1964-10-06

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on veterans affairs-Mr. Forgie.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask him whether, as reported in one or more of the financial papers, a plan has been arrived at which was allegedly revealed to the Canadian auto parts manufacturers last week, whereby the elimination of tariffs on automobiles and automobile parts will be brought about between Canada and the United States, in effect setting up a free trade arrangement therein between these two countries.


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not catch the question part of the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Has such a plan been arrived at and was it revealed to the Canadian automobile parts manufacturers last week?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and ask him whether any consideration is being given by the government to a plan whereby there will be a removal of or substantial reduction in both United States and Canadian tariffs with regard to automobiles over a period of four or five years, accompanied by a gradual increase in the total share of the North American market available for Canadian plants. Has any consideration been given to that?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. gentleman would agree with me that the prospect he has just outlined is one which all Canadians would welcome, and were the government able to bring about a situation in which there was a substantial reduction in the barriers to North American trade, accompanied by a corresponding increase in production in Canada, all would welcome it. Naturally consideration is being given to the best means of achieving precisely these objectives.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say whether a report in the Financial Times to the effect that a major step was taken last week when the plan was revealed to Canadian automobile manufacturers, who are expected to discuss it with their U.S. parent companies, is correct?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the orders of the day on the correctness or otherwise of newspaper reports. If the right hon. gentleman seeks some specific information I would be glad to give it to him.


John George Diefenbaker: I am after information, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister discuss this question last week with Canadian automobile manufacturers, and was it suggested that they should discuss it with their U.S. parent companies, to the end that progress could be made in this connection?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I did have a discussion with the automobile manufacturers of Canada regarding the problems they were facing, in order to increase Canadian production. We did explore a great many of these problems and a number of possible solutions to them. I may say that during this discussion no conclusions were reached.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Industry whether any conclusions were reached in his deliberations with the automobile parts manufacturers last week in this connection.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The same answer, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry UNION CARBIDE SHARE ISSUE-PURCHASE BY CANADIANS
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Marvin Gelber (York South):: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance tell the house whether the recent share issue by Union Carbide Company of Canada, Limited, which has been so well subscribed, is largely held by Canadians?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the underwriters called me yesterday and said this particular issue had been greatly oversubscribed; that there was a geat demand for these shares by Canadians. Practically all of them were sold to Canadians and, as they put it, it was all due to legislation which has been enacted by this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question I am about to ask is not a planted one. What will be the effect on the Canadian taxpayer of this transaction, and how much will it cost? Is it correct that this transaction will cost the Canadian taxpayer $10 million, as reported yesterday by Mr. Meyer in the Montreal Gazette; and would the minister while speaking as the proponent of this wonderful legislation indicate what are the advantages to the Canadian economy of $60 million which is to be invested by Canadian taxpayers in a United States subsidiary operating in Canada, the same $60 million thus being removed from investment in Canadian enterprises? Is that the objective of the policy of the government?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, while my right hon. friend's question was not planted I think we will all agree it was well cultivated.


John George Diefenbaker: All my questions are.


Mr. Bell:: Don't you put any fertilizer on it.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The hon. member suggests I should not try to fertilize it. I think it is the kind of question which tends to fertilize itself.
As to the first part of my right hon. friend's question, I am not quite clear which newspaper columnist calculated how much this was going to cost the Canadian taxpayer. Actually this transaction involves the payment of a substantial dividend prior thereto on which there will be a substantial with-

holding tax which will accrue to the advantage of the Canadian treasury. Apart from that, this transaction means that Canadians are being given an opportunity to participate in the ownership of a very large Canadian company which has been prosperous in the past, and which I hope and expect will be prosperous in the future. To that extent the investors should all benefit and I hope they will.
I am not sure about the last part of the question. It seemed to me it rather reflected doubt on whether Canadians should be encouraged to acquire an interest in Canadian companies in their own country. Personally I am all for this.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, so there is no mistake about this, may I say the inference drawn by the Minister of Finance is, as always, entirely in error. What we are saying is that the plan in question is not working out. I ask the minister this. According to Mr. Meyer this one transaction will immediately cost the Canadian taxpayer $10 million. Is that statement of Mr. Meyer's correct?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how it would cost the Canadian taxpayer $10 million. Did my right hon. friend ask or does he know what Mr. Meyer had in mind? I did not happen to read the article.


Marvin Gelber: Mr. Speaker, can I ask whether the Minister of Finance could tell the house if Union Carbide have made similar issues in other countries?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the officials of the company informed me some weeks ago that they have made similar issues, or that their subsidiaries in other countries had made similar issues, and that this has all worked to the best advantage of everyone concerned.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Finance a question which I directed to the Prime Minister last week and which he promised to look into. In view of the statement by the Minister of Industry in a speech in Montreal to the effect that the Canadian economy is not growing fast enough to provide sufficient employment opportunities for

the growing labour force, and in view of the fact that the figures just published show that the gross national product for the last quarter did not increase substantially and that the non-farm sector declined slightly, does the minister plan to introduce any emergency measures to stimulate the growth of the economy?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the middle part of my hon. friend's statement about the growth of the gross national product, I would point out that in reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition last week or the week before, I explained that the gross national product for the second quarter of this year was some 8.2 per cent higher than for the corresponding quarter a year ago, so that any suggestion that there has not been growth needs a little explanation.
In the way the statistics came out there was a statement to the effect that there had been no increase in the second quarter over the levels of the first quarter. This was because of the various policies designed to push some of the activities that normally occur in summer back into the winter months, to relieve unemployment during the winter. But I can assure my hon. friend that the economy would seem to be going along at a very satisfactory clip. I have said on other occasions that we do not expect the figures will show an upward surge in the quarter that ended in September, but we do expect a further upsurge in the last quarter, the current one, and it seems probable that the total increase for this year over last year will be of the order of 8 per cent.
In these circumstances I do not think any crash emergency programs are called for, although I can assure my hon. friend that the officials of my department and I are working on various measures that might be needed if the economy should turn up too far or if it should turn down, but at the moment there is no sign of that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether the very optimistic statement he has just made is not in disagreement with the statement of the Minister of Industry, to the effect that the economy is not growing fast enough to provide sufficient jobs for the growing labour force?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed to say I have not read the speech of the Minister of Industry who, as some hon. members of the house know, is my brother in law. I suppose this will get me into a 20220-556
Inquiries of the Ministry lot of trouble, but I shall see if I can get a copy of the speech and read it. In the meantime I remain optimistic.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour in connection with the speech of the Minister of Industry just referred to by the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam. What does the Minister of Labour propose to do to build up the unemployment insurance fund?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a
very wide question which could hardly be expected to be answered on orders of the day. Perhaps the hon. member would put it on the order paper.



MONTREAL-BENEFITS TO LONGSHOREMEN SUSPENDED BY INTERNATIONAL UNION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Last week I asked him some questions concerning the Montreal dockers who were dismissed from their jobs by their union. I asked if they would get unemployment insurance benefits, and the minister was to give me an answer by the end of the week.
He was not here yesterday, but is he today in a position to tell us if those dockers will receive unemployment insurance benefits?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Claims involving two longshoremen were decided by an insurance officer in Montreal and those two claims for benefits, as I understand it, were disqualified because in the opinion of the insurance officer the men had restricted their availability for work. They were therefore disqualified under that particular provision of the Unemployment Insurance Act. It was pointed out to these claimants that they are free to appeal this decision to the board of referees.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask an additional question.
Did those men appeal that decision?

Inquiries of the Ministry
The minister is certainly aware of the case. These men are dockers or stevedores in the Montreal harbour. We are told that they refused work. They did not refuse to work; they were dismissed by their union.
Will the minister give specific attention to those cases?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: These cases have been dealt with by an insurance officer as provided in the law. The insurance officer has determined that these men had restricted their availability for work; it is on this ground that benefits have been denied. But the applicants have been advised that they are entitled to appeal this decision to the board of referees. The hon. gentleman will realize that under the law the insurance officer in the first instance, the board of referees and finally the umpire have total and complete jurisdiction with regard to the determination of a right of this kind.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour.
Is it his intention to look into both those cases in order to see that the freedom of the Montreal dockers unions is respected, under the statutes of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lake St. John.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister was about to rise to answer my question, after hearing it through his earpiece.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not propose an investigation into this particular case, but I did indicate to the hon. gentleman last week certain steps, or a variety of steps, which might be taken by these individuals in order to further determine their rights.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
It is about the winter works now in course of preparation in this country.


If the minister is aware of the situation, can he confirm the fact that his department has issued to municipalities and the provinces forms containing typographical errors which had therefore to be sent back to the federal department, which will entail considerable delay in the start of winter works?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My information is that the forms which are normally distributed to the municipalities had to be altered this season to take into account the changes which are being made in the program. They are presently being processed by the queen's printer and ought to be available this week. I have no information that forms were circulated and then withdrawn because of errors.


Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
I believe the Quebec government have had to set aside requests from the municipalities precisely because the forms contained printing errors that had to be corrected.
Is it true that forms containing printing errors were sent to the provinces?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I presume the forms in question are those which were in use last year, but I will make inquiries to see whether there is any further information I can give.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
In view of the fact that the Department of Labour is responsible for preparing these forms could the minister assure the municipalities that they can nevertheless go ahead with their projects when the winter works season starts?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: At the proper time these forms will be made available for approval, before the date upon which the winter works program commences.



EFFECT OF OIL IMPORTS ON BALANCE OF TRADE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. To

what extent have increased imports of crude oil and petroleum products in the past few months contributed to our adverse balance of trade and international payments?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, imports of oil into Canada are usual and normal, and on a large scale, as the hon. gentleman knows. I do not think any increase in imports has occurred which has had any significant effect upon the matters contained in the hon. member's question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the minister would look into this question and see what the extent of this increase has been in recent months.


Mitchell William Sharp: I can assure the hon. gentleman that I have been doing that very thing.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce?
I would like to ask the minister whether he has received requests for assistance from the government of the province of Quebec to sell off all the pulpwood that the Liberal party bought in Dorchester county in its bid to win the election?



ALUMINUM PRODUCTS-REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING PROPOSED TARIFF CHANGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government made representations to the government of the United States regarding proposed changes in tariff duties on certain classes of aluminum products imported into Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Acting Minister of Transport a question on a topic which was initiated by the hon. members for Hastings-Frontenac and York-Scarborough last Friday. I should like to ask first if he has heard from the board of transport commissioners whether they are prepared to hold 20220-5561
Inquiries of the Ministry a public hearing on the abandonment of passenger service between Peterborough and Toronto. Second, can the minister tell us whether any of the subsidies that the C.P.R. is receiving at the present time as a result of the MacPherson report, or that it is planned it will receive under the new legislation, are in lieu of keeping passenger services operating?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as to the first question, the answer is no. As to the second question, I will have to take it as notice.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. By saying "no" does the minister mean that the board of transport commissioners has decided not to hold a public hearing?


George James McIlraith: No. The question was
whether I had heard from the board of transport commissioners advising me that they were holding a public hearing, arid I answered "No" to that question. With regard to the question now put by the hon. member, I will undertake to find out whether they are holding a public hearing and give the answer in the house.



NOVA SCOTIA-REPORTED INTENTION TO REDUCE SERVICE BETWEEN HALIFAX AND YARMOUTH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	1
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the importance to the citizens of western Nova Scotia of the present Dominion Atlantic Railway dayliner service between Halifax and Yarmouth, will the minister investigate reports that the railway plans to cut the present service in half; and does he know whether a public hearing will be held?


George James McIlraith: I should like to take the question as notice.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General in his capacity as the federal minister responsible for housing and urban renewal. Within the past two weeks the minister announced that he would be
8782	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry meeting with the Ontario minister of economics and development and the Ontario minister of municipal affairs some time this week. I would ask the minister whether he has in fact met with them. If so, can he give the results of the meeting to the house; because I believe that in part they are important to the city of Hamilton.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise not only the hon. member but hon. members from other Ontario ridings that along with the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation I met with the two provincial ministers for several hours earlier today. In my opinion and in theirs it was a very successful meeting. We discussed possible urban renewal programs in various parts of the province of Ontario, also public housing in the province of Ontario, how to avoid duplication of effort and duplication of expenditures and other matters. It was, as I have said, a good meeting.
I should also like to advise the house that we have agreed to have a meeting or conference in Toronto on November 23 and 24 to which representatives of the cities and other municipalities and members of this house will be invited to attend. It is part of an educational program. That meeting will be followed by one in northern Ontario either early in the new year or possibly later this year.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister discuss with the provincial ministers anything concerning the city of Hamilton, particularly the redevelopment program in the riding of Hamilton West?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent question, as the Hamilton city council has approved this area as a redevelopment area and they are waiting for a reply in order to proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: As I have allowed the first question perhaps the minister could finish with this matter quickly.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that following this morning's conference questions were put by a newspaperman to one of the provincial ministers, and if the hon. member will listen to the news broadcast tonight I think he will get a full answer to his question.



VANCOUVER-POSSIBLE EVICTIONS FROM VETERANS HOUSING PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chalierion (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General as the minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. With regard to the Fraserview subdivision, is the minister aware that a widow with a pension of only $84.50 has received her eviction papers, and that a man with five children who is awaiting a delayed workmen's compensation cheque has been served with notice of eviction? If not, will the minister consider ordering a delay in such drastic action to give him time to look into such cases?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have already advised the house, and I think the hon. member was present at the time, that notices have gone out to the 60-odd people who had not yet agreed to the new rental arrangements, that this was a legal formality that had to be gone through with, but that each individual case would be considered on its merits. While I am on my feet I might say that of the 1,164 housing units originally included in the Fraserview project, all but 52 of them have been satisfactorily disposed of.


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. According to yesterday's Vancouver Province a Mr. Henry R. Bates, a member of the Vancouver South Liberal association, stated that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources agreed with him a year ago that the across the board price would be $7,130. In view of this would the minister give further consideration to having a public hearing on this question?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would rather let the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources speak for himself. I can say that each of these individual cases will be considered on its merits, but when over 1,100 of 1,164 housing unit cases have, according to my information, been disposed of, that is to the satisfaction of the tenants and the owners concerned, I see no reason for a public hearing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he will assure the house that none of these persons who have not signed new leases will be evicted without first having their cases examined by the minister himself.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: If any one of the tenants wishes to take the matter up with me personally, I will be very glad to do so, either on an individual basis or through the hon. member who has just spoken or any other member. I certainly will be glad to look into them personally.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister has said that each individual case will be decided on its merits. May I ask the minister by whom? If it is not going to be done by the minister, will this be done by some official of C.M.H.C.?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member knows, we have responsible Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials in Vancouver.
The people concerned have been invited to take the matter up with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The fact that a great many of them, I would say several score, within the last week or ten days, have been able to work out satisfactory arrangements with the corporation would indicate that the tenants have been able to reach agreement with the officials of the corporation. If there are any who wish to go beyond that, I will be glad to deal with them on an individual basis, if necessary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the officials of C.M.H.C. look into the financial circumstances of these persons before evictions are granted?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: As I have intimated even though notices were sent out, these people are encouraged to come and put their cases before officials of central mortgage and housing. If they do not see fit to do so, I do not believe central mortgage should be asked to look them up individually. It should be the duty of the tenant. The Lord helps those who help themselves.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to put to his parliamentary secretary a question which is based on a dispatch published in the newspapers recently to the effect that nine of the 12 C.N.R. directors have completed their three-year term.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell the house whether those directors will be re-
Inqnines of the Ministry appointed or whether the minister is considering the appointment of French Canadians as directors?


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the government's decision will be announced in due time.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. I would not want him to think that we are ignoring him today. In view of reports that the conference of the Minister of Justice with the attorneys general of the provinces has concluded, is the government in a position to make any statement as to the results of that conference on the amending of the constitution?


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the conference has concluded its plenary meetings. However, the Minister of Justice is carrying on this afternoon with several private meetings, with the attorneys general. In any event I think we should wait until he returns tomorrow.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: On September 17, Mr. Speaker, I gave a preliminary answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere regarding the government's intention in relation to Mr. Robert Shaw, deputy commissioner general of the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition. On that occasion I said I had asked the board of directors of the corporation for their views. On September 29 I received from the commissioner general the text of a resolution approved unanimously by the board the previous day. This resolution reads as follows:
In reply to the Minister of Trade and Commerce's invitation the board of directors wants to express its full confidence in Mr. R. F. Shaw, deputy commissioner general of the 1967 world exhibition.
Immediately on receipt of this resolution I conveyed it to my cabinet colleagues and to the Quebec government. With the concurrence of the Quebec government, the Canadian government has decided it is in the

Inquiries of the Ministry interests of Expo '67 that Mr. Shaw should remain as deputy commissioner general. This decision was made after a careful examination of the judgment and evidence in a recent case involving the Foundation Company of Canada.
As I have already said, Mr. Shaw has done an outstanding job as deputy commissioner general, and it is the government's view that his continuation at his post is very much in the interests of the success of the exhibition.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Can
the minister advise the house if this resolution by the board of directors of Expo '67 was obtained under a threat of resignation by the commissioner general, Mr. Dupuy, as is reported apparently authoritatively in Le Devoir?


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot say anything about the accuracy of the report which appeared in Le Devoir and which I have seen. I was not present at the meeting. I simply asked the commissioner general to ask the board of directors their views. He reported to me in terms as I have reported to the house, and he informed me that this resolution was approved unanimously.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In anticipation of the minister's estimates, will he kindly inform himself on the question I have raised so we may not get the same kind of general answer on that occasion?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would welcome any discussion of this matter during my estimates. I think it is most important to the success of the exhibition that not only the government but everyone concerned should have full confidence in Mr. Shaw.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roseiown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday he made the following statement, as reported at page 8730 of Hansard:
In so far as poultry are concerned, I have met the people who seem to be in the worst trouble, the turkey producers. I
I presume the minister was referring to his meeting with the turkey producers in Winnipeg. Did the minister, at that meeting in Winnipeg, give the turkey producers any


hope for the reimposition of quotas on United States turkeys coming into Canada?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: We discussed this at the meeting, Mr. Speaker. X am still waiting to hear from the executive of the turkey federation. They were going to send me a list of the things to which they thought we should be giving consideration. As yet I have not heard from them.


Clarence Owen Cooper: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister give the house that report when he gets it from the turkey producers?


Harry William Hays: Yes, I will be pleased to do so.



BEEF CATTLE-CORRECTION OF STATEMENT RESPECTING IMPORTS FROM U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a correction in Hansard, page 8730. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce I am reported to have said:
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.
I should have said:
-beef cattle in Canada were much higher than they were in the United States.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: May I
ask the minister, then, was the express purpose of the importation of beef into Canada to lower the price of Canadian beef on our market?


Harry William Hays: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that it had this effect on the Canadian market. Generally Canada exports to the United States in the neighbourhood of 500,000 head of cattle a year. This year, as the result of much lower prices in the United States, a certain number of cattle moved into Canada. Our position was such, because of the buoyant market, that we were able to consume the 500,000 head, and consumption rose by 9 per cent.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Chretien (Si. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance?
Since the Creditiste candidate, Bernard Dumont, lost his deposit yesterday in Dorches-

ter county, will the members of the Rallie-ment Creditiste who supplied that amount be entitled to a receipt for charitable donations so that they might deduct it from their income tax?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Simpson:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not believe we should take the last question too seriously.


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Lapointe serious in his point of order?


Gilles Grégoire: That is beside the question.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Simpson: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, but in his absence I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Can he inform the house whether the government has requested the C.B.C. to prepare an up to date study of the areas which are not now serviced by C.B.C. television? If not, will the government consider asking for such an up to date study?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I shall bring this
question to the attention of the Secretary of State.



CERTAIN GROUPS NOT INCLUDED IN PAY INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council, supplementary to one I asked him on September 24. Is he yet in a position to say when pay increases will be announced for members of the protective staff, messengers and tradesmen of the House of Commons?
Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the pay increases for those groups in the House of Commons staff will come after the cyclical pay revisions of group D of the regular civil service. I expect that will be some time in late winter or early spring.


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Perth):: As a supplementary question, may I ask the President of the Privy Council has the category of the security staff of the House of Commons been changed to come after group D?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. These questions should be addressed to the Chair, in writing.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour or the Acting Prime Minister. According to a news item in the Toronto Telegram, Charles Millard, one of the trustees of the S.I.U., stated that we should forget Hal Banks; we found him, let us forget him. Is he trying to cover up something for the government or for the S.I.U. itself?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under the instructions given me an hon. member should not inquire as to whether a statement made in a newspaper is correct. It seems to me that this question falls directly within that limitation imposed on the Chair.


Raymond Langlois: I think 95 per cent of the questions in this house arise from statements read in some newspapers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



MARITIME UNION TRUSTEES-APPEARANCE BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has been in touch recently with the board of maritime trustees about the desire of the members of this house for that group to appear before the industrial relations committee. If so, will they appear some time before the end of the year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give an unqualified assurance to the last part of the question, that they will appear before the

Inquiries of the Ministry committee this session, which I may say I hope will not extend beyond this year. I have not been in touch with the chairman of the board of trustees since the matter was raised last week, but officials of my department have discussed it, and I hope to be talking with the chairman soon.


David Orlikow: When the minister does speak to the chairman would he draw his attention to a number of questions I put on the order paper some five weeks ago, which go to the heart of how seriously the trustees are following the instructions given them in the legislation? I may add that my questions have not yet been answered.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do that.


Michael Starr: When the minister refers to "they" does he mean all three members of the board of trustees will appear before the committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I recollect the exchange of correspondence and discussions with Mr. Justice Dryer, it centred upon the appearance of the chairman. I have not raised the matter of the other members of the board appearing, so this is the situation at the present time. The assurance was that the chairman himself would appear, and I do not know what arrangements he might make for his colleagues.


Michael Starr: Would the minister convey to the trustees that, in my personal opinion, it would be preferable that all three should appear?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to direct the attention of the board to the views expressed by the hon. member for Ontario.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: In
view of the fact that this board is a creation of parliament, does the minister not think parliament should decide who should come before the committee, and not the trustees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that when the appropriate committee meets it will itself wish to decide who should appear; and if the committee issued a call for the other members of the board I am certain they would respect the wishes of the committee.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Considering that any member of a corporation, banker, agent of a trust company, director, member or official of a company who defrauds the said company is liable to be extradited; considering that at page 115 and following pages of the French version of the Norris report Hal Banks is accused of having defrauded the S.I.U., does the Minister of Labour intend to avail himself of that section of the act respecting the extradition of a person and of the charges laid in the Norris report in order to take proceedings against Hal Banks concerning those cases and have him extradited from the United States into Canada so he can serve the five year jail sentence which was imposed upon him?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, all I can say on this point is that all the facts have been considered by two very eminent counsel, Mr. Robinette and Mr. Maxtineau. They have concluded, and recommended accordingly, that a charge be laid for the particular matter for which Mr. Banks was convicted. I understand, and this of course is subject to the word of the Minister of Justice, that there was no further recommendation with respect to any other charges, after they had considered all the available evidence.


Gilles Grégoire: Another supplementary question. Should we conclude that it is not the intention of the government to lay against Hal Banks other charges that could bring about his extradition to Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As a non-lawyer, Mr. Speaker, I would think you have to have evidence before you lay charges, and presumably these two eminent counsel could not find evidence.


Gilles Grégoire: Another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister, in view of the importance of the matter-if he has read the Norris report- whether he has not seen the charges laid by

Mr. Justice Norris that would bring about Hal Banks' extradition?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This questioning has continued at some length, and it seems to me that the Minister of Justice is the proper official to whom these questions should be directed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On a point of order, I think I ought to correct the impression left that in the commission report of Justice Norris there was evidence upon which charges were to be laid. Mr. Justice Norris himself recommended that counsel be appointed and that counsel so appointed were to gather evidence upon which future charges might be laid.



ONTARIO-APPLICATION RESPECTING PROPOSED NUCLEAR PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Industry, following up my query of last week in respect of a nuclear power plant and its location in Ontario, and whether an application had been approved by the atomic energy commission, at which time the minister said no application had yet been received. In view of reliable information I now have that the Ontario hydro commission submitted an application dated September 3, will the minister say whether the application has been approved, or when it is expected to be approved by the atomic energy commission?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the statement I made last week, to the effect that no application had been received, was correct. Since then an application from Ontario hydro has been received by the atomic energy control board and is now under consideration.


Michael Starr: In view of what the minister has said, that his reply of last week was correct and that no application had been received, and in view of the fact that I have information from a reliable source that the application was forwarded on September 3, a month ago, will the minister reconsider his answer?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I will check my source, and the hon. gentleman might check his.


Michael Starr: I checked mine.
Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



REQUEST FOR ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Agreed.']
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege involving the Secretary of State, but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. It has to do with the business of the house. Can the parliamentary secretary give us any reason why order paper questions 1,453, 1,550, 1,606, 1,623 and 1,642, which have been on the order paper since July, have not been answered? I would refer also to questions 1,705, 1,727, 1,729, 1,766 and 1,810, which have been on the order paper since August, also starred questions 1,874, 1,889, 1,902, 1,925 and 1,982.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Kootenay East has a speech to make I wish he would rise.


Mr. Byrne:: You are out of order.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: He does all his talking from his seat.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand this is a matter of privilege, and I should like to hear the end of it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It was meant to be. These questions have been on the order paper for some time, and I would ask the parliamentary secretary when we may expect the answers.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has raised a very detailed question. I do not think I would want to take up the time of the house dealing with each of these questions in particular.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to address to the Minister of Labour while he still has his crystal ball, foretelling the rest of the session, in front of him. Is it his intention during the current session to bring proposals before parliament to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this matter was dealt with by the Prime Minister in the very early days

Inquiries of the Ministry of the session, and I have nothing to add to what he said on that occasion.


CONSIDERATION OF MOTION RESPECTING THANKSGIVING DAY SITTING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with a motion that is on the order paper, and I direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. I am wondering whether we might proceed with the motion in the name of the Minister of Justice that this house do not sit during the visit of Her Majesty the Queen on Monday. I think all hon. members of the house, being loyal, would be most anxious to give support to this motion, and I am wondering whether the government intends to proceed with it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the house would wish me to take this opportunity of saying, in the absence of the Prime Minister, how pleased and honoured we all are in this house and in this country that Her Majesty the Queen is in Canada at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is the wish of the government that we should not sit on Monday. If we have not proceeded with this motion yesterday or today it is because of consultations which are taking place with various sections of the house so as to facilitate the business of the house. I am sure we shall not be sitting on Monday, and I think in view of the discussions which took place among party leaders this morning, or which may take place later in the day, I might ask the right hon. gentleman to let his question stand until that time. I am sure it is the wish of this house that we should not sit on Monday, and steps to that end will be taken.


John George Diefenbaker: It certainly is.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: What does the Acting Prime Minister mean by "consultation with various sections of the house"? The entire Conservative party is in favour of the motion which is on the order paper and is not blocking it in any way at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would hope that in a matter of this sort the hon. gentleman would not seek to establish an issue. He knows perfectly well to what I was referring. I was not referring to any particular party.

Because we want to obtain the end result I have mentioned, the hon. gentleman, who is usually co-operative would, I am sure, not wish to be unco-operative in this respect.


John George Diefenbaker: I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that he be co-operative, too, and not refer to Her Majesty's loyal opposition as a section of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish to be cooperative with all sections of the house. I could refer to the right hon. gentleman's group as a segment.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the Postmaster General announced the construction of various post office buildings throughout the country under the winter works program. He also added that the Minister of Public Works would soon buy the land to this end.
May I ask the Minister of Public Works how the officials of his department usually proceed in purchasing such land?


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


Raymond Langlois: The answer could be short, and I should like the minister, if possible, to take my question as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.


FARM MACHINERY
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, October 5, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-121, to provide for the extension of credit to farm machinery syndicates-Mr. Hays- Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening clause 3 of the bill, with an amendment thereto by the hon. member for Acadia, was under consideration. Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?

On clause 3-Loans to farm machinery syndicates.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will not delay the desired vote on this amendment for more than a few minutes. The whole of clause 3 and the amendment thereto deals with the question of the security to be set against the amount of the loan offered. The Minister of Agriculture has clouded the issue by repeated references to the fact that a person signing a promissory note for the total amount would not necessarily need to have sufficient security to cover the total amount for which he signed. But before I moved my amendment last evening I asked the minister whether a person whose total net worth was $5,000 would be able to sign a promissory note for the total amount borrowed by a syndicate of which he was a member, an amount of perhaps $45,000. I asked the minister whether the corporation would take a promissory note in those circumstances and place a value on it.
As reported on page 8757 of Hansard the minister replied "I do not suppose we would lend money to an individual in that position". I then asked what would happen in a case of a person who had total assets for security purposes of $15,000 and who wished to join a syndicate with three other members. Would his promissory note for $45,000, the total amount the syndicate wished to borrow, be accepted? To this question the minister replied "I think I must reply in the same fashion". In other words he did not think the corporation would lend money to an individual with a net worth of $15,000 who wished to join a syndicate borrowing $45,000.
It is a well known fact that the Farm Credit Corporation considers the question of security against loans to be of the utmost importance. Yesterday it was stated that a farmer could borrow $55,000 from the Farm Credit Corporation and another $15,000 from the banks under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I hesitated to make any suggestion that this might not be the case; I wanted it to come from the minister or his officials. But under part III of the legislation governing the Farm Credit Corporation the corporation can only lend a farmer $55,000 provided he meets all the requirements. One of the conditions is that the farmer must clean up his notes at the bank; he must have no other outside debts. In other words if a farmer who has borrowed $10,000 from the bank under the terms of the Farm Improve-
Farm Machinery
ment Loans Act applies for a loan under part III of the farm credit legislation, whether for the full amount or for less, he must immediately set aside sufficient money to meet his obligation at the bank.
I am pointing this out in order to convince the committee that no one is being fooled on this question of security. Despite all that has been said, we are all aware that when money is lent, even if the Minister of Agriculture is acting as the banker, as he has suggested, through the Farm Credit Corporation, adequate security will be insisted on, security which has not been pledged to cover another debt. I say once again that under the clause we now have before us, in the provision stating that a farmer must sign a promissory note for the total amount borrowed by a syndicate, such a promissory note must have the full amount of security backing.
I have put forward an amendment which may cause some difficulty, but it would have the effect of making the promissory note apply only to the amount of the loan applicable to each member of the syndicate, which seems to me much more sensible. A person with assets of $15,000 could then join a syndicate which wished to borrow $45,000; his share would be $15,000, and thus he could join in borrowing the total amount. As it is now, whether a syndicate is formed of three, six or seven members, each member has to sign for the total amount borrowed. This amendment if accepted would give the clause a much wider application and make it possible to cover many more small farmers who are perhaps in need of greater borrowing power.
I have nothing more to say, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Agriculture has considered this amendment; his officials looked at it all last evening. I have made my plea for a wider application of this bill so it will be applicable to the small farmers who have not the capital assets that the minister stated many farmers have. In his remarks last evening the minister said that in his part of the country they use $50,000, $60,000, $75,000 or $100,000 worth of credit at the banks. I hope we are not passing legislation to aid farmers who can already borrow $100,000 at the bank. I hope we are trying to pass legislation that will help farmers who can perhaps borrow $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000 at the bank, and who need a little more credit to assist them in their operations.
If the Liberal party and the minister cannot visualize now how clause 3 will be dis-

Farm Machinery
criminatory against the small farmers, I have very little hope for them in the future, or for the small farmer as long as the minister stays in power. Yesterday the minister said he had 12 lawyers working for him. He could not help throwing in the odd little boast as to what a great man he was. He said, of course, that none of them were any good. When one considers this bill it looks as though the minister knew more than all the drafters, because it is certainly a hodgepodge.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Horner, Acadia) negatived: Yeas, 42; nays, 64.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 3 carry?
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Term of loan on repayment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I want to just register my strong objection to one feature of clause 5. This is the clause which says that the interest rate will be prescribed by the corporation. I think this is most unsatisfactory. I believe the minister indicated the other day that the interest rate would probably not be more than 6 per cent; I think that was the figure he gave. However, there is no guarantee in passing this legislation as to what the interest rate will actually be, not only at the moment but what it will be over the years, if it is left to the corporation. The minister keeps saying that this legislation is primarily to help small farmers. Certainly if it is to help small farmers I am enthusiastically in favour of such a measure. But if it is to help small farmers, surely we ought to be keeping the cost to the barest minimum, because it is the small farmers who need help.
A survey which has just been completed by the Ontario federation of labour produced some interesting statistics. They pointed out that 71 per cent of all the farmers produced and sold farm products with a gross value of less than $5,000, and that 46 per cent produced and sold less than $2,500 worth of farm produce in 1961, the last year for which complete figures are available. This means that in 1961 more than two fifths of the farmers of Canada had a gross income of less than $2,500. I leave it to anyone to figure out what their net income was; I suspect it was something less than $1,500.

It is these small farmers who need help. It is these small farmers who cannot buy the expensive machinery which would enable them to farm economically. It is these small farmers whom I hope the minister is going to encourage and assist in the forming of syndicates so they can buy machinery which will provide a lower per unit cost of operation.
It is perfectly apparent that farmers whose gross income is less than $2,500 a year and whose net income is probably less than $1,500 a year are going to need all the help they can get. When a farmer comes under the Farm Credit Corporation legislation the interest rate is stated in the act, as I remember, at 5 per cent. When the farmer borrows money under the Farm Improvement Loans Act the interest rate is stated in the act; again, as I recollect it, at 5 per cent. But here is legislation which the minister claims is directed primarily at assisting the small farmer. How is it going to assist the small farmer? He is going to pay interest, the minister says, of not less than 6 per cent.
Just look at the financial burden which will be placed on a farmer who goes into one of these syndicates. I am thinking of a small farmer. First of all he has to find his share of 20 per cent of the cost of the machinery. He must also sign a note, not only for his share but for the entire amount of money that is borrowed. He must also, at the time the loan is made, pay a 1 per cent service charge. In addition to this, the minister indicated yesterday that he will probably be expected to have fire insurance, liability insurance and life insurance to protect the syndicate in the event that any one of its members dies.


Mr. Baldwin:: And a service charge of 1 per cent.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I mentioned the service charge of 1 per cent at the time the machinery is purchased. If anyone wishes to add this up, I suggest this is not legislation designed to help small farmers. These farmers will be carrying a very heavy burden. The minister spoke yesterday about farmers buying machinery and paying 10 per cent and 12 per cent interest in this connection. I would think the government ought to have taken action long ago on that type of exploitation. The farmer here is going to pay very heavy costs, and I think the least the government can do is to give the farmer who is borrowing money from the Farm Credit Corporation under this bill terms at least as generous as those accorded to the farmer who borrows money

under the Farm Credit Act or under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
If the minister is desirous of helping small farmers it certainly is not apparent in this bill, particularly having regard to the wording of clause 5. I think by comparison to the minister Scrooge looks like a generous person. I say that because the burden which will be saddled on the small farmer who goes into one of these syndicates is going to be extremely heavy.
I would urge the minister to introduce an amendment to clause 5, as was done by the previous government in other farm lending legislation, to fix the interest rate in this clause, and that it will be 5 per cent. I think the government can borrow money at less than that rate, and if they cannot and this requires a subsidy, then the government is even more justified in subsidizing small farmers than it is in subsidizing farmers who borrow money under the Farm Credit Act or under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I hope the minister will see fit to either prescribe in the bill that the interest rate will not be more than 5 per cent or that he will give us some better explanation for leaving this item wide open than anything he has given us so far.


Harry William Hays: 
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister quote the source for that figure?


Harry William Hays: The $240 million? This was information which I was able to have the Farm Credit Corporation gather for me when this bill was in preparation a long time ago.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In other words there is no official source for that figure; it is one which the minister's officials have figured out?


Harry William Hays: Yes, and I have a great deal of confidence in the Farm Credit Corporation.
I do not think they would tend to fool me. There is another figure which the federation of agriculture came up with, I believe, a figure of something like $400 million, but I used the conservative figure of $240 million.
I am sure there is not a farmer in the country who would object to paying 6 per cent if he could purchase the machinery he needs, particularly when it is realized that over the period of the contract he is only paying one third of this 6 per cent, as he now has an opportunity to share this machine with three people or more. If he had to buy his own piece of equipment to do the work he would bear the full amount, but he will now have an opportunity of using a large machine on which he will actually be paying only 2 per cent, or one third of 6 per cent, if the capital cost of the contract works out as we anticipate it will.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, that is a strange kind of arithmetic on the minister's part. The minister says a farmer will pay only one third of the 6 per cent interest; but he would only have a one third ownership in the machine, so he will pay the full 6 per cent on the part of the debt for which he is liable.


Harry William Hays: I do not think the hon. member was listening to me. What I said was this. Supposing the farmer had to buy the whole machine and pay, say, $10,000. He would pay 6 per cent interest on that machine. He now has an opportunity, if he need only use the machine for a small part of the time, to get exactly the same amount of work out of the machine by paying possibly one third of the capital cost. He would also only pay his share of the interest rate, which I know would be 6 per cent on his particular share; but his operating cost would be decreased by two thirds.

Farm Machinery


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, we would all agree that the operating cost is less because the farmer is going into joint ownership of the machine. But he would only have the right to a one third ownership of the machine and to a one third use of the machine. Consequently he would not pay the same amount he would pay if he owned the machine completely and had the use of it all the time. That is the purpose of this legislation.
Surely the minister can give us a better reply than saying that the provinces could subsidize this interest rate. We are passing federal legislation. We have been repeatedly told by the provinces, and with a good deal of justification, that they have been called upon over the years to assume more responsibility than their financial revenues will permit, and all the tax rental arrangements have been designed to siphon off more revenue to the provinces and more taxes to the provinces in order that they may discharge their responsibilities. It is the federal government which has the money, and I do not think they should say that if the interest rate is too high the provinces can put up the money. The provinces in which this legislation will be most needed-I think particularly of the Atlantic provinces-are the provinces which can least afford to subsidize the minister's program. The minister wants to be Santa Claus and hand out presents providing somebody else pays part of the cost. Anyone can be Santa Claus on that basis, but this will not fool anyone. The farmers are holding the minister responsible, and the minister will be held responsible if the farmers have to pay 6 per cent when they borrow money to purchase machinery for these syndicates.
What the minister has not explained is why in this legislation the rate is 6 per cent and in other legislation it is 5 per cent. The farm improvement loans money is also short term; why is the interest 5 per cent in that case? If that money can be borrowed at 5 per cent there is no reason why this money cannot be borrowed at 5 per cent. And usually the amount borrowed will be a larger amount. If the minister is going to make the rate 6 per cent, then let him at least put it in the bill at "not more than 6 per cent", although I think it should be not more than 5 per cent, the same as in the other lending legislation. If the minister thinks that is too low let him put in the words "not more than 6 per cent"; then it would at least be stipulated in the bill. The farmers as well as the members of this house have no way of

knowing now whether this rate will creep up to 7 per cent or 8 per cent. There would be some protection for the farmers if the maximum rate of interest to be charged were stipulated in the statute. I know the minister keeps saying: Let us put the legislation into effect and try it out for a while, and then I will refer the legislation to the agriculture committee next year and it can be overhauled then. That does not solve the problem for the farmers who come under this legislation in the course of the next 12 months. If during the next 12 months farmers come under the legislation, enter into agreements with an interest rate of 6 per cent plus a 1 per cent service charge, make themselves jointly and severally responsible for the entire amount of the loan and as a result find themselves in a financial hotbox, amending of the legislation at the next session will not benefit them. It will benefit farmers who come under the legislation subsequently but it will not benefit farmers who come under the legislation between the time it is passed now and the time it is amended at the next session of parliament.
I predict that unless the minister re-examines some of the things he has put in the legislation there will be a great many farmers who in desperation will come under the legislation in order to get machinery, and will find subsequently that they have assumed a heavier burden of financial responsibility than they are able to discharge. I just do not see how a farmer with a gross income of less than $2,500 a year-the survey by the Ontario federation of labour shows that 46 per cent of the farmers of Canada are in that category-can afford to pay 6 per cent interest, a 1 per cent service charge, sign a promissory note to cover the entire borrowing of the syndicate and in addition carry fire insurance, public liability insurance and life insurance as a member of the syndicate. It seems to me this is a financial burden that small farmers will not be able to carry and some of them will find themselves in financial difficulties. I urge the minister to reconsider his decision and to put the maximum interest rate in the legislation, 5 per cent if possible or 6 per cent if he feels he cannot accept the 5 per cent figure.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, taking up the train of thought advanced by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam I would say that the provision contained in subclause 2 of clause 5 is quite a reversal of the philosophy of farm credit legislation now on the statute books. This is going back to the rough, tough

days of the farm loan board. We all know why a new act was introduced and the Farm Credit Corporation was established. The purpose was to infuse into the whole farm credit field an entirely new philosophy, and I think it has been quite successful because the officials of the corporation are interpreting the act that way.
I would prefer to see this legislation simply say 5 per cent because it is quite as easy for the government to finance the operations of the Farm Credit Corporation with respect to this legislation as it is with respect to its general credit operations. I do not see why it should be more expensive to borrow under this legislation than under the Farm Credit Act.
Second, under the wording of subclause 2 the rate of interest is not fixed at all from year to year. The subclause reads in part as follows:
-at such rate prescribed by the corporation as in its opinion is sufficient to return to it an amount equal to the cost to the corporation of any money advanced to it for the purpose of making that loan-
That is a flexible amount.
-and the expenses of the corporation in administering that loan-
That is also a flexible amount.
-including a reasonable reserve against losses.
That is the third barrier. Therefore the corporation in its wisdom may start out with an interest rate of 5J or 6 per cent but two years later they may say they have to have an additional 1 per cent, so two years from now the rate will have gone up.


Mr. Lloyd:: Or down.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Or down. That is conceivable, but the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd) will readily understand that these rates do not usually go down. They usually go up because costs and reserves for losses are involved. But there is a third objection. The changing of the rate is not subject to restriction by regulation. The words used are "at such rate prescribed by the corporation". Clause 9 deals with regulations and provides that the corporation may, with the approval of the governor in council, make regulations prescribing the terms and conditions that a syndicate agreement must contain and defining the expressions "farm machinery" and "co-operative farm association". I would say that under a reasonable interpretation of clause 5, subclause 2, as it now stands the approval of the governor in council would not be required for a
Farm Machinery
change in the interest rate. By that I do not intend to impute improper motives to the corporation, but unless the minister can prove me wrong I want to point out that a reading of clause 5 and clause 9 together leads me to say that while all other regulations made initially under the act or later amendments are subject to the approval of the governor in council, it is not indicated that the interest rate is included.
I offer these alternatives to the minister. First of all, I should like to see a specific rate of interest prescribed in the bill. If it is found later that with the rate so fixed the Farm Credit Corporation cannot conduct operations successfully, then the corporation will have to come back to parliament for approval of any change. I think that is what should be done here if this legislation is going to be good legislation. It should be on a par with the Farm Credit Act. Therefore I should like to see the rate prescribed so that it will be clear.
Second, if that is not acceptable I should like to see it clearly stated that the rate prescribed by the corporation is subject to the approval of the governor in council. That should be stated clearly in clause 5. There is what I consider to be a latent ambiguity in the language and I think my doubt is sufficiently well founded in the imprecise language in clause 5. If what I have suggested were done there would be a further check.
My first recommendation to the minister, in line with what the hon. member for Burn-aby-Coquitlam has said, is that the interest rate should be spelled out right here in the clause. If you are going to make it 5 per cent, say so. If it is going to be 6 per cent, say so. Second, let us have it clearly set out that any change in the rate of interest shall be subject to the approval of the governor in council. In that way there would be a much closer retention of supervision by parliament over the operations under this legislation.
In saying this I am not imputing improper motives or actions to the Farm Credit Corporation. As a matter of fact, I think we would remove from their backs the burden of approving an interest rate, a burden which I think should rest here in this house.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has referred to approval by the governor in council and he questions the wording of the clause. The intent of the wording is that the interest rate is subject to the approval of the governor in council.


Mr. Lamberi:: It does not say so.

Farm Machinery


Harry William Hays: 
Mr. Whelan:: I hesitate to enter this debate because I come from a clan of logsplitters and not hairsplitters. After listening to this debate, I just wonder what the farmers of this nation are thinking. I am a farmer, and I know that over 50 per cent of the money that is borrowed in this nation is borrowed at high interest rates, much higher than we will be setting under this bill, from modern day Shylocks and from bonus merchants. This bill will overcome these practices to a great extent. When my own family started farming, and we were a large family, we had nothing like this bill on which to rely. We had to borrow money from whoever would lend it. We did pool our assets to buy our equipment for farming.
As I said earlier, this measure is of tremendous advantage to the average young farmer in this nation. So far as I am concerned, this interest rate is all right. I, as a farmer, approve of it. I do not believe we should go around this nation yelling for lower interest rates just because we are farmers. The farmers of this nation, as I

have said before and I will say again, are the most efficient producers in the world. The people of this nation are enjoying the cheapest food, when food prices are related to their earning power, of any nation in the world. I feel we should be able, as the minister has said to make these crops return sufficient to the farmer so that he does not have to go around like a second class citizen asking for special privileges in the way of interest rates. I feel we are actually professional people, industrialists or whatever you want to call us.
Yesterday I heard the hon. member for Acadia pleading the case of the small farmer. In the area from which I come we are small farmers and we do not farm several thousand acres. I know what the small farmers want. I know how important this legislation can be to them. In our area there are many small farmers such as onion producers and vegetable producers, who are being put out of business because they cannot compete with the money people who are taking over this part of the business. The small farmer is being eliminated, and this is an important way of life to many of these people. I visited the countries of Europe last year and I saw that the incentive was taken away from people when these farms were incorporated. The individual farmer's incentive to produce no longer existed. We must preserve the right of the individual farmer to be an independent farmer.
We know that farmers can work together through their co-operatives. We know they can work together to purchase machinery and equipment or whatever is necessary in their everyday life. As a result of the buoyant economy in my area during the last two years, a lot of young men are leaving the farms. This is one of the most productive areas in Canada or in North America. These young people are leaving the farms because they cannot compete with the money people in obtaining credit. As I said earlier, if we had had a bill such as this available to us when we were trying to start a farm we would have been able to enjoy a better way of life. We would have been able to compete with farmers who had unlimited capital to play around with. While we were sharecropping and doing everything possible to make ends meet, others had credit facilities available to them. I say that we in agriculture today, no matter where we may be in Canada, should be able to pay the going rate of interest and should be able to accept our place in society as first rate citizens.

So far as I am concerned, there has been too much talk in connection with this bill, too much delay. It annoys me, as a farmer, and as a farmer who had to help himself. Last year I introduced a bill to protect farmers against bankruptcy. The same people who say they are worried about what is going to happen to the farmer under this particular bill are the ones who held up my bill. They did not want to protect the farmers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What has this to do with clause 5?


Eugene Whelan: It has a definite relationship because my bill was designed to protect the farmer who had overcapitalized in machinery, in case the company with which he was dealing went broke. In most cases the farmers go broke too, because they have overcapitalized in this machinery by trying to buy it themselves. There is no bill like this right now to protect the farmers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why didn't the government bring it in, then?


Eugene Whelan: This bill, so far as I am concerned, bars a close relationship to what I was trying to do last year. Many of our farmers are operating on returns that do not give them a fair way of life. The bill I was introducing last year attempted to give them protection under the old system of borrowing money from Shylocks to buy equipment. If they lost their crops, they were not able to pay anything. The same people who are complaining about the bill before us today are the ones who talked against my bill and did not want to give the farmers protection. So far as I am concerned this measure is long overdue.


Mr. Olson:: I do not want to hold up clause 5, but I do subcribe to some of the arguments made by the hon. member for Essex South as well as to some other things the Minister of Agriculture had to say with regard to farmers wanting to stand on their own feet. I wonder if the minister would consider with me the arguments respecting this matter of interest rate from a slightly different angle? Clause 5 refers to the corporation setting the appropriate rate that will take into consideraion the expenses involved in the corporation administering the loan, including reasonable reserves against losses. In addition to that, another clause we are about to consider refers to an additional service charge of 1 per cent per annum on the loan. Now, we have not any indication as to how high this is all going to add up, or what the final figure will be. We
Farm Machinery
feel it is going to be somewhere around 7 per cent. Perhaps this is substantially lower than some of the interest rates now being charged by lending institutions for loans on farm machinery; but under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, which has been operating since 1945, and under which hundreds of millions of dollars have been lent to farmers, the losses to date have been approximately only one tenth of 1 per cent.
Under the provisions of this bill, where security is guaranteed jointly and severally by all members of a syndicate, there is a higher interest rate to be charged. This greater security must lower the risk factor, but on the other hand the interest rate will be substantially higher than the 5 per cent charged under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. For that reason it does not seem reasonable that there should be a higher rate of interest.
Another point is that we have staff within the Farm Credit Corporation to administer this bill, and it seems unreasonable that another charge should be made on the proposed loans for administration. It may be that the corporation will need staff-I do not deny that-but the same principle applies to all government operations whether in farm legislation, in unemployment insurance or in transport. Staff is already being paid by the public treasury and no charge is made for the administration.
As I have said on a number of occasions, though I am concerned with some of the bill's provisions I am prepared to let it pass on a trial basis, and a year from now we can refer it to a committee, find out what weaknesses it has and try to deal with them. Time and again the minister has said the major purpose of this bill is to assist small farmers to buy large, expensive pieces of machinery that they require, under terms by which they would own it and use it cooperatively, thus reducing the cost of the machinery.
I believe a simple amendment to the Farm Improvement Loans Act would allow farmers to borrow up to $15,000, both independently and jointly, for the purpose of buying farm machinery. The limit of loans under that act was raised to $15,000 a month ago, so that any farmer who had used up to his previous maximum of $7,500 now has another $7,500 available to him if he qualifies under the provisions of the act. Amending that act would have been a simpler and more effective way of meeting the needs of small farmers, because $15,000 is a substantial amount,

Farm Machinery
particularly when one is speaking in terms of a very small farm.
To some extent I support the argument advanced by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Edmonton West that a specific rate of interest should be prescribed by this bill. An interest rate of 5 per cent has been set for loans under other farm legislation, and since the loans to be made under this bill will be better secured than individual loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, I see no justification for a service charge of 1 per cent over and above the cost of money to the Farm Credit Corporation. Nevertheless, I do not take any hard objection to this because I think the increased maximums provided under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, which were passed by parliament last month, will meet farmers' needs for the next few months. I think these maximum amounts will be used, because loans under that act will be approximately 2 per cent cheaper than credit provided by this bill.


Harry William Hays: There is some misunderstanding here, Mr. Chairman. This 1 per cent service charge will only be charged once for the length of the contract.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At the time of borrowing?


Harry William Hays: At the time of the borrowing. It is not a yearly charge. At present we are raising money at something like 4.78 per cent. We estimate the cost of operating loans for this bill will be something under .75 per cent, and so far as the reserve for bad debts is concerned it will be on the same basis as the Farm Improvement Loans Act. It is not meant to make money, and if the reserve were high it would be used to lower the cost. When you add all this up it is quite a bit under 6 per cent at the moment, and certainly this is a great deal better than farmers have been accustomed to, so far as borrowing for the purchase of large equipment is concerned.


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Chairman, I think clause 5 meets all the criteria we expect in handling financial affairs of government in Ottawa. We are most anxious to keep subsidies and the like to any particular sector of the economy, to social services and to provinces, in a proper reporting medium. It seems to me, where we attempt to make funds available at an economic rate for the purchase of equipment of this kind, that the legislation as it is drafted accepts the principle that if there should be need in the farming community for a subsidy which can be identified, it can be

provided, as the minister has said, in other ways and by measures which are readily identifiable, which can be compared to the need and can be compared with the other subsidies of government. The more you bury these bits and pieces of subsidies, the more difficult it is to fix responsibility.
I am pleased that this bill does not propose to fix a rate of interest. It fixes the responsibility on the governor in council, and in approving the rate of interest the government takes responsibility. It is responsible to parliament for its actions, and if the rates should become excessive, parliament has opportunities readily available for criticizing a government that adopted such a policy. Certainly clause 5 makes it quite clear that the interest rate must take into account such things as an amount equal to the cost to the corporation of any money advanced to it, also the expenses of the corporation in administering loans, and a reasonable reserve against losses.
I think I should mention clause 6. It provides that there will be a service charge of an amount equal to 1 per cent of the amount of the loan. Then clause 8 establishes the account. All the machinery here will be taken into account when fixing the interest rates. If after a period of time the experience of losses has shown them to be very low, then certainly the governor in council would have regard to this experience when fixing the interest rate, and the rate imposed could be lessened.
It seems to me we should subscribe to the principle that as far as possible economic interest rates should obtain in all these fields. If there are to be subsidies of any kind they should be made in another form and be clearly identifiable so that subsidies to all parts of the country and in all circumstances may be properly compared and assessed.


Mr. Gundloclc:: In my opinion it is about time we faced the real issue in this talk, or debate, or battle as it has been described. Many of us will recall that when the Farm Credit Corporation was set up the same kind of battle went on. Maybe it was not as obvious, but the battle took place just the same for a most specific purpose. In my opinion and for the information of this committee, it was over the question of the interest rate, and the rate at that time was set at 5 per cent.
I think we should realize that there is more to this talk and to this battle than is apparent on the surface. I think there is something which is in the back of most of our minds and I believe we should be talking about it. I know that we on this side are thinking about

it. I refer to the fact that there is probably too much consideration given to farm organizations and interest rates, and to low interest rates. I think of the small businesses here in Canada which need something very like this. I think if there were some assurance-and we on this side are willing to give this assurance-that this same kind of battle would be put up for them, and for the same reasons, much of our trouble might disappear.
Speaking of small business-and I do not mean to depart from the principle we are considering-it is very much needed. I think if Canadian small businesses had some assurance that this kind of battle would be put up for them, some of the criticism of this bill would be lessened. That is about all I wish to say. I want to emphasize by way of repetition that this sort of thing is being done for the same reason as it was previously; maybe not in the same way, but for the same reason. We need a definite rate of interest and we need lower interest rates. We need them for other segments of the Canadian economy besides agriculture.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I say briefly that I support this legislation in principle. It has proven successful in Great Britain and Scotland, operated by hard headed farmers in the United Kingdom, supported by the national farm union and the co-operative societies which are related to the agriculture industry there.
This is an experiment. We are applying to Canadian conditions provisions which have been successful in England and Scotland. I fully appreciate the criticisms which have been advanced from the benches to my right and I support some of them. I refer to the fact that co-operative organizations are not allowed to borrow; that some of the regulatory features have not been included in the bill, and that there should be a fixed interest rate. As I say, I appreciate these criticisms. But I wish to read two or three paragraphs to indicate what has been done in this field in the United Kingdom. I am all in favour of giving this scheme a trial for a year and finding out where the kinks are, and straightening them out as a result of experience.
I intend to read from an article entitled "Farm Machinery Syndicates" written by Mr. N. L. Goodland. This is what it has to say:
A machinery-buying syndicate, having been accepted as 'creditworthy', may consist of two farmers or more. On approach to Syndicate Credits Ltd.-
That is the organization which supplies the capital.
Farm Machinery
-80 per cent of the cost of the article may be loaned, the remaining 20 per cent to be paid by the syndicate on delivery. The loan so made is paid off in half yearly instalments, with interest payable only on what is outstanding. Loans for movable equipment may be paid off over four years and this may be extended to five years in the case of grain-drying, storage and cleaning plants.
Further costs are made up as follows: Syndicates Credits Ltd. are charged 1 per cent on money borrowed and also an initial levy of two pounds sterling per syndicate member, which goes back to the agricultural central co-operative association to cover the cost of administration.
Syndicates Credits Ltd. are also charged for loans one half per cent above bank rate. The syndicates themselves are charged a further 1 per cent to cover the country's administrative costs.
This is similar to the provision included in the bill before us.
Thus the rate of interest charged to each syndicate is L per cent above bank rate, between the limits of 5 per cent and 7 per cent, calculated on outstanding balances only.
I do not intend to read any more from this article, now. The adjustment comes in the profit to the members of the syndicate at the end of the year-the savings. I suggest it would be ideal to have a fixed rate of interest, but I presume that if as the result of one year's operation of the act it was found unnecessary to charge the interest rate which had been fixed-if a reserve was developing-the rate could be lowered. I simply say therefore that I do not think we should continue a lengthy debate on this bill. We support it in principle though we criticize some of the details. We look upon it as an experiment in Canada based on successful experience in other countries. Let us pass this measure, give it a trial, and find out what happens at the end of the year.


Mr. Danforih:: I support the men who have spoken on this bill to advocate that there should be a fixed rate of interest embodied in the terms of the measure.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the contribution made by the hon. member for Essex South. He certainly pleaded the case of the farmers in our area. There is one difference though. The farmers in my riding, being businessmen, would prefer to obtain loans at 5 per cent than at 6 per cent or 7 per cent, as the hon. member's farmers are apparently prepared to pay.
I have one question I should like to ask the minister at this point. I understand that the rates of interest would be prescribed at the time a loan is taken out under this measure, and that this would be the interest rate which the farmers concerned would have to pay. Is it not true, then, that the rate

Farm Machinery
could vary each year for several different years? There could be five different syndicates borrowing in successive years at different rates of interest. Is this what will happen? Or will provision be made that in the case of the cost of money borrowed by a syndicate going down, the amount of interest required from all the syndicates would be adjusted every year accordingly. Of course if a rate of interest of 5 per cent or 6 per cent were to be prescribed now and incorporated in the bill, anyone borrowing money under the terms of this legislation would know exactly where he stood.


Harry William Hays: In reply to the question asked by the hon. member, any syndicates which borrow will pay the same rate of interest throughout the length of the contract. They will know exactly what they are getting into. It is quite likely that the interest rate will fluctuate, exactly as is the case when money is borrowed under the national housing provisions. Some people are fortunate enough to buy their houses at an interest rate of a little over 6 per cent; some are paying over 7 per cent. This depends on the cost of money. But this will be an economic rate.
I have given some indication as to what it will be under this bill. If the bill were to pass tonight, obtain royal assent and next week we were ready to go to bat, it would be something under 6 per cent. This would include all the charges under the particular contract that a syndicate might enter into a week from now.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say just a few words on this clause. I do not want to be too repetitious, but I certainly agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Edmonton West. We are told, and have been told previously, that this is experimental legislation. The minister now says that if the bill were implemented today, next week, or even a week after that I suppose, the interest rate would be not more than 6 per cent. He has also told us that this legislation will come back in a year's time; it is on trial; it is experimental; we are going to study and review it; it is going to be before the agriculture committee next year. If this is so, why cannot he show his faith in the interest rate and in the government, and if the interest rate will not be more than 6 per cent why does he not say that in the bill? It would be simple to do this; this legislation is on trial; it is experimental; the minister will not have to stick with it for years and years and years. Then

why does he not let us know what we are passing and what we are agreeing to?
I am not asking for a subsidized rate, as was suggested by the hon. member for Essex South. That hon. member seemed to feel that some farmers wanted a subsidized rate. I am asking for an established rate; a rate which farmers will know they will have to pay whether they borrow money today, during the next six months, or the day after the next six months. Farmers should know what the interest rate will be whenever they decide to join a syndicate under this bill. The hon. member for Essex South thought this legislation would be very worth while; he thought it would do something he could not do with his bankruptcy bill, although he claimed that his bankruptcy bill was a tremendously good and important bill. I ask, Mr. Chairman, why does not the government accept the hon. member's bankruptcy bill, if he and the government think it is so good? He has not even convinced his own party that it is good, so how can he hope to convince the country and this House of Commons? The minister has stated time and again that this is legislation for the small farmer; yet he is afraid to give the small farmer the assurance in writing in this clause that the interest rate will not be more than 6 per cent. We are not asking him to peg it at 5 per cent; but he can put in writing that it shall not be more than 6 per cent.
I proposed to move two amendments to this clause. However, I shall not move them because I realize now that the minister is stubborn, thick-skinned, bull-headed and has lost sight of the conditions facing many small farmers across Canada.


Mr. Greene:: You are pig-headed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I cannot for the life of me understand why in the first part of clause 5 it is necessary to include the words, "not exceeding seven years". This clause reads:
Every loan made under this act shall be (a) for such term, not exceeding seven years, as is fixed by the corporation after considering the kind of farm machinery to be purchased with the loan and the expected economic life of that machinery-
In other words, Mr. Chairman, the life of the loan shall be determined by the corporation. The words "seven years" are not needed in this clause. The minister said last night that he wants to make this bill as flexible as possible, to quote his exact words. How is including a seven year limit making it flexible? When one looks at the schedules set out by the Department of National Revenue

it is seen that every machine-if you file your income tax return in one manner; I think it is under form 17, although I am not sure-without a motor on it depreciates at the rate of 10 per cent. In this bill this limitation is set out. It is said that the intention is to make the bill as flexible as possible, but this clause includes the limitation, "not exceeding seven years". There is absolutely no need for those four words in this legislation.
I am not going to propose an amendment in this connection because I realize it will only mean delay; the minister will call in his members and they will vote it out. The hon. member for Medicine Hat and his group will vote the amendment out. The hon. member said he would support it, "to some extent". That means he is only going to mouth his support and when the vote comes he will vote with the government in any case. His whole group will do that, because they are in bed with the Liberals on every piece of legislation, on every clause and in every committee.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Order. Make your speech.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am not going to refer to items of legislation for which they have voted at any particular time. They talk about low interest rates, yet they have supported and voted for high interest rates on many occasions in this house. The hon. member for Medicine Hat said he wanted to support the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam, and then he added the rider, "to some extent".
There should be immediately removed from this particular clause the words, "not exceeding seven years". Why put that limit on farm machinery? I have tried for the last two weeks whenever this bill has come before us to get some idea as to what the minister envisaged as farm machinery under this legislation. He has said it will include grain combines, and nothing more. He has agreed with me that it will probably include a portable feed mixing mill, or this type of machinery might be included. But he has not said that a stationary feed mill would be included, a silo, or the hundreds of other pieces of farm machinery which the Department of National Revenue depreciate at 10 per cent. This means that the normal life of such machinery is ten years. Why does the minister have to give it seven years? He has the security of the farmer; under clause 3 he has the security of a promissory note; and he has the machine itself as security. Why
Farm Machinery
does he need these words, "not exceeding seven years", in view of the fact that he says the bill is in an experimental stage? This parliament has often brought in legislation on an experimental basis, on a trial and error basis. We had the pension bill before us on four occasions. If we had passed it the very first time, perhaps we would all be on pension by now, or will be by the time it is finally passed.
The minister talks about an experimental stage. He is going to review this legislation after a year's operation; he is going to tell us all about it and it is going to be placed before the agricultural committee. Then why does he not say in the bill, "not more than 6 per cent"? Is the minister afraid of losing a great deal of money? He gives us all kinds of assurances that the interest rate will be less than 6 per cent. I suggest to him that next year it will probably be more than 6 per cent. That is why he wants us to be gullible enough to accept the fact that the interest rate will be 5J per cent now. I suggest to him that by passing this particular clause we will be accepting an interest rate of nearly 7 per cent before the year is over. We do not know.
Some hon. members say I have spoken too much. I am sure there are members in this house who feel I have spoken too much. However, Mr. Chairman, I am not concerned with that aspect of any piece of legislation, if I believe that by speaking a little longer I can perhaps improve the legislation. The minister has rejected the amendment that I moved yesterday in order to help many farmers who are not in the financial position that the minister envisages them to be in. These farmers could have been helped if my amendment had been accepted. He voted that one down. I feel there is very little use in my talking on this clause any longer because the minister would not be prepared to accept any changes anyway. He says the bill is experimental, that it is new. He also says he is not changing it one iota. The hon. member for Medicine Hat agrees with him. There are many things he does not like about it but he will let the farmers get into trouble for a year or not get into trouble for a year, as they choose. Then in one year's time the minister will take another look at the legislation. This is legislation by trial and error. It is legislation by experiment and by a minister who has lost sight of conditions and the many problems facing small farmers. I said at the beginning of the debate on this bill that it looked like the millionaire's answer to farm

Farm Machinery
problems in Canada. If we proceed and pass the bill it will look to me like the millionaire's answer, and a bull-headed millionaire at that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 9-Regulations.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I have already made plain during the one or two interventions I have made in this debate that I was greatly concerned at the fact that in clause 9 this parliament is being asked to delegate to government the exclusive right to settle the main characteristics and essentials of this legislation, and not only to settle them initially but to alter them from time to time as the case may be. I am not going to repeat the arguments I made in this regard; I would simply say that as this debate has progressed it has become quite apparent that we who take this view are correct.
During the course of the resolution stage questions were asked of the minister and he said that when we had the bill before us we would have the answers. This was quite proper, because the bill at that time had not been exposed to view. Then on second reading stage of the bill he said that when we got into committee we would have the specific answers. But when we got into committee we found that although some of the answers were given, the main features of the bill which are of most consequence and importance were buried in the right of the governor in council to approve the regulations of the corporation.
I think this principle is undesirable. It is not a new principle. The minister and his officials are probably proceeding in the light of the experience of governments over a great many years. Step by step, stage by stage and act by act parliament is being asked to give to government the right to exercise the functions which parliament should exercise, and that is a practice to which I for one would take exception. I think it is quite wrong. It would have been easy for the minister and his officials to define what is meant by farm machinery. I think that if it stood by itself I for one would not ask for a specific definition of that phrase; I think there is an accepted understanding of what is meant by farm machinery. Even if "co-operative farm association" were left I think wa could probably accept it. But when there is added to those two features of the bill the right of the corporation to prescribe the terms and 
conditions which a syndicate agreement must contain before it is approved by the corporation, I must draw the line.
In order to test the feeling of the committee concerning the extent to which we are being asked in almost indecent haste to give these powers to the government, I should like to move the following amendment to this clause:
That clause 9 be amended by adding after (c) the following:
"provided however that any regulation made under this section shall cease to have any force or effect unless approved and ratified by parliament within six months from the date such regulation comes into effect".
Before I sit down let me say I put the term "six months" in the amendment because the minister indicated that he hoped to bring the legislation back to this house. He admits that it is new and experimental and he suggests that he might bring it back in a year. I would be prepared, if the minister accepts the amendment, which would mean that any regulation which he makes must be brought back to this house for approval, to change "six months" to "one year", which would then meet the condition he has laid down.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, clause 9(a) says the corporation may make regulations prescribing the terms and conditions that a syndicate agreement must contain before it is approved by the corporation. This is the only difference so far as the Farm Credit Act is concerned. That clause was put in the bill so that there would be flexibility to enable the syndicates to fix their own agreements. These agreements may be different one from another. Their application may be different. F'or instance, farmers in Prince Edward Island would probably invest in a mixing machine and would be entirely different from the farmers who would invest in summer fallowing equipment which is used in western Canada, where one outfit would summer fallow 2,000 acres at the rate of 150 acres a day. This wording would allow the corporation to examine the agreements.
I did cover this matter the other day but I will go over it again. I think it would be better if I read the explanation because the other day I was hurrying along and probably some hon. members did not have the opportunity to examine the explanation in Hansard. 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. This is why we have proposed that the items 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, of course, the Farm Credit Corporation will 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. A syndicate agreement
Farm Machinery
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 probably to another farmer. The 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 with the freedom to make any reasonable arrangements they and the corporation see fit to make.


Mr. Watson (Chaieauguay-Huniingdon-La-prairie):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on the bill at this stage. I hesitated to speak earlier because I had hoped on a number of occasions that it would go through. However, after having listened to the hon. member for Acadia again this afternoon, who has spoken at least 10 times at length in this debate and a dozen times for shorter periods, I feel less reluctant about saying a few words.
There are two things I want to say about the bill. First, if it is used imaginatively I am convinced it will increase the efficiency and decrease the operating costs of farmers in my constituency. I will give two examples, Mr. Chairman. In southwestern Quebec in the last two or three years the farmers have been introducing feed corn crops. Feed corn requires drying machines which are much too expensive-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member is now addressing his remarks to the clause now before the committee, clause 9 together with the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River?


Lawrence E. Watson: Mr. Chairman, I was making a few introductory remarks. I will restrict myself to the clause. The making of regulations under this clause by the governor in council will certainly be less restrictive than if we were to set out the details of the structure of syndicates or types of machinery as members opposite have suggested on a number of occasions during the debate. In fact, throughout the debate there have been very few practical suggestions for improvement of the bill from members opposite, with the exception of one from the hon. member for

Farm Machinery
Peace River. I am not referring to the amendment now before us but to the suggestion he made with regard to the inclusion of Indian reserves by regulation within the purport of the bill. I wonder whether under clause 9 the minister could assure the house that Indian reserves will be included within the purport of this particular legislation.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Perhaps the Chair does not understand the purport of clause 9 and it may be there is a subclause somewhere that relates to the possibility of including Indians under the terms of the bill, but it certainly is very difficult for the Chair to agree to this suggestion. I would again ask the hon. member to restrict his remarks to the clause before the committee. The hon. member for Acadia.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, clause 9 purports to give authority to the Farm Credit Corporation to make regulations defining the expression "farm machinery". In my opinion it is pretty difficult to define farm machinery and I think that the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River is very worth while indeed. The minister has repeatedly told us that the legislation is experimental and that he wants to put it on trial for a year. In his amendment the hon. member for Peace River has suggested six months, but if it is agreeable to the government he is willing to change it to 12 months.
Before the vote is taken may I say I am somewhat disappointed that the minister has not given us a wider view with regard to this point. He has had the officials before him and he says they have studied the bill for nine months. I am surprised he is not able to give us a wider view as to what the bill will cover so far as farm machinery is concerned. At various times I have listed what I thought was farm machinery and what I thought the bill might include, but the minister has failed to comment on most of my suggestions.
We have accepted the principle of the bill, which is that farmers can join together in syndicates and by so doing economize in carrying on their farming operations. First of all you have farmers joining together to form a syndicate so that they can economize in carrying on their farming operations. This should be the main theme when considering what is or is not farm machinery. No attention whatsoever should be paid to the definition laid down by the Department of National Revenue that machinery must have moving parts. This should not enter into the thinking 
of the officials at all because any machine should be permissible as long as the farmers are carrying on farming operations and can economize and cut down their costs by forming a syndicate.
I have suggested silos or buildings but the minister has not commented on that suggestion. According to the dictionary a machine is a contrivance put together to do a piece of work. This is roughly what the dictionary says about the definition of a machine. I can see many possibilities for farmers to form marketing syndicates. In Prince Edward Island today there are literally hundreds of marketing syndicates or farmers' co-operatives through which the farmers market their produce. I see no real reason why farmers should not form such syndicates if they want to advance their produce one step farther toward the marketplace. It has often been said that farmers need more power in the marketplace. This legislation could be of tremendous help to groups of farmers who wanted to establish their own marketing set-up.
The agriculture committee is studying the feed grain problem. I suggested in the committee that many farmers could build elevators in their own localities and instead of moving their grain to the lakehead and down through the waterway when it is cheap and plentiful, they could store it in their elevators and distribute it among themselves during the winter months when they most need it. Would a huge farm storage bin purchased by a syndicate qualify as farm machinery?
We have never had an answer to this question of whether or not buildings qualify as farm machinery. I believe this bill could be of great benefit in many localities in eastern Canada in which farmers are feeding livestock. I know that in my own area many livestock are fed on grass. I can think of a number of instances in which much of the land is held under a grazing lease. A lease is a machine, a contrivance put together by human beings. I believe that that is a logical explanation of the definition of machinery. Certainly a group of farmers could form a syndicate and purchase a lease. They will be economizing tremendously in this way.
I recall that a lease was sold near my place not long ago to the Calgary stampede. I know the minister is aware of this particular transaction. They paid $84,000 for this grazing lease. If the ranchers in that area had been able to form a syndicate and each borrow $15,000, they would have readily purchased that grazing lease. It would have been of tremendous help to these small farmers. I see

some possibility for this legislation if the definition of farm machinery is broadened. It is for this reason I heartily concur in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River. Let us have a look at the definition of "farm machinery". I have suggested it should include silos, grain elevators, feed mills, grazing leases, and so on.
Why should the potato farmers of Prince Edward Island or any other part of Canada not be able to form a marketing syndicate for marketing their farm product? Why should they not have the benefits of this legislation? Why could they not erect a warehouse or a system for washing, cleaning and chipping their potatoes? Why should farmers not be able to do these things? Is this not the direction in which farming is moving today? Farming is becoming more mechanized and farmers are moving their produce closer to the markets. The fact is that the minister has failed to give the committee any broad statement concerning the regulations and the definition of farm machinery. The best he could do was to read a prepared statement that he made yesterday, and that is hardly good enough.
I know the minister is aware of this purchase by the Calgary stampede board to which I referred. I know this particular bill could be of direct benefit to many farmers in that area if they were able to borrow money and purchase a grazing lease. What is the difference between feeding cattle on grass or feeding cattle in a feed lot? In both cases we hope the cattle are getting fat and we hope there will be a market for them once they are ready for sale. The minister has said that a portable feed mill would come within the regulations. I asked him about a stationary feed mill for which one would pour a concrete floor. He could not comment on that because no one gave him a prepared statement. I ask him now about the feed grain situation in eastern Canada. Can farmers form a grain storage syndicate to store enough grain for their winter use in close proximity to their farms or feed lots? Can they build a grain storage elevator under this syndicate bill? Can they build stationary silos or set up a feed plant under this bill? Will the minister make an effort to see that a broad definition of farm machinery is established so that this bill could truly be, in the minister's words, as flexible as possible?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I support the purpose of the amendment. However, I feel that six months is too brief a period, and I say that for this reason. I am
Farm Machinery
quite confident that as a result of a year's experience-we have said repeatedly that this is experimental legislation-amendments will be required. This is a new field in Canada. At the same time, a period of a year should give the minister and his officials an opportunity to experiment with the regulations. I would suggest to the mover of the amendment that if he would extend his amendment to a period of a year it would give us the opportunity to try out the measure. The officials would have some experience with the regulations and they could come before the house when I am quite sure the bill will be back for amendments. At the same time, the regulations could be approved by the house.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: All I want to say about this amendment is that, as it is before us now, I do not believe it would give this measure an opportunity to be tried. In other words, the regulations would be invalid by the end of March and activity under the provisions of the bill would only be getting started by then. If the mover of this amendment is willing to extend the period considerably beyond six months, there would be some validity to the amendment. By the end of six months we would be at the peak of activity under this bill, and I believe a year would be a better period of time.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have already indicated my willingness to consider changes. I thought the minister would be considering the phraseology in the interval so that he could accept my amendment. I do not know if I see any co-operative gleam in his eye. If not I am quite prepared to change the amendment. I realize of course I would need unanimous consent of the committee, unless an hon. member could be induced to move a subamendment. I am quite prepared, with unanimous consent, to change the six months period to 12 months. Having in mind the length of time it has taken to produce the legislation, then the fact a few months would be needed to frame the regulations, there would be a further period of six months after that and I envisage the amendment taking us up until next summer before the effect of it would be felt. However, I am prepared to seek unanimous consent to change the six months to 12 months.


Lucien Lamoureux: Do I understand the hon. member is seeking the consent of the committee to change the amendment to read 12 months instead of six months?

Farm Machinery


Gerald William Baldwin: Correct.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does the hon. member have leave to make that amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr. Ryan:: Would the hon. member for Peace River permit a question? Has he taken into consideration the heterogeneous nature of laws for chattel mortgages, conditional sales and liens and sale of goods acts in the various provinces and territories, and that it might well be necessary to have different regulations in every province and territory?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, Mr. Chairman. When I spoke yesterday I intimated that in my opinion the most desirable way to achieve the best working of this bill would be to establish two model agreements, one to apply to the civil code province of Quebec and the other to apply to the common law provinces outside Quebec; but these model agreements would have within them certain minimum essential requirements established by parliament, and they would be exhibited as schedules to the act when passed.
The legislation would provide that these agreements might be modified from time to time and place to place, having in mind the type of agriculture, the region where it is practised and the character of the individuals who comprise a syndicate. These model agreements would be subject to variation, but they would have certain minimum requirements within them.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Does the hon. member not feel this amendment might unnecessarily bog down parliament in a lot of detail?


Gerald William Baldwin: I would not think so.


Mr. McIntosh:: Can the minister assure the committee that the definition laid down by the corporation for the term "farm machinery" will be accepted by the customs and excise branch of the Department of National Revenue? I do not want to go into this in too much detail, but the Minister of Finance will remember a debate we had in a previous session, covering the definition of a steel grain box for trucks.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will never forget it.


Mr. Nowlan:: Neither will I.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I do not want to go through a similar experience. It is not settled yet, and to my knowledge the Minister of Finance
[The Chairman.]
and the Minister of National Revenue have not brought in legislation to amend the act.
As hon. members will remember, it is the Department of Finance which determines what terms go into the tariff rates, but the interpretation of what goes in is left up to another department, which seems to be highly ridiculous. I am suspicious of why the definition of this term is left up to the Farm Credit Corporation. Could the minister assure the committee that whatever is laid down by the corporation will be accepted by the Department of National Revenue?


Harry William Hays: I cannot speak for the Minister of National Revenue but I would like to say something about the amendment. Asking for the regulations to be brought back to parliament is a most unusual request, and in the Farm Credit Corporation legislation the regulations did not have to come back. However, if this bill comes up for amendment in the future, then we could look at all of the problems which the hon. member envisages might occur, and correct them. As a government I think we have to take the same position as the previous government took so far as regulations are concerned, namely that they should not come back to parliament.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am not satisfied with the minister's answer to my question. If the definition laid down by the Farm Credit Corporation has no meaning so far as other government departments are concerned, then it is a useless piece of legislation, and maybe the crown corporation itself can say something is not a piece of farm machinery and cannot be purchased under the bill. The hon. member for Acadia tried to point this out, and it has to be definite as to what the government will accept for the definition of farm machinery. The minister should give a little more explanation of what the corporation has in mind.


Gerald William Baldwin: In reply to the minister, may I say this is a most unusual amendment but it is in answer to a most unusual clause.
Amendment (Mr. Baldwin) negatived: yeas, 33; nays, 67.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendmenl lost. Shall clause 9 carry?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Go on, see if you car sing "God Save the Queen" over there. Yot are making a lot of noise and you ought tc get in tune.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want to know whether a silo, or several silos will qualify under this bill? Will a grain elevator qualify? If the minister can answer these questions I do not intend to hold the bill any longer. In fact, I had no idea a week ago Monday that debate on the bill would last this long, but the minister got up and made a picayune attack on good, sound suggestions-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -put forward by us-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -with regard to what should be in the bill-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member is not addressing himself to the clause under consideration, and I would ask him to limit his remarks to that clause.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am dealing with clause 9 and the question of what should be included in farm machinery. I have no intention of passing this bill so readily that the minister can sit in his seat and say nothing about the serious suggestions I have put forward. Does he accept the definition laid down by the Department of National Revenue, that a farm machine must have a moving part on it? Do silos and grain elevators qualify, and what about the other machines I have mentioned?


Harry William Hays: I think the hon. member for Acadia surely knows that a silo is not a piece of machinery.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is, or is not?


Harry William Hays: It is not a piece of machinery: It is a building. The hon. member raised the other day the question whether a bull was a machine or not. He raised all kinds of questions of that sort. I think everyone in this house knows exactly what we mean by machinery.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I, for one, do not know what the minister means by farm machinery and I am sure even the officials of the department do not know what he means.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) McIntosh: There is no "oh" at all. If hon. members opposite would investigate this a little further-if they had had any dealings with the department involving a definition of farm machinery-they would think otherwise. It is extremely difficult to get an ex-20220-557i
Farm. Machinery
planation of it. I suggest the minister himself does not understand what the term includes, because otherwise he would have answered the question asked by the hon. member for Acadia. All we want is the definition which will be acceptable to the department and to the other departments of government concerned. I heard the hon. member for Acadia suggest that a machine has to have a moving part. That is the first I have heard about that. Ask the Department of Finance, or ask the Department of National Revenue for a definition. They say they do not have to give a definition and they will not accept any definition in a legal dictionary or in the dictionaries we normally use.
Surely members of this committee, when they go back to their constituencies, will wish to talk intelligently on this subject, and when they are asked to define the term "farm machinery" they should be able to say: "Well, the minister said this-". Perhaps we could be given, now, a definition of farm machinery on the part of the hon. gentleman.


Harry William Hays: May I refer the hon. member to page 8514 of Hansard where I had this to say in connection with the question he asks:
If hon. members will refer to the Farm Credit Act they will note that parliament did not consider it necessary to define in detail in that act the items which might be considered to be farm machinery. Parliament in its wisdom recognized the necessity of providing a measure of flexibility in the definition by permitting it to be broadened from time to time by regulation, without the necessity of amendment to the act itself. I would like to assure hon. members, however, that it is the intention of the government, for the purposes of this act, to have farm machinery defined as broadly as possible so that it may include any item of machinery that a farmer can use in the development or operation of his farm unit. Farmers themselves know what they need and we want to be in the position to meet these needs.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am glad the minister answered my previous question as he did, because his reply illustrates the difficulty an hon. member finds when trying to understand legislation brought in by the government.
The minister has told us that a silo is not farm machinery. Would he tell the committee that the Farm Credit Corporation would not consider a silo as being a farm machine? Mr. Rutherford, who had so much to do with farm machinery-they would think other-administration, was among the leading proponents of silage, bed silos and upright silos. He was really an avid promoter of silage and I know he would have included silos among farm machinery. Now the minister says they are excluded from the benefits of this

Farm Machinery
bill. This illustrates the difficulty one encounters when trying to define machinery.
I say the definition in this bill should be one which includes all those things which aid farmers to carry out their business. As long as a farmer uses it to aid in carrying out his business, it should qualify. If the minister would agree with that, this bill would go through very quickly and the house would no doubt be at a standstill while the government sought to find new legislation to bring on. Instead, the minister is confused. I know in my heart that the Farm Credit Corporation would accept a silo under clause 3 of the relevant legislation. As the minister has said, let us apply the measure as broadly as possible. Let us therefore make the definition of farm machinery as broad as possible. I ask this question: Does a silo qualify as part and parcel of a farmers' list of machinery when he applies for a loan under part III of the Farm Credit Act?


Harry William Hays: It does not, under the Farm Credit Act. It is listed, I think, as among permanent improvements and it is not considered to be a machine.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is not considered a machine. But security is still taken on it. However, I do not think it matters.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Don't worry about it. The hon. member for Cochrane seems concerned. He will have to sit in his seat until six o'clock in any case. I state that a silo will be taken as security by the Farm Credit Corporation along with a farmer's other machinery under part III of the loan act. If the minister does not want to call it machinery, as long as money is lent on it I do not really mind.
Why does the minister not want to lend money to a syndicate that wishes to build silos to feed cattle? Has he an answer to that?
,l Mr. Hays: I am sorry; I did not hear the hon. member.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why does the hon. gentleman not feel that silos should qualify for loans under the terms of the bill before us? I believe silos cost a lot of money. I do not intend to build one, but they are used extensively here in eastern Canada.


Harry William Hays: I think we did provide other legislation this year to take care of buildings of this nature when we raised' the ceiling for unsupervised loans under the Farm Credit Act from $20,000 to $40,000 and when we

increased the ceiling on supervised loans from $27,500 to $55,000. In that legislation provision is made for farmers who wish to put up silos, barns, and so on. The bill we are now considering is designed to enable farmers to purchase machinery by forming syndicates and the security is the promissory notes plus the machines.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Farm Credit Corporation, as the minister knows, lends money basically for the purchase of land, a capital asset, not for the construction of buildings and so on which are liable to depreciation. I am sure all members of the committee will recognize there is a difference between the two things. The Minister of National Revenue would certainly do so. The value of a capital asset does not depreciate in the same way as the value of a silo, which ultimately has to be renewed or replaced. But the only way the Farm Credit Corporation makes money available with regard to silos is that if a person buys a farm with a silo on it, that silo will be accepted as security. But what is the minister trying to promote under clause 9?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I might also explain to the hon. member that the Farm Improvement Loans Act, under which loans have just recently been increased from $7,500 to $15,000, is also legislation that can be used in order to build this sort of improvement.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am not denying that; but I am saying that here we have a bill which will be of some help to some people. One industry I believe it would help is the cattle feeding industry. I am not in the cattle feeding industry, but I follow it and know something about it. I know that silage puts on the cheapest gains that are made in steers. I think this bill should allow a group of farmers to form a syndicate and feed out a herd of cattle. All I am asking is, why not help this industry, too? Why be so narrow? Are we trying to help Massey-Harris, are we trying to help John Deere and all the known machine companies just because they do not make silos? Is it for this reason that silos do not qualify? As long as the implement-


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, that does not matter. I know that members opposite are not interested in this bill; they have proven it to me for the last two weeks. But they still seem to be interested enough to heckle one who is trying to do a serious bit of work with regard to defining clause 9. I repeat, I cannot under-

stand why the minister does not include this type of equipment in this legislation. Perhaps the minister could give me some idea of his attitude in this regard. He says that under the provisions of this bill farmers can form a syndicate and will be able to purchase equipment that is needed to improve their operations. He says that through syndicating they will be able to economize. I agree that some farmers might be able to economize through syndicating, but I say that more farmers will be able to economize through syndicating if this bill is made as flexible as possible. The minister should include any farm machine or any machine used on a farm that allows a farmer to work his land more efficiently, to increase his production, to feed his cattle, or anything of that sort. This type of equipment should qualify under clause 9. But the minister says silos do not. I am just using silos as an example. I am sure the minister would agree that eastern farmers should have more grain elevators in this part of the country. That is obvious to anyone coming from western Canada, because you see so many in western Canada and so few in eastern Canada.
I am sure that if a silo would not qualify under this bill, neither would a grain storage elevator in eastern Canada. I ask the minister why he will not include in the provisions of this bill any machinery that will cut the costs of farmers who join together in a syndicate.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Wait; the minister is going to answer.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am afraid he is not going to answer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Minister of Industry is going to answer.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wish the hon. member for Essex East was minister of agriculture.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the minister referred to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Farm Credit Act, and so on, and said that silos could be built under these acts. Is the minister saying that a syndicate can borrow money under the acts he has quoted? Can a syndicate obtain a loan under the Farm Improvement Loans Act? Why does not the minister answer the hon. member's question? All he wants to know is what will be the situation when a syndicate has been formed. Why does not the minister tell the
Farm Machinery
hon. member what the situation will be? Why does he introduce these other acts, if they do not apply to a syndicate? The hon. member wants to know whether a syndicate will be able to build a silo under the provisions of this bill, in order to feed a herd of cattle. Can a syndicate borrow money for that purpose, under this bill?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with great interest to this debate. I am not a farmer and I do not know much about farming; but I look at this matter perhaps from a different point of view. I think the government has been making a serious, determined effort to try and meet the needs of the farmers. Their needs are essentially for financial assistance to enable them to bring their farm operations up to a state of efficiency which will allow them to reduce costs and remain competitive. This is not a problem unique to farmers; it extends to other areas of the economy.
However, one must bear in mind, in providing assistance, what the law is; and about this I know something. There are two kinds of security, either under the civil law or the common law. One is security related to real or immovable property, and the other is related to movable property, or chattels. Something that is a structure and is attached to the soil is an immovable or real property and is not, and cannot be, the object of a chattel mortgage. This whole bill is designed to make available credit to farmers, or syndicates of farmers, on the sole strength of the security of the chattel itself, the movable piece of equipment, the farm machinery. This is the purpose of this legislation. Other legislation-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the minister but I am just wondering whether at this stage he is not discussing the principle of the bill, which was considered on second reading, at the resolution stage and in the discussion on clauses 1, 2 and 3. I would hate to see the committee enter into a further discussion on the principle of the bill. I would invite the minister to limit his remarks to clause 9 as much as possible.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I was coming to that, Mr. Chairman. I apologize, but it seemed that the principle of the bill had escaped the hon. member for Acadia. The reason, then, why one cannot include structures such as a silo, or a barn or a farmhouse under the definition of "farm machinery" is that this is a bill related to chattels.

Farm Machinery


Mr. Mclnlosh:: What about an electric
pump?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Anything that is a movable, or is a chattel, I suspect would be included under the provisions of this bill. Although I cannot guarantee this, I believe the Minister of Agriculture, who has the interest of the farmers at heart, is going to endeavour to define these items as farm machinery. He cannot, under the law, define a silo, which is a structure, as farm machinery.


Mr. Bigg:: Some silos are movable; you can get them on skids.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: A house is movable, too, if you put it on skids; but it still is not regarded as machinery. The fact of the matter is that if a silo is built on the ground and is incorporated thereon, it becomes a structure and not a chattel, and therefore cannot be classified as machinery.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I understand.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Then will you explain that to your colleague?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the Minister of Industry for making this statement. That is the first explanation we have had in this regard. He came to grips with the problem, he defined what is meant in a very good way, and I can understand it quite well. All I want now is the Minister of Agriculture to get up and say the same thing; to say that anything that moves or anything that is movable will qualify under this bill. If he says that now, I will accept it. Is he prepared to agree with his fellow minister?


Harry William Hays: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman; I did not hear the hon. member.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is nothing I like more than talking, so I will gladly repeat myself. I said I commend the Minister of Industry for coming to grips with the problem. He gave a reasonable explanation. Whether or not I accept it wholeheartedly, I want to commend him for facing the issue and coming to grips with it. He said-and this is the gist of my question-that it would be anything which is movable, rolling. The minister is shaking his head. What did he say then?


Mr. Beer:: Read it in Hansard tomorrow.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He said that anything which was movable would be considered un-

der this act. All I am asking is: Could the minister make a similar statement? I will not hold him to it to the letter, but let him stand up and tell us.


Harry William Hays: I would be very pleased to. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister of Industry and I agree wholeheartedly with what he said. If the hon. member would take a good look at what he said in Hansard tomorrow he will see why I agree with the Minister of Industry, if he wants to be really honest with himself.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am always really honest with myself and with everybody else. Now the minister has agreed that far. Would he agree that a movable electric pump used for agricultural purposes would be a farm machine?


Harry William Hays: Yes; I do not think there is any question about that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let me go one step further. Would he say that a stationary electric pump was also a machine?


Harry William Hays: Yes, if it was used to help irrigate three or more farms.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let me use one more example. You have been patient with me, Mr. Chairman, but I have had to work fairly hard to get the minister this far on a definition of "farm machinery". Let us say that my neighbours and I are going to set up a hog feeding plant. We set up a number of selffeeders. This hinges on the Minister of Industry's definition of a stationary building. A self-feeder is movable. It is on skids; many of them are on wheels. Supposing I have a self-feeder which is portable and movable. Suppose that my neighbours and I are going to buy a group of self-feeders to feed 3,000 or 4,000 hogs. These feeders will cost a lot of money and we would have to form a syndicate to buy them. Would the minister classify them as farm machinery?


Harry William Hays: I suppose this is why farm machinery should be defined under regulation. If a group of people were going to feed their cattle with one of these large worms, which are very successful in many places, I suppose it would be farm machinery. But if it was a hog feeder which you dragged out into a field, put a little grain in it and then used it, I would say it was not a machine.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In other words, the minister agrees, and accepts the definition of

the Minister of National Revenue that it has to have moving parts.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You mean the Minister of Industry.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, the Minister of National Revenue. I ask the minister both as a farmer and as the Minister of Agriculture whether he accepts that definition. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has never been given a definition and neither have I, but I came to the conclusion that this is the rule of thumb which is used. I know for a fact that this is his rule of thumb, but does the minister agree that that is the rule of thumb?


Harry William Hays: I do not know whether the hon. member was here when the Farm Credit Act was passed, but if he agrees with this legislation he would also agree that this should be defined by regulation as it was in the Farm Credit Act. I think it proves all the more that machinery can only be defined by regulation. Machines change from day to day. One machine today may be a different sort of machine tomorrow, a machine for which we have no name yet.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: One further question. If a hog self-feeder is not a farm machine, what is it?


Harry William Hays: It is a hog feeder.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, I am not satisfied with that explanation. How would the minister classify it?


Harry William Hays: A place where pigs can eat.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I must say the minister is showing leadership. I am agreeable to passing this bill at six o'clock. I was agreeable to passing it ten minutes ago, and we will pass it yet if the minister will quit fooling around and giving such answers. I am trying to be serious. How would the minister classify a hog self-feeder?


Harry William Hays: We would have to define it by regulation. My feeling would be that it is not a machine.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then what is it? Is it
an instrument?


Harry William Hays: It is the same as a stoneboat or any other piece of machinery.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is it the desire of the committee to call it six o'clock?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No.
Crop Insurance Act


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Industry is apparently helping the Minister of Agriculture with the legal definition of certain terms. He says he understands the law and should know something about it. I took it from his explanation of the difference between machinery and fixtures on the land that he did not mean the immovable parts of certain instruments were fixtures; he meant buildings and such like. I wonder whether he would tell the house if a steel grain truck box is a piece of machinery, or is it a fixture?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Perhaps this is a little irrelevant to the debate but let me say that I cannot and I do not pretend to be able to define within the category of equipment or chattels what is a machine and what is not. To be quite frank I do not know.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The minister is helping the Minister of Agriculture and we want to know what will be classified as farm machinery. We are asking simple questions. The minister said that he knew the law and all we want is his answer. Is a steel truck box a piece of machinery; yes or no?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. member will have to wait for the regulations.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, September 16, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Hays-Mr. Lamou-reux in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Crop Insurance Act to authorize the governor in council to enter into agreements for the purpose of establishing a crop reinsurance program to supplement provincial crop insurance plans: to provide for the establishment in the consolidated revenue fund of a special account, to be known as the crop reinsurance fund, to which shall be credited amounts paid by a province under a crop reinsurance agreement and out of which shall be paid amounts required for the payment of reinsurance claims; to authorize advances from time to time from the consolidated revenue fund by way of non-interest bearing loans to the crop reinsurance fund; and to authorize the rebate, to grain growers whose grain is grown on insured lands, of sums paid by way of levy under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
Crop Insurance Act AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose on the evening of September 16 I had only had about three or four minutes to express some views respecting the resolution before us. I do not want to take a great deal of time this evening in attempting to examine the whole field of crop insurance for Canadian farmers in all the various areas and for all the different types of operations throughout Canada. I do, however, think it is worth repeating, as has been said before in the house a number of times, that the crop insurance schemes set up by three of the provincial governments on a pilot project basis have been something less than successful. In other words, if these pilot projects were to provide the experience and direction necessary to institute a complete and comprehensive crop insurance scheme they have not succeeded in doing so at least up to this time. So I think we will have to be patient while these crop insurance schemes evolve and until either the provincial governments or the federal government are prepared to embark upon a complete and comprehensive insurance scheme that will provide insurance and income to farmers all over Canada in case of crop failure.
The resolution before us represents a forward step. I think one of the reasons why the provincial governments have been a little timid in expanding their crop insurance schemes is that there was the overhanging possibility of being faced with a crop disaster year when a great deal of crop was under the insurance scheme, with the result that their resources would be taxed beyond their capacity to meet the payments if such an occurrence took place. It may be that new information will come to the attention of provincial governments over the years on the basis of the experience they gain respecting these matters. We know that up to the present time the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba have tried crop insurance on a very limited scale. We know that Prince Edward Island has also proceeded to take what has been referred to as a very timid step. At the last session of the Alberta legislature enabling legislation was passed so that that province too can establish a pilot project.
As I said, I think the action of the government to provide for reinsurance is a good move from the point of view of assisting the provincial governments if they should en-

counter what might be termed a tragedy year. But what I am even more concerned about while we are gaining experience is the suspension of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in those areas where crop insurance schemes are established. We have had 25 years of experience in evolving a plan not necessarily of crop insurance but at least of a type of payment to farmers in the three prairie provinces today you will find that failure. Certainly this experience has caused the federal government to recognize the weaknesses and to introduce amendments to the act from time to time to take care of those weaknesses. If you go to many parts of the prairie provinces today you will find that the farmers are reasonably well satisfied with the operations of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. In saying that, Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting it is perfect. I think it could be still further amended so that it would in fact be a form of insurance rather than simply a payment when disaster strikes.
We in this party believe that we could perhaps use the administration developed under P.F.A.A. to good purpose in embarking upon the much wider field of crop insurance. So far as the resolution before us is concerned, it requires complementary operative legislation passed by the provinces before it will have any effect at all. I am not entirely sure in my own mind whether this is the responsibility of the provinces. I know that a fairly good argument can be made on the basis of the varying types of conditions in the different provinces or regions of Canada, and perhaps it would be better if programs were developed in such a way as to take into consideration the specific conditions existing in a region. Perhaps that argument has some validity. On the other hand, under P.F.A.A. we already have a rather large organization with offices established and experienced personnel in several of the provinces and certainly we should not disregard their experience. Before I would be prepared to suggest that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is completely successful I would say we have to recognize there are some improvements required in the administration of that act as well. I had intended to go into considerable detail about this because the resolution calls for the suspension of the P.F.A.A. wherever crop insurance schemes are set up.
During the last few days I have noticed another resolution on the order paper, No. 78, which in fact calls for referring the royal commission of inquiry into the P.F.A.A. to the committee on agriculture. I believe that

would be a more appropriate time to deal in detail with some of the changes that ought to be made in the administration of the P,F.A.A. Tonight, Hr. Chairman, I do want to say this: during the past few months we have had a very serious cloud cast over the administration of the P.F.A.A. across Canada because of certain actions that took place in this house and a committee of this house. I believe that there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side of the coin to the Canadian people so they will not believe this Prairie Farm Assistance Act is some kind of political pork barrel, and a few other things, as it was called in Time magazine of August 7. There are weaknesses, and serious weaknesses, but one of the most serious weaknesses recently in the administration of the P.F.A.A. has been the fact that persons in responsible positions have stood in the way of punishing those who chose to abuse the regulations of the P.F.A.A. This, Mr. Chairman, is something that needs to be corrected.
There is an editorial in the Western Producer of August 27, 1964, which reads in part as follows:
The P.F.A. Act is a sound piece of legislation, of immense help to farmers in dry years. We cannot see it being supplanted in this area by more comprehensive crop insurance for a long time to come. It is therefore of supreme importance that it be administered and used fairly and honestly by all concerned. And let those who are not concerned, meaning all but the farmers and the properly constituted administration and the minister in charge, keep out of it altogether.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this is a rather profound statement coming from a paper that has its circulation primarily within the area in which P.F.A.A. is operative. I should like to quote one paragraph from Time magazine for August 7:
The Pope report found that there were indeed "irregularities in the Swift Current situation which reverberated all the way to Tory agriculture Minister Hamilton's office. According to the judge's version of the story, McIntosh "had a very profound influence" over P.F.A.A. Swift Current supervisor George Walker, and he put pressure on Hamilton and his executive assistant, Roy Faibish, to get the election-time cheques out quickly. Left in charge of the matter, Faibish prevailed on the P.F.A.A.'s board of review to clear the cheques although the P.F.A.A. directors had argued that they should be held up while the doubtful claims were investigated.
There are more and more of these. I have an editorial from the Edmonton Journal dated August 14 which supports my contention that the recommendations of this Pope royal commission ought to be referred to either the committee on privileges and elections or the committee on agriculture.
Crop Insurance Act


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of privilege. I trust that since you have allowed this member to go as far as he has, although the subject of his remarks has nothing to do with the resolution before us, I will have an opportunity to say a few words afterwards.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps the hon. member who has the floor now might like to relate his remarks to the resolution before the committee.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to draw your attention to the last paragraph of the resolution before the committee.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I rise on a point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; I understand that the hon. member for Medicine Hat is replying to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. I asked him if he could relate his remarks to the resolution before the committee and if the hon. member for Lethbridge wants to raise a point of order after that he may do so.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The last sentence of the resolution before the committee reads:
-and to authorize the rebate, to grain growers whose grain is grown on insured lands, of sums paid by way of levy under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
I think it is fairly obvious from the remarks I have been making with regard to P.F.A.A. that it is part and parcel of the resolution that is before us. I certainly want to remove any cloud that has been cast on the usefulness and validity of the P.F.A.A. That is all I want to say on the point of order. If there is nothing else, I shall try to continue my speech.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I should like to say something on the point of order. I would draw Your Honour's attention to the rulings this afternoon when we were dealing with a particular clause. If hon. members strayed from it the least bit Your Honour was on his feet immediately, and I think that perhaps the same diligence might be applied here. If we are going to go into a discussion of the whole of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, as the hon. member is tending to do, since he is bringing in a subject that has been discussed on many occasions in the past and which has nothing to do with the proposal of the minister with regard to crop insurance within the scheme of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, then I would suggest that the whole of the

Crop Insurance Act
prairie farm economy will be before the committee. There is a limit.


Lucien Lamoureux: Of course the point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West is well taken, but what we have here is a resolution. It is always easier for the Chair to define the limits of discussion when we are discussing a particular clause of a bill. In this case there is a rather complex resolution and I must admit it is not too easy for the Chair to determine when an hon. member is going beyond the terms of that resolution. I certainly appreciate hon. members bringing to the attention of the Chair someone who is straying from the matter under consideration. I admit that we are not discussing the Prairie Farm Assistance Act at the moment. Perhaps the hon. member for Medicine Hat will limit his remarks to the resolution specifically before us at this time.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Before you make your final ruling on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I suggest the member speaking on this resolution has gone away beyond the limits, I have no objection to his bringing up everything under P.F.A.A., but I still want the right to refute some of his arguments, some of his insinuations which have been carried in the press. He seems to believe them. There has been no explanation from the person involved, and since he has mentioned my name I should have an opportunity to put this member straight.


Lucien Lamoureux: As a final word, we all see that the resolution before us contains a specific reference to rebates to grain growers. However, I do not think this should open up the whole field of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You have allowed it to be done.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I shall certainly bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I would draw to your attention that when this legislation comes into force in the three prairie provinces it will be a substitute for the operations of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act because that act will be withdrawn from those areas where this is applicable. For that reason I cannot understand how one could be more relevant than in discussing the merits of a plan that has been operating for 25 years, when in fact we are debating a resolution that will be a substitute for it.
I do not believe I have been out of order in anything I have said up until this time, because if you read the resolution carefully

you will see it is a substitute for the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and I am trying to point out that that act has been successful except in those areas where it has been abused. Further, how I can develop that argument, without referring to some of the quotations that were widely used across the country during the last six or seven weeks, is beyond my comprehension. I realize there will be an opportunity to discuss this matter later in the session whenever item No. 78 on the order paper comes up for debate, and at that time we will be able to discuss the Pope report and all matters respecting the abuses of the administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. For that reason I will not pursue the matter further tonight.
In closing I suggest that if it is the intention of the government to reinsure provincial crop insurance schemes from time to time, with a view to the eventual suspension of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, it is a mistake. This act has 25 years of experience behind it. Over the years numerous amendments have been made to it, changes have been made in the regulations and in the amount of the levy farmers pay, and all these were undertaken to ensure it continued to do the job it was designed to do. I shall express myself in much more detail on this when item 78 comes before the house.
Over the last 25 years the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has cost the treasury an average of less than $10 million a year to guarantee some return to all the farmers in the three prairie provinces. It has taken the tragedy out of complete loss from failure of crops, and has been one of the cheapest and best federal programs fox protecting a large group of Canadian citizens from tragedy.
When there is a good crop year, such as there was in 1963, the farmers pay a large amount of money back into the fund through their 1 per cent levy. I do not say they completely restore the fund, or that the fund has been actuarially sound for the past 25 years, but no other federal assistance program, in agriculture, unemployment insurance, freight rate subsidies, or whatever you care to name, such as subventions for coal, has given the same security to as large a group of people as the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and at such a low price.
I presume the provinces will be setting up more pilot projects. I understand Alberta is trying to work out some kind of project for 1965, and although I do not know the details I understand Saskatchewan and Manitoba


B, 1964
[Stage Direction]
amend their crop insurance schemes year by year. I hope that some day out of all this there will be evolved a crop insurance scheme that will be truly operative and workable, and available to farmers at premiums that will not be prohibitive. In the meantime I urge the minister to be careful in withdrawing a scheme that has been satisfactory, and substituting something for it which to date has not been successful.
All this resolution will do is take certain areas out of the administration of P.F.A.A. and reinsure the provincial schemes that may be set up in those areas. If the government feels P.F.A.A. is costing too much money, perhaps the levy could be adjusted from 1 per cent to 1J or 2 per cent, and along with that the maximum awards paid under P.F.A.A. could be increased to compensate for complete crop failure. Before the government goes too far in setting P.F.A.A. aside I think it should consider some amendments to that act which, as I say, has been so successful for the last 25 years.
Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on resolution No. 49 now under study. This resolution is of interest not to us, but to the western provinces. We are pleased that it has been introduced.
It is noteworthy that not very long ago we were promised a crop insurance scheme for eastern Canada, as we were also promised a department of agriculture for eastern Canada; but a perusal of this resolution shows that the crop insurance scheme for the east will suffer the same fate as the department of agriculture for eastern Canada.
As can be seen, this resolution deals with the signing of agreements for the establishment of a crop reinsurance program to supplement provincial crop insurance plans.
As far as Quebec is concerned, it will not be difficult to supplement the provincial plan, because we have no such plan at present.
Our province has absolutely no crop insurance program even though people have been talking about it for years. Eastern farmers, especially those from Quebec, are still expecting the federal parliament or the provincial legislature to set up a crop insurance scheme adapted to the needs of the province.
A little further, toward the end, the resolution reads as follows:
-to authorize advances from time to time from the consolidated revenue fund by way of noninterest bearing loans to the crop reinsurance fund: and to authorize the rebate, to grain growers whose
20220-558i
Crop Insurance Act
grain is grown on insured lands, of sums paid by way of levy under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
Now in the text of this resolution the province of Quebec has been entirely forgotten, and I think the minister is doing the same thing himself.
It seems to me that it is contrary to normal procedure to levy taxes indirectly in order to come to the assistance of the western provinces. We are delighted to see that they have finally got a crop insurance scheme in the west which, although it may not be 100 per cent satisfactory to them, is improving little by little. But in the province of Quebec we are still awaiting the day when this act will be passed.
Various areas of the province have suffered losses this year; in my area apple orchards have suffered; elsewhere other sectors of agriculture have sustained losses. I know some farmers who at the present time are completing provincial government claim forms, who completed such forms a year ago, two years ago, and who have not received a red cent.
Not later than yesterday morning a farmer came to see me. All his apples were destroyed by frost this fall, and the federal government's resolution contains absolutely no provision for assisting this apple grower or, in the Beauce area, the maple syrup producers, the raspberry, strawberry or various garden crop growers.
When this resolution is considered by the committee on agriculture, I should like the minister to add to it a few paragraphs having in mind the province of Quebec and eastern Canada, and to take into consideration other products than grain. Grain is an important asset in our country but farming in Canada is not exclusively concerned with grain; farmers in eastern Canada are engaged in mixed farming.
In the last few years I know that some farmers have spent large amounts for seeding their land and who lost their crops for various reasons. The federal government could easily reimburse expenditures of that kind in the province of Quebec or in other provinces.
A farmer or an apple grower must spend two Or three months to maintain his orchard, his raspberry, and his strawberry patches; he may spend from $2,000 to $3,000 hoping that he will have a crop in the fall. But when he loses everything, it seems that the federal government could create out of this crop reinsurance fund, a fund to compensate

Crop Insurance Act
the farmer for expenditures incurred in seeding or cultivating his orchard.
Mr. Chairman, it seems very difficult for the present Minister of Agriculture, as it was for his predecessors, to set up a crop insurance scheme which would be in the interests of the province of Quebec or of eastern Canada.
Our crops are diversified, and we are proud that the farmer belongs to our national heritage and can grow such fine products. However, at present no provision in our laws will assist the province of Quebec and take into consideration the conditions of its agriculture. Such legislation does not exist.
Since this is a resolution it is impossible to further discuss the program of crop reinsurance, but I wish that the minister would consider reimbursing essential expenditures to farmers who lose their crops. It costs $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000 yearly to maintain an orchard; seeding costs some of our farmers $2,000 or $3,000. It would be easy to provide for the reimbursement of the essential outlays, when they have put in the crop.
Mr. Chairman, it might seem complicated but it is not. Until now we have never given thought to crop losses in eastern Canada and I see, on the government benches, good Liberal members who during the last electoral campaign promised a crop insurance. I do not know whether they intended it then for western Canada only, but from their speeches it seemed to me that they meant agriculture in eastern Canada.
It is time to add a few paragraphs to this resolution to ensure that the Quebec farmers are not completely forgotten.


John (Jack) McIntosh: In speaking to this resolution may I say that the last part of the resolution is difficult for me to understand. I will not read it. To me it seems to be a melding of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act as we know it with the Crop Insurance Act.
It is not often I agree with the hon. member for Medicine Hat but maybe this is one of the times I do agree with him. This is a move to destroy the Prairie Farm Assistance Act- and I say that with my tongue in my cheek. I say to the hon. member for Medicine Hat that perhaps he is one in this house who has done more to destroy the Prairie Farm Assistance Act than anyone else in Canada. Tonight he deliberately started a smear campaign by referring to articles such as the one in Time magazine, before hearing the other side of
[Mr. Kondeau.l
the story, and I am afraid others in this house have also made statements without hearing the other side of the story.
In order to correct certain wrong assumptions I should like to clear up a few inferences which were left by the Pope report, as it is called. I attended most of the hearings. I heard the evidence. I know that the director made four accusations-


George James McIlraith: I rise on a point of order which I think should properly be advanced at this time. It is merely this. The reference to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is only incidental to permitting grain grown on insured land to receive a rebate, and I submit that debate should be limited to this particular item in the resolution and not be allowed to extend over the whole subject of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the other matters which are dealt with under item 78 on the order paper.
If the remarks of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek are to be limited to answering earlier remarks which may have been made before the point of order was taken, I have no objection. But if they are the start of an attempt to go beyond that, I would wish to raise a point of order.


John (Jack) McIntosh: On that point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would say that although the minister has given us his idea of what the resolution means I have another idea of what it means. I believe it is the thin edge of the wedge designed to do away with prairie farm assistance. That is what I am speaking about tonight and I think it demands a certain amount of explanation on my part.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I agree with the minister to some extent when he says there will be an opportunity to discuss P.F.A.A. under resolution No. 78 on the order paper. At the same time he said this resolution is simply limited to rebate certain sums collected on lands which have been reinsured. Along with that goes a clear implication, if nothing else, that P.F.A.A. in so far as its being effective on those lands where the rebate will be made, will no longer be the case; in fact, on those lands, P.F.A.A. is going to be withdrawn. Therefore, I think the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek in discussing P.F.A.A. in an extended way would be in order because in fact P.F.A.A. is going to be suspended wherever this reinsurance applies.


Lucien Lamoureux: The point of order was raised previously by two or three hon. members, who I thought made a good point,

namely that the resolution as it is before the committee does not deal with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, except in its reference to the authorization of a rebate. The hon. member for Medicine Hat had, to my mind, strayed some distance from the essence of the resolution. He was called to order and was generous enough to go along with the chairman and say that he would not pursue the matter further.
I think the minister made a good point when he referred to the fact that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek may have wanted to reply to whatever charges or suggestions had been made previously. To that extent I think he should be allowed to reply to what has been said by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, subject to this limitation; I doubt whether it would be very wise for the committee at this stage to go into the whole operation of the P.F.A.A., particularly in view of the fact that item No. 78 on the order paper would perhaps be a much better vehicle by which to enter into such a discussion.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, before we get into any more difficulties in this regard I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture would tell us if the effect and operation of P.F.A.A. is going to be withdrawn on those lands where this resolution will be operative.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes in so far as lands that are going to be insured are concerned. But if we are to replace the P.F.A.A., this would take a very long time. If this resolution were to replace the P.F.A.A., all the areas would have to be under crop insurance.


Mr. Nasserden:: On the point of order that has been raised, Mr. Chairman, I think this resolution does not provide for the type of discussion that would bring into play the principle of whether crop insurance was preferable to the P.F.A.A. This resolution deals with a way to improve and extend the crop insurance legislation. I believe that at the time the crop insurance bill itself was brought into the house, the house decided that crop insurance was a good principle, and that is why it was finally accepted by the House of Commons. For that reason I feel that too wide a discussion would not be proper at this time.


John (Jack) McIntosh: If I may speak on a point of order again, Mr. Chairman, the minister admitted that this resolution will do away with the P.F.A.A. He qualifies this by saying
Crop Insurance Act
it may take a long time. This just confirms my statement of a few moments ago that this is the thin edge of the wedge and it will destroy the P.F.A.A.-and the minister knows that. In fact, what will be left will be those areas in which the premium will be so high that the farmers cannot afford to take out insurance. This is the thin edge of the wedge and in my opinion now is the very time it should be straightened out.


Lucien Lamoureux: I might say that that debate can be allowed within the confines of the resolution. This is all the Chair can allow. The rules are there and they say that in committee debate must be strictly relevant to the subject matter. I can only bring this to the attention of the hon. member who now has the floor and trust he will abide by the rules.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with the words of the minister, that this resolution will eventually do away with the P.F.A.A. I will refer to some of the reasons why the minister perhaps wishes to do away with the P.F.A.A.; some of the wrong impressions the country has about this particular act, and some of the wrong impressions about the remuneration that the farmers receive under this act.
I wish to refer back to the inquiry under Judge Pope, where the director of P.F.A.A. made an accusation against the supervisor in my area. I do not have to go back too far; I do not have to go over all the ground again. But the minister knows full well that when he rose in the house and made this accusation against one of my constituents, it was groundless; in fact he withdrew it later on.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Order.


John (Jack) McIntosh: What is the matter with you? Do you want to get up and speak?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, I think it is completely irrelevant to deal with the administration of the P.F.A.A. under this resolution. There is no connection whatever. The hon. member will see that there is on the order paper an item dealing with P.F.A.A., and I am sure that if he so desired, he could raise this question when that item is before the house. There will then be ample opportunity to deal with this question, but it should not be done at this time.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Are you asking me a question? Are you asking me whether I think it is relevant or not?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You are out of order.

Crop Insurance Act


John (Jack) McIntosh: Are you the chairman, as usual?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: No, I am not the chairman; but it is my duty to bring this matter to the attention of the Chair.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. A point of order has been raised by the hon. member for Kootenay East and it seems to me that the point is well taken. This is the field which the hon. member for Medicine Hat sought to enter a moment ago and he was asked by the Chairman not to enter it. If the hon. member did go into this field I am sure it would then be impossible to stop a fully fledged discussion on that aspect of the question, which is the administration of the P.F.A.A. I suggest that the hon. member is getting away from the resolution before us when he discusses that type of detailed administration of the P.F.A.A.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression when I rose first, when the hon. member for Medicine Hat was making insinuations, that I would be given the opportunity to answer some of the statements he made. That is all I am trying to do right now. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I will cut my remarks as short as I possibly can at the present time.
The Pope report, and the hon. member for Medicine Hat, said there were irregularities under P.F.A.A. in my area. I challenge the government, I challenge the hon. member for Medicine Hat or anybody else to prove that there were irregularities in my area. I have said politics were brought into this matter, and the minister knows that when he set up this commission of inquiry it was to investigate P.F.A.A. in the whole of Saskatchewan. I have said this in the house before and I will say it again: Why did this inquiry investigate the Swift Current area only? That question has never been answered. I say to the minister now that if there were any irregularities, it is his responsibility to see that these people are prosecuted. I want to know why they have not been prosecuted. I want to know why a judge of our courts said, "I recommend that no attempt should be made to secure reimbursement from any of the farmers who received an award". If any of these farmers received an award to which they were not entitled, they should be prosecuted. As a minister of the crown the Minister of Agriculture should see that they are prosecuted.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat has raised the question of the 130 farmers who were examined in this inquiry, and the inference he left that they were wrong is abso-
[Mr. Byme.l
lutely ridiculous. If you read the transcript of evidence and see the question the judge asked those farmers, you will understand how ridiculous it is. You will also appreciate the danger of an inquiry such as this. A farmer stated that he had a six bushel average crop this year and as such he was entitled to payment under P.F.A.A. It did not matter how many dollars he had in the bank or how many bushels of wheat he had on his farm; he is paying for this protection-he pays 1 per cent of his sales each year. But the judge, on investigating this, with the intention of leaving the inference-which he did, and which apparently all the members of this house believe-asked the farmer this question, "You say you had a six bushel average crop this year, but you have 10,000 bushels stored on your farm. If that was on this year's crop, you would have 26 bushels to the acre?" The farmer said, "That is right". The judge dropped it there, with the inference that the farmer did have a 26 bushel average, to the acre, that year instead of six.
I could say many things about this report, particularly about the last recommendation contained therein, which is:
I recommend that consideration should be given to placing the permanent staff of the prairie farm assistance administration under the civil service of Canada-
This is the point that bothers me. Why did the judge include these last three lines, which say:
-in order to eliminate the possibility of political pressure beng exerted on those entrusted with the responsibility of administering the act.
I would suggest that he indicts himself here. He was not only appointed a judge by order in council, but he was appointed commissioner of this inquiry by order in council. Does he mean to say that the government or some politician forced him to bring in a report like this? I say that those three lines are an insult to 50 per cent of the public servants in Canada. I think the minister should be ashamed of himself for setting up this inquiry and ashamed of himself for not getting up in this house and explaining the truth to the people of Canada, rather than leaving the insinuation which has been left in the house for so long.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Chairman, before the resolution carries I have one or two things I should like to say, although I might be a little sidetracked in view of the previous remarks. I should like to draw to the attention of the committee some matters which

concern my particular area of Canada as well as Canada as a whole. As I understand it, crop insurance and crop reinsurance applies to Canada as a whole. Provinces almost from coast to coast are considering taking advantage of this legislation. However, there is some doubt in my mind about this word "reinsurance". For example Alberta has no insurance agreement at the moment. I am very much in favour of crop insurance and reinsurance, but in view of the position in Alberta I should like the minister to explain how there can be "reinsurance" in a province which has no insurance to begin with.
Another point which comes to mind is a little more basic. This is a program for general crop insurance which, as I have just said, I am very much in favour of. I am particularly in favour of this bill because its provisions would apply from coast to coast as agreements are reached between the provincial governments and the federal government. I am disappointed that Alberta is apparently dragging its feet in reaching some agreement with the federal government; perhaps Alberta is one of the provinces which is asking for reinsurance before there is even any insurance agreement.
Some of these matters have been touched on in connection with a previous bill, but I find it rather hard to amend legislation before it is even put into effect and tried. In my particular area of Alberta as well as in other areas across the country it would be easy to institute a crop insurance program. I am not too sure why certain provinces are dragging their feet but as far as Alberta is concerned one reason must be that there is no crop insurance in force in the province at the moment. All too often Canadians have to have things all wrapped up with a blue ribbon before they will even look at them. I think Alberta should have taken part in this scheme earlier, and I hope the minister will even go so far as to put on record why we have to make provision for reinsurance before some provinces even have insurance.
Much has been said about the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and I should like to say something in defence of P.F.A.A. Although I have had many complaints about P.F.A.A. in my area I do not think this is due to any faults in the legislation itself. Something which we in this committee should guard against at all times, and be jealous of, is the fact that after passing legislation we often find some difficulty in giving it recognition, purely because between the time it becomes law and its application in the field many
Crop Insurance Act
rules and regulations are appended thereto. We try to anticipate these rules and regulations in this house, regulations which in many cases are much needed; but the fact remains that the addition of rules and regulations makes it hard actually to recognize the original legislation. Sometimes these rules and regulations change the whole meaning of the act. Perhaps it is time that the rules and regulations in connection with P.F.A.A. and the legislation itself were amended, much in the same way as other legislation throughout the years comes up for revision in order to simplify it, to clarify it and to bring it back to earth.
If I may return to the subject of crop insurance and reinsurance for a moment, I have heard it suggested here that we should consider raising the levy against grain growers for the purposes of P.F.A.A. I should like to say that I am definitely not in favour of that. I should like to point out why, and try to relate my reasons to the resolution before us providing for a crop reinsurance program. Some areas have long term averages of, say 20 bushels to the acre over a period of 30 to 40 years. Let us say that the gross price throughout those years has been $1.50 a bushel or $30 an acre. One per cent of that is 30 cents an acre. This is the gross, not the net figure, and if you take 30 cents an acre for a 20 or 30 year period you have $6 or $9 an acre. Actually no benefit whatever has been received and even at today's prices the amount of money paid represents the price of a good amount of crop insurance.
I have no real complaint on that score but I do have a complaint about raising the levy for any purpose unless it is for an improvement. I can recall several years when if I had realized 1 per cent of the gross- you can figure out what that is when you get down to the net-or 2 or 3 per cent of the net I would have thought I was doing very well on my investment. I want to say very definitely that I am not in favour of raising the P.F.A.A. levy as suggested by the hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether in fairness the hon. member would also say that I suggested the awards be raised correspondingly?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I accept that, but nevertheless the hon. member suggested that the levy be raised. There are many areas in Canada where the farmers have contributed to P.F.A.A. over long periods and have not had to take advantage of the act. The farmers in these areas do not think that the levy should

Crop Insurance Act
be increased. I think they would be much more in favour of crop insurance and the resolution before us at the moment. I realize that the figure I mentioned is an arbitrary one but it is not too far off the mark, and if you take that figure and apply it to a crop insurance program and add to that the contributions of the province and the federal government you have much broader insurance coverage than you could ever have under P.F.A.A. at the present time for the same amount of money. Where crop insurance programs have been instituted in the provinces in the last two or three years they have been successful. I realize this has brought about the request for reinsurance which is something that probably should have been provided in the first place, although I am not too sure about that. In all honesty and fairness I think it should be tried before a reinsurance program is guaranteed.
I spoke earlier about the ills of P.F.A.A. Probably one of the greatest drawbacks has resulted from the rules and regulations made under the legislation, and not from the legislation itself. I refer to the fact that a farmer on one side of the road may be covered under P.F.A.A. and a farmer on the other side of the road may not be. It is things like this that make the legislation ambiguous. It is things like this that in my opinion have caused members to say that this resolution is the thin edge of the wedge to get rid of P.F.A.A. Frankly I do not think it is. It may be a lever or a way of calling our attention to the needs of the legislation itself, but in no way do I think that the reinsurance plan envisaged in the resolution will take away from P.F.A.A.
There is a need for this resolution and basically I have no complaint with it whatsoever. I am only trying to point out some things that have been referred to earlier. With regard to authorizing the rebate, I may say that I have read the Crop Insurance Act and I should like to ask the minister to clarify this point. In reading the original legislation I thought it was up to the federal government and the provincial governments to cover this in their agreement on a crop insurance program. Perhaps I did not read it correctly. If this is not the case, then this is a necessary part of the resolution. However, I do not think we should consider raising the P.F.A.A. levy, nor do I think we should cast any reflection on the people who have administered P.F.A.A. throughout the years, those who are now deceased, those who are retired and those who are now working for the administration. I think they should all be

complimented and that we should say to them: Well done. I hope they will take part in the crop insurance program. In fact I am very sure they will, and with their guidance and experience it cannot help but be successful provided the provinces co-operate.
I hope there will be more co-operation from the provinces. The next time the minister is in Alberta I hope he will urge the minister of agriculture for that province to participate in this program and, if I may be so brash, I would suggest that the federal minister might ask the provincial minister to consider the southern area of Alberta. I think the minister's area in particular could benefit very much from this legislation. I live in one of those fortunate areas that does not have very much hail or very many grasshoppers and has a fair amount of moisture. As far as I am concerned, crop insurance would be just fine. I have no regrets about the amount of money I have paid under P.F.A.A., but I urge the minister to emphasize the importance of this program the next time he talks to the minister of agriculture of Alberta or the ministers of agriculture of the other provinces. I am quite sure there has been enough experience in Canada already to do away with any fears that the crop insurance program will not work. However, adjustments may have to be made from time to time and perhaps we have one before us now.
I listened to an hon. member a while ago, and while I did not catch all of the translation I gathered that he hoped this program would apply to the eastern provinces. It is my understanding that it will and I should like to say that I am also very happy that this is one program at least in the Department of Agriculture which will apply from one end of the country to the other. I might be mistaken, and perhaps the minister can correct me, but this legislation could be broader than even I realize. It could apply to many crops. If it does not now, eventually it might. It could apply to the small fruit farmer, tree fruits, grain, tobacco or whatever one wished. I wonder if it might not also apply to livestock and poultry. I can recall violent hail storms that have destroyed whole flocks of poultry.
I should like to ask the minister this question and I hope he will answer it. Will this crop insurance scheme apply to the poultry farmer? I believe the minister has heard of the incidents to which I am referring. If a farmer's product is damaged by hail, whether livestock, poultry or anything else, will he be insured under the scheme?


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: If I keep on talking, you can carry me out. I have just completed my remarks and I do thank the committee and you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.


Edward Nasserden: I think this is very timely legislation. We are reminded of the fact that crop insurance legislation has not been in operation too long. It was one of those acts brought in by the former administration led by the Leader of the Opposition. The legislation arose as a result of requests that had been made primarily from the prairie provinces for a crop insurance plan. These requests I believe were the result of the satisfaction of farmers on the prairies with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act which was introduced during the days when Hon. James G. Gardiner was minister of agriculture.
The reinsurance principle is a good principle. At the time the crop insurance measure was introduced in parliament some demands were made for the inclusion of a reinsurance principle in the legislation. I believe it was the feeling of the government that such a move might encourage too swift a movement into crop insurance in those areas in which it might cost the treasury of the country a great deal of money. Now that we have had the operation of this act in selected areas in those provinces that have introduced the legislation, I think all of us in this house are in a position to realize that the reinsurance principle can be safely introduced. It would at the same time give quite an impetus to the whole crop insurance program.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat referred to the timidity with which provincial governments have moved into the crop insurance field. I for one feel that his point is well taken. I believe the provinces, not only the prairie provinces but the other provinces as well, could have moved into this field much more quickly than they have. I know there are large areas in the province of Saskatchewan where the crop Insurance plan would be at least equal in benefit to the producers as the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. There may be some selected areas in which this will never be the case, but there are many areas in Saskatchewan where a crop insurance plan would be of at least equal and perhaps even greater benefit to the farmers. I hope that when the bill is brought forward the terms of reinsurance will make this possible.
I should like to correct one impression I thought I gathered from a member at the
Crop Insurance Act
far end of the room this evening. At the moment crop insurance legislation is allembracing so far as agricultural products are concerned. Any province can take part in it if it so desires. Of course, it is up to a province to make a decision in that regard. This is one of the things that is sometimes forgotten. Perhaps in some of the provinces in western Canada provincial governments have been willing to move into this field a little more rapidly than governments in other parts of the country because of the experience they have had under P.F.A.A.
I know that all of us are very appreciative of the effects of the P.F.A.A. legislation, and the wonderful work that has been done by those who have been associated with this program from the beginning. Their work has been an inspiration and has led to the realization of a crop insurance program in Canada. I know the people of my area would want me to commend the minister and the government for the introduction of this resolution. We hope that the bill will be as promising as the resolution.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, this resolution suggests, and I quote order 49 in today's order paper:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the crop insurance act to authorize the governor in council to enter into agreements for the purpose of establishing a crop reinsurance program-
We are no longer in the field of crop insurance but in that of crop reinsurance.
-to supplement provincial crop Insurance plans.
To supplement provincial crop insurance plans, the federal government is introducing a crop reinsurance program which will double the cost of insurance to farmers. The resolution goes on to say:
-to provide for the establishment in the consolidated revenue fund of a special account, to be known as the crop reinsurance fund, to which shall be credited amounts paid by a province under a crop reinsurance agreement and out of which shall be paid amounts required for the payment of reinsurance claims;-
Insuring insurance.
-to authorize advances from time to time from the consolidated revenue fund by way of noninterest bearing loans to the crop reinsurance fund; and to authorize the rebate, to grain growers whose grain is grown on insured lands, of sums paid by way of levy under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
This resolution has been introduced by the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be neither long nor elaborate. I merely wish to say

Crop Insurance Act
this is another resolution to give further assistance to western agriculture, to prairie farmers.
During the past three sessions no resolution has been introduced to help eastern agriculture by setting up a crop insurance program for the benefit of such people as the apple growers of Quebec, the maple syrup producers, the farmers of eastern Ontario, of Sudbury and other important centres of that province or of Quebec.
Not more than a year ago northwestern Quebec was struck by disaster when not only crops were destroyed but even buildings were blown away by a tornado. It was not a tropical storm but one which came from the north and which swept away barns and stables.
At the time we asked the Minister of Agriculture to assist northwestern farmers in that province. And we were told: We have not been asked by the Quebec provincial government to come in and assist northwestern farmers in both Quebec and Ontario.
And we are always dealing in the house with resolutions to assist in farming and in the prairie provinces and western farmers. It is not detrimental to the other provinces, and I realize that the western farmers need the assistance we provide for them; however, the Minister of Agriculture should realize that in eastern Canada and more specifically in the province of Quebec, such an assistance is also required and that legislation should be passed to give satisfaction to eastern [DOT]Canada farmers.
At that time, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture could say: "I am not the minister of agriculture for western Canada only, but for all Canada."
It is precisely because we have always had to consider resolutions which favoured western Canada, and never resolutions favouring eastern Canada, that we are requesting a minister of agriculture for the east. Indeed, the present Minister of Agriculture does not seem to understand what is going on in eastern Canada.
Mr. Chairman, we are not against insuring the western farmer's insurance, but we are against, for instance, treating the Quebec farmers, the producers of maple syrup, apples, tobacco and other products in the province of Quebec and eastern Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island in any other way than that in which the Minister of Agriculture is now asking us to treat the western farmer.

We are all for crop reinsurance for western farmers. I see that the Minister of Agriculture is chatting away happily with the Minister of Finance; the two of them get along perfectly, they are not listening to me, they do not even hear me, they are chatting away. Look at them, Mr. Chairman, they are chatting away and meanwhile the eastern farmers, those of Lotbiniere and Villeneuve counties are wondering what the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance are planning in order to help them, or whether they are just dithering around with regard to the eastern farmers.


Mr. Drouin:: The Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes electors are of the same opinion as those of Lotbiniere and Villeneuve-


David Réal Caouette: The electors of Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, as their elected representative points out, fully agree with what I have just said.
Nor would I be surprised if the constituents of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) were also of the same opinion as I and his colleagues from Lotbiniere and Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes.
Mr. Chairman, we are not asking for special treatment; no, but that is precisely what the Minister of Agriculture is doing at present for western farmers.
We are willing to pass this resolution and to help western farmers but, in return, I would ask the minister to introduce a resolution similar to the one under consideration which seeks to help western farmers when he receives requests from the ridings of Lotbiniere and Dorchester, from the apple growers of Shefford, from the riding of St. Jean-Iber-ville-Napierville, in other words, from any constituency in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, there are other areas than the prairie provinces in Canada. There are other areas which are not prairies, but forest regions where agriculture is really practised, where not only wheat is grown, but where diversified agricultural products are grown. Then the minister would prove his good faith toward agriculture, and this would be beneficial not only to one section of the country, but of the whole of Canada.
On behalf of the farmers of eastern Canada, and particularly on behalf of the Quebec farmers, I wish the Minister of Agriculture would quit laughing and joking with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and introduce a similar resolution to assist agriculture in eastern Canada, to assist the producers of maple syrup, our apple, potato and oat grow-

ers, our dairy products, in a word, all of our Canadian producers. Let him bring forward a resolution similar to the one now before us, so that the Canadian parliament may follow the same policy for the whole of Canada and not only for an area, in this case the prairie provinces.
As I said a moment ago, we respect the prairie provinces, but we want our section of the country to be placed on the same footing as the prairie provinces.


Mr. Choquelte:: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief as I do not want to delay the passing of the resolution.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) most warmly on the initiative he has taken and to refute some of the remarks made by the hon. member who has just spoken.
In my opinion the government is giving its full attention to the well-being of our Canadian farmers both in the west and in the east.
Needless to say we realize that an emergency can arise in the east, and there is no doubt whatsoever that a special effort is being made to put agriculture back on its feet again in the eastern provinces. As an example, may I just mention the measure which was recently passed in order to subsidize feed grain shipped by truck, and the piece of legislation for increasing farm credit which has been passed during the present session. And, finally, the legislation passed this afternoon enabling farmers to unite and take advantage of a very comforting credit for the purchase of required farm machinery.
Of course all those pieces of legislation reflect the definite intention of the government to help all farmers, whether in eastern or western Canada. But the resolution now under study, in its present form, might leave us somewhat puzzled, in so far as it requires of course the co-operation of the provinces.
The particular case of the province of Quebec is well known: the premier of Quebec, Mr. Lesage, has indicated his intention to withdraw from many joint programs. Consequently, I feel that in introducing this resolution the minister must immediately initiate negotiations with the various provincial authorities, especially the Quebec government, in order to stir up on their part a special interest in this legislation and see to it that Quebec farmers, as well as eastern farmers as a whole, will be adequately covered, by distributing the protection granted to Canadian farmers as fairly as possible.
Mr. Chairman, again I congratulate the minister and I urge him to continue his
Crop Insurance Act
aggressive policy in the agricultural field. I also urge him to take the necessary steps to initiate without delay negotiations with the Quebec authorities so that the farmers of that province may have all the required protection.
I might mention also that in my riding of Lotbiniere, which is mostly rural and typically agricultural, farmers have incurred great losses on many occasions, and had it been possible for them to take advantage of crop insurance it would have been of valuable assistance to them, if not of priceless help.
I suggest therefore that the Quebec authorities be involved as quickly as possible in this essentially Canadian legislation so that it might be applied throughout Canada for the benefit of all farmers, from the west as well as from the east.


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Chairman, I always like to hear the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) discuss farm matters. Every time I put myself in the place of a farmer and I compare the speeches he now makes in the house with those he made during the last federal election.
Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member says that the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) shows dynamism, 1 must say the farmer thinks it is rather dynamite and is getting ready to protest in no uncertain terms against the inaction of this government.
Indeed, the hon. member is perfectly aware that within a few months there will be a very strong reaction on the part of the farmers of my province, more particularly those of his region and of the lower Quebec districts.
As far as the resolution now before us is concerned, it is a piece of legislation to amend the Crop Insurance Act passed by the house in 1959. That act applies to all provinces in Canada and all can take advantage of it. However, the act must be promulgated by the province desiring to avail itself of its advantages.
Mr. Chairman, what amazes me most in this debate, is that after hearing, during the electoral campaigns of 1962 and 1963, our hon. friends opposite now facing us____


David Réal Caouette: Opposite friends facing us.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I meant to use another expression, but I changed my mind.


David Réal Caouette: Opposite friends facing us.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, our friends opposite-

Crop Insurance Act


David Réal Caouette: Our opposite friends facing us.


Clément Vincent: -and perhaps it is the reason why the hon. members for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) and Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette)-


David Réal Caouette: I have nothing to do with that.


Clément Vincent: -believed it at one time; as they were repeating throughout the province that this legislation had been passed solely in order to help the western farmers.


David Réal Caouette: That is right.


Clément Vincent: I am convinced that the hon. member for Bonaventure would not dare repeat here in the house the speech he made on November 23, 1962 or those he made during election campaigns when he promised the Quebec farmers if the Liberal party was returned to office the immediate application of crop insurance legislation in the province of Quebec, saying that the Conservatives did not want to provide this assistance for eastern farmers-and Quebec farmers in particular-and, as usual, that the leader of the Conservative party was against French Canadian people and therefore against the implementation of this legislation in the province of Quebec.
The hon. member for Laval (Mr. Rochon), who I am sure talked about crop insurance in his constituency during the last electoral campaign is now as silent as a fish. Why does he not repeat here in this house what he said about crop insurance in his constituency and elsewhere in the province of Quebec?
And there are others, including the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin)-


David Réal Caouette: Another fish.


Clément Vincent: -aspiring to the job of minister of agriculture for eastern Canada or of parliamentary secretary, who was concerned with farm questions for eastern Canada. On October 1, 1962, that is two years ago, he asked the then government to put the Crop Insurance Act into force in the province of Quebec. During the election campaign those people promised that as soon as they assumed office they would apply the Crop Insurance Act to the province of Quebec.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: In 20 years from now.


Mr. Vinceni:: Today we have before us a measure to amend the act. We know that under the constitution the provinces must

proclaim this act, although the federal government has no authority to force them to apply the Crop Insurance Act. We know it today, we knew it yesterday, we knew it in 1962. What I fail to understand is that our Liberal friends who certainly knew it in 1962-63 deceived the farmers of the province of Quebec on purpose, by telling them that they would be able to make this act applicable to the province of Quebec through this famous cooperative federalism.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: They have forgotten everything.


Auguste Vincent: I am sure that during the election campaign previous to yesterday's byelection, something was said about crop insurance, but no action has been taken.
The Minister of Agriculture told us that the government had discussed over and over again the present crop insurance program and that the only conclusion they could come to was to implement what had been devised by the Conservative government as an amendment to the legislation, namely to establish a reinsurance program so that the provinces would not run too great a risk of going bankrupt within a few years with their crop insurance program.


David Réal Caouette: They remain silent.


Clément Vincent: It has also been stated last February, and that was quite a few months ago, that provincial ministers of agriculture had met here in Ottawa with the federal Minister of Agriculture to consider the matter of crop insurance. The Minister of Agriculture has not yet told us if the provinces, apart from the three provinces mentioned, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island, intended to participate under the Crop Insurance Act should the amendments now before us-


David Réal Caouette: Reinsurance.


Clément Vincent: -be carried.
The minister has not told us if the province of Quebec would accept to participate in this federal-provincial program, to this joint plan of crop insurance in order to enable our farmers, who complain of the bad weather and frost, to take advantage of this legislation which has been passed not only for the farmers of western Canada but for all Canadian farmers.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Auguste Vincent: Certainly.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Could the hon. member explain to us how it happens that a party in acceding to power seems to lose its memory.


David Réal Caouette: It is rather difficult to reply to that.


Clément Vincent: It is rather difficult to answer this question.


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


Clément Vincent: But, Mr. Chairman, I do not know what is happening to our friends across the way, but they used to talk much more on the hustings than they now do in the house and they have failed to fulfil their promises.


An hon. Member:: We do something.


Clément Vincent: They do something. That is a term which certainly makes farmers laugh. The hon. member for Lotbiniere spoke a moment ago about the achievements of the Liberal party. He mentioned three things.


Auguste Choquette: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I have never spoken of all the achievements. I have only pointed out a few of the recent measures that have been adopted.
We are in the process of building up agriculture. We are elected for four years, constitution grants us five years. Give us time to act. You did nothing for six years.


Lucien Lamoureux: Might I invite the hon. members and in particular the one who now has the floor to limit his remarks to the resolution presently under study.


Clément Vincent: Thank you for your assistance, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Lotbiniere has just said that the Liberal party is in the process of building up an agricultural program, and that we did nothing for six years-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Just a moment ago I asked the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska to limit his remarks to the resolution under study, whose object is to amend the Crop Insurance Act.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely relevant to this amendment to the Crop Insurance Act enacted in 1959.


David Réal Caouette: Crop reinsurance.


Clément Vincent: Today, all the new measures in this great program are amendments to acts enacted by a Conservative government. That means that the Conservative government did something in that field and all the
Crop Insurance Act
Liberals can do is to enlarge the scope of legislation already enacted.
Mr. Chairman, I was saying that last February the ministers of agriculture of Canada got together to consider this legislation with the federal Minister of Agriculture. But even today we do not know which provinces agree to participate in this program.
The minister also tells us, and I am pointing this out, that this legislation will encourage a greater number of provinces to take part in this crop insurance scheme and that this scheme will have a wider scope.
Mr. Chairman, we thoroughly and unreservedly support this amending legislation and we wish that the present federal government may, in the spirit of co-operation it has so often mentioned, succeed in convincing the provinces to participate in this crop insurance scheme so as to ensure the necessary protection to our farmers.
Before concluding, I wish to repeat once more that this legislation does not deal specifically with a group of farmers, and that all the provinces may wish to avail themselves of its advantages. I hope therefore that the province of Quebec will accept it in order to give to its farmers greater protection.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. A few moments ago you called to order the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska, asking him to limit himself to the bill before the house. According to his interpretation the bill would come within the federal-provincial jurisdiction and the present government is not discharging its duties. Consequently, the government to which the hon. member belonged not so long ago was no more competent, and I believe also that the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska was way off course when he was trying to play politics with this bill. If the hon. member has-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I do not think there is any point of order in the words uttered by the hon. member for Villeneuve at this time.
The hon. member who was speaking has concluded his remarks now, and I fail to see how a point of order could be raised in respect of remarks that are concluded.


David Réal Caouette: I thought, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member had not concluded his remarks. That is why I raised a point of order.
If the hon. member has concluded his remarks I am happy to sit down and to say that he was way off course when he resumed his seat.

Crop Insurance Act


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege only to say that for five years now I have not been in the potato field, because I do not grow anymore potatoes.


David Réal Caouette: Do not put yourself in the potato field any more.


Mr. Southam:: Mr. Chairman, I am in favour of this resolution to amend the Crop Insurance Act. I see it is almost ten o'clock so I am not going to take up the time of this committee. Suffice it to say that I had the privilege of being a member of the agriculture committee when the original legislation was introduced in the house in 1959. I felt there was a long standing need for it and I am pleased to say that some members of the present government, who were then in opposition, and who took strong objection to the principle involved, have now seen its applicability and that it is something really worth while for our agricultural economy. Therefore I am pleased to see before us this measure to amend the Crop Insurance Act by way of authorizing the governor in council to enter into agreements with the provinces for the purpose of establishing a crop insurance or reinsurance program.
I might say that the province of Manitoba, spearheaded by Hon. George Hutton on their agriculture committee, was the first province to get this crop insurance activated. I live in an area close to one of the low risk projects and I also live close to one of the higher risk areas further to the south, so I was aware of the benefits to be derived from this particular legislation.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, it is almost ten o'clock and I want to see this legislation put through. Therefore I will not take up any further time; I merely say I am much in favour of seeing this legislation put on the books.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Hays thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-129, to amend the Crop Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Next sitting of the house.


FINANCE
Walter Lockhart Gordon: the second reading of Bill No. C-123, to amend certain acts administered in the department of insurance.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether my eyesight is as good as it should be, but it seems to me that it is just about ten o'clock. I wonder whether I might call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the Chair call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
acting house leader about the business for tomorrow and the rest of the week?


George James McIlraith: The next three days' business will be concerned with estimates. Tomorrow it is proposed to call the Department of Justice general administration item for the purpose of permitting a discussion of the matter sought to be raised yesterday by way of a motion to adjourn the house. When that part of the discussion on item 1 is concluded the minister will then ask leave of the committee to rise and report progress.
Then we will call the Department of Trade and Commerce, the remaining items of defence production, citizenship and immigration, public works and the unemployment insurance commission under the Department of Labour. There may be an adjustment tomorrow of the departments I have indicated, as far as Thursday is concerned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 7, 1964