1964-10-05

Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-128, respecting marriage (age of marriage).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, Canada has heretofore failed to impose minimum age requirements with respect to marriage as it might have done pursuant to the powers contained in paragraph 26 of section 91 of the British North America Act 1867. At present in various Canadian provinces children may contract marriage at ages substantially below what has been considered an appropriate minimum age by numerous delegates to the United Nations, namely 15 years.
This bill is designed to strengthen and dignify the institution of marriage by fixing an absolute minimum age of 16 years for males and 15 years for females below which no person in Canada may enter into this solemn contract.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
October 2-The Minister of Agriculture
That the recommendations contained in the report of the prairie farm assistance administration commission of inquiry, tabled on July 29, 1964, including the following two questions:
1.	Whether the permanent staff of the P.F.A.A. should be brought under the civil service commission, and
2.	Whether there should be other changes in the operation of the P.F.A.A.,
be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization for such recommendations as it deems advisable.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for
consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	How many postal boxes are there in the Red Rock post office?
2.	Can any more be added?
3.	Are there sufficient boxes to meet the demand?
4.	Has the Department of Public Works surveyed the accommodation and, if so, what comments has it made?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secrelary of State):: 1. 378.
2.	Yes. Additional boxes to be installed.
3.	Only one request on hand which will be met October 1, 1964.
4.	The Department of Public Works surveyed the accommodation and it was determined that additional lock boxes could be installed to meet the requirements of the Post Office Department. Immediate action is being taken to have the additional lock boxes installed.


PROVISION FOR FLIGHT INFORMATION BY T.C.A.
Mr. Tucker: Has the T.C.A. received complaints concerning the overloading of telephone lines by persons making reservations and, if so, will consideration be given to the installation of additional lines in their various offices which would be used solely for the provision of flight information to the travelling public?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: The management of Trans-Canada Air Lines advise as follows:
Complaints are received from time to time in connection with reservations-telephone answering service. However, established customer service standards are being achieved on a system basis and in many cases exceeded. Standards require that a minimum of 85 per cent of incoming calls in a given hour be challenged immediately and 82 per cent of these calls must be accepted by an operator for processing within 20 seconds of dialing completion. The air line relies on the

Questions
telephone companies' metering equipment for details regarding hourly volume of incoming calls being rejected.
Telephone answering service in the Ottawa office suffered this year due to extensive internal renovations and malfunction of telephone equipment, and this situation has now largely been corrected although still under close observation.
Studies are being conducted into the use of electronic equipment to segregate and service requests for flight arrival and departure information, and when these are completed, a decision will be made as to the advisability of its installation.


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 64205
Mrs. Jones: 1.	What are the names of the candidates for competition No. 64205, executive pilots' position, Department of Transport?
2.	Who was the successful candidate?
3.	On what basis was he chosen?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Having regard for the right to privacy of candidates in competitions, and the possibility that publication of this information could prove not only embarrassing but prejudicial to them, the civil service commission holds the names of candidates in confidence. However, the names of the successful candidate(s) placed on the eligible list will be published in the Canada Gazette.
2.	This competition is still in progress and the commission has not determined who the successful candidate(s) will be.
3.	The successful candidate(s) will be chosen after an interview at which careful consideration will be given to their qualifications related to the job, and subsequent to any other necessary examination or investigation of the candidates or their backgrounds.


TRAINING GRANTS FOR PSYCHIATRISTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many psychiatrists in training for the current year are in receipt of training grants from the federal government?
2.	What is the value of each grant?
3.	What is the total value of the grants?
4.	What are the plans for next year's grants?
5.	What commitments have been made for the next five years to the universities and the medical colleges, in the field of mental health?
6.	What requests have been made by the medical colleges for the next five years in the field of mental health?
7.	In the past five years, how much have the requests from the medical colleges in the field of mental health gone up, year by year?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Under the national health grants, 143 psychiatrists are in receipt of training grants during the fiscal year 1964-65.
2.	Payments to trainees in psychiatry under the national health grants are made as follows:
(a)	Bursaries to trainees taking professional training are set by the provinces according to the need of the individual, but they are not to exceed $250 monthly for persons without dependants and $300 for persons with dependants. Besides a bursary a trainee may receive travel expenses to and from the place of training only once during the training period; transportation costs to and from the place of training when a trainee is out on field work outside his training centre; tuition fees as actually charged by the training institution; and an allowance for books and technical supplies not exceeding $50 for the full course. Bursaries may be claimed for trainees during the period of actual training. This period may include a reasonable period of travel to and from the training centre. It is understood that the provinces in certain cases supplement the federal assistance.
(b)	For short training courses, the duration of which does not exceed three months, actual reasonable living expenses may be requested. Living expenses are to be accounted for on the basis of provincial regulations governing travelling and maintenance expenses.
3.	For 1964-65 an amount of $237,312 is being allocated for the training of psychiatrists.
4.	The national health grants represent a federal-provincial program. Provincial plans for the submission of projects against next year's and, to some extent, subsequent years' grants are presently under study in all provinces. The resulting submissions of projects and consultations with provincial planners will begin in December of this year.
5.	See answers 4 and 6.
6.	The annual submissions of projects received from the provinces on behalf of training, research and health services in medical colleges request the continuance of federal assistance in subsequent years, although a five year period is not always specified.
7.	The following funds were made available on the request of the provinces in the

fiscal years 1959-64 to Canadian universities and their medical colleges in the field of mental health: 1959-60, $891,578; 1960-61, $1,041,607;	1961-62,	$1,141,793;	1962-63,
$1,246,549; 1963-64, $955,342.


PRAIRIE PROVINCES WATER BOARD
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	When was the prairie province water board set up?
2.	Did all the prairie provinces join at that time in support of the water board?
3.	When was the initial study undertaken?
4.	Did Alberta participate?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The prairie provinces water board was established by agreement on July 28, 1948.
2.	Yes.
3.	The initial study was undertaken in November 1948 and involved analysis of stream flow records at interprovincial boundaries.
4.	Yes.


INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS, SCARBOROUGH TOWNSHIP, ONT.
Mr. Scott: 1.	Has the government or any other agency of the government, including the board of transport commissioners, received a request from the township of Scarborough, for the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Danforth road and Midland avenue?
2.	Would such installation require approval by the board of transport commissioners and, if so, has such approval been given and, if not, for what reason?
3.	When was the request from the township of Scarborough first made?
4.	What action does the government intend taking to see that this request is acted upon quickly?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advises as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes in so far as the synchronization of the street traffic signals with the railway signal protection is concerned. Approval of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada in this matter has not yet been given due to the complexity of the design of the various electric circuits required. The development of a satisfactory design is under active consideration between the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, the Canadian National Railways, and the municipality of metropolitan Toronto.
3.	September 9, 1964. However, on April 10, 1963, the municipality of metropolitan Toronto indicated to the board of transport
Questions
commissioners that traffic studies were taking place with a view to developing a plan for highway traffic control at the intersection of Danforth road and Midland avenue. As this intersection is in close proximity to a Canadian National crossing of Danforth road, the board suggested, in the interests of safety, that the street traffic signals be properly synchronized with the railway crossing signal protection. A scheme was then developed as a result of discussions between representatives of the Canadian National Railways and the municipality of metropolitan Toronto and was submitted by the municipality to the board for its consideration on August 7, 1964.
4.	This matter is presently under active development between representatives of the board of transport commissioners, the Canadian National Railways, and the traffic engineers of the municipality of metropolitan Toronto, and the township of Scarborough is being kept advised.


QUALITY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS CHECKS, AIR CANADA
Mr. Jorgenson: 1.	Are there quality performance analysis checks on employees working for Air Canada?
2.	What is the purpose of these checks and to what extent are they useful in determining performance ratings of employees?
3.	In the carrying out of these checks are conversations with Air Canada employees and passengers arranging for flight reservations tape recorded?
4.	How long has this practice been carried on?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The management of Trans-Canada Air Lines advise as follows:
1.	Yes. Quality performance checks are maintained in all areas important to (a) satisfactory customer service and (b) maintaining acceptable maintenance and overhaul standards. Specifically, the air line's customer service quality measurement program includes, among other areas, the following: promptness of telephone answering; quality of in flight services and aircraft grooming; promptness of passenger handling and baggage delivery; reliability of air freight services.
In the area of maintenance and overhaul, the quality analysis program concentrates on achieving technical standards with respect to aircraft, engines and components.
2.	The purpose of these programs is to relate actual performance to predetermined standards and, where necessary, take appropriate action to bring below standard performance up to the air line's objectives. They

Questions
are useful in determining performance ratings of individual employees; however, their prime purpose is as explained above. Information obtained is used as an integral part of the company's over all training program, and for appropriate supervisory action.
3.	The quality analysis program as related to the telephone answering service of the company, does not involve the tape recording of telephone conversations with customers; however, quality analysts do monitor such telephone conversations.
4.	Quality performance analysis was introduced in the sales department in 1949.


ASSISTANCE TO TRAINING CENTRES, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Armstrong: 1.	What was the federal contribution toward costs of the Pictou county vocational high school, New Glasgow, N.S., in the financial year ended March 31, 1964?
2.	What amount was contributed by the federal government toward the operational costs of the Nova Scotia agricultural college, Truro, in the financial year, 1963-64?
3.	What amount was contributed by the federal government toward the operational costs of the Nova Scotia fishermen's training centre, Pictou, in 1963-64?
4.	What amount was contributed by the federal government toward the operational costs erf the Nova Scotia land survey institute, Lawrencetown, in 1963-64?
5.	Does the federal government have any control over the quality of the curriculum and of the instruction at the technical or vocational schools iri Nova Scotia that are assisted under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: 1. $371,267.
2,	3 and 4. The federal government contributes 50 per cent of provincial costs for trade and other occupational training carried on by the Nova Scotia agricultural college, ' Truro, and the Nova Scotia fishermen's training centre, Pictou, as well as 50 per cent of the cost of technician training carried on in the Nova Scotia land survey institute, Lawrencetown. The distribution of such costs by schools or institutions is not available. However, during the financial year 1963-64 the federal government contributed to the province of Nova Scotia $279,637 for trade [DOT]and other occupational training and $14,290 Hof technicians training.
5.	Control over the quality of education is [DOT]a provincial responsibility. However, modifications are effected in the program from time to time through consultation and cooperation between federal and provincial officials.


LICENCE RESTRICTION, PACIFIC COAST FISHERY
Mr. Priilie: 1.	Has the Minister of Fisheries received a letter from the Pacific trailers' association requesting that the government institute a form of licensing for the Pacific coast fishery?
2.	Is licensing of the type requested by the Pacific trailers' association in effect in any of the fisheries in Canada?
3.	Has the government knowledge of the type of licence restriction in effect on the Pacific coast of the United States?
4.	Is the question of licence restriction for the Pacific coast fishery of Canada receiving study by the government?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1. Yes.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.


RETIRED SENIOR OFFICERS IN DEFENCE INDUSTRIES
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many officers of, or above the rank of major in the army, and the equivalent rank in the other two services, have retired from positions of executive and administrative responsibility in the Department of National Defence since May 1, 1963?
2.	How many of these officers have reported the acceptance of appointments in defence industries which have contracts with the Department of Defence Production and/or the Department of National Defence?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. 669.
2. Officers are not required to notify the department of the civilian occupation they have accepted upon retirement.


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 64-381
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Before civil service competition No. 64-381 was posted, was any consideration given to having the duties outlined in the competition notice carried on by the national energy board and, if not, for what reason?
2.	What person or persons have been looking after these duties until now?
3.	What has been the salary or salaries that have been paid?
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources: 1. Yes.
2.	Mr. A. D. Hunt.
3.	$12,300 to $13,800.


PURCHASE OF PENITENTIARY PROPERTY, NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY, ONT.
Mr. Webb: 1.	Did Mr. Owen Clark, Northumberland county, receive any inconvenience pay to vacate the property, in addition to the $55,000 he received for his farm property to be used as a site for the new

federal penitentiary in Northumberland county, Ontario and, if not, is he entitled to such pay?
2.	Did Mr. Clark receive any other moneys in the negotiations re the purchase of this property?


Hon. J. P. Deschaielels (Minister of Public Works):: 1. No. The $55,000 accepted by Mr. Owen Clark of Northumberland county for his farm as the site of a new penitentiary was in full settlement of all his entitlements.
2. No.


FEDERALLY OPERATED FERRY SERVICES
Mr. Chatterton: 1.	What ferry services are operated by the federal government, or any agency of the government including crown corporations?
2.	Between what points does each such service operate?
3.	What was the cost to the Canadian taxpayer of each of these ferry services in the last fiscal year?
4.	What new ferry services is the government proposing?
5.	What is the estimated annual cost to the Canadian taxpayer of such new ferry services?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Three ferry services are operated for the Department of Transport by the Canadian National Railways: (1) Newfoundland ferry services; (2) Prince Edward Island car ferry service; (3) Nova Scotia-New England ferry service.
2.	(1) Newfoundland ferry services operate out of North Sydney, N.S., to Port aux Basques and other island ports. (2) The P.E.I. car ferry service operates between Cape Tor-mentine, N.B., and Borden, P.E.I. (3) The Nova Scotia-New England ferry service operates between Yarmouth, N.S., and Bar Harbor, Maine.
3.	The operating deficits payable on these services for the 1963-64 fiscal year were: (1) Newfoundland ferry services, $8,572,936; (2) P.E.I. car ferry service, $3,352,677; (3) Nova Scotia-New England ferry service, $217,108.
4.	A ferry service between North Sydney, N.S. and Argentia, Nfld., is expected to come into operation in 1967.
5.	It is expected that revenues from North Sydney-Argentia service will meet operating costs.


FISHERMEN'S TRAINING CENTRE, PICTOU, N.S.- IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. MacEwan: When were improvements and an extension made to the Nova Scotia fishermen's training centre, Pictou, Nova Scotia, and what was the federal government's contribution toward these improvements and extension?
Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Federal approval for an addition to the Nova Scotia fishermen's training centre, in Pictou was granted on July 17, 1961. According to records in the Department of Labour construction commenced on a new building, October 25, 1962. Federal payments as of August 31, 1964 were as follows: building, addition and alteration, $129,939.94; furnishings and equipment, $50,963.68.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO VOCATIONAL SCHOOL, STELLARTON, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: When was work commenced on the construction of the Pictou county vocational high school, Stel-larton, Nova Scotia, and what was the federal government's contribution toward the cost of the building and furnishings?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: According to records in the Department of Labour construction commenced on June 4, 1962.
Federal payments as of August 31, 1964 were as follows: building, $455,410.20; furnishings and equipment, $297,247.45.


REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING TRANSFER-RABLE LOBSTER LICENCES
Mr. Coates: Have representations been received from the fishermen's association of Northport to the strait of Canso requesting that no new lobster fishing licences be granted with the power of transfer available to those presently holding the lobster fishing licences and, if so, what action has the Minister of Fisheries taken with respect to such representations?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No such representations have been
received in the department.


REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING LOBSTER TRAPS
Mr. Coates: Have representations been received from the fishermen's association of Northport to the strait of Canso requesting that each lobster fisherman be limited to 400 traps, and that no licensed lobster fisherman be allowed to continue fishing if he uses less than 200 traps and, if so, what action has the Minister of Fisheries taken with respect to such representations?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No such representations have been received in the department.


REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING LIMITATION ON LOBSTER TRAPS
Mr. Coates: Have representations been received from the fishermen's association of Northport to the strait

Questions
of Canso requesting that the use of more than 400 lobster traps will result in the suspension of the lobster fisherman licence and, if so, what action has the Minister of Fisheries taken with respect to such representations?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No such representations have been received in the department.


REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING LOBSTER SIZES
Mr. Coates: Have representations been received from the fishermen's association of Northport to the strait of Canso requesting that strict regulations be implemented regarding the catching of small and varied lobsters and, if so, what action has the Minister of Fisheries taken with respect to such representations?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No such representations have been received in the department.


REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING PERMITS FOR FISHERMEN'S HELPERS
Mr. Coates: Have representations been received from the fishermen's association of Northport to the strait of Canso requesting that helpers permits be issued annually and, if so, what action has the Minister of Fisheries taken with respect to such representations?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No such representations have been received in the department.


REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING SUNDAY FISHING
Mr. Coates: Have representations been received from the fishermen's association of Northport to the strait of Canso requesting that a law be implemented to prohibit Sunday fishing and, if so, what action has the Minister of Fisheries taken with respect to such representations?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No such representations have been received in the department.


CAR FERRY, NORTH SYDNEY-NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Has final approval been given, as yet, for a new rail car ferry to operate between the port of North Sydney, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


VESSEL CONSTRUCTION SUBSIDY, GREAT LAKES
Mrs. Jones: 1. What formula of assistance is used for the subsidization of the building of vessels on the great lakes?

2.	How much has been provided, by years, since the program started?
3.	How many vessels have been built?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Construction subsidy provided under the ship construction assistance regulations amounting to 40 per cent of approved cost up to March 31, 1963, and 35 per cent from March 31, 1963 to date.
2.	1961-62,	$320,887.76;	1962-63,	$3,097,839,81;	1963-64, $10,490,768.15; 1964-65 (to
date), $4,439,946.16.
3.	37.


VANCOUVER GRAIN SHIPPING STATISTICS
Mrs. Jones: 1.	What is the terminal capacity of elevators at Vancouver (a) storage (b) working?
2.	How many bushels of grain were shipped from Vancouver in each of the last 10 years?
3.	What was the length of the shipping season in each of those years?


Harry William Hays: 1. (a) 22,600,000 bushels; (b) 18,500,000 bushels (estimated).
2.	1954-55, 92.0 million bushels; 1955-56, 107.1 million bushels; 1956-57, 129.4 million bushels; 1957-58, 160.4 million bushels; 195859, 147.3 million bushels; 1959-60, 127.4 million bushels; 1960-61, 150.1 million bushels; 1961-62,172.2 million bushels; 1962-63, 156.1 million bushels; 1963-64, 207.5 million bushels.
3.	There is no beginning or end to the shipping season in Vancouver, as the climate permits year round shipping activity.


GRAIN SHIPPED BY RAIL, SASKATOON TO HALIFAX
Mrs. Jones: 1.	Was any part of the grain in the government-owned elevator at Saskatoon moved by rail to Halifax in the crop year 1963-64 and, if so, how much?
2.	What was the cost per bushel of moving it from the lakehead to Halifax?


Harry William Hays: 1. Yes. 1,084,625 bushels of wheat.
2. 32.4 cents.
CHURCHILL GRAIN SHIPPING STATISTICS Question No. 1,984


Mrs. Jones:: 1.	What is the present capacity of elevators at Churchill (a) storage (b) working?
2.	What were the amounts of grain shipped in each of the last 10 shipping seasons?
3.	What was the length of the actual shipping season, by days, for each of those 10 years?


Harry William Hays: 1. (a) 5,000,000 bushels; (b) 4,000,000 bushels (estimated).

2.	1954, 12,485,000 bushels; 1955, 13,320,000
bushels; 1956, 16,453,000 bushels; 1957, 16,869,000 bushels; 1958, 20,110,000 bushels; 1959, 22,132,000 bushels; 1960, 19,794,000 bushels; 1961,	19,697,000 bushels; 1962, 21,845,000
bushels; 1963, 23,262,000 bushels.
3.	1954, 71 days; 1955, 73 days; 1956, 73 days; 1957, 72 days; 1958, 78 days; 1959, 81 days; 1960, 78 days; 1961, 83 days; 1962, 78 days; 1963, 83 days.


WHARF REPAIRS, SOUTHAMPTON, ONT.
Mr. Loney: Is the Department of Public Works considering any construction, renovation or repair at the government wharves at Southampton, Bruce county, Ontario?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: A dredging contract was awarded on September 15,	1964, for dredging in the
Saugeen river (Southampton) between north and south pier. Minor wharf repairs consisting of repairing one bollard is to be done later this year.


AMENDMENT OF N.H.A. REGULATIONS RESPECTING CONSTRUCTION SUPERINTENDENTS
Mr. Scott: 1.	Has the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation branch office in Scarborough, Ontario, received a request from any representatives of the township of Scarborough for amendment to any N.H.A. regulations, making it a condition of mortgage approval, that apartment projects employ the services of a qualified, competent construction superintendent and, if so, what was the answer given by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the request?
2.	If Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation refused the request, in detail, what are the reasons for such refusal?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: 1. The manager of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's loans office in Scarborough, Ontario was asked by the township clerk of Scarborough on June 23 to comment on the practicality of a requirement by the corporation, as a condition of loan approval, that the builder of any apartment project employ a qualified, competent, construction superintendent for the purpose of ensuring compliance with township building and safety requirements.
2. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in respect of all loans under the National Housing Act on apartments, requires that the heating installations be supervised by a qualified engineer. If the apartment exceeds seven storeys, the entire structure
Administration of Justice must be supervised by a qualified architect or engineer.
In answer to the request for comment, the corporation suggested that it did not feel that the imposition of further lending conditions would improve the enforcement of municipal bylaws but that the corporation's inspection personnel would continue its fullest co-operation with inspectors of the township of Scarborough to facilitate the enforcement of building standards.


STUDENT LOANS GRANTED
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	As of this date, how many students, in each province and territory, have been granted Canada student loans?
2.	In each province and territory, what is the total of loans now granted?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. This information is not yet available.
2. This information is not yet available.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the orders of the day are called I wish to ask leave to move the adjournment of this house in accordance with standing order 26, in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the threat to law and order which is inherent in a statement as reported in the press made by Mr. James Todd, secretary treasurer of the Canadian maritime union. He has charged, according to press reports, that certain people in the government made a deal with Hal Banks to get him out of Canada. He is further reported to have said that Banks was only charged with offences for which he could not be brought back; they did not want Banks back to tell everything he knows.
Furthermore, as appears from the report, the F.B.I. in the United States was not requested by the Canadian government for assistance in locating the said Hal Banks, and generally that incomplete and evasive answers and explanations given to this house by members of the government reveal a failure to deal forthrightly with the case of Hal Banks, which failure has resulted in Banks being free to flout the law and escape justice thereby bringing into disrepute the administration of law and justice.
8724	HOUSE OF
Administration of Justice


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acling Prime Minister: I should like to say, in response to my right hon. friend's intention to move the adjournment of the house, that under our rules it is obligatory to establish a number of preliminaries. My right hon. friend, while he has brought forward a matter that is, of course, of public importance, has not established the urgency that is contemplated within our standing orders. In any event, even if there were the kind of urgency that is contemplated within the standing orders, the matter can be dealt with more effectively later, in view of the fact that the government will bring in the estimates of the Department of Justice not later than Thursday of this week.
In addition, the responsible minister, the Minister of Justice, is now engaged in conference on constitutional questions with the provincial attorneys general, who have assembled here and began meetings this morning. They will continue to meet throughout today and tomorrow. The Prime Minister likewise, as my right hon. friend will recall, left a short time ago for Charlottetown to meet Her Majesty the Queen.
But I suggest, in addition to the fact that the Minister of Justice is not here, being preoccupied with important business having to do with constitutional matters involving relatiens with the provinces, arid also because this question, important as it is, does not come within the rule of urgency, that my right hon. friend has not made a case for disturbing the order of business for today. Further, I give him the assurance that he will have the opportunity of dealing with this matter not later than Thursday of this week, when the estimates of the Department of Justice will be before the house.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour reaches a decision as to the acceptability of the motion that has been made, may I speak to the question of urgency. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has rightly pointed out, the matter that has been raised in the motion is undoubtedly one of great public importance. As to the matter of urgency, the fact that the motion has been made in view of the information given to the public in the last two or three days makes it all the more urgent, in my submission, for the Minister of Justice to be here to take part in the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[Mr. Dlefenbaker.)


Erik Nielsen: I submit to Your Honour
that you have a very simple matter to decide. If the statement which has been read into the record by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition as having been made by Mr. Todd is correct, then the matter in itself becomes urgent since the law of Canada and good government in this country has been held up to contempt and ridicule by, to use the words of Mr. Millard, a responsible labour leader.
If Your Honour rules the motion out of order on the ground that it is not urgent, what Your Honour is in effect doing is prejudging the veracity of Mr. Todd's statements. In order for Your Honour to say the matter is not urgent you must perforce say that what Mr. Todd said is not true, and I suggest to you, sir, that is not your function. It is the function of the house to accept the urgency inherent in the statement by Mr. Todd that there has been a connivance by the government and the S.I.U. in order to contrive for the escape of Hal Banks-


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend and interfere with that portion of his argument which may be in order, but I am sure Your Honour will appreciate that it is not possible at this stage in our proceedings to argue the merits of the question. Your Honour has the motion before you, and Your Honour must determine whether that motion has urgency within the meaning of standing order 26. Your Honour is not called upon to decide whether the allegations are right or invalid, but simply whether there is the required urgency.
My hon. friend is now making an argument, to which no reply is being made simply because we want to keep within the rules. I suggest that the question before Your Honour is whether the required urgency has been established, not whether this person or that is to be believed. There is an allegation that someone has said there was a connivance. There were certain other allegations too. All Your Honour has to determine within standing order 26 is whether this question as presented in the motion is one that possesses the urgency specified by standing order 26.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was steering clear of the merits, just as my hon. friend so often does in his own arguments on questions of this nature. I had not at all mentioned the merits of the statements made. I was simply reiterating the words contained

in the motion as presented by the Leader of the Opposition, words quoted from press reports, and I was pointing out to Your Honour that in order to come to a decision that there is no urgency involved in the motion, perforce that decision must be in effect one of disbelief of Mr. Todd's statements to the press.
I further suggested to Your Honour that the proper course to follow would be to accept that urgency attaches to this matter; because after all, if Mr. Todd's statements which have been read into the record by the Leader of the Opposition are true then the matter is indeed one of urgency, because it holds up to contempt the administration of law and justice in this country. I would think that all members of the government would want to see discounted any reflection on the government that there has been connivance with the S.I.U. in Mr. Banks' escape from Canada, and the only way in which this can be done is by allowing the house to debate this subject at the earliest possible opportunity.
There have been many conflicting and misleading statements made with regard to this whole subject, and unless these statements are resolved, and unless forthright and full explanations are made by responsible members of the treasury benches, the Canadian public and members of this house will be left in doubt as to whether there is that solid foundation upon which all freedom in this country is based, namely the efficient and impartial administration of our laws.
Surely this would indicate the great urgency which attaches to this question, and I suggest to Your Honour again that if you were to reach a conclusion that there is no urgency attached to debating this question you would, in effect, be prejudging the veracity of Mr. Todd's statements-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is going a little far. The duty of the Chair is not to decide the merits of the case. That I think, is obvious. The duty of the Chair is to decide whether under the terms of standing order 26 there is sufficient urgency attached to this matter to justify setting aside the ordinary business of the house so as to debate the question immediately. In a case such as this I certainly intend to rely in part on Beau-chesne, citation 100-


Mr. Woolliams:: Is Your Honour ruling now that no one else may speak to this motion at this stage?


Mr. Speaker:: That is right. Citation 100-
Administration of Justice Mr. Nielsen: I rise on a question of privilege. I feel that hon. members on all sides of the house are interested in this matter and should have the right to speak at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no question of privilege. Paragraph 3 of the citation to which I have referred reads:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate"-


Erik Nielsen: Surely, before your mind is made up, the least that could be done would be to hear some further argument.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened with the greatest of interest and as carefully as possible to the three arguments which have been presented and I do not see that there is such difficulty as to justify my listening for the rest of the afternoon to several speakers. I think, at least I hope, that the ruling I give will be correct, fair, and of course impartial. Anyway, I would refer to rule 100, paragraph 3 which reads:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
There is no doubt at all that this is an urgent matter. The matter to which the Leader of the Opposition addressed the attention of the house is important; it is a matter of public importance. But the duty of the Chair is to apply certain criteria to standing order 26, and in doing so the criterion I wish to apply is whether there is an opportunity to debate this matter in an effective way.
Mr. Speaker Black said on March 31, 1931, as reported in the Journals of that day at page 50:
The reason for allowing such a motion for the adjournment is to afford members an opportunity of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance which they could do in no other way-
Mr. Speaker Michener on June 27, 1961, as reported at page 7105 of Hansard, ruled in more or less similar words what I have said this afternoon.
I am informed today that the estimates of the Minister of Justice will be before the house on Thursday and that, of course, will provide an opportunity for a full discussion of this matter.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice are away on necessary business of state, with the Prime Minister either in or approaching
8726	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Charlottetown, it seems to me we could have a much better, fuller and more authoritative discussion on their return. Therefore, with regret, I cannot accede to the request of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.



APPEARANCE BEFORE COMMITTEE OF UNION TRUSTEES-CONSIDERATION OF BANKS CASE BY INDEPENDENT BODY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right. Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I now direct
a question in connection with this matter to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statements made by Mr. Todd, which of course all the members of the government will have seen, is the government now prepared to call an immediate meeting of the trustees so that the trustees of the maritime unions may be brought before a committee of parliament and this matter looked into and most carefully scrutinized and examined?
Also, Mr. Speaker, despite the peremptory refusal of the Prime Minister on Friday, in view of these further statements that have been made-and there are many of them-I wonder whether a full inquiry by an impartial body into the circumstances concerning the laying of the charges of conspiracy against Mr. Banks would be considered, in the public interest.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did deal with this question in principle on Friday. I do not recall that the statements made by Mr. Todd were before the house at that time, but I cannot believe that this would change the situation. However, I am going to take this question as notice and direct it to the head of the government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister is aware of a tape recording of a certain interview given by Mr. Banks to Mr. Ed Murphy-I had a telephone call from Charlottetown to that effect-which alleges that certain members of the Liberal party, and maybe of the government, in the past have received from Banks certain consideration which may affect the character of good members. Is he now prepared, as I suggested to the Prime Minister on another occasion, to hold a complete inquiry into this matter, to protect the good name of his members or satisfy the public as to the government itself in this regard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, 1 know nothing about the tape recording in question. I am certain there is nothing in it that would in any way reflect unfavourably on the character of any member of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering how the Acting Prime Minister was able to answer as he has just done if he has not heard the tape. I take it he has heard the tape, in order to pass such an opinion. Has the Acting Prime Minister heard the tape? How can he pass an opinion, if he has not heard it?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I have not heard the tape, Mr. Speaker, but I have done more than that; I have learned something about the nature of the men who constitute the government of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Knowles:: What about Judy?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Sir Galahad feels better now.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for either the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the fact that Hal C. Banks has been found guilty of conspiracy in the courts and is now a fugitive from justice, is the government planning to take steps to cancel his status as a landed immigrant?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, may I take advantage of this opportunity to say that if I did not include the Minister of National Health and Welfare in my explanation a few minutes ago, it was because it was so apparent that she could not be involved in my hon. friend's question that I did not involve her in my response. I should like to take notice of that question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sorry; I did not quite understand the last part of the answer.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I said that I would take notice of the question and give a reply tomorrow.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do I understand that the government has given no consideration to this question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Again I say I should like to take notice of this question to see whether or not it has.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Could he tell the house if the present government is doing everything in its power to find other charges which could lead to Hal C. Banks' extradition? Could he also tell the house how the government is going about finding these charges and obtaining the extradition of Mr. Banks to Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows full well, the government has appointed special attorneys to study this matter, and I am sure the investigation is still in progress.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to address to the Acting Prime Minister. In order to assist members of the opposition who will be interested in the debate that will occur on Thursday, can the Acting Prime Minister assure members of the house that Harold Chamberlain Banks or his union did not make large donations to the Liberal party?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend knows that is the kind of question which is not generally levelled by a fair minded man.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I am sure that is not the case, but it would be equally proper for me to ask my hon. friend whether he had obtained assistance in an election from a doubtful character. I am not going to ask that question because that would cast unfair aspersions on my hon. friend, but it perhaps might have just as much foundation as the question which my hon. friend has asked.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in view of the reply of the Acting Prime Minister a few moments ago I should direct my question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has his department taken any action in regard to cancellation of the rights of one Mr. Banks as a landed immigrant?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I
Inquiries of the Ministry have already pointed out to the house, Mr. Hal C. Banks has not only the status of landed immigrant in Canada, but also five years' residence in this country, five years of what is called Canadian residence. Since he has obtained his Canadian residence, Mr. Banks can only be deported in certain cases provided under the Immigration Act. Here are those cases:
He must have engaged in subversive activities;

second, he must have been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of an offence involving dissatisfaction or disloyalty to Her Majesty; third, he must have engaged in espionage, sabotage or other activity detrimental to the security of Canada or, four he must have been convicted of an offence under the Narcotic Control Act.

Therefore, the department keeps the matter under constant review, on the basis of developments which may occur in the case of Mr. Banks in the event he could be convicted by a qualified tribunal of an offence which, under the Immigration Act, would make it possible for the government to issue a deportation order against him.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Following the answer he just gave, could the minister tell the house whether it is the intention of his department to issue to Mr. Banks a certificate of good behaviour?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the suggestion that Banks should be brought back and charged with attempted murder, I am wondering whether the minister can explain when Banks established his 25 years of domicile in Canada?


René Tremblay: I said five years; "cinq ans".


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am sorry; I misunderstood. [Translation]


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister concerning Mr. Banks.
As can be seen in Hansard of September 14 last, I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) a question worded somewhat like Mr. Todd's article referred to today. In fact

Inquiries of the Ministry I asked the Minister of Justice whether he intended to set up a commission to inquire into the situation; the minister answered that he would consult his colleagues of the government. Could the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether the Minister of Justice did consult his colleagues of the cabinet on that matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the hon. member, I should like to look into this matter and I may be in a position to reply tomorrow or Wednesday.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware of an Ontario federation of labour report to the effect that 2,500,000 Canadians live in destitution? If so, has the minister considered the establishment of a royal commission to examine and report on the question of poverty in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member put that question on the order paper. [Later:]


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask him to tell the house if the government is at this time planning any special measures to alleviate the desperate financial situation affecting many Canadians?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I do not know to what my hon. friend is alluding.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. He said he did not know to what I alluded. I ask him if he has knowledge of the report issued by the Ontario federation of labour to the effect that at this time 2,500,000 Canadians are living in destitution and another 1,500,000 are living in utter poverty. In view of this alarming report, is the government going to do anything about it?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will first say that the government has already done a great deal about it. I should like to remind my hon. friend that the economy is in excellent shape, and that Canadians as a whole have never been as well off as they are now. I should like to suggest that there are many other things that


should be done and will be done if this house gets on with its business.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Hamilton South asked the same question and I suggested that it be put on the order paper. Perhaps the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue would do the same.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have only one more noncontroversial question. I ask the minister whether in view of the report the government is contemplating a program similar to the Johnson attack on poverty.


Raymond Langlois: May I
ask a supplementary question in view of the minister's last statement concerning the Canadian people and their economic stability. Is he willing to come and say that at a meeting of my constituents at Thetford Mines?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am willing to say this before anybody in Canada. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, there are areas in this country that are behind others and should be helped, and I think the one my hon. friend represents is such an area.


Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: May we advertise that the minister will speak in Thetford Mines next Sunday? He will be welcome there to explain what he has just said in the house.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to know if the Minister of Finance would be willing to come into my area, and he will see that there are other areas like this in Canada.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the town of Rouyn submitted a request for the construction of a terminal building at the Rouyn airport and, if so, does the minister intend to grant such a justified request on the part of the municipal authorities?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember having received any such request which, at any rate, should be addressed to the Minister of Transport. Since the latter is away,

however, I shall find out and give a reply to the hon. member shortly.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works a supplementary question. Can he tell the house the cost of affixing the new emblem, comprised of a maple leaf and a split circle, on the aircraft of Air Canada?


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



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice, but in his absence and the absence of the parliamentary secretary I should like to address it to the Acting Prime Minister or the Acting Minister of Justice. My question deals with a speech made by the Minister of Justice at Montebello on Friday, October 2. Is the government giving present and active consideration to changing its jurisdiction in respect of restrictive trade practices by means of the section dealing with trade and commerce under the British North America Act, as the minister's speech indicated?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will take the question as notice.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State relating to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of October 3, under the caption "Youth parliament on hill". It deals with the promotion by Mr. William Fair of a Canadian centenary youth parliament, and indicates widespread support. Will the minister indicate
Inquiries of the Ministry whether the federal government, his department and the department of the Prime Minister endorse this project?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper. There is no immediate urgency in that regard.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries. I wonder whether the minister has received representations over the week end from the fisheries council of Canada expressing strong opposition to the landing of fish in Canada by foreign fleets and uneasiness over the minister's statement on this point on September 24. If so, what is his view on the matter?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I did in fact receive a letter this morning from the fisheries council of Canada, and in my reply I referred to the statement I made in the house on September 24 during the discussion of my department's estimates. Hon. members will recall that I stated then that this whole matter was being studied by an interdepartmental committee, and at the time I also brought to the attention of the house some of the objections and problems which would result if such a practice were established.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Will the Secretary of State ascertain from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation whether it has received a complaint from the Minister of Justice or from anyone acting on his behalf with respect to the part that the Minister of Justice took in last night's program entitled "This Hour Has Seven Days"?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will be very pleased to do so, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE GOVERNMENT ACTION RESPECTING POULTRY AND CATTLE PRICES
On the orders of the day:


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture based on representations made to me by a number of farmers on my return to my constituency this past week end. As a result of the perilously low prices for fowl and beef cattle is the minister considering any immediate action to alleviate the pressure on the farmers?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, in so far as beef cattle are concerned they are supported under the stabilization program. The situation is that for most of the summer and a great deal of the spring beef cattle in the United States were much higher than they were in Canada. We are fortunate in that the consumption of beef is up about 9 per cent since June 16, and we nave been able to consume all of the meat produced. Otherwise the situation would have been much worse. We have to thank our buoyant economy for that favourable situation.
In so far as poultry are concerned, I have met the people who seem to be in the worst trouble, the turkey producers. We are concerned about this situation. They have protection amounting to about 7J cents to 8 cents a pound over United States turkeys. We are watching the situation very closely, and if we have to make a move we certainly will.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Did I understand him to say that we were fortunate in that certain classes of beef were selling for $6 or $7 less than they were a year ago?


Harry William Hays: and that there will not be much change in the price of beef cattle between now and next spring.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Will he tell the house what arrangement has been made among the central banks of Canada, Belgium, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Switzerland and West Germany, to quote the press dispatch, "against the possibility of speculation arising in the exchange markets during the election period" in the United Kingdom? Can the minister say what is the nature of these arrangements?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada and the central banks of the other countries to which the Leader of the Opposition referred have entered into arrangements of a temporary character to provide support to sterling, if it is needed, against any possible speculative pressures.


John George Diefenbaker: That much appeared in the newspapers. What is the nature of the arrangements that have been made; and do they result from the fear of the British government that the same kind of manipulation that caused a run on the Canadian dollar in 1962 during the election of that year might occur during the election campaign in Great Britain?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, my recollection of the circumstances in 1962 is that the financial affairs of the country had been thoroughly badly managed, and that was the cause of the difficulty. I would not like to suggest that the same situation applies in Great Britain.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to answer the hon. gentleman in kind, but he has made a mess of the finances of this country. He incited me to say that, and I did not want to say anything that would cause him to feel an unnecessary degree of immodesty. I would ask him this question. What is the nature of the arrangement that has been made? Does the minister not know what the arrangement is?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I know what the arrangement is.


John George Diefenbaker: All right.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The central banks of a number of countries have agreed to make certain credits available to the Bank of England in the event that there should be speculative pressures against sterling. If there are no speculative pressures against sterling nothing will have to be done. If there are, then the central banks to the extent of their commitments will be able to come to the assistance of the Bank of England.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the extent of the commitment by the Bank of Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, these are subjects which, in the best interests of international finance, I think it would be preferable not to go into in detail. The Bank of Canada has every right under the law to make credits available, and it is exercising that right. I expect that in due course after the present temporary difficulties have passed the bank will be making a full report.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that our international deficit on non-merchandise account for the first six months of this year is now placed at $518 million, which is about $86 million higher than for the same period last year, is the minister taking any steps to protect the Canadian dollar in the event of pressures being brought to bear against it?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is correct in comparing the situation for the first half of this year with that for the first half of last year. However, he will allow me to remind him that this difficulty occurred during the first quarter, and that in the second quarter the situation was better in 1964 than it was in 1963.
With respect to steps being taken to protect the value of the Canadian dollar, I would remind the hon. member that the official holdings of gold and United States dollars, which are made up of the holdings of the exchange fund, the Minister of Finance and the Bank of Canada, were some $2,624 million in terms of United States dollars at the end of September, a substantial increase over the corresponding amount at the end of August. I am quite confident in saying that the position of the Canadian dollar is very strong.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry Finance a supplementary question. He has just stated that the Bank of Canada has all the required authority to grant or make arrangements to grant credit to England under the present circumstances.
In the interest of international finance, however, he cannot reveal to what extent Canada is participating in this arrangement.
Perhaps he could tell us, however, always in the interest of Canada, whether interest will be charged on credit granted by the Bank of Canada, and whether such amounts will be loaned or given in order to prevent the fluctuations or speculation he referred to?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It is quite possible no amount will be lent. There is merely an arrangement for the Bank of England to call on the central banks of other countries, including Canada, for assistance in the event of need. I would remind my hon. friend that Canada was in the same position not so very long ago, and we were grateful to the central banks of other countries for making similar facilities available to us. This is a movement, I would say, in the right direction and one in which Canada should be very pleased and happy to be in a position to participate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. If this assistance, in the event it is called for, is given to the Bank of England will it be in addition to assistance given by the international monetary fund, or will this assistance be given through the international monetary fund?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This assistance about which we are talking is quite separate and distinct from any assistance that may or may not be available through the international monetary fund.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I ask a supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister if it is not true that at the time to which he referred just now, when Canada was in difficulty, part of the effectiveness of the stand-by agreements that were made was their publication? I should like to ask why he considers it would not be in the public interest for prospective speculators to know the extent of the stand-by agreement that Canada has made with Great Britain.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, Mr. Speaker, it would not be for me to indicate what the situation was or what the motivations were that led to the decision on the part of Canada to

Inquiries of the Ministry make these stand-by arrangements known to the world in June of 1962. In this particular case I believe-this is merely an off the cuff or voluntary statement-that perhaps the British do not feel the situation in so far as sterling is concerned at the present time is anything like as critical as the exchange crisis in which this country was involved in the summer of 1962. In any event, if any such statement were to be made the initiative should come from the country that is making the arrangements with the other central banks to assist that country in the event of need.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Lockhart Gordon: I should like to answer a question asked on Thursday by the hon. member for Royal concerning the position of Quebec students who wish to obtain loans under the Canada Student Loans Act and attend universities in New Brunswick. The Quebec plan for loans to students referred to in the question is entirely within the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec. Accordingly I am unable to answer any question concerning the application of that plan to students from Quebec.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of
Finance): The hon. member for Simcoe East asked a question about instituting immediately a program for the training of more doctors and to explore the question of having medical schools operate for a full term of 12 months rather than 8 months. My hon. friend is not in the house, but perhaps he will read the answer in Hansard.
This is a question which comes under one of the subjects dealt with in the recommendations of the report of the royal commission on health services, with which the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare dealt in statements to this house on July 22. These recommendations, which are primarily the concern of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, are presently being reviewed by the government in its study of that report.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can he clear up any puzzlement in connection with the rather brutal attack in Montreal on the cadets from the Royal Military College, and just give us the assurance this is an ordinary criminal matter rather than something with military or political significance?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The investigation is under way, and I am afraid I cannot yet give any assurance to the house. Certainly if when we get the facts they prove It is a criminal matter, as it appears to be on the surface, every possible step will be taken to see that the guilty people are brought to justice.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member for Mdgantic if this matter is really pressing?


Raymond Langlois: I think you will be able to judge that for yourself, Mr. Speaker. My question relates to question No. 1,381, which has been on the order paper since June 26. I should like the Minister of Public Works to tell me if he will be able to answer it before next June 26.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that I will attend immediately to this matter.
The hon. member undoubtedly knows that the parliamentary secretary got in touch with him with respect to this matter in order to clear up some of the questions he asked. We contacted the local office several times and we should be in a position to give him an answer next time.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, September 29, consideration in committee of Bill

No. C-121, to provide for the extension of [DOT]credit to farm machinery syndicates-Mr. Mays-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
The Chairman:: Shall clause 2 carry?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, when the committee was considering this bill last week hon. members raised a number of questions, and if the committee is agreeable I think it would save time and satisfy most of their objections if I were to make a short statement at this stage dealing with the matters already raised.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is this agreeable to the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harry William Hays: We are dealing with clause 2, but since it is closely related to clauses 3 and 9 I hope hon. members will permit me to refer to whatever extent is necessary for clarity, to those clauses as well.
Several hon. members have questioned the provision in the bill that the definition of farm machinery should be set by regulation instead of being spelled out in the bill. There are excellent reasons and excellent precedents for this approach. The main reason, as I should think lawyers would understand better than anyone else, is to ensure the greatest possible flexibility in the use of this legislation.
I think most informed persons recognize that to define is to limit. I admit right away that a definition set by regulation could turn out to be just as limiting as a definition set by parliament, but if a definition set by regulation does turn out in day to day experience to be faulty, then it can be revised and broadened a lot faster than if it were set out by law. If, for example, we did write a legal definition of "farm machinery" into this bill, what if it overlooked three or four machines which turned up in loan applications a week after the bill became law? The only way these machines could then be made eligible would be to come back to parliament and go through the whole process of having this bill amended. Even then there would be no way of being sure that we would not run into a similar situation the week after such an amendment had been passed.
I think all hon. members should be able to see from this how much more flexible the administration of this legislation will be by leaving the definition to be set by regulation.
Farm Machinery
By leaving the definition up to the administration of this legislation we are making it possible for the definition to be revised according to day by day experience, and to be revised quickly and easily.
That is the main reason for taking the approach we have. But there is also a very good precedent for taking this approach, a precedent already approved by parliament and well proven in actual operation. This is the precedent we find in the Farm Credit Act. In section 19 of the Farm Credit Act the definition of "farm equipment" is left to the regulations. I am sure all hon. members would agree that this approach has proven very successful in the Farm Credit Act, which is a good act. It was passed by the previous government, but it is still a good act and I don't mind saying so.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the committee to let us proceed in the same way with this bill. Because of the need for flexibility in this program, and because of the rapid development of new machinery, a legal definition written into this act now could seriously restrict the adaptability of the program.
Hon. members have also questioned the provision in the bill that the terms and conditions of a syndicate agreement should be set by regulation, instead of being written into the measure as law. Again we believe there are excellent reasons and excellent precedents for this approach. The most obvious reason is that this provides greater flexibility in dealing with farmers' applications for loans under this bill. But a precedent can also be found in the Farm Credit Act, again a precedent approved by parliament and well proven in actual operation. We believe this is the only sound approach we can take to ensure that the program, a new and experimental one, can be revised and improved as experience dictates.
Besides leaving the definition of "farm machinery" to the regulations the Farm Credit Act, in section 11, confers other rather extensive discretion on the Farm Credit Corporation. This discretion, which is not subject to approval by governor in council, includes the authority to prescribe the forms of mortgages and agreements which farmers make with the corporation.
I believe this was one occasion when the previous government showed a lot of common sense. I am convinced, and I am sure everyone familiar with the great variety of the farmers' credit needs would agree, that this kind of flexible approach is essential for success in any farm credit program.

Farm Machinery
This is why we have proposed that the matters to be covered in agreements under the farm machinery syndicates bill should also be left to the administrators, to the people dealing directly with the farmers.
Naturally we have given very careful consideration to the general terms which the regulations will require in the agreements. Farmers forming a syndicate will have to make provision for such items as the rights and liabilities of syndicate members, including the interest in it of each member; insurance of the property against fire, and of the syndicate against public liability; the addition of new members; the withdrawal, death, insolvency, retirement or incapacity of a member for any cause; the dissolution of a syndicate; the holding of syndicate business meetings; the election of syndicate officers; the procedures in the event of default by an individual syndicate member; maintenance and sale of machinery; keeping proper records and accounts.
These are some of the general terms. But I am sure hon. members would not want to dictate to farmers in advance every detail as to how each syndicate must organize to meet these general terms. In administering the program the Farm Credit Corporation will of course suggest various ways in which these general terms can be met. For example, suppose a member wants to withdraw from a syndicate because he has sold his farm, or does not need the machinery any longer for some other reason. The syndicate agreement could include a provision for any member to withdraw as long as he could make a mutually satisfactory arrangement with other members to take over his share of both the assets and the liabilities, or for another farmer acceptable to the other members to take his place. In other words, since he would have an equity in the net worth of the syndicate he would be able to dispose of it to the remaining members or to another farmer.
But farmers themselves might like to make other arrangements. By leaving the terms and conditions of agreements under this bill to be set by regulation, by the administrators, we provide the farmers the freedom to make any reasonable arrangements they and the corporation see fit.
I think it should be obvious that if we tried to fix, by legislation, the exact nature of agreements which the farmers should work out among themselves we would be severely restricting the program and could very sharply reduce its value to our farmers.

Several hon. members have questioned the provision for joint and several liability of syndicate members. This is referred to in clause 3 of the bill. But the question of liability is also inherent in clause 2, because the syndicate agreement as referred to in this clause is in fact a form of partnership agreement with obvious liability implications.
Obviously it is essential that there be some formal agreement among farmers intending to own and operate machinery on a co-operative basis. Several approaches are possible. We could have asked the farmers to form a limited company or corporation. We could have asked that the farmers incorporate themselves as a co-operative. But either of these approaches would have involved a great deal of extra time and expense for the farmers. Either of these approaches would have been clumsy and slow. We want to cut out all the red tape we can in this program. We want to be able to handle the farmers' loan applications just as quickly as possible.
Both these approaches are obviously loaded with red tape and delay, especially for small farmers who might only want to get together to buy one or two machines. We do not mind seeing lawyers make a decent living. I have known lawyers who are very nice people. Some of my best friends are lawyers. But this is legislation for the farmers, and we have done our best to make it as simple and convenient as possible for the farmer to use.
The Farm Credit Corporation will, of course, be in a position to suggest the form of a general agreement which farmers may follow in setting up a syndicate. If a large number of farmers decide to set up a syndicate to share a large amount of machinery where a lot of money is involved they may want to hire a lawyer to help them. But in most cases we believe the farmers, in consultation with the Farm Credit Corporation, should be able to draw up the necessary agreements without legal advice.
We tried to imagine, for example what farmers in the Atlantic provinces would say if we asked them to form a company just to buy a potato planter or a potato digger; or if we asked farmers on the prairies to form a company just to buy a grain cleaner or a grain dryer. It seemed to us that the best, the simplest and most convenient approach was to require only that farmers set themselves up in a partnership agreement to borrow under this legislation.

Partnerships are regulated under provincial law, and in its lending operations under this program the Farm Credit Corporation will operate within the scope of provincial laws. It may help if I point out that farm machinery syndicates in Britain were organized by the farmers and the farmers' unions, and that the farmers themselves, after looking into this very thoroughly themselves, decided from the start that making individual syndicate members jointly and severally liable was one of the most important factors in ensuring the success of these syndicates.
We have a Reading University report on British farm machinery syndicates which says "The key to the problem of credit was the joint and several liability of the participating farmers working together in owning and operating a particular machine as a specific and restricted partnership." These British farmers saw for themselves that if they were going to work together in this way they would also have to share the financial responsibilities. I think our farmers are just as bright as British farmers and just as capable of understanding this. In fact I am sure no Canadian farmer would want to go into one of these deals unless he was sure his partners were going to have just as much at stake in the success or failure of the deal as he had.
And, after all, how much risk is this going to involve? I think hon. members should remember that ordinarily the assets of one of these syndicates will always be greater than its liabilities. These loans will cover only 80 per cent of the machinery cost from the start, so the assets of a syndicate will be greater than its liabilities from the beginning. With regular repayments slightly higher than the rate of depreciation for the machinery the assets should be worth more than the balance of the loan right through until the loan has been paid off. Furthermore, the fact that a syndicate's members know they are jointly and severally responsible is obviously going to do a lot to ensure that every member sees that the machinery is well maintained. They will all own it, and every one of them will understand very well, I am sure, that keeping it in good shape is the best way to protect their individual interest in the syndicate.
I know farmers pretty well. I don't think any of them are going to enter one of these deals without sizing up their partners pretty thoroughly. I think the judgment each farmer exercises with respect to his prospective partners will probably be the best guarantee we
Farm Machinery
can have that these syndicates will be a success.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, after the most careful consideration the government feels certain that the joint and several liability provision will not present any problem to any individual farmer wanting to take part in one of these loans. In fact we think this provision might easily prove to be one of the essential factors in the success of this program by offering some real encouragement to syndicate members to work together and solve in a friendly, neighbourly way whatever problems might come up.
Trying to limit the liability of an individual member to only his individual share in the syndicate poses some serious problems of administration. It would involve far more red tape both for the corporation and for the farmers. It could also open the way to bad situations among members of a syndicate. If something happened to make one member decide he wanted to get out, for example, he could be in a position to tie up all the assets of the whole syndicate if there were only limited individual liability. The corporation, to protect the interests of the taxpapers in recovering these loans, might have to seize the machinery because of bad faith by only one member.
In other words, limiting the liability as suggested by some hon. members could put one individual syndicate member in a position where he could keep all the other members from continuing to use the machinery. By making all syndicate members equally liable no individual member will be in a position to spoil it for the others, if by any chance this kind of a situation did arise. The remaining members could assume the share in both the liability and the assets of a defaulting member, and in this way protect their investment with the least possible trouble.
There could be another real benefit from taking the approach to syndicate liability proposed in the bill. It could very well help some farmers benefit from this type of credit who would not be able to qualify for credit on their own. Consider, for example, the case of a young farmer who has used up all his personal credit in order to get started in farming. His neighbours, who may be well established farmers, know him personally and have a high regard for his ability and integrity. They may be perfectly willing to join with him on a promissory note for one of these loans because they know him. And, because of the faith shown in him by his

Farm Machinery
better-off neighbours, through their willingness to back his credit, the corporation could grant him credit for which, on his own, he would not qualify.
In concluding my remarks on this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to a suggestion by the hon. member for Acadia that we should not be asking for a promissory note under this bill because it is not required under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The hon. member is as well informed on this as he is on other matters. Section 9 of the farm improvement loans regulations states very clearly that a promissory note shall be made for a farm improvement loan. In fact, as anyone who has ever borrowed from a bank should know, it is common banking practice to require a promissory note from any borrower. I think I should also point out that when two farmers join to obtain a farm improvement loan to buy machinery, they are held jointly and severally responsible for repayment of the loan.
Mr. Chairman, I feel sure we can satisfy any further objections raised by hon. members as the committee continues its examination of this bill. I appeal to all hon. members that they then let this bill pass and give the farmers a chance to try this out. Let us give our farmers a chance to test this new program in action. The farmers of this country are the only ones who can put this bill to the real test.


Gerald William Baldwin: We have all listened with great interest to what the minister has just said. I am afraid if the answers and explanations he will be asked to give later on are no better than those he has just given, the bill is likely to encounter considerable difficulty.
I wish to take up the first point the hon. gentleman made. I speak not only as a lawyer-I plead guilty to that charge-but as one who farmed actively for eight or nine years before I became a member of this house. That was at a time when it was necessary to be a lawyer or an auctioneer to have enough money to be able to carry on farming operations.
The reasons given by the minister for not spelling out in detail, as far as possible, the meaning of what is contained in this legislation are the same as have been advanced year after year by officials of provincial and federal governments. They say, in effect "We know best. Leave it to us. If changes are required we will make the changes." I do not deny there are certain occasions in this complex and fast moving world when it is

necessary to have power to make regulations as far as the machinery of legislation is concerned. Nevertheless, other considerations should apply to the basic essentials.
The minister has referred to clauses 2, 3 and 9; I hope I will have the same latitude accorded to me. With regard to these provisions I say that more than regulations are necessary. Even if this were the best government in the world-and we on this side, at any rate, have some doubts about that

I did not come here to allow the views of the government to be substituted for my own. I must say I have a good deal more confidence in the Farm Credit Corporation than I have in the government. My experience with that body has been excellent. The way they have operated, the co-operation I have received, and the way in which they have dealt with farmers has been such that I have a considerable amount of confidence in them. But I was not elected as a member of parliament to give this government a blank cheque for $25 million when the very basic essentials which comprise the heart of this legislation have not been clearly shown to us. This is where I make my stand.
I recognize that it will always be the function of the executive to initiate legislation, to bring it forward. This is not the function of a legislative body. It is for us to examine and analyse the legislation to see that it is complete, that all the essentials are there to make the legislation effective, worthwhile, and do that job it is supposed to do. I have strong doubts as to whether this is the situation here.
Let us look, for example, at the clause in question. I refer to clause 2. It says under (a):
"Corporation" means the Farm Credit Corporation;
I have no objection to that. Then it says under (b):
"farming" includes livestock raising, dairying, fruit growing and all tillage of the soil;
The minister did say the last time this matter was before us that this was the same definition that appears in the farm credit bill. I think he will admit that this is not correct; that the words "bee keeping" were added, and there is this distinction. However, that is a minor point and I do not stress it too much. Then (c) says:
"farm machinery syndicate" means an association formed (i) by an agreement in writing, approved by the corporation-
The type of association, the type of partnership, is going to be carefully fixed

by the terms of this agreement. I quite agree with the minister when he says we should not expect parliament to spell out in complete detail all the fine print in such an agreement, but I do suggest it is essential for the government to say at this time what are the basic requirements they will insist upon so far as this agreement is concerned. This must be brought forward and demonstrated, bearing in mind that there is a basic distinction in this country between the common law provinces and the province of Quebec. I think this is a very important consideration which no parliament of Canada can afford to disregard at this particular time in the history of this nation. This clause says:
"farm machinery syndicate" means an association formed
(i) by an agreement in writing, approved by the corporation-
I am not content to let the Farm Credit Corporation approve in detail all that is going to be in this agreement. I suggest it is essential that the government should say "Here are certain minimum basic essentials which should be in the agreement", and spell them out, leaving it for the farmers themselves, as the minister pointed out, to fill out the rest of it. There are a great many details which will be peculiar to the nature of the transaction, to the nature of the farming being carried on, to the geographic situation where the farming operations are, which will be reflected in the agreement. But, Mr. Chairman, there are basic essentials which should be there and which it is the duty of the government to bring before us and say "We are asking that these be included in every agreement." Clause 2 (c) says:
(i) by an agreement in writing, approved by the corporation, between not less than three individuals
(A) who are engaged in farming independently of one another or who are members of a cooperative farm association-
I ask the minister now, does this mean that a syndicate can be composed of three or more people who are taken from a co-operative farm association, as defined by regulation? Does this mean that the co-operative farm association will be the syndicate; or does it mean that in order to qualify the individuals to fix their capacity and thus engage in a venture of this kind they must be members of a co-operative farm association? I ask the minister to consider this point carefully, because it is not made clear in the bill. I may be unable to see it, but it is not clear to me. Does it mean three individuals who are
Farm Machinery
member of a co-operation farm association? Is it the three individuals who then comprise a syndicate, or is it the co-operative farm association which comprises the syndicate? Possibly the minister might like to answer that question before I proceed.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, they can belong to a co-operative or a limited company. The three members making up the syndicate could belong to other organizations. However, the three particular members who wished to purchase machinery under this bill would be the syndicate.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister, then, takes the position that you could take out of a farm co-operative association five members who would together form a syndicate. The syndicate would then be a separate entity and would have no relation at all to the co-operative farm association. Is that correct?


Harry William Hays: That is right.


Gerald William Baldwin: If I am correct in this, then why in the name of heaven was it necessary to say "who are members of a co-operative farm association"? All you needed to say was "three individuals who are engaged in farming independently of one another". Perhaps I am reading into this something that is not there, but I simply cannot see the necessity for this inclusion. It seems to me to be superfluous.


Harry William Hays: They have to be farming independently. They could belong to a corporation that was not in the business of farming.


Gerald William Baldwin: Then why was it necessary to put into this clause the words "who are members of a co-operative farm association"? If they are three or more individuals who are engaged in farming independently, why do you need to add "who are members of a co-operative farm association"? Surely if they are members of a farm co-operative association they are farmers and they are farming independently?


Harry William Hays: In this bill we do not say they are farming independently; we say that the syndicate must be made up of independent farmers. They could belong to an association and five of them could form a syndicate. But their main business is farming; in fact their business is farming.


Gerald William Baldwin: Then the minister does envisage a situation where there is a farm cooperative association the members of which engage in farming on a co-operative basis.

Farm Machinery
They are not independent, in this case, as is suggested in the first part of this clause?


Harry William Hays: That is right.


Gerald William Baldwin: Then I submit you have this very difficult result. You might have five men forming a syndicate, who in one of the aspects of the farming operation are members of an association probably formed pursuant to provincial law and regulation; but at the same time they are members of a syndicate formed under this bill. I suggest this could lead to very considerable anomalies with regard to the very basic essential of a farm co-operative association formed under provincial law. I assume the government intends to permit provincially formed co-operative farm associations to come under this legislation. But the basic essential there is limitation-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I took it from the minister's remarks that they did not.


Gerald William Baldwin: Then perhaps the minister would reply to that point.


Harry William Hays: There are very few co-operative farmers. We thought about this. We realized there might be some problems, but at the same time we think that in the initial stages we should stay with the idea that three individual farmers or more can form a syndicate. They could belong to any sort of organization, but when they become a partnership within the meaning of this bill they can buy machinery as a group to work among themselves. We think this is the way it should be in its initial stages.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think the minister does contemplate, then, that this type of farm marketing association could be one initially formed under provincial law; but if three or more members desire to set up a separate entity and become a syndicate within the meaning of this particular bill, No. C-121, they will have the right, if they pass all the other requirements, to come in and be eligible for a loan pursuant to the provisions of this bill.
If I am correct in this you will have a situation where under provincial law these people deliberately belong to or join a farm co-operative association which has certain limiting conditions attached to it. They join it for definite reasons. One of the reasons is that there is a limitation on their liability. So you will find that in the one aspect of their agricultural business they are doing business as a co-operative farm association with a limitation on their liability; on the

other they are a syndicate under this bill jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the moneys borrowed under this legislation. That is where I think anomalies are created. The minister can deal with this point later on if he sees fit.
I should now like to repeat certain points which were referred to by hon. members on September 29 when this particular clause was being considered. Initially provincial governments are charged with the responsibility of dealing with limited companies, cooperative associations and co-operative farm marketing associations. That fact does not preclude the federal government, in respect of matters which fall under its jurisdiction, from allowing the formation of joint stock companies and associations. However I think the minister and the government are going to run into a considerable amount of difficulty, as was pointed out on September 29, in respect of questions dealing with the capacity of members of the association, the rights of transfer, the rights of transmission of shares and voluntary and involuntary assignments when a syndicate breaks up in one way or another. It may break up voluntarily or involuntarily. There may also be difficulties because of an association or a syndicate incurring a charge which would make the balance of the members responsible. What is the right of one or two members to pledge the credit of the syndicate? There might also be difficulties in respect of bylaws, officers and meetings.
If one takes a combination of the agreement which is referred to in clause 2 (c) (i), together with the type of association which will be defined by regulation of farm marketing and co-operative marketing associations, he may well include within the four corners of these two essential aspects of the syndicate certain types of programs, associations or syndicates which are in direct conflict with provincial law. This situation was pointed out by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue. I can envisage a situation where one might find a type of agreement brought to the corporation and accepted by the corporation which is in direct conflict with the laws of a certain province.
Just before lunch I had occasion to look at the co-operative association act and the societies act of the province of Alberta. They are both very complex and lengthy pieces of legislation, and I can envisage situations arising where there might be this kind of conflict. It seems to me the minister might well give consideration to what has been

proposed-not spelling out in complete detail what will be included in the agreement, but at least stating that there shall be certain essential ingredients and that no syndicate formed pursuant to this measure shall be of a nature such as to be in conflict with the laws of any province.
Those two simple alterations might well meet some of the objections that have been raised. I admit that in so far as the definition of farm machinery is concerned, the language of this bill may be adequate. I do not think there will be any difficulty in that respect alone, but if that language stood by itself I would be perfectly willing to leave to the discretion of the Farm Credit Corporation under the supervision of the government the fixing of definitions from time to time. However, when one considers that situation, together with the type of agreements under which a syndicate is to be formed, and the definition of farm co-operative associations, indicating the type of association from which members may come to form a syndicate, in my submission we are placing too great a responsibility in the hands of the government. I cannot stand idly by and permit that to happen. I feel that I would be abdicating my responsibility as a member in delegating to the executive a function which we as a legislative body should exercise. I hope before we reach our consideration of clause 9 of this bill, which is the clause in respect of which I have indicated I intend to propose an amendment, the minister will give some further consideration to what has been said by myself and other hon. members.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might answer one or two of the questions raised in connection with provincial laws. Though not in detail, I have raised these questions on two occasions with the provincial ministers of agriculture. I can assure hon. members that we would not do anything that was not in keeping with provincial law. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member who has raised these questions, and I can assure him that we have gone into these things very thoroughly. We think that in so far as this act is concerned, at least in the initial stages, we should go ahead on the basis of this bill.
We have considered co-operatives that are engaged in farming, as well as other business enterprises which are free to go to the industrial development bank, where they have limited liability and that sort of thing. This bill is designed after the British syndicates bill; which was drafted as a result of the 20220-553
Farm Machinery
wishes expressed by farmers and farm unions, and they felt that these syndicates would operate best if the members were severally and jointly responsible. There was a great deal of flexibility in so far as the regulations were concerned at least in the initial stages.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I just make one comment. The British government operates under a unitary system and is not bothered with problems of division of responsibility.


Harry William Hays: I realize that fact.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question before he leaves that point? Do I understand from what the minister has said that a farm co-operative association cannot, as an entity, come under the provisions of this act?


Harry William Hays: That is right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Individual members of such a co-operative association can separately form a syndicate and take advantage of the benefits provided by this measure, is that right?


Harry William Hays: That is right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A co-operative association itself cannot come under this legislation?


Harry William Hays: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In that event, why under clause 9 is the corporation, with the approval of the governor in council, allowed to make regulations, as stated in paragraph (b), for co-operative farm associations? Why does this have to be defined by order in council if a co-operative farm association cannot become a syndicate and obtain the benefits of this act?


Harry William Hays: I will have to ask you to repeat your question, as there were several people talking at once.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since a co-operative farm association cannot as a legal entity come within this act for the purpose of obtaining the benefits provided therein, why is it necessary under clause 9, paragraph (b) to give to the corporation, with the approval of the governor in council, the power to make regulations defining a co-operative farm association?


Harry William Hays: My officials point out that clause 2, paragraph (c) (i) (A) refers to those-
-who are engaged in farming independently of one another or who are members of a co-operative farm association, as defined by regulation, and
(B) the principal occupation of a majority of whom is farming, and

Farm Machinery
(ii) for the purpose of purchasing farm machinery for use primarily by members of the syndicate;-
Clause 9 of the bill gives authority for regulation in this regard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why make regulations regarding co-operative farm associations if they cannot come within the act? It does not make any difference to the Farm Credit Corporation whether the three individuals making application farm separately, or what kind of farm association they belong to.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, as everybody realizes, of course, I am not a lawyer. However we told the Department of Justice the job we wanted to do, and when they sent back the draft legislation I went over all these points. They say that this takes care of the situation. If there are too many words or something like that, then I am at a loss to know why they were put in there. But the idea is that a co-operative shall not be entitled to use this legislation, although three or more of its members will be able to form a syndicate to purchase machinery under this legislation. This legislation provides that members of a co-operative will be able to do this sort of thing. That is the way I understand it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: All I should like to say is that I think it is a great pity that the cooperative farm associations cannot come under this legislation. When the minister says they can go to the industrial development bank and borrow money I should like to know how many co-operative farms operating in this country have been able to borrow money from the industrial development bank. They might be able to borrow money under the Farm Improvement Loans Act or they might be able to borrow money from the Farm Credit Corporation for the purchase of land, but borrowing money from the industrial development bank is not easy for a co-operative farm group.
I think it is a great pity that the minister should shut them out. There are not many of them, as the minister says. There are between 25 and 30 in the province of Saskatchewan and there are a number of communal farms, such as the Hutterites and other such groups, which have set up a different type of co-operative farm. It seems to me that to bar them from coming under this legislation and make them act as individuals so that there are two entities on the farm, one the co-operative farming association itself and the other a syndicate buying machinery, is unnecessarily complicating the

situation. I think these co-operative farms would get a great deal of use out of this legislation.
The same is true of co-operatives that have been organized for the co-operative use of machinery. I know that in the province of Saskatchewan there are between 300 and 400 co-operatives for the co-operative use of farm machinery. There are farmers who are already co-operating in the use of machinery which they have bought on a co-operative basis, and I take it they would not be allowed to come under this legislation if they applied as a legal entity. Again they would have to break up their organization and apply separately. I think the minister will find he has left out a very important group when he has shut out co-operative farms and groups of that kind.
While I am on my feet I should like to say that I think clause 2, the interpretation clause, lacks a great deal in terms of definition, and that too much power has been placed in clause 9 of the bill which gives the governor general in council power to make regulations providing the terms and conditions that a syndicate agreement must contain. This virtually means that by order in council the government is going to determine the terms and conditions under which people may form a syndicate. It seems to me that is legislation by order in council to the nth degree. Power is also given to define by order in council what the expression "farm machinery" means and what the expression "cooperative farm association" means. I would have thought these were definitions that should be in the interpretation clause-


An hon. Member:: Pass now, draft later.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -rather than leaving this to be done by order in council. I think this is a dangerous precedent for the government to seek and for the House of Commons to establish. I had hoped that the minister would put some of these definitions in clause 2 rather than leaving them to be made by regulation.


Harry William Hays: 
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that definition in the act or in the regulations?


Harry William Hays: It is in the regulations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not want to labour the point but the minister said that anybody in a co-operative farm association-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is the hon. member questioning the minister on the same point?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, the same point. I want to say one word on it. I do not want to labour it. The minister says that people in a co-operative farming association can come under this legislation but they must do so individually.


Harry William Hays: That is right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I simply point out to the minister that if he had allowed them to come in as a legal entity it would have saved them and the government a good deal of work. Let me take the Matador co-operative farm association as an example. It is composed of 20 young veterans from the last war who set up a co-operative farm association. They have a very successful operation. This group is accustomed to carrying on all their business as a co-operative. The selling of their farm produce, the buying of their supplies and all their other activities are carried on on a co-operative basis. To become eligible under this legislation either all 20 of them must form a syndicate and apply or four or five of them must form a syndicate and apply. They would be operating two organizations, two different legal entities, one a co-operative farming association and the other a farm machinery syndicate, with two different sets of books and all the complications which it seems to me could have been avoided, simply by saying that a co-operative farm association might apply to come under this legislation 20220-553J
Farm Machinery
as an entity and be considered a syndicate for the purposes of this act.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I have some remarks with regard to other matters, but I think the answer to the question that has been discussed during the last few minutes is found in the words "who are engaged in farming independently of one another or who are members of a co-operative farm association, as defined by regulation". I do not think there would be anything to prevent a cooperative farming group applying. They already have the set-up that the minister is requiring of other farmers. There would be nothing to stop them from doing so.
However, the thing that intrigues me about the bill is that it discriminates against the individual farmer. I suspected this when we were discussing it before and over the week end I called together a bunch of farmers in my constituency. We went over the bill and they pointed out one thing to me. If I understood the minister's answer correctly, at the present time a farmer can secure $15,000 under the Farm Improvement Loans Act as well as certain things under the Farm Credit Act, and this legislation is not supposed to have any effect upon whatever interest a farmer may have under these other pieces of legislation. Is that correct?


Harry William Hays: Yes.


Edward Nasserden: Then the minister is saying to the farmers of Canada: As an individual you cannot secure any more credit to buy farm machinery unless you go together with your neighbours. That is discrimination against the individual farmer in the purchase of farm machinery. The minister says that at least three farmers have to come together and form a syndicate. An individual farmer, if he desires to buy a piece of farm machinery, cannot secure the $15,000 extra. This, in my opinion, goes against the grain of the thinking in western Canada at least. I will let the members from other parts of the country speak for the farmers in their area.
I see the minister is laughing. He finds it very amusing. I wonder if he would tell us if that is the intention?


Harry William Hays: I would be glad to do so. We have just completed a measure to increase the amount that could be borrowed under the farm improvement loans measure from $7,500 to $15,000. A farmer can now borrow up to $15,000 to buy machinery. I do not believe we are discriminating so far as this is concerned. Two farmers can join together and borrow $30,000 or three of them could bor-

Farm Machinery
row $45,000, aside from the fact that three farmers can join together to form a syndicate and borrow $45,000 under this measure. Evidently the hon. member is suggesting we should have increased the farm improvement loans to $30,000.


Edward Nasserden: This is what you are doing for farmers who join together; each one can get $15,000 and three of them could get $45,000, and then they can borrow under the farm improvement loans measure and get another $45,000. Individual farmers cannot do this.


Mr. Watson (Chateauguay-Hunlingdon-La-prairie):: The hon. member for Bumaby-Co-quitlam raised a question about 20 veterans in a co-operative being unable to obtain a loan under this measure because they had formed a co-operative. Is it not correct that these 20 members could form a number of syndicates and thus borrow an aggregate amount that would perhaps be greater than the total amount available to a co-operative of 20 men?


Harry William Hays: They could do exactly as the hon. member suggests. They could form a syndicate of five or six and borrow up to $75,000. Then another five could form a syndicate and do the same thing. As long as they form a syndicate, the 20 men are not barred from borrowing under this measure.


Lawrence E. Watson: There would be considerably more available to them, isn't this correct?


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: If I might proceed one step farther-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; I am sure there are many hon. members who want to speak on the same point and there have been five or six members who have risen within the last few minutes. Perhaps therefore I should recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the minister and his further explanation. It seems that we get explanations on the instalment plan during this debate. I believe it would have been much better if the minister had made a complete statement at the resolution stage. I listened with interest also to _ the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River because I believe he always makes a contribution to the debate, whether or not I agree with him. I thought he raised some worthwhile points.
It seems that the two points at issue are the question of co-operatives being able to

borrow under the terms of this bill, as mentioned by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and the regulations. I believe any co-operative or farm organization should be able to borrow under this bill because, for instance, co-operative fruit growers might wish to buy a spraying machine or something of that nature. Then there is the question of the regulations, and this is causing some concern. I can well understand it.
I want to say that I am sympathetic to the principle of this bill. I recognize it is experimental legislation. Since the measure was first introduced I have done some reading on this question, particularly over the week end. I find that this type of legislation has been of benefit to farmers in other countries, and I can see that it could be of particular benefit, if we get the proposed amendments, to farmers I represent and others. Over the week end I was reading from World Crops, volume 2, in which there is an article dealing with farm machinery syndicates. I quote:
This is an account oi the organization and operation of farm machinery syndicates in Britain, which will be of immense value to small holders, market gardeners and small farmers in other countries.
The article goes on to deal with the first organization of farm syndicates in Hampshire, which happens to be the county from which I came. It says:
The articles of association of Syndicates Credits Ltd., a non-profit making company, limited by guarantee and having no share capital, were drawn up for the Hampshire branch of the national farmers union and incorporated on June 8, 1955.
The article mentions that the legislation has been a great success and that the movement spread from Hampshire to several counties in England.
I was reading also from Scottish Agriculture, and there I saw a very interesting article which dealt with the question of regulations, the type of agreement, and so on. I am going to refer to this article and ask the minister if he has in mind regulations patterned somewhat along the lines of the regulations mentioned here. It appears that the legislation was passed in Britain, and then regulations were based on regulations surrounding a model agreement and model rules-I believe that is the term they used. I read them with interest. It mentions here that the syndicate has to get approval of the model agreement and rules by the department of agriculture and fisheries for Scotland. This approval was sought because of their interest in applications for building grants for machinery syndicates. Then, I quote:

There are two documents involved in the formation of a machinery syndicate, and both have been kept as simple as possible. A summary of these is given below.
I am going to mention the headings, and then I should like the minister to reply to a question I shall raise in this connection. Reference is made to the model agreement and the headings mentioned are: registered name and number; objects; membership; maintenance, use and disposal of plant; death or retirement of a member; dissolution; registration; evaluation of assets; arbitration; alteration of agreement; copies of the agreement, to whom they are distributed and so on.
Then, we come to the question of model rules, and these are rules with which I was particularly impressed. I was impressed with the care that had been taken in drafting them. I quote from the article:
The nature of the model rules will vary according to the type of machine, but every syndicate must formulate the basis of apportionment to members of the capital investment, maintenance costs and the use of the machine.
The article goes on to deal with the application of these model rules. I presume under these circumstances these are in the nature of regulations that affect the acts that have been passed in Great Britain and Scotland. My question is, what has the minister in mind with reference to the regulations and the model rules to which I have just referred? I do not know if his officials have studied these. Although I realize administrative details cannot be provided, I feel the members of the committee should have a clear understanding of what the regulations are going to be. It is for this reason I have raised this question, and I should like to get the minister's answer.


Harry William Hays: As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, naturally we have given very careful consideration to the general terms which the regulations will require in the agreements. Farmers forming a syndicate will have to make provision for such items as the rights and liabilities of syndicate members, including the interest in it of each member; insurance of the property against fire, and of the syndicate against public liability; the addition of new members; the withdrawal, death, insolvency, retirement or incapacity of a member for any cause; the dissolution of a syndicate; the holding of syndicate business meetings; the election of syndicate officers; procedures in the event of default by an individual syndicate member; maintenance and sale of machinery, and keeping proper records and accounts.
Farm Machinery
We hope to distribute to farmers examples of the regulations which are in force in other countries at a time when they are forming a syndicate, for their consideration before they submit the terms of their syndicate to the Farm Credit Corporation for approval.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The very list which the minister has read out as to terms of an agreement points out how impossible it would be to do the things he suggested a few moments ago. He spoke of a co-operative of 20 members which could break into four or five groups, each forming a syndicate. It is true that each group could then borrow more money, but what would be their position? Keeping the records of performance and carrying insurance would have to be done by each of the separate syndicates on a co-operative farm, and just imagine the confusion you would get if you had 20 men farming together, using syndicate machinery indiscriminately, so that one man on a cooperative farm might be driving machinery that did not belong to the syndicate of which he was a member, but rather to another syndicate on the farm.
If these 20 men are going to own this machinery co-operatively they have to own it as a legal entity. They cannot own it as four separate legal entities and keep all the records in four syndicates, with their co-operative association handling the machinery on a co-operative basis.
If the Farm Credit Corporation has made any study at all of the operations of these co-operative farms-and some of them have been in business for 15 to 16 years-if it has studied their business methods it should realize that under the provisions of clause 2(2) co-operatives are virtually eliminated from the provisions of this legislation. I believe the minister would be well advised if he added to the words in (A) where it says, "who are engaged in farming independently of one another," the words "or a co-operative farm association," in place of the words, "or who are members of a co-operative farm association." This would allow a co-operative association itself to apply to the Farm Credit Corporation for permission to become a syndicate. It would mean that the people who were operating the machinery, handling the insurance and keeping the books on it would be the syndicate, rather than having three or four syndicates on a co-operative farm, all trying to keep separate books despite the fact that they were jointly using the machinery.

Farm Machinery


Mr. Lambert:: Has the minister consulted with the Minister of National Revenue regarding the tax position of a co-operative? A co-operative occupies a particular position with regard to taxes, but if it is eliminated from the operations of this legislation as a co-operative, and its members are forced to operate as syndicates, involving legal implications as to expenses and what have you, will it still be deemed to be a true co-operative, or will its members be deemed to be acting as individuals, thereby losing the value of their co-operative status? This is a narrow implication, and certainly not one that is on the side of agriculture, and it may go to the point of destroying that particular position of advantage that co-operative agricultural organizations may have.


Harry William Hays: The intent was that there would be no profit so far as a syndicate was concerned. Its members would be taxed as individuals. This is experimental legislation and we welcome all these suggestions, but we have to creep before we run. This was a point we discussed and we did consult the Minister of National Revenue. We were of the opinion that, so far as taxes are concerned, a syndicate in all probability would be a nonprofit organization, with its members being taxed as individuals, the same as with any other partnership.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On that point, since some of the members need not be farmers I take it these syndicates will do custom work?


Harry William Hays: They all have to be farmers. The majority have to have farming as their main livelihood, but they all must be farmers. However, they can lease equipment to another farmer, or anyone to whom they see fit to lease it.


Norman Platt Lambert: You can be a five acre farmer then?


Harry William Hays: That's right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The clause says, "the principal occupation of a majority of whom is farming." This means there are some who need not be farmers?


Harry William Hays: No, they must be all farming. The majority must be bona fide farmers. For example, there may be a young fellow 21 years old who decides he wants to farm and he has a quarter or a half section of land. He has no buildings on it, and has a job in town. Such a young fellow could be included in a syndicate, although ordinarily he would not be called a bona fide farmer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I hope the minister is right in his interpretation. It says, "the principal occupation of a majority-


Harry William Hays: Must be farming.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -is farming." What about the minority? Are they non-farming? Are they
businessmen?


Harry William Hays: They all must be engaged in farming. It says in (A), "who are engaged in farming independently of one another or who are members of a co-operative farm association, as defined by regulation-" and these are given in clause 9-and then in (B) it says, "the principal occupation of a majority of whom is farming."


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I take it all these syndicates would not be doing custom work?


Harry William Hays: They could well do custom work. If three farmers organized together as a syndicate to purchase farm machinery, and they had a neighbour they thought it better not to have as a member of the syndicate, they could well do his custom work.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And what is their taxation position then? Would the revenue members get from a syndicate be subject to taxation.


Harry William Hays: I would leave that up to the Minister of National Revenue.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, just a few words to say that I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), especially with regard to the constitutional aspect of clause 2.
I wonder if the minister would have any objection to the addition, after paragraph (c) at the end of subparagraph (A), of the words:
All, according to the provisions of provincial legislation in such case made and provided.
The reason for that request is twofold.
First, the instance given by the minister to the effect that there is a similar British precedent or legislation in effect, is not valid under our federal system.
Second, I know that under the constitution, and although the federal government has concurrent jurisdiction in agricultural matters, the federal government has no residual jurisdiction as far as civil and property law is concerned, and this bill deals with civil and property law.
It would be a safeguard quite easily added to the bill and which, in my opinion, would make it more acceptable to the advocates of provincial rights.

I should like also to deal with another question, namely that of liability. I suggest that the legislation, as drafted, does not set any limit as far as liability is concerned. In other words, should a farmer become a member of this co-operative or syndicate that is mentioned in the legislation, he is liable not only up to the amount of his contribution but, in view of the fact that the liability is joint and several, he is liable up to the total amount of the loan and even beyond the amount to which he has committed himself. In other words, he becomes liable in case of insolvency on the part of his partners for more than the amount he has subscribed to personally, as he also becomes liable for the costs. Further, in the event of the death of one of the members of the syndicate, a very precarious and even unjust situation would arise for the widow and the dependants or the children of the deceased.
It seems, therefore, that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), to the effect that the loan should be granted to a syndicate and not to individual farmers would be preferable because, in this way, the already existing syndicates could take advantage of the legislation; in addition, the farmers who would sign up or become members of the syndicate would not incur any personal liability.
As the clause now stands, a farmer who, in good faith, becomes a member of this syndicate, is exposed to having, some time or other and especially when he least expects it, to face a request for reimbursement which could easily break him.
In my opinion-the minister has himself admitted that this legislation is in its experimental stage and that before running we should learn to crawl-it is up to the government to introduce legislation which is of real benefit to the farmer and which does not expose him to incurring financial losses at a later date.
I feel that these suggestions are relevant to this clause and that the minister should consider them carefully. And I submit that he should now move the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Peace River.


Harry William Hays: We checked this with the
Department of Justice and they assure us there is no infringement as far as civil rights are concerned.
In my opening remarks I thought I had explained our position with regard to the other question which the hon. member raised.
Farm Machinery
I will repeat them for the benefit of the hon. member.
These loans will cover only 80 per cent of the machinery cost from the start, so the assets of a syndicate will be greater than its liabilities from the beginning. With regular repayments slightly higher than the rate of depreciation for the machinery, the assets should be worth more than the balance of the loan right through until the loan has been paid off. Furthermore, the fact that a syndicate's members know they are jointly and severally responsible is obviously going to do a lot to ensure that every member sees that the machinery is well maintained. They will all own it and each one of them will understand very well, I am sure that keeping it in good shape is the best way to protect his individual interests in the syndicate.
I know farmers pretty well. I don't think any of them are going to go into one of these deals without sizing up their partners pretty thoroughly. I think the judgment each farmer exercises with respect to his prospective partners will probably be the best guarantee we can have that these syndicates will be a success.
This was proven with regard to the syndicates in Britain. After the most careful consideration the government feels certain that the joint and several liability provision will not present any problem to any individual farmer wanting to take part in one of these loans. If another course were followed it might open the way to bad situations occurring among members of a syndicate. If something happened to make one member decide he wanted to get out, for example, he could be in a position to tie up all the assets of the whole syndicate if there were only limited individual liability. The corporation in recovering these loans to protect the interests of the taxpayers might have to seize the machinery because of bad faith by only one member. In other words, limiting the liability as suggested by some hon. members could put one individual syndicate member in a position where he could keep all the other members from continuing to use the machinery. By making all syndicate members equally liable no individual member will be in a position to spoil it for the others if by any chance this kind of situation did arise. The remaining members could assume the share of both the liabilities and the assets of a defaulting member and in this way protect their investment with the least possible trouble.

Farm Machinery
There could be another real benefit from taking the approach to syndicate liability proposed in this bill. It could very well help some farmers benefit from this type of credit who would not be able to qualify for credit on their own. I went on to explain circumstances in which a man might participate in a syndicate when ordinarily he would not be able to raise $15,000 under the terms of the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I thank the minister for his answer. But what would be the situation if, of three farmers forming a syndicate, one died and the other became insolvent? Would the third party be responsible for the entire debt? The minister told us that the assets would probably cover it. But he knows that the value of machinery depreciates considerably once it has been sold, simply because it has been bought and become second hand. In addition, the price which would be realized in a forced sale would probably be very low. Would the third party in such a case remain entirely responsible for the debt, the interest, and so on?


Harry William Hays: In the event of such a thing happening there would, in the first place, be a farm to be managed or disposed of, and I suppose that whoever was responsible would likely want to continue to use this machinery for some time. After all, we are dealing here with neighbours who are very close as far as these operations are concerned. Under the arrangements made to govern the British plan, such a situation as this was covered by the agreements. The hon. member for Cariboo suggested it should probably be taken care of by insurance, and we are looking into this possibility to see whether this can be provided for under the regulations.
I know such problems as these will arise. We shall have to deal with them as we come to them. But it seems to me the people who would be responsible for the farm of the deceased would want to share in the use of the machinery, and it seems likely that those concerned would wait to see what happened. Probably the syndicate would take in a third or fourth member.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Is it not a fact that there is nothing in the law as it stands which would offer protection?


Harry William Hays: These situations would have to be covered in the agreement, I suppose. Knowing farmers as I do, it seems unlikely to me that they would overlook these things.

I am sure they would be taken care of in any agreements passed by the officials of the corporation.


Mr. Forbes:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister one question for clarification. Can a farmer who has obtained the maximum Farm Credit Corporation loan of $55,000 and also a farm improvement loan of $15,000 be eligible for a further $15,000 loan as a member of a syndicate under this act?


Harry William Hays: Yes, that is so.


Richard Elmer Forbes: I hope the minister realizes that this is a total amount of $85,000, which is a considerable amount of credit for any one individual.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would indicate if he would consider bringing forward an amendment to make available to an individual farmer the same type of credit that is available to a group organized as a syndicate under this measure?


Harry William Hays: No, not at the moment.


Edward Nasserden: Could the minister give me the reason why he does not want to do that, Mr. Chairman? Surely there must be some reason for it.


Harry William Hays: The individual, of course, can borrow up to $15,000 under the Farm Improvement Loans Act; and this is twice as much as was the case three months ago. This particular bill is designed to help groups of farmers to buy machinery that ordinarily they could not afford to buy, which machinery can be used among themselves and would ordinarily only be used for ten days, 15 days or so in the year. We have spelled out the sort of equipment that can be purchased under this bill. This is what this particular measure is designed to do.


Edward Nasserden: I have no objection to the minister doing it that way, except that he is discriminating against the individual farmer. You are forcing farmers to join together in order to secure this additional loan, and it is additional to what the individual farmer can secure. I think this is a very serious discrimination and is one that will concern not only farmers but farm organizations across this country.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the last speaker's objection, it must be realized that the amount of money that is borrowed must be related to the ability to pay back. It seems to me that the whole intent

of this legislation is to unite two, three or four people so that their total responsibility individually is less. Certainly if we are going to get into a situation where an individual farmer is getting himself into debt without the use of machinery covering a large area, which this legislation contemplates, I think we are getting into an entirely new field. I also believe we must consider fanners as responsible individuals. I have a feeling through listening to this debate that we are trying to be godfather to the farmers and protect them from themselves. I do not think this is necessary at all. I believe that farmers are men who are mature enough-they are over 21-to look after themselves and enter into proper agreements.
As far as individual liability is concerned, this clause did concern me. I refer to the situation where death occurs. As the minister has said, they are looking into the possibility of providing insurance which will cover this particular aspect of the matter. This type of insurance is available to partnerships today from insurance companies. If you are in partnership you can get an insurance policy that will take over your liability and settle the debt. I think the government could easily follow the pattern of private insurance companies and in this particular case make certain that in the event of death the situation will not bring hardship to the other members of the syndicate.
There is one thing that bothers me in this connection. I refer to the matter of repossession. I think there should be in the regulations every conceivable protection for the farmer when it comes to the question of the repossession of any equipment. Having entered into this agreement, if circumstances arise which were not foreseen by the individuals-that is, in the event of something happening as a result of which repossession would be considered by the corporation-the farmer is now going to be left without any machinery with which to farm his land, if he belongs to a syndicate and the machinery is taken away. I believe some very sound measures of protection should be adopted in this regard.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 2 carry?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, before clause 2 carries I have one or two points I should like to place before the minister. I am slightly confused with regard to paragraph (A) of clause 2. Why does it need the inclusion of the words, "who are engaged in farming independently of one another", when 20220-554
Farm Machinery
the minister in answer to a question earlier stated that 20 members of a co-operative could join together in five syndicates; they did not have to be farming independently of one another, as I understood him, as long as each syndicate formed a new entity. In other words, I understood the minister to say that five members of a co-operative could form a new entity; they would not have to be farming independently, but could still receive loans under this bill.
I am somewhat confused on this issue and fail to see the reason for the inclusion in paragraph (A) of the words, "who are engaged in farming independently of one another". I have seriously considered asking that the words after the word "farming" be struck out and words to the effect of "farm co-operative associations established under provincial law" be written in there. This would make the clause a great deal clearer than it is now. We now have paragraph (A) reading that persons farming independently of one another can form a syndicate and that members of a co-operative-although it is somewhat confused-can also join a syndicate and take out a loan. However, as a co-operative entity already registered under provincial law, they cannot. I believe, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam pointed out earlier, that this is hardly necessary. The minister is asking a group of people who are farming jointly to keep separate books with regard to machinery which they are all using together.
I believe that before clause 2 is passed this question should be clarified. Perhaps the minister, after the wise counsel he has received this afternoon on this subject, would agree to forgo the passage of clause 2 right now and bring in an appropriate amendment as suggested by the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. The minister could bring in such an amendment after the supper hour and we could readily pass it at that time. We could proceed with clauses 3 and 4 now, if members of the committee are prepared to do this. I see the minister shaking his head. It is a sad thing that he spent nine months in labour on this bill. I think the gestation period was hardly long enough; perhaps he should have been like a horse and spent 11 months if he shakes his head at a reasonable suggestion that has been put forward for at least an hour and a half or two hours this afternoon by some very learned, legal members of this house, and some very experienced administrators such as the hon. member for

Farm Machinery
Bumaby-Coquitlam has proven himself to be with regard to legislation.
Surely the minister should take the sound advice that has been offered this afternoon. Rather than moving the amendment myself I would ask for the co-operation of the committee in this regard. Rather than having a vote on the amendment, I ask for the cooperation of the committee for the clarification of this bill. Perhaps we could forgo any further discussion on this particular aspect of clause 2 and proceed with the other clauses of the bill. The minister could then consider this question during the supper recess from six to eight o'clock. Surely this is not too much to ask. During the two hour supper period, he could obtain the best legal advice possible and find some way in which paragraph (A) of clause 2 could be clarified. Then he could come into the house at eight o'clock and put the amendment before us. Surely, Mr. Chairman, in view of the advice that has been offered this afternoon, the minister can be big hearted enough, imaginative enough, to see the reasonableness of this suggestion and bring in an amendment that would clarify this situation.
Some members have referred to the insurance aspect of this proposed loan legislation. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the minister has indicated he will give consideration in this regard, but I feel that consideration could have been given during the nine month gestation period which preceded the birth of this bill.
This legislation is to be administered by the Farm Credit Corporation, and I cannot see why, as suggested by the hon. member for Cariboo, the insurance aspect was not dealt with before this bill was presented. The Farm Credit Corporation now has a package deal in respect of farm loans, which includes insurance. Under the provisions of this bill the members of the syndicate are jointly and severally liable for the outstanding amount of the loan. I think the liability should also have been secured by an insurance policy, provision for which perhaps could have been included in clause 6 of the bill, under the 1 per cent service charge. This could easily have been done by including the word insurance in that clause.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister is in a co-operative mood this afternoon and is prepared to give serious consideration to the several proposals put forward. He has had the benefit of some good legal and administrative advice, as a result of which perhaps he can clarify certain aspects of this proposal

through an amendment which will be acceptable to the members of this committee and the farmers in this country.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, the insurance aspect has been taken care of in clause 3 of this bill which reads in part, "Every loan made pursuant to subsection (1) shall be secured by (a) a promissory note ... (b) such other security, including a mortgage-", and so on. In so far as the other question raised by the hon. member in respect of the independent farming of farmers of the syndicate is concerned, I suggest that if the hon. member for Acadia had six sons, each of whom farmed independently, they could form a syndicate and borrow $100,000 for the purchase of machinery.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In the event I had six sons who farmed on the basis of a cooperative association which held title to the land, could my six sons form a syndicate and benefit from the provisions of this legislation?


Harry William Hays: If you had two sections of land and your sons each farmed a quarter section independently, they could form a syndicate and borrow money under this act for the purchase of machinery.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not wish to prolong unduly the discussion at this stage, but I should like to have the situation clarified once and for all. It may be as confusing to many others as it is to me. If a co-operative association, comprised of my three sons and myself, or my three sons and three sons of another farmer, farmed land, the title to which was in the name of the co-operative association-you can tack any name you want on that association-would they be entitled to form another entity, call it a syndicate, and take advantage of the provisions of this act?


Harry William Hays: If those people were farming independently they could do so, yes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If my three sons and myself formed a co-operative association and that association owned the land, my three sons and myself could form a syndicate within the provisions of this act, provided we were farming four other quarter sections independently, is that right? Do I understand correctly that we would have to be farming other land independent of that owned by the association in order to form a syndicate for the purposes of this bill?


Harry William Hays: I think that point was raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. The members of a co-operative farm association could form a syndicate and borrow money under this act for the purchase of machinery.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It does not make any difference who holds title to the land being farmed, is that right?


Harry William Hays: Not necessarily.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why does this bill exclude co-operative entities?


Harry William Hays: We are not excluding the members of a co-operative association, but we are excluding the co-operative as such.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why are you exclud-ind co-operatives as such if you are not excluding the members? Why should the members be required to keep another set of books, another set of repair accounts and incur a completely different set of liabilities? I suggest that would be at cross purposes to the co-operative association they had already formed. Why is that particular restriction necessary?


Harry William Hays: Perhaps I can answer your question in this way. In so far as a co-operative association is concerned, there is limited liability. This legislation is designed to provide a means of making loans to each member of a syndicate to the extent of $15,000 to be secured by a promissory note and a mortgage on the machinery. If the members of the syndicate were members of a co-operative farming association, as I understand the situation, their liability would be limited, just as the liabilities of a limited company are limited.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Perhaps that difficulty can be avoided because the Farm Credit Corporation has the power to state the terms and conditions under which a syndicate can benefit through this legislation. If necessary the Farm Credit Corporation could stipulate that a cooperative farming association must apply any loan granted as a charge against its land and other assets.
The Farm Credit Corporation would be taking much less risk in dealing with cooperative farm associations, in view of the fact the land is owned by the association, as are the buildings, livestock and machinery, than in dealing with three individuals who are perhaps tenants and possess no other assets than the 20 per cent equity in the machinery purchased with the loan. If that 20220-554i
Farm Machinery
is the best reason the minister can give for not allowing co-operative associations to become syndicates under this act, I suggest it is a very weak reason indeed.
Co-operative farming associations should be allowed under this act to become syndicates and to operate as syndicates. If in that instance the Farm Credit Corporation wants to impose some additional requirement with regard to security I am sure there would be no difficulty about that. But to exclude co-operative farming associations or, what is almost equally bad, require them to borrow money under this legislation as a different legal entity with the result that they will have to keep two sets of books, will have to have different insurance and will be faced with the almost impossible job of keeping this machinery, separate from the other machinery on the co-operative farm, since all machinery is used jointly, and to do this simply in order to comply with legislation which has largely been copied from British legislation and does not really apply to our situation here, will in my opinion put cooperatives in the position where they will not benefit from the act at all. Maybe that is what the government has in mind, but if it is I want to say this is discrimination against co-operative farms. I think co-operative farms should be encouraged rather than being discouraged, particularly the co-operative use of farm machinery.
I have gone over all this before and I am not going to go over it again, but I should like to put an amendment before the committee. I propose:
That the words "who are members of" in lines 17 and 18 of section 2, clause (c), be deleted.
It would then read:
(c) "farm machinery syndicate" means an association formed
(i) by an agreement in writing, approved by the corporation, between not less than three individuals
(A) who are engaged in farming independently of one another or a co-operative farm association, as defined by regulation.
Some further drafting may be required, but that would permit a co-operative association to apply as a legal entity.


Lawrence E. Watson: Mr. Chairman, I would object to that simply because it would exclude members of a co-operative farm association.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, this clause does not discriminate against those people who belong to a co-operative. It does not discriminate. The hon. member for Burnaby-

Farm Machinery
Coquitlam referred to a co-operative farming venture in Saskatchewan with 20 members. Those 20 members in various syndicates of seven could, provided the corporation felt they were capable of repaying the loan and were in need of the equipment, borrow almost $300,000. If we were to do what the hon. member has proposed in his amendment we would limit the borrowing of this group of 20 people to $100,000.
We have looked at most of these problems and I agree that in a year from now we may be able to hurdle this one. We do not want to discriminate against the members of a cooperative. This is why they can as individuals form a syndicate and still be members of a co-operative doing exactly the same thing as their half dozen neighbours alongside of them. We feel we should give this legislation a trial on this basis and if merit dictates an amendment we are not only prepared to do so but are prepared a year from now to take the legislation and send it to the committee so that they may overhaul it.
The legislation is new and experimental. It is challenging. We think there is a great deal of merit in it if we are going to maintain the family farm in Canada. In addition, we are going to make it possible for those people who cannot afford to own large tracts of land to be on an equal basis with the farmer who has three or four sections, like the hon. member for Acadia. This will give the man with 160 acres an opportunity to be able to compete not only in the domestic market but also in world markets. For this reason I think we should leave the bill in its present form.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I am quite aware that the basic intent of the act is to help small farmers and this, of course, is most desirable. The primary purpose of the legislation should be to assist small farmers who cannot afford to buy the large and expensive machinery necessary today in order to farm economically.
Although the small farmers will get the greater benefit from this legislation, the legislation is not restricted to small farmers. It will also benefit the large farmer or whatever groups of farmers want to come together. So if we are going to give this opportunity to farmers generally it seems to me it is most unwise to rule out co-operative associations and particularly co-operatives for the co-operative use of machinery. These are all small farmers farming a quarter section of land and they have not been able to buy large diesel tractors. Consequently they have

had to buy small tractors whose operating costs are much higher. For this reason they have formed co-operatives, but under this legislation they are not going to be able to apply as co-operatives. Co-operative farms are not going to be able to apply.
It does not seem to me to be sufficient for the minister to say: Let us take a crack at it and we will have a look at it next year. We are drafting legislation and surely when we are drafting legislation we ought to try intelligently to anticipate all the problems that will arise. Surely we should endeavour to see that the legislation will apply equally and equitably to all kinds of farmers whether they are operating on a co-operative basis, individually, or operating co-operatives for the co-operative use of farm machinery. I do not think that the minister or the department have thought through the implications of this legislation. By restricting it to three or more farmers who form a syndicate, and leaving out co-operative farm associations and cooperative associations for the co-operative use of farm machinery, I think they have overlooked something which has great promise for the stability of agriculture in the future. I hope the minister will consider looking at this amendment or some other draft that his officials may consider more appropriate.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister this question. If he is going to be so agreeable a year from now and send this legislation then to the agriculture committee, why is he not agreeable to sending it to the committee now, before it is passed by the house? Is there any reason in the world why it could not have gone to the agriculture committee in the first place to iron out some of the difficulties that are prominent in the bill? We are trying to keep people out of trouble, not trying to get them into trouble. It seems to me that the minister is leaving the field wide open for people to get into a lot of trouble they otherwise would not get into if the bill had been sent to the committee in the first place. The only reason the minister does not want it to go to the committee is that the opposition members do. There is no other reason that I can see. Yet he is ready to send the legislation to the committee a year from now.


Mr. Otto:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam seems to have left the committee with the idea that co-operatives would be prohibited from coming under this legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As co-operatives.


Mr.   Olio@: This is not so, because if every member of a co-operative makes an application every member is jointly and severally responsible. There is nothing to prevent them from coming under the bill. They would not have to keep two sets of books. After all, the legislation says that three or more may apply. If there are 20 in the co-operative the 20 can go and borrow the money, and they can all sign. If every member of the co-operative signs it is tantamount to having the cooperative apply.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why keep them out then?


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, the last statement made by the minister caused me a great deal of concern. He indicated that a co-operative composed of 20 members could secure $300,000 and I took him to mean that the government would give its blessing to that type of thing. Was I right in drawing that inference?


Harry William Hays: If a loan of that sort was justified to do the job they had to do, yes. If there are 20 farmers in a co-operative and they are farming 20 sections of land I can see no reason in the world why they could not possibly borrow up to $300,000 under this legislation.
Mr. Nasserdenr Yet the minister would deny a farmer with one section of land $15,000 under this legislation.


Harry William Hays: He can get it under the farm improvement loans measure.


Edward Nasserden: The members of a cooperative can also get it under the farm improvement loans measure.


Harry William Hays: I don't think so.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister doesn't know.


Edward Nasserden: Do not tell us whether or not you think so; can they or can they not?


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for
Acadia.


Edward Nasserden: I think my question deserves a better answer than-"I do not think so"-from the minister.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Just before we hurriedly pass the amendment, I may say that we see the Liberal backbenchers are wholeheartedly in support of the minister's nine months of labour in preparing this bill.
Farm Machinery


Mr. Greene:: No split in this party.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is an interesting remark from the hon. member for Renfrew South. Last week he kept interrupting with remarks about the Bay street boys. I thought he had a little bit of a peeve on against the Bay street boys who refused him the leadership of the Ontario Liberal party. Evidently he has become reconciled now and says there is no split.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; may I bring to the attention of all hon. members the fact that we are now discussing an amendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The members across the way, Mr. Chairman, were trying to interrupt me and lead me astray while I was dealing with the amendment. I have not dealt with it at any length this afternoon. I have listened to the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam deal extensively with the poorly drafted clause that is before us. I have suggested to the minister in all sincerity that he and his officials look at this clause between six o'clock and eight o'clock and perhaps they could propose an amendment at eight o'clock. Surely, they could take advice that has been given by two learned gentlemen this afternoon.
Now, we see the members of the government hurriedly trying to push through this clause, not wanting to consult or take another look at a dream that might have entered their minds nine months ago. If I might continue the thought of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I may say that he mentioned the Hutterite colonies. He wondered if they could qualify as co-operative farms. The minister has suggested that a 20 member co-operative could borrow $300,000. Let us look at the Hutterite farm problem. Some of these colonies have 100 members, and if you divide that by seven you would find they could borrow $1,400,000 under this measure. If I am right, 100 members of a Hutterite colony, commonly referred to as a co-operative farm, could borrow this amount.


Harry William Hays: Perhaps I could answer the question now. Hutterite colonies are not constituted as co-operatives, nor are they constituted as limited farms, so under this legislation they would not be eligible for a loan.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I know the minister has a great deal of knowledge on most subjects, but I wonder if he is correct on that aspect of the Hutterite farm. He says it is not

Farm Machinery
a co-operative nor is it a legal entity. I wonder if he is correct. I do not want to question his word. He has many competent legal advisers who drafted this particular piece of legislation to which many members have referred as being ineptly drafted. I will phrase my question this way. Could these Hutterite colonies form co-operatives under provincial legislation, and then could they then qualify by forming as many syndicates as they could form?


Harry William Hays: This is a hypothetical question, but if a colony wanted to become individual farmers, to break up the colony, they would be eligible to form syndicates the same as anyone else.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister is not answering my question. I am not suggesting that the Hutterites become individual farmers. He is not asking the members of a co-operative to become individual farmers. The phrase "farming independently of one another", means nothing in the definition the minister gave this afternoon. This phrase should not be in the bill because it is only confusing. If a Hutterite colony formed cooperative entity under provincial law and then split up to form as many syndicates as possible, could they borrow under this measure?


Harry William Hays: Yes, that is correct; they could.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I just wanted to ask the minister one question. He has said that as the bill is worded now and as the Hutterite colonies are constituted in Alberta, they would not be able to qualify.


Harry William Hays: Not as one individual farm, no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They could as a colony?


Harry William Hays: They could if they were constituted as a co-operative.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, because my understanding, briefly, is that the Hutterites are incorporated by statute under the charitable enterprises act, or something like that, of the province. They are, therefore, really legal entities in that they can sign contracts as legal entities. They are like a corporation, except that they are not the type of corporation that shows profits when it comes to paying income tax.


Lawrence E. Watson: I should like to make it quite clear on the record that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam will drastically curtail the amount of credit available to a 20 member co-operative. Under
[Mr. Homer (Acadia) .1
the bill as it is now, a 20 member co-operative would be able to obtain approximately $300,000 in credit. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam will restrict this amount to $100,000.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister could get around that very easily by prescribing two limitations, a limitation which may apply to a syndicate of six or seven members, and a limitation which may apply to a co-operative farm association of 20 members. You could have two limitations, one for a co-operative association and one for a syndicate.


Mr. Danforth:: I should like clarification of that point. It has been said over and over again that this bill is primarily designed to help the small farmer. I should like to ask the minister if I am correct in assuming from the remarks he has made this afternoon that three farmers together can borrow only $100,000, which gives each one of them actual credit for $30,000. However, a co-operative farm consisting of 35 members may borrow up to half a million dollars. I should like this point clarified, because it is important so far as the small farm is concerned. Am I correct in assuming from the minister's remarks that it is possible for a farmer to borrow up to $15,000, but by taking seven members to form a syndicate a 35 member co-operative could form five syndicates and be able to borrow half a million dollars under the provisions of this bill?


Harry William Hays: In the first place, I do not think there are any 35 member co-ops.


Harold Warren Danforth: Well, Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The minister has the floor.


Harry William Hays: This bill says that a three farmer syndicate can borrow a maximum of only $45,000, and the limit for a seven member syndicate would be $100,000. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was speaking of a 20 member farm co-operative, and there are such big co-operatives in Saskatchewan. In speaking to his amendment, I said they would be able to form three sets of syndicates, two of seven members and one of six members, and the actual amount they would be able to borrow, at a maximum of $15,000 per person, would be $290,000. Under the suggestion that he offers this would be limited to $100,000, It is $15,000 multiplied by the number of participants, with a limit of $100,000, which

would make for a syndicate of seven members, although alternatively the whole 20 members could each borrow $5,000, with a limit of $100,000.
This bill is designed to make it possible for small farmers to buy equipment in which ordinarily they do not seem to want to invest such an amount of money, because it is just not practical for one farmer to own a $10,000 machine.


Harold Warren Danforth: I know of a co-op with 435 members, but am I correct in my assumption that if a co-operative has 35 members it could break into five syndicates of seven members each, and thus borrow up to $500,000 under the terms of this bill?


Harry William Hays: I think we are talking about two different things. The hon. member is speaking of farmers' co-ops as such, and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was speaking about farm co-operative associations where 20 individual farmers join together.


Harold Warren Danforth: That is exactly what I am speaking of.


Harry William Hays: With 455 members?


Harold Warren Danforth: I said 435 members.


Harry William Hays: 1 am not familiar with that.


Harold Warren Danforth: This is my point. Will the minister say it is possible for a co-operative of 35 members to break up into five syndicates of seven members each and borrow up to $500,000?


Harry William Hays: Yes, as defined by the regulations, and if the Farm Credit Corporation felt there was justification for lending them this amount of money.


Edward Nasserden: Was the minister of agriculture in the province of Saskatchewan consulted with regard to clause 2 of the bill?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I did not discuss the details of the bill with the provincial ministers. I discussed it generally with them at the meeting in Newfoundland when all the ministers met in their annual get together.
Amendment (Mr. Douglas) negatived: yeas 31; nays 61.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 2 carry?


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, government members say "filibuster," but there is another
Farm Machinery
important aspect to this. I would like to ask the minister some direct questions on how this affects a farmer's credit. This afternoon I heard him say that if the other members of a syndicate were willing, they could take in a young farmer who is just starting out as a farmer. Is it possible, as intimated by the minister, for an individual to come in as a member of a syndicate and borrow money under the provisions of this bill, without having any assets that would be taken into consideration by a bank? In other words, can a young farmer starting out come in without assets and borrow under this legislation? If this is not the case, then is it not true that the other members of a syndicate would in effect be countersigning such a young farmer's promissory note?


Harry William Hays: This is exactly right.


Harold Warren Danforth: I would like to carry that a little further. Do I understand from the minister that a man can come into a syndicate, have no assets, and borrow $15,000 under this bill?


Harry William Hays: There are joint and several liabilities. The machinery becomes an asset along with the farmers' notes, and I may tell the hon. member I have a great deal of confidence in the farmers of this country. I think they would be careful before they go into such a syndicate, and would only buy the machinery they need. You must remember that although the Farm Credit Corporation has lent something like $380 million to farmers, their bad debts are something like only $7,000. Farmers are good credit, and farmers who sign promissory notes live up to their obligations. I have no doubt this legislation will work well, as it has worked in other countries.


Harold Warren Danforth: This is an interesting proposition and I would like to carry it further. Take the example of the young farmer and a three man syndicate borrowing $45,000. They each may sign a promissory note, but only one man in the syndicate may have assets. Is that possible?


Harry William Hays: They are borrowing the money for the purposes of farming and they are buying machinery for the farms they operate. I think this is quite a hypothetical thing. Take any three or four farmers who are organizing a syndicate to purchase the machinery they require. They will take a very good look at anyone they invite to join their syndicate. We do not have any doubt that the farmers will be responsible, that the

Farm Machinery
loans will be paid, and that this legislation will be a help to them.


Harold Warren Danforth: I am sure the minister will have patience with me as I try to develop this point. I am interested in the effect of integrated farming in my own province of Ontario. If what the minister says is correct, would it not be possible for one individual, by making use of two other persons who have no assets but who are connected with farming, to borrow $45,000 whereas he himself might only be able to borrow $15,000?


Harry William Hays: If his assets justified such a loan. He would be a farmer; he would have land. The corporation would not be lending this individual anything if he did not have a farm. As the bill provides, he must be a bona fide farmer.


Harold Warren Danforth: The minister has told us that a syndicate member does not necessarily need to have bank assets, because his signature is backed by the promissory note signed by his partners in the syndicate. What happens if the situation is the other way round? What happens if a farmer is a member of a syndicate and has signed a promissory note for $15,000? What happens if he goes to the bank to borrow money for fertilizer? Is this liability held against him? Is not the entire liability of the syndicate held against his individual credit? Supposing the promissory notes are for $75,000. Is not this sum an obligation against the credit of each individual member of the syndicate when he goes to a bank to borrow money for seed or fertilizer?
Suppose a farmer wishes to borrow money through the Farm Credit Corporation. He has to list all his liabilities. Is not his total commitment to the syndicate taken into consideration by the corporation? The minister has told us that this measure does not affect the workings of the Farm Credit Corporation or the Farm Improvement Loans Act, but in any dealings I have had with the corporation I have found it to be interested in the total liabilities of a farmer making application for a loan. I should like the minister to give the committee a definite statement telling us how a farmer's credit would be affected by these provisions.


Edward Nasserden: I should like the minister to tell us what is the total amount of money a farmer can secure under the terms of the Farm Improvement Loans Act and under the present bill, if it is passed as it now stands. If a farmer secures the maximum amount, what is the total he can secure?


Harry William Hays: He would be able to borrow $55,000 as a supervised loan if he were under the age of 45, less the amount of his down payment. He would be able to borrow $15,000 under the terms of the Farm Improvement Loans Act and he could become a member of a syndicate which could allow him to use $15,000 for the purchase of machinery. Apart from that, I suppose if he wanted to own a house in town and buy a toaster and a radio and all that sort of thing, and if the dealers concerned thought he was worthy of credit, he could borrow to pay for these articles, too.


Edward Nasserden: The minister finds my question amusing, but he did not answer it. The question I asked was this: What is the total amount a farmer could borrow under the Farm Improvement Loans Act and under this legislation if it is passed? What would be the maximum amount? I am referring to money borrowed by one individual, supposing he entered one of these syndicates.


Harry William Hays: Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act I think the limit he could borrow would be $15,000. If he became part of a syndicate, using the maximum amount, he would be liable for the whole of the $45,000 because he would be jointly and severally responsible along with the other members of the group. We realize all this. After all, a man can borrow as much money as the person who is lending is prepared to allow him, on the basis of his assets and so on. Many farmers in my part of the country use $50,000,	$60,000,	$75,000 or $100,000
worth of credit at the banks.
The old way in which they did it was this. The bank used to say: This $75,000 you can have at 5J per cent-you can get it at 5 per cent in some other act-and we will charge you 6 per cent on the balance. Nobody can really say how much a farmer can borrow. Many people are prepared to lend a farmer $14,000 to purchase a 4-10 combine, with all its attachments. The farmer may be paying as much as 10 or 15 per cent interest. All we are trying to do in this bill is to enable people to acquire machinery without having to pay an excessive amount, so that the small farmer can compete with the richer farmer in both the domestic and the export markets.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: I hope the minister does not believe we are so childish on this side of the house as to be prepared to accept an answer like that. If a farmer takes a farm improvement loan to the maximum, and

borrows the maximum he can get under this syndicate arrangement, what would be the total moneys he could receive from these two sources? Will the minister answer that question.


John James Greene: Ask it in one of the two official languages, now.


An hon. Member:: Smart boy.


Edward Nasserden: Maybe I will put it this way, and the minister can tell me whether I am correct. A farmer can get $15,000 under the Farm Improvement Loans Act and $15,000 as his share under the present bill if he entered a syndicate. That would be $30,000. Is that not correct?


Harry William Hays: It is hardly correct because there is a partnership of three people and there is joint and several responsibility for the whole obligation.


Edward Nasserden: Surely the minister knows what I am getting at. You can borrow $15,000 under the Farm Improvement Loans Act and this legislation will provide another $15,000 per individual farmer entering a syndicate arrangement if the maximum amount were secured. This has no relation to the obligation a farmer takes on. This is the amount he can receive. The total comes to $30,000. Will the minister not give us an answer?


Harry William Hays: I do not understand what the hon. member is getting at. A farmer can borrow $15,000 under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. He can become a member of a syndicate of three individuals, which is the minimum, or he can join a syndicate of seven should he so desire. Under this bill, then, he would be allowed to borrow up to $45,000 along with two partners in a syndicate. He would be responsible for the $15,000, and also for the total amount as would be the other two members.


Edward Nasserden: Before this clause is passed may I say I think the discussion this afternoon has shown very clearly that this bill should have gone to the committee on agriculture for scrutiny. We have made no headway here today. We have heard the most evasive answers-


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Edward Nasserden: -from the minister in many instances. But from those answers which were definite we understand that a co-operative farm of 35 members can secure a loan up to $500,000 under this legislation. This was pointed out by the hon. member for Kent,
Farm Machinery
(Ont.), and it gives us some indication of the thoughts which are in the minds of hon. members opposite on the government benches. We on this side believe in the family farm and we believe that this type of legislation threatens the entire structure-


Harry William Hays: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not think this has anything to do with the clause under discussion at the moment.


Edward Nasserden: The minister may not think so, but I would point out that the clause states, among other things:
(c) "farm machinery syndicate" means an association formed
(i) by an agreement in writing, approved by the corporation, between not less than three individuals
(A) who are engaged in farming independently of one another or who are members of a cooperative farm association-
And so on. When he tells us that 35 farmers can secure half a million dollars of credit for a co-operative farm set up in this country he is the threatening the survival of the family farm.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would take the time to tell us exactly what would happen to the credit status of a farmer borrowing under the different parts of this bill. I am particularly interested in the effect it would have on his credit rating at a bank. With regard to a young farmer borrowing $15,000 under the Farm Improvement Loans Act and $15,000 under the syndicate plan, and under the syndicate he had an obligation of $75,000, the members of the syndicate being liable jointly or severally, what effect would this have on his credit rating with the Farm Credit Corporation if he desired to buy more land, or something like that? I would also like to know, what would be the definite responsibility with regard to a bank. It is very important that a farmer, when he is joining a syndicate like this, should know just what effect it will have in connection with his credit rating at a bank. The legislation provides that an individual farmer is liable for the entire amount borrowed by the syndicate. If a farmer borrows only $15,000, which is the maximum amount under this proposed legislation, and signs a promissory note if the syndicate has borrowed $75,000, is that $75,000 a credit liability against him at the bank if he goes there to borrow money for other purposes? I think this is important and farmers will want to know the answer

Farm Machinery
to this question; it has an important bearing on farmers' credit. That is why I pose these questions in the first place, Mr. Chairman, and I wonder whether the minister would be kind enough to give us the answers.


Harry William Hays: In reply to this question, Mr. Chairman, I am sure this will not hinder a farmer borrowing from the Farm Credit Corporation. I cannot speak for the banks. If he can participate in such ventures then his credit will be a great deal better than it is today, and he wishes to buy the type of equipment that will allow him to do the job that is necessary for him to compete in other markets, I am sure it will not hinder him in borrowing from the Farm Credit Corporation.
I cannot answer for what the banks will do. This depends upon their particular judgment. However, I am sure that if a farmer is properly financed and his equipment is such that it can do the job he wants done, and he does not have a $10,000 machine tied up in the barn that he is going to use for 12 or 13 days, but only has $3,300 in the machine and is sharing it with others, his credit rating is bound to be better. At least it would be if I were the bank manager.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, is the minister saying that as far as the banks are concerned this credit aspect was not taken into consideration in the preparation of this measure?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, the whole question of security and credit comes more aptly under clause 3. Perhaps we could pass clause 2 and get on to clause 3.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Loans to farm machinery syndicates.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, just to show the committee that I am co-operating 100 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -in trying to speed up passage of this legislation, I will be brief in my comments. The backbenchers over there, the trained seals, appear hungry; they seem to be snapping their teeth quite a bit. It is near the supper hour, when they will be fed and will be more content in the evening hours, when members who are seriously concerned with passing this legislation can deal with it in a more apt atmosphere than we have had in the last hour, with the snapping 
and snarling of the trained seals with hunger gnawing at them.
With regard to clause 3, Mr. Chairman, the minister has been talking about security and I have been very interested in his remarks in this regard. On one occasion he said they did not have to have security; a farmer did not have to have assets-I believe that was the phrase he used-to borrow money under this measure. He said all one had to have was the security in the 80 per cent of the machinery the syndicate purchased, and this would be the asset. They just had to sign a promissory note, but no assets were necessary apart from the promissory note. That is what the minister said at one time; but then he reversed himself and looked at the other side of the card and said, "Yes, they have to have some assets. They are all farmers"-


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member misunderstood me, in his hurry to speak before six o'clock. I would hope he would be factual about these things. I said that the farmer who was joining one of these syndicates would sign a promissory note-this is in the bill-and the security would be the promissory note as well as the machinery. This would be all the security. But the promissory note is a rather important document. You cannot borrow any money from any bank without signing a promissory note, irrespective of how much security you may wish to put up. This is always important.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I will put a hypothetical question because it seems to me that when we are dealing with examples the minister has a better understanding. Let us suppose my farm is worth $5,000; that is, the total assets are worth $5,000. Can I join with two other farmers and sign a promissory note for $45,000? Would that be taken as security? I ask the minister that point blank question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, certainly not. I am waiting patiently for an answer because I want this matter clarified before we pass the clause.


Harry William Hays: Would the hon. member repeat his question, please; I did not hear it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sorry I talk so quietly. My question was this, and it is a hypothetical one. Suppose my farm is worth $5,000 lock, stock and barrel. Could I sign a promissory note and would that be accepted,

in regard to a syndicate with two other members, for a total of $45,000?


Harry William Hays: Yes, if the other members were satisfied and were prepared to do this. I think this would be a matter of judgment. It depends on what you had in the $5,000. If you had $5,000 worth of bees and were going to purchase an extractor for the honey after having entered into an agreement, this would be a sensible thing. A great deal depends on circumstances.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister uses an example which is not applicable in this case, and this only confuses me more. He said yesterday that bee farming was not included under this measure, and now he uses that example. I want to clarify the legislation in this regard. I am not concerned with what my fellow syndicators feel about me; I am concerned about the lender, in this case the Farm Credit Corporation. Would they accept my promissory note if my total assets were only worth $5,000 and I signed a promissory note valued at $45,000? Would this be acceptable, in the eyes of the Farm Credit Corporation?
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock, in the hope that the minister and his officials will get together during the supper hour and review this whole question of security and credit.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal further with the questions I posed before the dinner adjournment.


Mr. Moreau:: Not again.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I see the hungry seals have not had enough to eat. Perhaps the supper hour should have been longer.
Before the committee adjourned for supper I posed a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Supposing I owned a farm and the total value of my assets was in the neighbourhood of $5,000, would the Farm Credit Corporation put any value on a credit note which I signed in the amount of $45,000? That is the question I posed to the minister who, with his officials from the Farm Credit Corporation in front of him, should be able to answer before I continue my remarks in respect of clause 3.
Farm Machinery


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I do not suppose we would lend money to an individual in that position. I doubt very much whether an individual who had only $5,000 in assets on a farm would find it necessary to form a syndicate for the purpose of borrowing money for the purchase of farm machinery of the type we have in mind.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think we are now
getting to the crux of the problem, Mr. Chairman. Let us suppose that the total value of my farm and assets was $15,000 and I, with two other farmers, formed a syndicate and signed a promissory note in the amount of $45,000, would the Farm Credit Corporation accept that promissory note as primary security?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I think I must reply in much the same fashion. It would depend upon the circumstances of the gentlemen who were going to form the syndicate, and whether it was a sound proposition. A decision in this regard would be based upon those facts, and the experience and judgment of the individual who was working for the Farm Credit Corporation, who would have to approve such a loan.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I think we are reaching the crux of the problem in respect of this legislation.


Mr. Francis:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I hear the hon. member for Carleton saying oh, oh. Perhaps he ate too much. Perhaps he is one of those trained seals who gorged himself during the supper hour. He spoke during this debate on the question of buying a backhoe and doing some extraordinary work. I am dealing with this particular question and I should like to get an answer.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Perhaps you have not been eating, but doing something else.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There, Mr. Chairman, we have a bright remark by the Minister of Fisheries. If he is making some kind of an accusation then he should be prepared to substantiate it. Let him stand in his place and make a charge.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is what you are doing.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They are all just sitting there in their seats. Why do you not get up and make a speech on this subject? Are you all afraid to?

Farm Machinery


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. May I suggest to hon. members that we return to a study of clause 3.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is what I am doing, Mr. Chairman, and that is what I have been doing. We have been listening to insinuations and smart aleck quips from a bunch of trained seals who know nothing and care nothing about this bill. They have made little or no honest contribution to our consideration, with the exception of one hon. member who offered his opinion in complaint about the interest rate. He suggested that the interest rate should be stated, and that the bill ought to make clear what interest is payable. I value his opinions very much. I do not think the rates should be more than the 5 per cent charged by the Farm Credit Corporation. He is the only member from that side of the house who has made any contribution. The rest have just made smart aleck quips, which is indicative of their lack of interest in the plight of farmers across Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister two questions. The last one was this: If I joined a syndicate and the total value of my assets was $15,000 would the corporation consider my promissory note in the amount of $45,000 of any value. The minister indicated that the corporation would not consider it of any value. He said that whether or not I received a loan would depend upon the situation and circumstances of the other members of the syndicate. In other words, what he has said is that unless I have unencumbered assets to the value of the requested loan my application would not be considered favourably. By the admission made a few minutes ago, the minister has confirmed my earlier fears, that it will only be wealthy farmers who will be able to take advantage of the provisions of this legislation.
If a syndicate desires to borrow $45,000, that syndicate must be formed of individual farmers who have assets to the total value of the loan required, and those assets must be unattached in any way. I suggest there are not very many farmers who own unattached assets of that value. I suggest that limitation in this bill is its ruination, and that is why I said very little in respect of the bill until this afternoon when we reached consideration of clause 3. Clause 3 says that each man must sign a promissory note for the total amount owing by the syndicate. In other words, in order for me to join a syndicate with seven other members and borrow $100,000 I must have assets and security 
worth $100,000. Otherwise any other bank or lending institution can attach my goods.
Someone said earlier that one can borrow $55,000 from the Farm Credit Corporation under part III loans, $15,000 from the bank under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and can then join a syndicate and as a partner in that syndicate borrow the maximum of $15,000. This makes a total debt of $85,000. But if the man joined a syndicate with seven other members and the syndicate borrowed the maximum amount he would then have to have a total net worth of $100,000. If we add to that the $55,000 that can be borrowed from the Farm Credit Corporation and the $15,000 under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, this means that the man will have to have a net worth of $170,000 in order to join a syndicate of that size.
Members on the other side say that this legislation is for the small farmers, the family farm. They will have to bear with me. I come from a part of Alberta where there are many small farmers. Their net worth is not too large and I should like to see them be able to take advantage of this legislation which the house has approved in principle, if it is at all possible for them to do so. I have studied the bill and have talked to various farmers in my constituency about it. I have deliberately talked to those farmers who I felt needed to enlarge their present holdings. I have talked to those farmers who I felt should have more money made available to them as a working tool to enable them to enjoy a standard of living comparable with that enjoyed by workers in other industries in Canada.
When I came to clause 3 and told them that as it now stands they would have to sign a promissory note making themselves liable for the total amount owed by the syndicate, they immediately threw up their hands and said that their banker knew how large a promissory note they could sign. He was familiar with their net worth statements. In other words, they doubted very much whether the corporation would be much more lenient than the banker in this regard.
I may have criticized the bill but I do not wish it to be taken that I am criticizing the management of the Farm Credit Corporation.
I think they have done a tremendous job. My constituents feel that the corporation has done a tremendous job. I have no complaints at all about the administration of that act. Let me make that abundantly clear.
But here we are dealing with the question of security. It has been my experience and

that of my constituents that the Farm Credit Corporation, to put it mildly, must have all kinds of security before they will make money available to an individual farmer to enlarge his holdings or buy a new farm. So I am somewhat dubious that this clause really adds anything to the bill. The minister has said that it must be there. He did not really explain fully why it must be there. He said that such a clause is always required in the case of most corporations and limited companies, but not necessarily all of them. He said that a farmer has to sign a promissory note when he obtains a farm improvement loan. He went on to explain that if a promissory note was not signed by each individual member of the syndicate for the total amount borrowed, then in the event of the death of one member the machine would be claimed by the Farm Credit Corporation and this would tie up the whole operation of the machine until it was cleared by the remaining members of the syndicate. In my view that was a rather weak defence of this clause.
I believe that if a promissory note is necessary at all each man should only have to sign for his proportionate share of the loan obtained by the syndicate. In other words, if three farmers join together and borrow $45,000 each should only be asked to sign a promissory note for $15,000. If seven farmers join together and form a syndicate and borrow $100,000 each, one would then sign a promissory note for a little under $15,000. Surely I do not have to go into detail with regard to the difference between approximately $14,000 and $100,000.
Members of the legal profession in this party and in the New Democratic party have pointed out the legal complications in which this clause as worded would involve many farmers. It is all well and good for the minister to say that the farmers know one another and they would not join a syndicate where there was some doubt with regard to one member's character. This may be all well and good. The farmers know one another and are good judges of character, I believe, but this will not stop complications arising in the event of a death. In addition, one member could get into many financial difficulties in his own activities outside of the syndicate, thus placing himself in a dangerous position in regard toi the syndicate.
The minister has accused me of being partisan in this debate. He has accused me of playing petty politics. If I have appeared to do so it is because of the plight of the small farmer. If I have appeared to seem annoyed
Farm Machinery
at the irresponsibility of some of the Liberal backbenchers it is purely because at times I have felt I am fighting in a lost cause, in trying to make this bill applicable to small farmers generally and, perhaps a bit selfishly, to the farmers of my riding particularly who have faced untold difficulties in years gone by. One could consider the area in Alberta in which they live to be a drought area which has been severely stricken by harsh weather conditions. While I may have appeared to be partisan at times in this particular debate, I would not want to be interpreted in that way. I was partisan on behalf of the small farmer, and the small farmer only. I am sure that my constituency is not the only one in Canada that has farmers in it facing unusual elements such as hail, drought, long distances from markets and so on. I am sure there are other constituencies in which farmers are in similar positions. I am sure there are other constituencies, the farmers in which can take advantage of the principle of this legislation, and join together.
I mentioned in some of my earlier remarks that I had joined in three different groups of my neighbours and bought farm implements, small implements. Farmers are not denied the opportunity of coming together and buying larger implements such as those envisaged by the minister in this bill. I sincerely want this bill made applicable to those small farmers of whom I speak. I do not care how they vote, what their politics are. My sole aim in being in this house is to try to better their condition. With this thought in mind I find that clause 3, subclause (2), paragraph (a) is in direct conflict with the aims and aspirations of many small farmers.
In an earlier speech I mentioned that a small farmer with assets of $20,000 will not sign a promissory note for a syndicate requiring a loan of something like $80,000. He will not mortgage his farm, his livelihood and his children's future by signing a promissory note for a syndicate composed of similar small farmers. No farmer is afraid of his own worth. No farmer is afraid to sign a note for a proportionate share of a syndicate loan. With this in mind I should like to move an amendment to this clause. I know there may be objections to the amendment from the other side of the house. I ask members on the other side to forget partisan politics and to weigh the virtue of this amendment. I ask them to think of the farmer with assets of $15,000, to whom I referred a short time ago. I ask them to recall that the credit corporation will not

Farm Machinery
allow him to join in a minimum syndicate requesting $45,000. The minister said his promissory note would not be satisfactory. I ask members of the house this evening to waive partisan politics, to be bold and think of the small farmer.
We, as legislators in this parliament, must be prepared to help those who can and will help themselves if they are shown the way. We should not concentrate our efforts upon helping those who really do not need our help. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, in all sincerity-those on the other side can laugh, and I forgive them. I ask them to waive their partisan politics and think of the small farmer. If the minister can change this particular clause in any way so that it does not exclude the small farmer, he should do so. The minister said that a farmer with total assets of $15,000 would not be allowed to take advantage of joining a syndicate. He said, no, the promissory note would not be worth the paper upon which it was written.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, he did not say
that, he said-


An hon. Member:: Worse.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: An hon. member says "Worse"; no, I do not think he said that. I am perhaps putting it in the worst possible light. I want to show exactly where the small farmer stands. I am pleading the case of the small farmer in Canada. Some members laugh, and I forgive them. They know not what they laugh at. If they could see the conditions that exist in many constituencies, even in western Canada as well as parts of Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes, I know they would waive their partisan politics. Put yourself in the position of a farmer with assets totalling $15,000. You feel that you could use more money, and perhaps you could, with the advice of a farm leader. I use that term rather loosely, but there is always a leader in any farm community. Perhaps if you could join a syndicate with him he could show you how to use this capital in a way that would permit you to secure a better standard of living.
While in some former speeches I have found this bill slightly objectionable, I think perhaps it could be of benefit to the small farmers in my constituency and in many parts of Canada. Without further ado I am going to move:
That clause 3, subclause (2), paragraph (a) be amended by deleting all the words after "undertakes" and the following be substituted therefor:

"be liable for his proportionate share of the outstanding amount of the loan."
This is the amendment I wanted to move. I do not want any hurried answer from the minister. Previously in this debate I have wished the minister would quickly rise to his feet and put me straight if I was in error. I do not want any hurried answer. I should like this subject talked about by some of the learned counsel on the other side. I should like the minister to consider the amendment and to think of the small farmers who do not have extra credit facilities available to them. I want him to think of the small farmer whose total assets may be only $15,000. Surely we as legislators should make this bill applicable to him. This is all I am saying: Surely, we should try to make this bill applicable to him. Has the farmer a bad record in putting up security to the Farm Credit Corporation? He has not; he has a very good record. Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act his record could not be better; and so I ask, why do we have to be so cautious? Why can't we bend a little toward aiding the small farmer?
I plead with the minister to give this serious consideration, because as the bill is worded I am convinced, particularly in the light of the answers he gave to my questions when I started to speak, that this bill by its provisions will exclude many small farmers who are in need of help. I suggest the minister give this more thought and that his learned parliamentary secretary, who has a great deal of farming experience and who has dealt with a lot of small farmers throughout his lifetime, should also give it a great deal of thought. I do not exclude the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation from this suggestion, because time and time again the corporation has been confronted with the plight of the small farmer. Do not forsake the small farmer in passing this legislation.


Lawrence E. Watson: Could the hon. member suggest how a small farmer can be excluded under this clause, since the minister has stated the security for a loan will be the machinery?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When one has just finished trying to explain a point it always causes a lot of despair when he is asked to explain it again, because it becomes very clear that the questioner has not understood his remarks. I know the hon. member is very interested in this legislation, but according to the minister's own words a promissory note, according to clause 3 (2)(a) is the pri-

mary security. Again to quote the minister's exact words, or relatively close to his exact words, the machinery is the secondary security.
I asked the minister a question at the beginning of my remarks. Suppose my total assets are worth only $5,000, which are not mortgaged to somebody else, and I sign a promissory note, would that promissory note be accepted by the Farm Credit Corporation? The only way I can arrive at a proper conclusion is to pose the question once again to the minister and hope he clarifies the matter for both of us. Suppose I am a small farmer and my total assets, lock, stock and barrel, are no more than $5,000 and I sign a promissory note, would the corporation accept my signature on a promissory note for $45,000? I believe the minister answered me in the negative previously. If I am wrong I hope he will correct my understanding.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, this bill is not designed to discriminate against any farmer, large or small, and in particular it is designed to help the small farmer. When the hon. member first posed his question he was speaking about giving a man with a $5,000 farm $15,000 worth of security, and this farmer, or group of three small farmers like him, may only need $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I don't want to interrupt the minister-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I don't want to interrupt-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You don't want me to get an answer.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please. Perhaps the hon. member for Acadia might ask his question after the minister has spoken.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Fine, Mr. Chairman, I have got till ten o'clock.


Harry William Hays: Such a group of small farmers would not be discriminated against. Perhaps I should review some of the remarks I made this afternoon covering the experience of farm machinery syndicates in Britain.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Acadia is rising on a point of order.
Farm Machinery


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I presume I have a right to speak on this amendment once again before it is voted on?


John James Greene: We would not miss that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want to be absolutely clear. I know I am fighting a lost cause.


Harry William Hays: It might help if I pointed out again that farm machinery syndicates in Britain were organized by the farmers and the farmers' unions, and that the farmers themselves, after looking into this very thoroughly-


Mr. Rock:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Acadia has left after asking for an answer to his question.


An hon. Member:: I can hear; I am listening.


Harry William Hays: The farmers in Britain, after looking into this thoroughly themselves, decided from the start that making individual syndicate members jointly and severally liable was one of the most important factors in ensuring the success of these syndicates.
We have the Reading University report on British farm machinery syndicates which says:
The key to the problem of credit was the joint and several liability of the participating farmers working together in owning and operating a particular machine as a specific and unrestricted partnership.
These British farmers saw for themselves that if they were going to work together in this way they were also going to have to share the financial responsibilities. I could continue and repeat all the remarks I made this afternoon, but I think I have answered the hon. member's question in saying the bill is not meant to discriminate against any farmer, small or large.


Paul Raymond Martineau: What would happen if a partner in a syndicate sold his share to someone else, or assigned his note to a finance company? Would the finance company become a partner in the syndicate?


Harry William Hays: The bill is designed for bona fide farmers, and it will be defined in the regulations as to how it will operate. The farmers will have quite a bit to do with their own agreements so far as regulations are concerned, and I do not think we are going to run into many problems in that regard.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think the minister will admit that the note is a negotiable instrument. It is a bill of exchange unless there are restrictions, and so far there do not seem to be any.

Farm, Machinery


John James Greene: Does the hon. member allege that a borrower can assign a note in Pontiac-Temiscamingue?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Before proceeding any further with the discussion on the amendment, the Chair would like to read it for the benefit of the committee. The hon. member for Acadia moves:
That clause 3, subclause (2), paragraph (a) be amended by deleting all the words after "undertakes" and the following be substituted therefor:
"be liable for his proportionate share of the outstanding amount of the loan."


Norman Platt Lambert: In connection with a syndicate member's equity in the machinery, does the minister indicate that in the regulations there will be a prohibition preventing his signing that equity over to any other full time farmer, or will the ordinary laws of property apply? If the minister answers the first part in the affirmative, then can he tell me how the federal government has jurisdiction over property and civil rights to prevent such an assignment in personal property?


Harry William Hays: Well, I think the other two members of a syndicate of three would have quite a bit to say if one of the members wished to get out. I dealt with that this afternoon and if you wish I can go over it.


Norman Platt Lambert: That may be so, but I asked the minister for the legal prohibition or regulation which would be imposed in order to control this, if that is what is contemplated.


Harry William Hays: The intent is that groups of three farmers or more will be a partnership, and all the laws of the province in which the syndicate operates will of course have to be respected and will be respected. The hon. member is posing a question. The situation being advanced is where a member wants to get out of the syndicate, or goes bankrupt or is not solvent; is that correct?


Norman Platt Lambert: No. I am putting the case of a member of the syndicate who says: "I want to sell my share to another person". In other words, another person is being brought into the syndicate to replace him. Or he may want to sell his share to a number of other people. Unless you are going to police this carefully I can see the position arising where three bona fide farmers enter into an agreement to borrow some money to buy machinery and then all three assign it to nonfarmers. Unless you are in some way going to police this sort of thing in that your regulations will then make the loan callable,

I think you are going to be in trouble. Is the minister foreseeing this type of situation?


Harry William Hays: Any loans made will have to be acceptable to the corporation, the Farm Credit Corporation, of course.


Norman Platt Lambert: Once they are made, yes. But what do you do six months afterwards?


Harry William Hays: The corporation would still have an interest in the syndicate. They would lend the money and the debt would not be retired.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I have two serious misgivings about clause 3. This clause provides that every loan shall be secured by, first a "promissory note", and second by "such other security" as the corporation may require. With regard to the first security, the promissory note, the provision is that this promissory note will require each member to undertake severally and jointly responsibility for the amount of the loan. I have listened carefully to the minister both this afternoon and this evening but I have not yet heard a satisfactory explanation of why the farmers who join a syndicate must accept joint responsibility. The minister has quoted from the British experience, and the farmers there seem to prefer it. He has also said something about the fact that no one farmer should be able to tie up the other farmers in the syndicate.
I must confess that I am not impressed with his argument. I am convinced that by requiring these farmers to accept joint responsibility as well as several responsibility you will make it extremely difficult for a lot of farmers to join these syndicates. If there are four farmers who are going to go together to form a syndicate and would be entitled to borrow up to $60,000 provided they purchased $75,000 worth of machinery, you see the liability that a member of that syndicate is assuming. First of all, he must put up his share toward providing $15,000 worth of cash for the 20 per cent equity in the machinery which the members must have in the first place. Then he must sign a note not only for his $15,000 but for the entire $60,000 which the syndicate are borrowing from the Farm Credit Corporation. If a farmer assumes this liability, how is this going to affect the credit of any member? What are his chances of ever borrowing from anybody else under any other circumstance? When a possible lender looks over his financial position and sees that he has signed a note for $60,000 for which he may be liable, this is not going to make him a very likely person

to whom anyone else would extend further credit. I do not know why the minister insists on joint liability. It seems to me that the Farm Credit Corporation is adequately secured if each farmer assumes responsibility for his share.
In the case of the instance I cited before, all four farmers who borrowed $60,000 would each be then responsible for $15,000. Remember that the Farm Credit Corporation has $75,000 worth of machinery as security plus "such other security" as referred to in paragraph (b), to which I will come in a moment. It seems to me that they are adequately safeguarded if the members of the syndicate assume several responsibility without being required to assume joint responsibility. I think that this will keep a lot of farmers out; they will be afraid that signing a note, which could be for as much as $100,000, would be so onerous that it would completely destroy their credit and their capacity to borrow anything in the future from any other agency.
The second thing about which I have some misgivings, and I would ask the minister if he can to clear this up for me, is this. The second security which the Farm Credit Corporation will take under paragraph (b) is-
-such other security, including a mortgage on the farm machinery purchased with the loan, as the corporation may require.
A mortgage on the farm machinery purchased with the loan is, of course, perfectly understandable; that is only to be expected. The Farm Credit Corporation would get a promissory note and also a mortgage on the machinery purchased with the loan. But what is the meaning of "such other security"? Does that mean that in addition the Farm Credit Corporation could take a mortgage on the land, or a chattel mortgage?


Harry William Hays: Fire insurance; life insurance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is not what the bill says.


Harry William Hays: Public liability.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is nothing in the bill which says that. It seems to me the bill leaves it quite wide open. A literal interpretation of the bill as it now stands would, it seems to me, enable the Farm Credit Corporation, if it chose, to say to the farmer: "We want a mortgage on your land"; or they could say they want a chattel mortgage. But nowhere is this spelled out. Perhaps it is covered by the regulations which will be passed, but certainly it is not covered here, because the bill says "such other security", which of
Farm Machinery
course includes the mortgage on the machinery which has been purchased. The term "such other security" gives a wider latitude, it seems to me, and I think the legislation should be drawn more definitively than it is.


Harry William Hays: So far as this particular part of the bill is concerned, this wording has been proven very successful in the Farm Credit Act. The Farm Credit Corporation regulations provide that the corporation may make a loan to a farmer on the security of a first mortgage on farm lands, and such additional security as the corporation may require. That might be fire insurance. It might be public liability. If one of these machines were, say, to go down the highway and for some reason or other became involved in an accident, if there were any public liability that would be covered by the regulations. So would life insurance, in the event that one of the members of the syndicate passed on. That is what is meant by "such other security", and this will be spelled out in the regulations exactly the same as it is in the Farm Credit Corporation regulations.
The hon. member asked me another question with regard to the members of a syndicate being severally and jointly responsible for the loan. Of course, this bill will also be under provincial jurisdiction, under the partnership act, which makes these people jointly responsible in any event in regard to farm improvement loans. They are jointly and severally responsible now in the situation where two members may borrow $15,000 each for a total of $30,000. This measure will operate in exactly the same way. The liability is not limited, so they are severally and jointly responsible.
The farmers in Great Britain, who have made this act work, felt this responsibility should be held by each member. I would ask hon. members to remember that 20 per cent of this amount is put down in cash and the balance of 80 per cent is lent. The amount by which the machinery will be depreciated, and so on, is set out in the agreement, under the regulations, and we have to approve the agreement in so far as the Farm Credit Corporation is concerned, to ensure that there will be sufficient security at all times to cover the total amount of the loan. The corporation is of course trying to help the farmers; they are not trying to keep these loans from them. These matters will be covered in the regulations in much the same way as loans by the

Farm Machinery
Farm Credit Corporation are covered, and that has proven to be a very good act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the minister has said the government are trying to help the farmers. I want to tell the minister that I do not know any private lending institution that is any tougher than the procedure the minister has just outlined in this case. This is what a man is faced with when he purchases machinery under this legislation. He puts up 20 per cent of the cost of the machinery; he is going to make out a promissory note for the remaining 80 per cent of the cost of the machinery, together with the other members of the syndicate. He is liable for the entire amount. In addition to that there is a mortgage on the machinery which is purchased, which is understandable. Now the minister says that in addition to this they have life insurance, fire insurance and public liability insurance, and any of this insurance can also be assigned as security.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member misunderstood me. There would be provision in the regulations whereby a farmer would have life insurance for his part of the loan as indicated in the agreement. If the machinery were stored in a building and was destroyed by fire, it would be covered by fire insurance. If there was public liability, this would also be covered. This is just the same as if he bought an automobile or any other piece of rolling equipment. I suggest that for his own sake he should have this protection.
The hon. member says we are making it very difficult for farmers to buy this machinery. I would ask him to remember that under the Farm Improvement Loans Act we lent last year something like $100 million to farmers to buy machinery. Apart from this I know that the farmers borrowed something like $240 million for the purchase of machinery alone at interest rates which varied from 12 per cent to 20 per cent. I am sure this will be a much better deal for them than they had previously.
Supposing a group of farmers wants to buy a rock picking machine or a posthole digger. Every farmer in western Canada has some sort of posthole digger, and I suppose this is the case in eastern Canada, although I am not so familiar with the machinery they use for putting up fences. But I know many of these farmers have equipment that costs $400 or $500 and the equipment is totally inadequate. A group of ten farmers could buy a machine that costs in the neighbourhood of $2,000. This machine will do the work that

is required, and their total investment will be in the neighbourhood of $200.
The people taking advantage of this measure will be responsible people. I must emphasize this. The farmers in this country are vigorous, thrifty, and know what they are doing. The people who are going to borrow money under this legislation will be quite responsible, I am sure, and the government will not lose money. Our farmers will receive a great deal of help from this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. A number of members have been trying to get the floor in order to participate in the debate on the very point that is now being discussed. I suggest all hon. members should be given a chance to participate in the debate. The hon. member for Villeneuve.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has not answered the question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Perhaps the hon. member could ask his question later on.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I am waiting for the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) to put on his earphone.
I have not been premier of Saskatchewan for 17 years, but it seems to me that I should also have an opportunity to express my opinion on this very important bill.
Section 3 provides that:
Subject to this act, the corporation may make loans to a farm machinery syndicate for the purchase of farm machinery.
This is clear. The second paragraph reads as follows:
Every loan made pursuant to subsection (1) shall be secured by
(a) a promissory note, signed by each member of the syndicate, in which each member undertakes to be jointly and severally liable for the outstanding amount of the loan;
This reminds me somewhat of the winter works program which has been in operation for about two years and in which we require that the people doing some work under the winter works program sign a promissory note to the credit union or the bank in order to draw their salary. This is somewhat what would happen in the case of the farm machinery syndicates.
Mr. Chairman, if we speak about farm syndicates, we do not mean necessarily that only farmers organized together may avail

themselves of such legislation. Outside people, people who have nothing to do with farming might form a farm machinery syndicate with the purpose of buying farm machinery.
In clause 3-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No, they must be farmers.


Mr. Bechard:: Why not read clause 1, first?


David Réal Caouette: I see, but we are now on clause 3.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I remind the hon. member that we are now studying an amendment concerning clause 3.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Acadia (Mr. Horner)?


Albert Béchard: He is the farmer's friend.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The small farmer's friend. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: No, Mr. Chairman. He must talk in favour of agriculture in his riding because due to the ever-increasing number of Social Crediters in the riding of Acadia, its representative would be a different person should elections be held today.
Mr. Chairman, I heard the hon. member for Acadia tell us a while ago that this bill was against the interests of the small farmer and he closed his remarks by saying that the same legislation or the same section favoured the small farmer. We are wondering what the hon. member for Acadia meant exactly.
I do not know whether he ever saw a farm in his life. He may have seen some, but when he moved his amendment, I wondered if seriously-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I think he has misunderstood me and I feel that I should correct him immediately. At no time did I say that the bill or this clause, as it presently stands, would be of assistance to the small farmer. Either the translation was in error or the hon. member misunderstood what I said, and I want to set him right in this regard.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member that while he may feel he should explain the situation, there is no point of order there.


David Réal Caouette: Clause 2 states that to belong to a farm machinery syndicate one has to
Farm Machinery
have the approval of an organization of which most members are farmers.
Mr. Chairman, such a provision is not contrary to what I have just said to the effect that the hon. member for Acadia, instead of enlightening the house on clause 3, has only succeeded in confusing the house by moving his amendment.
Is the object of this bill really to help the Canadian farmer from whatever part of Canada he may be? There were and still are in western Canada, particularly in Alberta and Saskatchewan, farmers fully equipped to grow anything the land can produce. But the same situation does not exist in our eastern provinces. And when I hear people like the hon. member for Acadia who told us, at one time, that it did not help agriculture but, a minute later, that it did help, I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) who, after all, not only had responsibilities as an administrator in his province but who also had a knowledge of the situation through his contacts with the farmers in Saskatchewan.
In that part of the country, Mr. Chairman, there was no lack of farm machinery. And here, if I may digress, I would say that all my relatives, on my mother's side, have lived in southern Saskatchewan since 1909. That was quite a long time ago; they knew years of prosperity and years of despair, after the droughts that prevailed during 1934, 1935 and until 1938.
Mr. Chairman, there are tremendous possibilities in Saskatchewan, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is aware of that. In that case it is not machinery that is lacking.
The hon. member for Acadia told us a while ago that this measure might help the farmer to take advantage of the agricultural machinery he needs to operate his land, that it might or might not help the farmer. He was so explicit that no one could understand a thing, just as the electors in his riding are unable to understand him, that is probably why he is here.
Mr. Chairman, people are not asking for agricultural machinery in the west. The western farmers are organized.
In the east, however, they may be needed in some cases. Neither machinery nor syndicates are lacking and our farmers are not deprived of good will. What we need is markets to sell our farm products.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member to point out that the remarks he has been making for the past few
876B

Farm Machinery
minutes are, in my opinion, far outside the scope of the clause under consideration and especially of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Acadia. It would seem to me that the hon. member for Villeneuve is now discussing the principle of the bill which was debated at the resolution stage, on second reading and during examination of clauses 1 and 2.
In the circumstances, I suggest to the hon. member that he restrict his remarks more specifically to the terms of the amendment and to the provisions of clause 3 now under study.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, may I say what I think of clause 3 or will you restrict me only to the amendment? If you restrict me to the amendment only, I do not have much more to say, except that the hon. member for Acadia has not thrown any light on the discussion by his amendment and has not given us the opportunity to understand better the spirit or if you want to put it that way, the idea of clause 3, and especially of paragraph (2) which reads as follows:
(2) Every loan made pursuant to subsection (1) shall be secured by
(a) a promissory note, signed by each member of the syndicate, in which each member undertakes to be jointly and severally liable for the outstanding amount of the loan;-


Lucien Lamoureux: Has the hon. member concluded his remarks?


David Réal Caouette: No, Mr. Chairman, I have not concluded my remarks, but some people are talking near me, and I cannot imagine how you can hear the reasons I invoke and the explanations I am giving.
So I will read again paragraph (2) of clause 3:
(a) a promissory note, signed by each member of the syndicate,-
If in a syndicate there are 15, 25 or even 30 members, each is personally liable for the loan granted under paragraph (1). In my opinion, it is not reasonable that everyone should be responsible for the whole amount of the loan.
It is fair that the syndicate as such be held responsible for the loan granted. It is still normal that everyone share the collaterals in such a loan. However, it should not be required that all farmers and settlers who formed a syndicate for the purpose of purchasing agricultural equipment be held individually responsible for the amount borrowed.
Mr. Chairman, section (3) of Bill No. C-121 clearly establishes that in such a case, the government does not pay, the Minister of
[The Chairman.]
Agriculture does not supply guarantees, but the farmers, the settlers and those who are members of the syndicate must endorse personal notes to guarantee the whole amount of the loan.
Then the Minister of Agriculture will tell us that he was generous with the farmers. As usual, the real assets of the farmers and of the Canadian people are used to make or authorize loans; and then we are told that the government was generous-and how many governments were generous-toward the farmers of Gaspe, the Abitibi and lower St. Lawrence.


Albert Béchard: They will remember it too.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I hear my good friend say they will remember it. Of course, they will remember it, when the time comes for them to pay back the promissory notes the government will force them to sign.
This does not mean that the hon. member for Acadia is very clear in his explanations. I have been listening to him for exactly 35 minutes. At the end of his speech we were no further ahead than at the beginning. The only thing he managed to tell us, and that is normal, is all the present government has not done. He forgot to tell us about what his own government, in power for seven years, forgot to do. This, then, is the true picture of the situation.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sure the hon. member will recognize, once more, that his comments go beyond the scope of the clause now under study.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, my remarks are confined to the section under consideration, as it is the case for my very good friend from Acadia who always follows the same standards of discussion.
On behalf of my party I wish to mention our desire to assist as much as possible our Canadian farmers in getting the farm machinery which would make things easier for them not only in one part of the country but throughout Canada.
When members from the various political parties realize the merit of what we are saying, I do believe, Mr. Chairman, that clause 3 will be amended in order to relieve our farmers and to urge the government to assist them further.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I have a few words to say in support of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Acadia. I even believe that the hon. member for Villeneuve will share my views if I say that this

clause, as drafted, is such as to destroy one of the most efficient and valuable assets of the Canadian farmer, that is his credit.
In fact, to require a farmer who borrows under the provisions of this legislation to be jointly and severally liable for the loan, is to place upon him an overwhelming burden detrimental to his interests.
As the hon. member for Dauphin said this afternoon, if this commitment is undertaken jointly and severally, it means that the individual farmer, that is each farmer who becomes a member of a syndicate, shall be responsible, individually, for the sum of $45,000. This, added to the loans he may have already obtained under the federal Farm Loan Act, the provincial farm loans acts, or the Farm Improvement Loans Act, means that the farmer may incur a debt up to a maximum of about $80,000. This is a burden which he certainly cannot bear. And it is a burden a solvent farmer must meet should the other members of the syndicate become insolvent and unable to meet their debt.
In my opinion, such provision should be deleted absolutely, as suggested in the amendment of the hon. member for Acadia.
And I repeat the argument expressed the other day by my colleague from Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul), to the effect that what the farmer needs is not additional borrowing facilities, which would allow him to get further into debt, but the means of obtaining additional sources of income.
In regard to this same clause-and I believe this concerns also the amendment-I wish to call the attention of the minister on paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of clause 3, which reads as follows:
such other security, including a mortgage on the farm machinery purchased with the loan, as the corporation may require.
The minister has spoken of mortgages on farm machinery purchased through a syndicate. However, there are no chattel mortgages in the province of Quebec and, consequently, this provision would not apply to Quebec farmers who might borrow under this bill. In addition, I do not think the provision concerning the mortgage on the farm machinery is appropriate in the circumstances because, according to the civil code of the province of Quebec, such a mortgage is an actual loan and can be given only if the lender has the physical possession of the thing given as security.
If that is the case, the provision is obviously useless to farmers.
Farm Machinery
There again, you have an instance of thoughtless drafting and I believe that this proves that all this legislation is obviously defective, to such an extent that, in my opinion, it is unacceptable. Either it should be referred to a committee, or the minister should reconsider this legislation which, to use the colourful words of my colleague from Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere is very badly made up.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I posed some questions to the minister in regard to the very point we are dealing with tonight, namely the farmer's liability and his credit rating if the bill should go through in its present form. The minister was not able to answer my questions this afternoon and I hope that he has obtained the information during the dinner hour. Perhaps if I put the question in a different manner he will be able to provide an answer tonight. Let us take the provision as set out in the bill and assume that a member of a syndicate has signed a promissory note for the total amount, which could be $75,000. If he has been accustomed to operating his farm with $25,000 credit at the bank, is it not true that the very fact he has signed a promissory note for $75,000 will destroy his credit rating at the bank? That is the first question.
Second, when a farmer approaches the Farm Credit Corporation for a loan under the terms of that act they are determined that the amount he borrows shall cover his entire financial obligation as an applicant. Is the liability of a member of a syndicate as far as the Farm Credit Corporation is concerned the $15,000 that he has perhaps borrowed under that act, or is his liability in approaching the Farm Credit Corporation the total amount of the obligation assumed by the syndicate? Perhaps in this fashion we can find out how the minister feels the credit rating of a farmer borrowing under the terms of this legislation would be affected.


Harry William Hays: If I may answer the second question first, he would not be responsible for as much personally if he was sharing the obligation with 10 or 12 neighbours, or half a dozen neighbours.


Harold Warren Danforth: Only his own obligation?


Harry William Hays: It would depend on the security. Supposing he was a feeder and he wanted to purchase a mixing machine which would cost in the neighbourhood of $22,000. Supposing there were 22 members sharing this machine, then it would mix feed for the whole 22 farm-

Farm Machinery
ers. If he were living in the eastern townships, this piece of equipment would save him in the neighbourhood of $3.50 or $4 per ton. This machine would mix his feed for a month, and he could use his home grown grain or he might be purchasing it by the carload from western Canada. I am sure that this syndicate would be advantageous to him, and the purchase of the machine would be advantageous in so far as his bank credit was concerned if he were operating under section 88 of the Bank Act. He may be feeding 300 head of cattle and he may have a 90 day feeding operation, or 120 days. If I were the bank manager I would look very kindly on his operation, because he could get his feed at a saving of $3 or $4 a ton. This purchase would be financed over seven years.
A lot depends on how you are financed, what your current obligations are and what your current revenues are. There are all kinds of people who borrow substantial amounts of money to perform certain operations in so far as agriculture is concerned. All we are saying of this bill is that this group of farmers can borrow money to do this sort of job. I do not believe it will hurt a farmer's credit at all. I think it would enhance his credit because it would make him a much better risk than he would have been otherwise.


Harold Warren Danforth: I do not believe the minister appreciates my approach to the problem. I will try to put it in another way. If I had to assume, as a member of a syndicate, an obligation of $75,000, by way of a promissory note, and I wished to borrow from the Farm Credit Corporation myself to buy more land, I am asking the minister this: When the Farm Credit Corporation approaches my total liability do they consider it to be the $15,000 that I have actually borrowed or the entire $75,000 that I have assumed by way of promissory note? This would make a great deal of difference in my credit rating with the Farm Credit Corporation.


Harry William Hays: You would be responsible on that obligation, as would the others. I think the person who was lending money for the purchase of additional land so you could enlarge your operations would be guided by your ability to pay. I believe all loans are made on this principle. We are setting up certain hypothetical cases which make the borrower look bad. People borrow money with the intention of paying it back. Sometimes it is easier to pay back a large debt than it is a small debt. I think we have to go back to the general meaning of this bill. It is designed to give
[Mr. Hays
three or four smaller farmers who wish to buy a certain amount of equipment which ordinarily they could not buy, an opportunity to do so.
Let us take the growing of corn as a good example. A couple of years ago we imported something like 30 million bushels of corn from the United States. This represented a tremendous amount of corn to me. We thought when we sold Russia 239 million bushels of wheat, it was fantastic. However, this sale represented one bushel per Russian. We imported 1.5 bushels per Canadian. Let us just tie these things together. We are really sort of a small nation now. With the proper kind of equipment we can grow this corn in this country. A person who is going to purchase corn picking equipment cannot afford to do it for ten acres. But it can be done for 300 acres. Now we are speaking of 30 farmers. I could go on and on to indicate places where there is justification for groups of farmers buying specific pieces of equipment that will make it easier for them to produce.


Harold Warren Danforth: I appreciate the general information the minister is giving, but can he tell me if my credit liability with the Farm Credit Corporation would be the $15,000 I actually borrow or the $75,000 that I have assumed by way of promissory note?


Norman Platt Lambert: My remarks tie in with the nature of the security that is being requested in clause 3, as well as with the amendment put forward by the hon. member. I wonder if the minister appreciates the situation with regard to the type of security he is going to be enforcing as it applies across Canada. We know that the promissory note is a joint and several one. I do not agree with the minister as to what several liability means. In other words, if I am potentially liable on a note for $75,000, that is the fact in which the man I go to see is interested. Am I possibly going to be liable for $75,000? The minister must agree that is a possibility.
However, I am not sure that the minister, even though he comes from Alberta, is fully aware of the complications that arise under the chattel mortgages act of that province in connection with enforcing a security. This is not going to be a conditional sales agreement proposition because the Farm Credit Corporation will have to take a chattel mortgage on the machinery. Under the chattel mortgages act of the province of Alberta, if you are going to proceed under a chattel mortgage, the chattel mortgage is limited to the machinery in question. You must elect

to proceed under either the chattel mortgage or the promissory note. If you proceed under the chattel mortgage to seize the machinery, then any unrealized balance on the forced sale of that machinery goes by the board.
Let us, for example, say that a machine worth $60,000 was purchased by paying 20 per cent down. There will be $40,000 on the chattel mortgage. Suppose the chattel mortgage is reduced to $35,000 and difficulties arise so that the corporation must realize on its chattel mortgage. Then, the machinery is only worth $25,000. I will tell the minister that under the law of Alberta the corporation will be stuck for $10,000 because it cannot then proceed personally against the makers of the note. On the other hand, if the corporation decides it is not going to move under the chattel mortgage but proceeds on the note, it obtains a judgment. Then the corporation could not attach any of the machinery in question because the provisions of the chattel mortgages act are immediately brought into play. This act limits the corporation, as a judgment creditor, to the value of these particular goods. Of course they are subject to the exemptions act of that province.
I am describing a condition that applies particularly to the province of Alberta. I am mentioning this because the corporation, in order to get the proper amount of security, will insist on something more than a chattel mortgage. It may take an additional chattel mortgage on all the cattle that are on the farm. After all, I think the Farm Credit Corporation officials will be quite aware of how the farm loan board used to proceed, and they used to tie up everything in order to protect the corporation.
I am pointing out certain difficulties in connection with the law, wherein the situation protecting borrowers in Alberta is different from that which prevails in other provinces. I will be very interested to see what type of regulations will be drafted, because the officials of the Farm Credit Corporation are not that naive, and I rather anticipate what their recommendations will be to the minister with regard to adequate security to protect any borrowings under this bill.
The more security the Farm Credit Corporation seeks the more a borrower will be tied up. He may say, "All right, I will borrow for this machinery," but he will find every other avenue of credit to him has been closed off, and it may take some very fatherly advice on the part of the officials of
Farm Machinery
the corporation to tell a man he should not borrow under this bill.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, at one time I had about 12 lawyers working for me. They were all good fellows but they used to get into arguments like this for hour after hour. As Minister of Agriculture I have indicated to the department the way we want this bill to operate, and the Department of Justice has agreed with all of the things we have suggested and is agreeable to our regulations. We are not promoting this bill in order that it will not work. The Department of Justice says we are right on this, and I would point out that it is that department's lawyers which guide the Farm Credit Corporation. I do not profess to be a lawyer and I know we could argue all night about this sort of thing, but I know the Farm Credit Corporation is going to administer this bill. We in the government know the intent of this bill. We know what we wish it to do for the farmers and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that so long as I am Minister of Agriculture this is what it will do, and we shall not lose any money on it.
We have been discussing this bill for six days. I have been doing a little calculation here and I find there are about 37 items of business on the order paper, and if they all take as long as this we will be here 222 days before we get all the government business done. We are prepared to go ahead with this bill, which is to aid the farmers. We have had the Department of Justice work on it, and we have had the Department of Finance look at it. Similar legislation works in Britain and in France. We have taken a look at their schemes and put their best features together, and these will be in the regulations along with the bill.


Norman Platt Lambert: In reply to that, I am as interested-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please.


Norman Platt Lambert: -in putting proper legislation on the books and-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please.


Norman Platt Lambert: -I will not have the minister say that I am going to participate-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat. I am wondering if the hon. member for Edmonton West has just an additional question to ask, because I would like to point out to him that a number of other hon. members have been rising

Farm Machinery
in the hope of taking part in the debate. Was the hon. member following up the previous question he asked and, if he was, could he make it short in order to give other hon. members an opportunity to participate?


Norman Platt Lambert: It is not a further question. It would be a commentary on some of the,
1	think, lighthearted remarks the minister made; but I will leave it as it stands.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have not yet had an opportunity to say a word about Bill No. C-121 the Minister of Agriculture is submitting. I did not take part in the debate on the bill at the resolution stage, nor at the first and second reading. When clauses 1 and
2	were called I did not say a word. But with regard to clause 3 I would like to say a few words and so ask the minister this. There is already a farm loan act in the province of Quebec. All well and good. There is also Bill No. C-121 which may be useful. On the other hand, there is just one thing I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and that is, will the Quebec farmers be able to get loans more easily under Bill No. C-121 than they have been able to under the Farm Loan Act?
I am entirely in favour of the act, but as it happens there is a shortage of inspectors, investigators, and agricultural advisers. No matter how many pieces of legislations are passed, if no loans are made, what is the use?
I should like the Minister of Agriculture to tell us that in the province of Quebec the staff will be increased, that the number of officials in charge of the administration of the Farm Credit Act, the number of officials required for a sound implementation of this Bill No. C-121 will be increased in such a way that the farmers of the province of Quebec can obtain loans.
When I was elected in the riding of Lapointe in 1962-


Lucien Lamoureux: At this stage, may I interrupt the hon. member to point out to him that according to the rules, he must restrict his comments to the clause now before us, that is clause 3 on which an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner).


Gilles Grégoire: I was precisely discussing clause 3 which deals with loans. I was saying it was desirable that they should be made equitably. I was also discussing the amendment because it deals with the provision
[The Chairman.]
liable for the total value of the farm machinery they could use.
For the information of the minister, in 1962, the Farm Credit Act under which loans were granted was already in force. In Saskatchewan, they had an average of four farm credit advisers for each riding, while in my district, at that time, there was only one for four ridings. That means 16 times less. Moreover, that person, instead of being there 301 days per month, was there for only one day.
However, the situation has improved and now we have two or three, in the four ridings, although there are at least four in each riding in Saskatchewan, Alberta or Manitoba.
There are only two or three in the four ridings of our region. Therefore, inevitably, this means fewer loans because there are fewer investigators. It would be the same thing for Bill No. C-121.
The minister stated that six days were devoted to the study of this legislation. I shall not even talk six minutes on the subject, but if he will kindly pay attention to my remarks that will be sufficient.
I am in favour of this bill and of the one regarding farm credit. But what we need to make such a bill effective in our section of the country is a sufficient number of officers within the department to make the necessary investigations, give the proper advice and make loans.
I would like to know if the minister is ready or willing to increase the number of his employees in our district. Right now we only have two Farm Credit Corporation counsellors for the four counties while there are four for one single county in certain parts of the country.
Will the minister be prepared to increase his staff so that those acts will become really effective? Since our agriculture is not the same as in the west, would he at the same time ask his staff to adapt the loans method to the type of agriculture which prevails in eastern Canada?
To give an example concerning Bill No. C-121, if a farmer has a farm where he grows wheat, he needs a tractor, machinery, etc. This machinery can be loaned by one farmer to the other, and several farmers can use the same tractor. But in my riding, if a farmer who owns a stable in which he keeps between 25 and 30 cows wants to have a stable cleaning machine, he will not be able to set up a syndicate with four or five other farmers to buy a stable cleaning machine for the use of one and all, because those machines can be installed only in one barn and once they

are installed, they cannot be moved from one barn to the other.
Now, did the minister think of these machines which cannot be moved from farm to farm, such as stable cleaning machines and automatic milking apparatus?
I hear one of the barkers of the Liberal party; I am used to hearing them, but could they not keep silent, because it is obvious that they do not know anything in that field?
The minister knows very well that a stable cleaning machine or an automatic milking apparatus cannot be moved from farm to farm.
One cannot ask a syndicate made up of three, five or ten farmers, who operate a herd of 25 to 30 head, to purchase a litter carrier, an automatic milking machine or some other machinery of this type.
First of all, would the minister be prepared to ask his officials in the province of Quebec to adapt themselves to the agricultural conditions prevailing in eastern Canada and then, could he increase his personnel so that the legislation may not remain dormant in the statute books, but that it may become operative?
Those are the two things I ask him to do, and I think they are quite reasonable.
First of all, let us have an adaptation to Quebec agriculture and, second, an increase in personnel so that the legislation may be effective in helping eastern farmers. I should like to get an answer from the minister in that regard.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member certainly has a point. The staff has increased up to about 32 from four, I think, in the last couple of years. So far as loans from the Farm Credit Corporation are concerned, since the first of the year they are up 23 per cent. Up to September 30 they are up over $80 million and I believe Quebec's percentage is even more than most of the other provinces. So there is room for more officials and that sort of thing, and we are looking at this matter all the time.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, can the minister say what is the average loan in the province of Quebec?


Harry William Hays: I do not have the exact figure but I think the average loan last year, if my memory serves me aright-I will correct it tomorrow if I am wrong-is for a greater amount than any other province in Canada.


Paul Raymond Martineau: What is it though?
Farm Machinery


Harry William Hays: Around $12,000 to $13,000, speaking from memory, but as I say I will correct this tomorrow if I am wrong.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Well, that is the point.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The hon. member for Lapointe wanted to ask another question and since he made the original contribution perhaps I should allow him to ask this additional question. Then I will come back to the hon. member for Pontiac-Temis-camingue afterwards.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, to admit that the minister is right, I must say that when the Liberal government came into office the whole of the province of Quebec had been granted for the previous year, 109 loans in 75 federal constituencies, while last year as many loans were granted in the four constituencies of the Saguenay-Lake St. John area alone. It is indeed an improvement-I am not afraid to say it-which has taken place in our constituencies alone.
However, I must say one thing; this figure is nevertheless 400 per cent lower than the loans granted in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
It is true that last year in the province of Quebec about 800 loans were made in the 75 ridings, compared to 1,950 in the province of Saskatchewan, 1,910 in Manitoba and 1,880 in Alberta. Even if in the past only 109 loans were made in the province of Quebec and even if that number was increased eightfold last year, I still believe the situation could be greatly improved. We would like to know how many applications for loans were made in my riding? Last year 90 applications were made and about 25 loans were granted; there had been only five or six the preceding year. It is nevertheless an increase of 500 per cent, and I commend the minister for it.
But what is the reason for this state of affairs? There are not enough inspectors. Since in the past our farmers often did not have the same service they had lately, they need more information, they must vary their crops, the inspector or the official has to remain with them longer in order to help them. Consequently, there is a lack of personnel.
Now, there were only-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member seems to be straying from the matter under consideration.
I know that he is dealing with loans. Could the hon. member resume his seat for a few

Farm Machinery
minutes so that the Chair could try to- explain its point of view, namely that the hon. member surely goes beyond the scope of the section now before us?
He is referring at present to the administration of legislation other than the one now proposed. Therefore I urge the hon. member to limit his remarks as much as possible to the administration of the present piece of legislation.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I will endeavour to remain as much as possible within the limits of the debate on this bill. Only the Chair knows as well as I do that whenever a wise man wants to make a decision, he has to go back to past events to make it sounder.
History has always been the first lesson taught to modern man, because things have a way of recurring. That is why history is taking such an important place in classical studies among students who want to become great statesmen.
In applying this principle, I am trying to use what has happened in the past as a lesson in considering this legislation, because the past constitutes a precedent which will enable us to improve as much as possible Bill No. C-121 and apply it in a better way than preceding legislation has been applied.
If this legislation is to operate efficiently, the flaws detected in previous legislation must be carefully avoided.
Under the former legislation, namely the Farm Credit Corporation Act, which is related to this bill, our province and the other eastern provinces lacked a sufficient number of inspectors; though they proved their good will by endeavouring to grant the largest possible number of loans, they could not cope with the task. We do not wish the same causes to produce the same effects in the case of Bill No. C-121 as happened with the act respecting the Farm Credit Corporation Act, that is, that it become inoperative through a lack of personnel.
The personnel of the Department of Agriculture is efficient. I can pay a well-deserved tribute to the employees of that department who work in our district. However, they are overworked to such an extent that they cannot visit all farmers who require assistance. This situation should not occur again as concerns the administration of Bill No. C-121.
I would ask the minister to see to that. There have been improvements. The minister gave us a few statistics. The request for loans has increased eightfold in my riding
[The Chairman.]
and in the neighbourhood, but that is still four times less than in other provinces.
Let the minister send two officials for every riding instead of two for four ridings. Let him send two in my own riding. Considering that there are four in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, I would be satisfied if he sent us two, because they could be of some use to the farmers and the implementation of the act would not be delayed for two or three years. That would be an improvement in our district and we could speak of crop insurance later on.
We will ask that crop insurance be applied-


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Bos-thern is rising on a point of order.


Edward Nasserden: It is rather a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Lapointe said there are four inspectors for each of these points in the west. I think he is departing very far from the truth when he says that. There certainly are not four per riding.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order. I do not know what province the member who has just spoken is from. If he is from Saskatchewan I can tell him that in that province out of 16 constituencies, 13 are rural and that there are 38 farm loan inspectors. If he will work out the average it is a little over 3J, or slightly under four, let us say.
The hon. member should study his statistics. I did so several months ago and I know them fairly well. I know there are a lot more than in our constituencies, from 3J to four on an average. If he will take a look at the farm loan board reports he will see that I am not as far from the truth as he alleges.
To get back to what I was saying, our agriculture can be improved if we increase the number of people responsible for administering Bill No. C-121 as was done for the Farm Loan Act.
There is also another piece of legislation to be brought forward, the crop insurance legislation. It is to be applied concurrently with Bill No. C-121, Mr. Chairman, and it is important, because if the eastern farmer does not have a guaranteed income from his crops, the guarantee in regard to payments on his equipment will be void, because in order to pay for his farm machinery Bill No. C-121, the farmer will have to make some profit, otherwise, he obviously would be unable to pay back his loan.

Then crop insurance which is being talked about will be one of the guarantees which will allow the farmer the required income to pay for his equipment.
I would also ask the minister to bring forward the crop insurance legislation right after Bill No. C-121 has been passed and adapt it to the province of Quebec.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make just one comment with regard to the answer given earlier by the minister when he said that in the province of Quebec the number of loans reached 60. If it is so, we are very glad.
I remember that following the new legislation on farm credit the number of farm loans in the province of Quebec had substantially increased under the former administration.
I should like to point out now that credit facilities are already available to farmers. The Farm Credit Act allows him to borrow, in some cases, up to $30,000 and the minister stated that the average loan amounted to $12,000 or $13,000, which means that the credit facilities for loans of $17,000 or $18,000 already provided in the act, are not put to use. That is why I think that it is more important to pass legislation which would bring about an increase in the farmer's income rather than to make available to him other means of getting farther into debt since he does not yet put to use all the credit facilities already available to him.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Acadia.


Mr. Whelan:: Filibuster.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
It is our right to discuss the laws which are brought before the house. The member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) and the member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) wish to violate the privileges of the members of the house by trying to keep them from speaking.
If they know nothing about agriculture and if they have no desire to help the farmers of their constituencies, they can at least allow others to speak.
20220-555J
Farm. Machinery
I am discussing a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, and the member for Bonaventure will certainly not prevent us from speaking in the house.


Lucien Lamoureux: Will the hon. member for Lapointe come to his question of privilege?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My question of privilege is as follows. It is our duty as well as our right to stand up for the interests of our constituents in the house. The hon. member for Bonaventure, who remains seated without saying a word, except for grumbling, is not going to prevent us from doing so, nor is the hon. member for St. Denis.
For many evenings they have been here and they have not stopped grumbling. They talk during the elections, but at no other time.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I ask the hon. member to resume his seat. He explained the point he had raised previously and I am of the opinion that a question of privilege cannot be debated at this stage of the work of the committee.
Therefore, I suggest that members forget the difficulties that occurred and I recognize the hon. member for Acadia.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, you could at least call them to order when they are out of order. If they do not want to see about the plight of their farmers, we on our side of the house want to do so.


Albert Béchard: You are always out of order. [Text]


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Acadia.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I have been quite interested in the remarks made since my amendment was moved. Many members have spoken. I feel that I should tune in to these remarks from across the way; they may be interesting.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would hate to miss any wise comments that may be made from that side of the chamber. Much of the debate since I moved the amendment has dealt with the application of the Farm Credit Corporation. I have no particular complaint to make with regard to how the act is administered; in fact I think the chairman and the members of his organization have been doing a tremendous job all across Canada. But here we are concerned with a new act under which the corporation is to be given the authority to

Farm Machinery
administer and regulate these loans. The minister complained that we are holding up the business of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -and he figured it out and counted up the days spent on estimates. I know the minister is anxious to put this piece of legislation on the books.


Mr. Davis:: Talk it out.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am going to talk until ten o'clock. If you are worried, fine. You don't have to help me, because I have a great deal to say and it will take me more than the next three minutes.


John James Greene: Will any of it make sense?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is no object in my pleading the case of the small farmers, if it is falling on deaf ears. If members opposite want to continue to howl like jackals, fine; I can stand here in silence. The minister complained about myself and other hon. members holding up this piece of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: That is right.


John James Greene: It is on the record.


Lucien Lamoureux: May we have order. It is
very difficult for the Chair to follow the remarks of the hon. member.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is nothing
further from my mind than holding up this legislation. I have been sent here by the farmers in my riding to do a job. If it takes me an extra hour this evening, I am prepared to ask that the committee sit an extra hour. I will stay here-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -if it takes me an extra hour to make my point. If it is necessary in order to make this legislation applicable to the small farmers in my riding, I will spend two hours or three hours extra this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister complained about our holding up legislation by making inquiries this afternoon. All he had to do was put this matter before the agriculture committee and then this house could have proceeded with something other than this particular measure. If this question had been sent to the agriculture committee we could have had officials appear before us; we could have inquired to our hearts' content into this measure without holding up any of those

pieces of legislation that are on the order
paper. I draw this to the minister's attention because he complained that we were filibustering or holding up legislation that is on the order paper.
I am doing my job as I see it. If I am wrong, fine. I moved an amendment after asking the minister a question. The minister answered that question. He said that if I joined a syndicate and the total assets of my farm were $5,000, and I signed a promissory note for $45,000, it would be of little or no value. He did not say that exactly, but that is what he meant. If hon. members opposite dispute that, Hansard will prove that I am right. I will deal with this question tomorrow and I will read it to them from Hansard when this debate resumes. If hon. members opposite think that the minister implied something different, that is what he said; or that is what I interpreted him as saying. In that event, Mr. Chairman, I say that this bill as it now reads and this particular clause as it now reads will not help the small farmer. That is what prompted me to move the amendment.
I see it is ten o'clock. I am pleading the case of the small farmer, and if the committee agrees to sit longer I am prepared to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Chairman, in view of the willingness of the hon. member to not see the clock for a few moments, I wonder if we could continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the Liberals are too tired to go on sitting, that they are nervous and spend their time chatting, I think it would be preferable to call it ten o'clock; it would allow them to take a rest.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it the wish of the committee that I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Because of the nervousness shown by the Liberal members I believe it is better to call it ten o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It being ten o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the acting house leader what the business of the house is for tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to advise the house that the business
Business of the House
for tomorrow is exactly that which was announced on Friday for today.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the forecast for Wednesday? Will we be on estimates or on legislation?


George James McIlraith: I am sorry I am not able to give that information.
<	*	f f. * *


Tuesday, October 6, 1964


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
. . [DOT] [DOT] ' '** [DOT] ,
	
	r
	
	
	
	
	
	
* : [DOT] [DOT] .[DOT][DOT].4 ;	
. V *