III loan to make his repayments equally over the entire period of the loan. Under the present regulations such a borrower has to make his repayments on his chattels during the first ten years of the loan. This places a very heavy burden on the young farmer during the early years of his farming life and makes it extremely difficult for him to make any significant progress, because his repayments are so high. By spreading his repayments for the chattels in the same manner as his repayments on money borrowed to purchase land, over the entire 30 year term of the loan, the burden naturally is eased during the early years of his farming operation, which makes it considerably easier for the young farmer to get started.
Another matter I should like to comment on, which is also part of the new provisions of the act, concerns the increased interest rate

for the larger amount borrowed in excess of the present amount which is being provided -$20,000 in the case of a part II loan and $27,500 in the case of a part III loan. The interest rate charged on such amounts over $20,000 on a part II and $27,500 on a part III loan will be an economical rate, which I think is very appropriate. If I had my way I would suggest that we lower the interest rate to 3 or 4 per cent in the case of smaller loans, but increase it on an escalating scale with the higher amounts; and at that particular level over $20,000 and $27,500 I think that an economical rate of interest is very much in order. I think it would be preferable if the small borrower were given a lower rate of interest, and the interest rate for loans over $20,000 and $27,500 was in keeping with the prevailing rate of interest charged to the corporation or the government by the sources from which they borrow their funds.
There is another matter on which I wish to congratulate the minister, and it concerns the efforts he has made to establish an interdepartmental committee to consider the whole question of farm credit. As I mentioned earlier, farm credit is not limited to the Farm Credit Corporation under the Farm Credit Act. We also have the Veterans Land Act, the farm improvement loans, various provisions under ARDA for advancing money, and in practically every province there are provincial lending agencies which do a great deal to help farmers. It is the understanding of the minister, who is very familiar with farm credit problems, that we should have a complete study in depth of the entire subject of farm credit, and I think he is to be highly commended for bringing about this interdepartmental committee, which will study the entire question in an attempt to co-ordinate, first of all at the federal level, the various agencies which have provided credit to farmers-and I have mentioned them already. At the same time the committee will try to tie in and co-ordinate our lending efforts at the federal level with the efforts of provincial agencies in each of the provinces.
It is most important that there is no conflict of interest as to where these loans are to apply. In order to bring that about it is very necessary that the federal and provincial agencies work closely together to ensure that money lent to farmers by way of farm credit be used to the best possible advantage. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, credit is most important to any development, and is
Farm Credit Act
essential to a farming operation. Good, sound, intelligent credit planning, with money properly applied, used and administered will do a great deal to improve and assist our farm operations.
By the same token, too much credit or credit not properly handled will be just as disastrous to our farmers. It is not a matter of giving a lot of credit; it is a matter of intelligent provision and administration of credit to see it is properly used and applied. I think that the minister's committee will do a great deal to see that this will prevail; and as I said before the committee will study the entire question of farm credit, both as provided at the national level and at the provincial level, including the agencies involved, so as to determine what should best be done in the way of providing farm credit to the farming population of Canada.
In order to effect certain changes in the operations of the Farm Credit Corporation it is necessary to bring in amendments to our legislation. In glancing over this act we find that about half these amendments relate to provisions in the act, the remainder being regulations over which changes can be effected by the governor in council. I should like to make three or four suggestions which could be given effect to merely by changing the regulation. These would not require changes in the act. I make these suggestions to the minister and to the corporation for their consideration as possible improvements to the regulations, which would assist the Farm Credit Corporation.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think that farm credit and the whole matter of credit as it applies to the farmer and to the farm is a matter of education. We have to educate our farmers by working more closely with them, helping them in a supervisory way and discussing with them their problems as related to farm credit. In my opinion the supervisory and field offices should have substantial increases in staff so that they could provide for the farmers the close supervision, discussion, analysis assistance, and advice which is so necessary in order that farmers may make the best possible use of the credit facilities available and direct their farming operations in the most economic way, so that they will achieve what the minister so often describes and what we all so much desire, a sound basic economic farm unit.
According to clause 8 of the act the corporation may employ such officers and employees as it deems necessary for the purpose


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, in considering Bill No. C-100, one realizes that its purpose is to improve farming conditions and to help more adequately Canadian farmers, especially those in eastern Canada.
I heard the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Mullally) suggest more liberal credit facilities for all farmers. He pointed out that farmers

need sound and intelligent credit facilities and he asked the minister to take the necessary measures so that the legislation will allow the largest loans possible to be granted to the greatest possible number of farmers.
Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time that we hear government members or politicians discuss farming. We heard about it during election campaigns and today we hear about it in parliament.
The government admits, therefore, that farm credit has not been adequate in the past and it is now suggested in Bill No. C-100 to increase the amount of loans to farmers and even to grant loans to farmers wishing to set up members of their family on farms.
Not so long ago, I was told about a farmer of 47 or 48 who applied for a loan to the Farm Credit Corporation. His application was turned down precisely because he was over 45 years of age.
The bill under consideration does not state whether farmers will be able to secure loans regardless of their age. On the other hand we know that when a farmer is old enough to draw his pension, he no longer looks after his farm and will certainly not seek a farm loan.
When a man of 46 or 47 is refused a loan because he is over the age of 45, I feel that the officials of the Department of Agriculture should see to it that such things do not occur again in our country, and especially in our province.
Mr. Speaker, everybody admits that agriculture and farmers are in an intolerable plight. From all parts of Canada, and especially the eastern part where assistance to farmers has left much to be desired in the past compared to other areas, farmers are complaining about the way they are treated; other farmers are quitting the farm because they cannot earn their living there any more and, therefore, they are forced to go elsewhere and work in the factories or in the mines. And that is because both federal and provincial governments have not done their share to assist farming.
It is so true that the Quebec minister of agriculture stated not long ago that there are 34,000 surplus farms in the province of Quebec, 34,000 farmers who cannot make a living on their farm, 34,000 farmers who are, in other words, a problem for the provincial and federal department of agriculture.
Then, the suggestion is made to the wealthy farmer to buy the small farms of those who are unsuccessful and to hire those
Farm Credit Act
people to work on their present farm, according to a formula of the ARDA plan. Therefore, one farmer would be the owner and the others would become wage earners as it is done in Russia under the communist system where farms belong to the state and farmers become its employees.
We know now the monumental failure of the farm collectivization in Russia. The same thing will happen here, in Canada, where our ministers of agriculture seem intent in following that course, taking his farm from the small farmer instead of helping him to live on it. At the same time, economists in the Department of Agriculture, and even agronomists, are making plans for the farmers. Instead of giving these people the opportunity of establishing their own plan, an outside plan is forced upon them even if it does not meet at all their requirements. We tell the farmer how to organize his life instead of giving him the means to do as he sees fit.
Self-styled experts come to inform farmers, to order them around, to prescribe or suggest the planning of their farm or their production and the marketing of their products.
It seems to me it would be simple to help the farmers by giving them complete freedom to organize their farm as they see fit, and providing them at the same time with the means to do so without always driving them to extremities, as is done today in the province of Quebec and in eastern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-100 can still help farmers temporarily. A great number of farmers who have obtained farm loans from the federal or the provincial governments are hard put to meet their obligations. Those farmers were obliged to ask for delays to make their payments at the federal level and they had all the trouble in the world getting those farm loans from the province of Quebec. There were cases in our regions and throughout Quebec where the federal Department of Agriculture did not even take the trouble of making an investigation or going into the field to see what was going on when a farmer asked for a federal farm loan. From the provincial farm credit board to the federal Farm Credit Corporation, back and forth, the farmer was sent from one to the other, each not knowing what to suggest and telling him; wait, wait and your case will be settled.
Farm credit has been in force for at least 25 years in Quebec and throughout Canada and yet agriculture today finds itself in the same hopeless situation that prevailed in 1932, 1933 and 1934. And, what are we


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-100 is so important to a large area of my riding that I could not let it pass without saying a few words.
First of all, I want to pay tribute to the personnel of the Department of Agriculture, and more particularly to that of the Farm Credit Corporation. I want also to tell them that I greatly appreciated their co-operation, because each time I had to work with them, they acceded with great readiness to my requests.
However, I must say that I never insisted to obtain things which were not logical. On the contrary, I have always attempted to put forward requests as just and equitable as possible.
I would like to take this opportunity to speak about the staff of the St. Hyacinthe office and state that since 1958, in particular, the business of the corporation has been so good that the staff had to be tripled, even quadrupled. Now, if the staff had to be increased, it is because business had increased.
I am happy to learn that it is proposed to add beekeeping and to extend farm credit facilities to this area of agriculture.
Beekeeping is an important part of agriculture.
Since the minister worked for a number of years on a farm where bees were kept, that is in an apple-growing district, I am sure he will be interested in helping out a large number of our farmers. Indeed, in several parts of the province, of the country even, people carry out that kind of operation and the equipment required to produce honey is often quite costly.
20220-262i
Farm Credit Act
The minister is not without knowing that beekeepers suffer heavy losses at times. For instance, if their hives are struck by an epidemic, they face hardship when they cannot replace their equipment.
Therefore, as I said, I am very happy to see that beekeepers will now be able to take advantage of farm credit.
Mr. Speaker, since you represent a predominantly agricultural riding, you must share my opinion and that of many others here in the house who think that a special effort must be made to preserve and protect the family farm.
In the province of Quebec, as well as in Ontario, the family farm is a unit that must be protected at all costs. Even if the government were to do more for that small farm unit, I am sure he would get the support of all members of parliament.
In recent years, when the cost of machinery is ever increasing, the farmers, especially the small farmers, must necessarily be assisted. I for one will certainly not blame the government for the assistance it will grant this sector of the population.
Moreover, I urge the minister to do his utmost so that, if possible, greater assistance under various forms may be granted small farm industry.
Unfortunately, while considering Bill No. C-100 we have to admit that the purpose of the government is not primarily to help the small agricultural industry, the family farm, but rather big enterprise.
My hon. friend, the member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) said that special attention should be given this problem.
I think it is proper to remind the minister that by extending credit, by making credit more readily available to large farming organizations we are not really helping the farmer; if we do not protect and help the small farmer, it is not by training him that he will be able later on to operate on a big scale. The small farm is the real place where the farmer can familiarize himself with the many complex problems of nature and farming. That is why I believe that instead of trying to help the larger farm corporations, often operated by people known as gentlemen farmers whose main revenues are not derived from farming, we should rather try to help the small farmer.
When a farmer applies to the corporation to obtain a loan, it often happens that he comes up against regulations which work to his disadvantage, and I think that the minister should see to it that more consideration

Farm Credit Act
is given to the ability, the efficiency and the good will of those who wish to take up farming. Often well-meaning people would make excellent farmers, but they belong to large families and they do not have the necessary means to buy the smallest farm. In such cases, I think, that it would be advisable to consult the local authorities in order to inquire about the solvency and especially the desire of the young man to meet his obligations.
I would also like to recommend to the minister to make clear what the rate of interest would be. It is a known fact that farm loans are already available in the province of Quebec at a rate of interest of only 2J per cent. This is surely a great help to farmers and the very small losses suffered by the provincial farm loan board prove beyond doubt that the person who established that agency in the province of Quebec and who was so strongly criticized by my hon. friends opposite, namely the late Maurice Duplessis, rendered great services not only to the farmers but also to the province in providing the required credit facilities to this segment of the population.
I would like the minister to consider the possibility of reducing if possible or at least of restricting to 5 per cent the interest rate on farm loans.
I should also like to ask the minister whether it would not be possible for the borrower to select his own notary instead of dealing with a notary who is designated to him by the corporation.
It is a well-known fact that among French Canadian families, businesses are transferred from fathers to sons at a particular notary office. It has become a custom among our people to do their transactions at the same office in order to facilitate research and also to eliminate expenses which can sometimes be burdensome, if a notary other than the one who is used to look after the business of the family is appointed to do the necessary work when a young farmer makes an application for a loan from the Canadian Farm Credit Corporation.
Once more, I heard tonight the hon. member for Kings pay tribute to the present Minister of Agriculture and praise the farm policy of the Liberal party. I would not like to seem unpleasant at all toward my friend, the Minister of Agriculture, but the flattering words which were uttered about him by my colleague from Kings compel me to set the record straight because according to the hon.
[Mr. Elcard.l
member, we would be ready to confer sainthood on the Minister of Agriculture.
However, I would like to put on the record an appraisal of the Minister of Agriculture made by the editor of La Terre de Chez Nous, the mouth-piece of farmers-if I may say so- in the issue of May 27, 1964, through Mr. Paul Henri Lavoie. Here is what Mr. Lavoie thinks of the present Minister of Agriculture, and I quote:
Mr. Harry Hays does not have to deal so much with the problem of agriculture in his area, namely that of western Canada, because there is none or practically none. Especially when we consider the great sales of wheat made in the recent months and the prospects for the coming year.
What strikes me particularly is the following sentence:
We are under the impression that he does not know anything about eastern agriculture and that he is not at all not interested therein. Yet, he is the one who makes decisions and this is already very serious.
That is quite another story that I deemed it my duty to recall so as to show both sides of the question. The hon. member for Kings also mentioned all the blessings bestowed by his party ever since it came to power. However, I should like to point out that since the minister has taken over the agriculture portfolio, the income of farmers in the province of Quebec has decreased.
The first step was to abolish the 25 cent per cwt. subsidy on milk, which resulted in a saving-according to the minister's own figures-of about $11 million.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if this new measure, made possible a saving of $11 million, a sum which was previously paid to farmers, well, I wonder if it is not from the farmers' pockets that this amount was extracted. If the hon. member for Kings considers this has been a blessing for the farmers, he has a peculiar idea of the interest we should show them.
I would also like to remind the hon. member for Kings, as well as the other members, and especially those of the province of Quebec, that in the programs presented during the election campaigns of 1962-63, the Liberal party had promised a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada. Where is this minister of agriculture for eastern Canada? Is this not another promise which was broken by the federal Liberal party? I urge those members to exert pressure in order to secure such an appointment, because during the campaign in our Quebec areas the appointment of a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada was promised.

I see my good friend, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin) who was shouting himself hoarse at the time promising everything to the right and to the left, roaming through the various ridings and acting up behind the micro and on the television screen-


Mr. Drouin:: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot that if he sat down, he would become minister of agriculture for the east sooner.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, if I understood him rightly, the hon. member said that if I tried, we would probably have one sooner.


Mr. Paul:: He said: "If you sat down".


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that if a Conservative government made such a promise, it would be kept to the last dot.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kings also whined and said that we did not do enough when we were in power, i.e. from 1958 to 1963.
Mr. Speaker, it must be admitted that it was impossible to remedy, within a period of six years, the negligence of the Liberal party which had been in office for 22 years and held the eastern as well as the western farmers, at its mercy.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that, when we assumed office, there was a wheat surplus for which we were not responsible. Yet, we tackled the problem under the leadership of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) who proved his great ability as a salesman and a farmer, and we also succeeded in eliminating this wheat surplus, which was a very welcome action.
Mr. Speaker, since you were in the house at that time, you are no doubt aware that when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle introduced the so-called ARDA in the house, all the members of the Conservative party, including the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, were laughed at by the Liberal party. However, today, the Liberal members, having as their special ambassador the hon. member for Iles-des-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve), whom I congratulate for his work, travel throughout the country praising the merits and advantages of ARDA, saying that the future of agriculture rests on it.
We now hear a different tune, and it would have been so easy then for the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) to sing the praise of ARDA instead of running it down as he did at the time. In fact, if he and his colleagues of the province of Quebec had
Farm Credit Act
simply agreed to give the Conservative government a chance, if they had brought pressure to bear on the members of other governments, such as the Lesage government, for instance, to assume half of the responsibilities and co-operate with the planning in that direction, we would certainly have seen right away the results and the benefits of ARDA.
But in that field as in the others, Mr. Speaker, you cannot separate the Liberals. They always use the same tactics. They only have one objective and it is to get into office. And once they are in they have to burn what they worshipped and worship what they burned.
For the information of the hon. member for Kings and for other government members who might be inclined to think that the Conservative party did nothing for the farming class when it was in power, I would suggest that they refer to page 19 of the pamphlet published by the Farm Credit Corporation and to compare the loans made during the 22 years of Liberal regime with those made during the six years when the Conservative party was in power. They will notice that during the six years of our administration, we accommodated about the same number of farmers as the Liberals did in 22 years.
As a matter of fact, they granted loans to some 35,000 farmers, while during six years of Conservative administration-and I add the figures rapidly-34,854 farmers received loans from the Farm Credit Corporation. Under the Liberal regime, the money made available to the farmers amounted to some $112 million, while it went up to over $283 million during the six years of Conservative administration.
But those statistics do not keep government members from repeating, every time they can, that nothing was done by the Conservative party for the farming class.
I also wish to make a comparison between what was done under both governments in my riding. Before 1958, only six loans were granted by the Farm Credit Corporation, for a total amount of $37,400. On the other hand, for the years 1958 to 1963-64 inclusive, lU loans were granted to farmers in my riding, for a total amount of $1,823,500.
Those are figures and comparisons which will certainly cause some meditation among government members of good faith. I know that there are some and I see my hon. friend from Champlain (Mr. Matte), for instance, as well as my good friend from Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pilon) and many others whom

Farm Credit Act
I would not like to forget, but I cannot name them for lack of time. I know that the figures I just quoted will convince them that they should stop criticizing when they speak of the Conservative government. I suggest that they should face the facts, which will enable them to see that the Conservative government did a lot for the farming class. Moreover, I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture to do only half that much, and he will have done a lot for farmers during his term of office, because if we believe what farmers say, he will not be there very long.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, it would be unnatural for me to take too much time, when I do not come from a primarily agricultural constituency and I see such proponents of the sturdy rural yeomen as the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan) and the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) waiting to speak. The minister has been congratulated on all sides; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) congratulated him for extending socialism; the Conservatives have been congratulating him for pushing on with the legislation they are so proud of; the congratulations that have been flowing from his own benches have been pretty hard to identify, other than I suppose you would just say they are part of the great man syndrome. I have been trying to think of some way in which I could congratulate him, and the only thing I could come up with was not very relevant to this bill. This is the question of flying around the country with a bunch of M.P.'s. I think it is very good for any minister of the crown to accept such a responsibility in view of the general stigma that attaches to M.P.'s these days, and I think the minister is very brave, if not for bringing in this bill, at least for suggesting he is prepared to go and stump the brushes and brakes of Canada with a group of M.P.'s. This is a real contribution he has put into the raising of the parliamentary prestige.
The only point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, is something that I cannot really see very clearly from the introduction the minister made when he indicated that this legislation was just a part of a much larger farm credit story that is being approached by an interdepartmental committee, and he mentioned ARDA. I happen to live in a region where there are very few farms of substance, except those that have some relationship to a pulpwood cutting operation. The plain fact of the matter is that the ARDA program
[Mr. Ricard.l
which the minister threw in as providing some means of credit facilities is just not functioning in most of the country, and where it does function it always seems to be within a municipality or a regional framework that really does not open up the opportunities that this act does for an individual farmer, for example, who wants to acquire more forestry land or wants to turn some of his forestry land, by some fairly substantial expenditures, into a genuine tree farm with some prospects of developing a rotation pattern, and so on.
I would like to ask the minister why the definition that is contained in the act is not a bit more expansive, and whether he could give any indication of whether this act could be expanded just a little bit more broadly in its terms so that in those areas where farming shades into forestry, such as the area I happen to represent, there could be a greater opportunity to get credit.
I raise this point because there are many cases in my area of men getting most of their cash income from pulpwood cutting, either off their own property or from other contracts on crown lands, and they have not been able to get loans very easily under the act, partly because the equity they hold in value terms in their partly cleared forest holdings is too low. Since the ARDA program is still not extended in a national way to provide assistance to them, they have had substantial difficulties in getting the funds they require to enable them to branch out and extend this kind of odd mixed farming.
1 gather from some of the remarks made by certain hon. members from Quebec that the problem in their province is not dissimilar to mine. Here again you have fringe or hinterland agriculture which badly needs credit. Yet in this legislation before us there does not seem to be any specific direction to the legislation, particularly in the definition given in the act; and I will not abuse your chairmanship, Mr. Speaker, by reading it. However, it is obvious that the definition of farming which obtains in this act is not the broad one which would include tree farming, or what we call pulpwood farming. Yet that is the real substance of agriculture in our area.
I want to put to the minister one of the reasons why I think an easier approach is necessary here. A great deal of the forested land in the region I represent not held by the crown is being bought up by successful men in the main, particularly doctors, dentists, and small entrepreneurs who have been successful.


Mr. Nesbitt:: School teachers, too?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, and school teachers, too, now that their salaries are going up. The reason these people are doing this is so they can take advantage of such investment by way of a tax loss for a time so as to enable them to have better control over the taxation of their income. These people, once they build up holdings of a certain size, and because of their stature in the community, have little difficulty in getting credit. If they want to branch out into tree farming or the Christmas tree trade they are in a financial position to do so. But so often the man who starts with the small holding and a truck, and spends half his time in the winter hauling and half cutting, maybe on his own property and maybe not, and a little clearing and vegetable and root farming in the summer, is not in this enviable position. The point I am making is that the act as it exists at the present time is being enriched, if you want, for the more successful farmers and bigger operators, but is inadequate for the hinterland or shaded area of agriculture carried on in the region I represent.
Since I entered this house in 1957 I have noticed repeatedly in every farm debate we have had hon. members from farming areas getting up and pleading that we save the family farm. In my part of the country I think the family farm idea was given up long ago. I have rarely met a kid who wants to stay on a farm; he prefers to scrabble off to a bush camp, to school or to the boats, or to any place but the farm, mostly because the rewards have not been particularly great. I have a general impression that the family farm in this country is a passing thing. I am not sure, but certainly in many ways it is past in our area as the kind of subsistence enterprise which we traditionally think of.
However, there are a great many working men of relatively low income who move out, get a bit of bushland with some gardening on it, and they begin to develop a livelihood along this line. These men are obviously not the kind of farmer about which most members of parliament from the prairies talk. But the land they are using could be turned into something more valuable and is every bit as important; and it fits right into a market which is a sure and a rich one, namely the pulpwood market. For that reason I would appreciate a few comments from the minister on this aspect of the act and as to why it would not be possible to write into the act itself some more generous provisions for the
Farm Credit Act
use of loans for bushland and pulpwood purposes.


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the privilege of making a few comments on Bill No. C-100, to amend the Farm Credit Act. In making these comments I should first like to congratulate the officials of the Farm Credit Corporation, some of whom I have become personally acquainted with over the past five or six years, for the effective and efficient way they are carrying out their duties respecting the application of the act. I have noticed statistics given by previous speakers with regard to the total number of loans processed under the act in the last five or six years. I think the figure quoted was approximately 38,500 loans, and this represents a good deal of work. Personally I became acquainted with Mr. Duncan, director of the Farm Credit Corporation in the province of Saskatchewan, several years ago. There were two of his advisers in the province, one at Carlisle, Saskatchewan and one at Estevan. In becoming acquainted with their work I came to appreciate the wonderful job they were doing.
I am sorry that I cannot join with my colleagues in complimenting the Minister of Agriculture for introducing these amendments. I appreciate the fact that he has done so, but many farmers are heaving a sigh of relief and saying that at long last the minister has finally brought to the house a piece of legislation in the interests of all farmers. The old saying that hope springs eternal is predominant in their minds, and they look forward to the fact that possibly he will introduce further legislation in this house which will be in the interests of agricultural industry of Canada.
With respect to the amendments, I should like to say that I express some doubt as to the benefits which are going to be derived from such a large increase in the loans. I think it is reasonable to suggest that in the course of five years, with our experience of the act, the amount of the loans should be increased some, but I do not see the logic to the argument that they should be doubled -increasing them from $20,000 to $40,000 and from $27,500 to $55,000. This to my mind might encourage vertical integration, a process which the argicultural industry has not been too happy about. It is also an encouragement to corporation farming.
Another point we should touch on, I think, is that this would have the tendency to create an incentive for an accelerated increase in land values. As our economy

Farm Credit Act
strengthens and time goes by I can readily understand that land values will increase; but the doubling of these loans in one fell swoop I feel is an encouragement to people who have land to sell it. This is particularly the case if a farmer wants to retire; the tendency is to take full advantage of this increase and inflate the value of the land. If we had been more modest in increasing these loans I think it would have been more beneficial.
With regard to the comments of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), I think that more consideration should be given to benefiting the smaller farmers, those with not too much collateral who would like to come under the act.
Young men who have grown up on the farm, are fully conversant with farming and would like to go into the business of farming find that this act does not provide them with too many benefits. Here is an area to which we in the house who are interested in agriculture, the members of the committee on agriculture and the minister himself should give consideration, so far as the application of the act is concerned.
There is another thing I am concerned about which was mentioned by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard). I refer to interest rates. The minister did not spell out what the interest rate would be when he introduced the bill, but he said there would be an increase in the interest rate on loans between $20,000 and $27,500. He suggested that the increase would be related to the increase in administrative costs which he said would be close to 1 per cent, and that there might be a further slight increase to cover the reserve and so on. To my mind this indicates an increase up to 7 per cent.
I cannot understand how the government can introduce legislation like this which would make flesh of one and fowl of another, and I think this is what will happen. In fact, I believe this is contrary to the laws of economics. My experience in money matters leads me to say that if you buy in volume you usually receive a discount rather than an increase in the cost. Actually the farmer is purchasing something here when he takes a loan. He is purchasing credit. I think the minister has his philosophy in reverse. Another thing I have been concerned about has to do with the remarks the minister made on May 7 last when we were studying the estimates of the Department of Agriculture in committee of supply. As found on page 3025 of Hansard the minister said:
We have tried, and I know the former government did also, to cut down the time it takes to service a loan so far as the farmers are concerned. After all, they are of No. 1 importance.
I could not agree more with that statement.
My instructions to Mr. Owen, the manager of the corporation, have always been that we want to cut down this time. Last year we were able to cut it down substantially. This year the members of the corporation are charged with the responsibility of cutting it down further-ten days- regardless of what lawyers are handling the loans.
The minister went on to say:
If the lawyers do not service them immediately and they have not got a real good excuse, then they are to be replaced. Everyone who has been appointed as a lawyer handling Farm Credit Corporation loans has been instructed to do the work quickly.
And so on. I think this is purely window dressing, Mr. Speaker, because I have here question No. 451 asked by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) under date of March 16, and the answer thereto tabled in the house on April 29, 1964. The answer gives the number of legal advisers of the Farm Credit Corporation. In looking over the figures I see that there has been a decrease of approximately 40 per cent in the number of legal advisers under the Farm Credit Corporation. In fact in the province of Saskatchewan the number was reduced from about 30 to 17.
I cannot understand how the minister's philosophy operates. It is rather like hitching a team of horses to a wagon with 125 bags of wheat and expecting them to pull the load, which they could not, and then unhitching one horse and expecting the other horse to pull the load anyway. It does not make sense. The applications made by farmers have to go to the legal advisers for processing. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) pointed out this afternoon that the demand for loans has been rising gradually from a level of about 5,000 to approximately 8,000 last year. If this is the case, it stands to reason that we should be increasing the number of legal advisers or else the farmers are going to have to wait a long time to have their applications for loans processed. The fees are not too high for handling these applications, and I have found from experience that some lawyers have a tendency to leave these applications on the bottom of their work pile and to process other work that is more lucrative.
There is another problem that arises also. When you reduce the number of legal advisers it means that the farmer has to drive

that much farther to get in touch with the lawyer if the lawyer is a little tardy in the processing of the application. The farmer is hesitant about having to drive another 100 or 150 miles to see the lawyer with the result that he waits patiently and the whole process is being slowed down under this system. Rather than all the window dressing that the minister engaged in on May 7 with regard to legal advisers under the Farm Credit Corporation, I suggest that he should at least maintain the same number of advisers as we did when we were in office and thus help to get these loan applications processed quickly. These are all the comments I wish to make tonight, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the minister answering some of these suggestions when he replies.


Mr. J. N. Ormision (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, much of the ground with regard to farm credit has been covered by previous speakers. I should like to congratulate particularly the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) who put forward some of the points about which we are somewhat worried. I am sure the minister will take them into consideration.
With one or two exceptions, most of the speakers have dealt more or less with generalities. For a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with a specific problem. In listening to the minister the other evening I was very pleased to hear him say that he was interested in the co-ordination of a study of the requirements of agriculture so far as farm credit is concerned. There is one point I should like to make in order that he may be able to give it some consideration. In making farm credit available I wonder whether the minister and his officials have given any consideration to the needs of those farmers who are faced with considerable expenditure because of anticipated costs pertaining to land improvement where irrigation is concerned. I am sure the minister is quite aware of this situation, not only in his province but in other provinces as well.
The cost of improving land for irrigation is considerable. There is a growing need for water conservation and the most practical and economic use of our water resources, and a considerable amount of land adjacent to our dams and reservoirs can be made suitable for irrigation purposes, but at considerable cost. The credit needed for this type of improvement is not readily available at the present time and it may be that the Farm Credit Corporation can be of considerable service in this regard. I put this forward to
Business of the House
the minister for his consideration in the hope that he will give it the kind of consideration it deserves.
May I call it ten o'clock.


Mr. MacNaughl:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we could continue for a few minutes to see if it would be possible to finish the debate on second reading of the bill tonight. There seems to be a general desire on the part of all hon. members to finish the debate on second reading. I understand that one of the matters that was to be debated after ten o'clock has been dropped, so that will shorten the debate then by ten minutes. If we could continue for another 15 minutes we might be able to give the bill second reading.


Mr. Churchill:: If we are prepared to give second reading immediately, is it the intention to go into committee of the whole house on the bill tomorrow?


John Watson MacNaught: That is the intention.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then those members who had intended to speak on second reading could perhaps make their general speeches on the first clause of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the acting house leader what the business of the house will be. In particular, would he inform us concerning the main estimates? May I just say here that we have had six days on the main estimates, and I estimate from experience in other sessions that we will need another 40 full days on the main estimates to cover the 20 departments that are ahead of us. Are we likely to have main estimates on Thursday and Friday in each successive week?


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, so far as the main estimates are concerned, they will not be considered this week. In yesterday's Votes and Proceedings, there is a government notice of motion in the name of the Minister of Transport to refer the annual report for 1963 of Canadian National Railways, the auditor's report and the budget for 1964 to the standing committee on railways canals and telegraph lines. This motion will be the
4134	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion first order of business tomorrow. I understand that this motion will pass without any debate.
Next, we will resume the committee stage of the bill to amend the Farm Credit Act, and when that is concluded we will take second reading of Bill No. S-26, an act respecting the commission to establish and administer Roosevelt Compobello international park. When this is concluded, we will take the second reading of an act to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act. If any time is left over we will consider Bill No. S-10, which was passed in the Senate, to provide for the establishment of harbour commissioners.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is that for Wednesday and Thursday?


John Watson MacNaught: Wednesday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is still uncertainty about Thursday, then?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
(Subject matter of questions debated under adjournment motion.)
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:

Stanley Howard Knowles: On Monday, June 1, Mr. Speaker, as recorded at page 3793 of Hansard, I asked this question on the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue? My question is based on information that came to light over the week end. Is it true that the government is now treating payments made by employers to government hospitalization plans as taxable income in the hands of the employee, even though this is not being done with respect to payments made by employers to private hospitalization or medical plans?
Mr. Speaker thought that there was not sufficient urgency in the question for it to be dealt with on orders of the day so I gave notice that I should like to ask it in one of these adjournment periods. I am in the position at the moment of not knowing what the minister's answer to my question is, as to whether or not this change has been made. But in view of the reports that suggest that this sort of taxation is to be applied, perhaps I had better use the minutes that are at my disposal to state my reasons for suggesting this is a change that should not be made.


First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it has been the policy of successive governments to extend the exempting of payments for social security benefits so far as income tax is concerned. These exemptions, particularly with regard to payments made by employers, are spelled out in section 5, subsection (1), paragraph (a) of the Income Tax Act. I find on doing a little research that that paragraph has been amended several times and each time the list of exemptions from income tax has been extended. As I read the paragraph at the present time all the benefits that an employee may derive from his employer's contributions to social security plans of one kind or another are exempt from taxation. Now, however, we are led to believe that payments made by employers for hospitalization plans in a province where payments are made by taxation are to be made subject to federal income tax.
This means, as I understand it, that employees whose hospitalization is paid for them by their employers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Prince Edward Island will have these amounts added to their income, and hence the result will be an increase for their income tax, starting for the year 1964.
Quickly and briefly, Mr. Speaker, there are four points I want to make. First, this is a reversal of the trend in which successive governments have moved. I have indicated that by referring to the amendments which have been made to section 5(l)(a>
of the Income Tax Act. I think this reversal would be a retrograde step.
The second point I want to make is that if employees are going to have to pay income tax on what their employers pay for them into government hospital plans, but are not required to pay it on what their employers pay into private hospital plans, the government immediately sets up a discrimination between these two kinds of plans. I suggest that kind of discrimination is most unfair and that it will lead from one inequity to another.
The third thing I want to say is that this proposal, if it is being carried out, will establish unfairness as between provinces. It seems to me to be manifestly unfair that employees in the four provinces I have named will have to pay income tax on what their employers pay for them by way of hospitalization benefits, whereas the employees in other provinces will not have to do so.
There are national employers in this country who have employees in all ten provinces, and there are cases where employers treat their employees alike in all ten provinces, yet

in four of the provinces those employees will have to pay extra income tax on what is paid for them by their employers. I think that is manifestly unfair.
Fourth, the government has been telling us, ever since the royal commission on taxation was set up, each time we ask for any concession or any reduction in taxes, to wait until the whole question of taxation is reviewed. I suggest to the government that it listen to its own slogan. It is quite unfair to tell us we must wait, as I have been told, for full exemption with regard to trade union dues until the whole question of taxation policy has been reviewed, while the government lets its own department make a change in a ruling of this kind.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the whole of this speech I have made is unnecessary. I hope the reports that this kind of ruling has been made by the Department of National Revenue are false. If they are, I will welcome and applaud such a statement by the minister. On the other hand, if the reports are correct I hope the minister will assure us that the proposed change will be cancelled just as soon as it can possibly be done.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to thank the hon. member for not pressing his question forward for discussion early last week when he might well have done so, and I am very appreciative of his courtesy in that. I have not overlooked it or forgotten it.
The simple answer to the question as posed by the hon. member is no. However that answer is perhaps in itself not wholly accurate because the question, as worded, is rather complicated and has a lot of material in it that does not deal specifically with some of the points he raised in debate. There has been no change in the taxation policy or law on this point.
Because of the abbreviated time available, perhaps I had better start my explanation of what the situation is by reading section 5 of the Income Tax Act. It reads:
(1) Income for a taxation year from an office or employment is the salary, wages and other remuneration, including gratuities, received by the taxpayer in the year plus
(a) the value of board, lodging and other benefits of any kind whatsoever (except the benefit he derives from his employer's contributions to or under a registered pension fund or plan, group sickness or accident insurance plan, medical services plan, supplementary unemployment benefit plan, deferred profit sharing plan or group term life insurance policy) received or enjoyed by him
9, 1964	4135
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion in the year in respect of, in the course of, or by virtue of the office of employment-
And so on. The point I am making here is that the benefits, the premiums paid by the employees, if made on their behalf by the employers, have always been deemed to be part of income and therefore taxable. Some large employers in Ontario-and I think this is where the misunderstanding which is causing the hon. gentleman concern arose-have not been setting this out as part of the wages of their employees. This position was not discovered until very recently, and it was upon the discovery of this practice, which I may say is contrary to the law, that steps were taken to which the hon. member refers.
There has been no change in the law and there is no discretion vested in the minister in this regard. It was, as I say, the discovery of this practice which led to the misunderstanding which has taken place-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So the answer is yes, not no.


George James McIlraith: No.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: On
June 4 I addressed a question to the Minister of Labour on the orders of the day as follows:
In view of the fact that MacMillan, Bloedel and Powell River Limited, the largest industrial concern in the province of British Columbia, is currently trampling upon the principles of the I.L.O. convention respecting the right of workers freely to enjoy the protection of the union of their choice, will the minister use his good offices with Mr. J. V. Clyne, the head of that company, to alter the course of action presently being pursued by his company?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Would the hon. member give the number of the I.L.O. convention, please?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I will make reference to that in the course of my remarks.
It was suggested that this was a matter for the order paper. However, I felt the situation was an urgent one, and in any event it can perhaps more properly be explained and dealt with under this order. My question arises out of the fact that local 15 of the office employees international union is currently engaged in a legal strike against MacMillan, Bloedel and Powell River Limited. The fact that some 60 workers had established picket lines had resulted in the complete closure of all the major industrial plants in the Alberni valley. This situation
4136	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion is now in its third week which means that over 3,000 workers in the valley are without employment. There were initially various issues between the union and the employers, some of them having to do with wages and working conditions, but at the present time the only obstacle to a settlement of this situation, which would enable not only these office workers to conclude an agreement and go to work but which would also enable the members of several other unions to return to employment, is the refusal of the company to agree to any form of union security clause in the settlement.
A union statement indicates they are asking for a union security clause similar to that which now exists in every other agreement their union has in British Columbia. It is also similar to the security clauses in existence in the agreements with other unions -the papermakers, the electrical workers, the international woodworkers of America, and so on.
I feel this is a situation which should not be allowed to continue, if any effort can properly be made to bring it to an end. I have raised this matter because in the field of the International Labour Organization- and I have here volume two of the international labour code, 1951-the matter is expressly dealt with. On page 29 are set out some statements in this connection dating from 1947. I want to point out that the declaration of Philadelphia recognizes the solemn obligation of the International Labour Organization to further among the nations of the world programs which will achieve, among other things, the effective recognition of the right of collective bargaining and that the resolution that was adopted provides for the exercise of the right of freedom of association without fear of intimidation, coercion or restraint from any source. That resolution later became a convention and has been approved by the United Nations.
I should point out that the jurisdiction of the federal Minister of Labour is directly involved in this question, because among those who are now suffering loss of employment are a good many members of the longshoremen's union on the west coast, which of course comes under federal labour jurisdiction. But even apart from that, in view of the fact that the minister of labour and the deputy minister of labour of British Columbia have more or less publicly stated that they are throwing up their hands, that there is nothing more they can do, I feel it is a [Mr. Bamett.l

situation where the good offices of the federal Minister of Labour might be of some value in bringing this situation to an end.
The last report I have on the situation, which I received this evening, is that at the moment no negotiations are going on and that the only point at issue is the recognition of a minimum security clause, which I think all of us who have any experience in trade union dealings recognize is basic to the protection of the right of free association and free organization. I freely confess that as far as I am concerned I do not think I am in a position personally to use any good offices with Mr. J. V. Clyne, because I have stated on several occasions that I find he acts as an autocratic ruler of a baronial empire, the largest one in British Columbia, and at times appears to me to regard himself as being in a higher position of authority than the government of that province. Indeed, the admission by the provincial minister that he is powerless to cope with this situation I think suggests that the only resort left is for the federal Minister of Labour, with the prestige and backing of Canada's support for the principle involved in the International Labour Organization conventions, to come into the picture and perhaps persuade this gentleman that he should sit down and at least grant to these workers the same rights as have already been won over the years by the other workers in the plant involved, and in the other plants in the Alberni valley.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the federal government, and more specifically the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), are very deeply concerned that such a large number of people on the west coast are affected by this strike. On the other hand, as the hon. member has himself indicated, it is a matter for the department of labour of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Sands has been endeavouring to bring the two opposing parties together. It may be that he had admitted he is unable to make any progress. Still, Mr. Speaker, this does not provide a vehicle by which the federal Department of Labour can impose their jurisdiction upon those people in British Columbia who come under the jurisdiction of the provincial authority. It is regrettable too that there are employees involved who normally come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour, such as seamen and fishermen. However, they are not directly concerned with the labour dispute.

There is little more that can be said. It is the opinion of the Department of Labour that no conventions of the I.L.O. are being violated in this instance. This is a legitimate legal strike and it is a matter of one group effecting economic pressure upon another in order to reach a settlement. There is unquestionably quite a wide difference of opinion on the question of union security or the closed shop, as seemed to be indicated in the first
9.	1964	4137
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion request. However, that does not in any way permit the federal government to move into this jurisdiction. Certainly we would wish to express our desire that a settlement be reached, but I am sure it would be considered a violation of provincial rights to interfere at this time.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Wednesday, June 10, 1964