1964-06-02

CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, would the
Prime Minister be willing to tell the house the circumstances under which the Minister of Transport had an audience with the Queen? Was that at the request of the Canadian government, and had it to do with the flag question?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the minister was in England on a private visit and, as is quite normal for ministers of the crown, he asked for an audience with the Queen and was granted an audience. He informed Her Majesty of the terms personally, as she had been informed by cable, of the resolution which will be before the house shortly.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the Prime Minister tell the premier of Newfoundland that the Minister of Transport was going to London in order to consult with the Queen on this question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, Mr. Speaker, so there will be no mistake about it, I would like to ask the Prime Minister to table the correspondence between himself and Premier Smallwood, and in particular the wire dated May 27 in which Mr. Smallwood received information on this question. I would like to direct the Prime Minister's attention to Premier Smallwood's words. The following is a report appearing in the Evening Telegram of May 29:
Premier J. R. Smallwood told an A.Y.P.A. gathering in St. John's last night-
That was May 28:
-that the Newfoundland representative in the federal cabinet, transport minister J. W. Pickersgill, was in London Thursday night to see Her Majesty the Queen on the flag issue.
The premier said he was informed of this by Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport did not go over to London to see the Queen on this or any other matter. He
was in London and asked for an audience with the Queen to inform the Queen of the terms of the resolution, as I have just said, which was on the order paper and of which she had been informed by telegram. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is a normal and courteous procedure to adopt.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not an answer to my question, which was whether the Prime Minister told Mr. Smallwood, when he had not told parliament, that the Minister of Transport went over there for the purpose of discussing with the Queen the question of the flag.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have just said that he did not go over for that purpose.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the Prime Minister tell Mr. Smallwood that? The answer is silence.


Mr. Pigeon:: Yes or no.


Mr. Woolliams:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I asked a question yesterday-


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


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have recognized the hon. member for Lapointe.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is a supplementary question in reference to one I asked yesterday.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister tell us whether the union jack constitutes the royal standard of England, Canada, Australia and other countries of the commonwealth or whether the Queen has her own standard and colours?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the union jack is the royal union standard. The Queen also, has a personal standard.

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister tell us what other countries of the commonwealth of British nations have provided in their statutes that the union jack could be flown as a symbol of their adherence to the commonwealth of British nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to make inquiries about that, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: You certainly will.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is asked in view of his answer to the Leader of the Opposition. Did he have that knowledge yesterday when he answered me and said he did not know why the Minister of Transport went to Great Britain and why he had an audience with the Queen?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not yet know why the Minister of Transport went on a private visit to Great Britain.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Hon. gentlemen may laugh, but the Minister of Transport informed me a week or ten days ago that he would be in Great Britain on private business if that were agreeable to me, and for the days involved I agreed. I suggested that when the Minister of Transport was in England if he wished to have an audience with the Queen on this matter it would be quite proper to do so, and I do not apologize for that at all.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will take into consideration the statement made by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce who, according to a report published in the June 1 issue of the Sherbrooke La Tribune, said the following:
I do not like the idea of two flags.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to take that statement into account, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In view of the answers he has just given, could he tell us if the Minister of Transport was sent to London to meet Her Majesty after some kind of consultation had taken place between the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of Newfoundland, because apparently, during his stay in London the Minister of Transport

wishes to obtain the Queen's approval, and this seems to agree so much with what Premier Smallwood will impose or try to impose on the Canadian government?
Did the Prime Minister of Canada have talks with the premier of Newfoundland in anticipation of a consultation between the Minister of Transport and Her Majesty the Queen?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had hoped that I would not have to refer to this matter again, but I cannot restrict the hon. member for Kootenay West and then allow other hon. members to ask far too long questions. The question which has just been asked, if I may again refer to the reasons I gave yesterday, would seem to conflict with at least three of the new rules; namely, that the question is far too long; that it contains observations which might lead to debate; and it refers to a debate or to answers given to questions during the current session. If I worked diligently I suppose I could find a few other reasons. May I call to the attention of hon. members the fact that we have had a long series of questions. The opportunity to debate this important matter will be given before too long, I suspect, and I would counsel hon. members to phrase their questions in as short a manner as possible and directly to the point.


David Réal Caouette: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I shall make my question much shorter. Did the Prime Minister of Canada send the Minister of Transport to London after having consulted with the premier of Newfoundland, to achieve the results we have now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The premier of Newfoundland had nothing to do with the arrangements regarding the audience of the Minister of Transport with the Queen, nor did he make any effort to have anything to do with them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As a further supplementary question, if the Minister of Transport went on private matters would the Prime Minister now disclose to the house whether he went over at government expense or at his own expense?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer that. However, I shall be glad to find the answer. The hon. member is asking me questions of detail which he knows cannot be answered at this time, but I will be very glad to find out the answers.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want the words of this question to the Prime Minister

to come strictly within the rules, as 1 thought they had earlier. I ask the Prime Minister, in view of Premier Smallwood's statement regarding this matter, also in view of the fact that he said it was an honour that a Newfoundland minister had been chosen for this mission to the Queen, will he table the telegrams that passed between him and Premier Smallwood, his reply being dated May 27, at 10.22 p.m.? Can we also have the telegram from Mr. Smallwood so that we can resolve this apparent dispute or uncertainty as between the views of the Prime Minister and the premier of Newfoundland?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to ask Premier Smallwood for permission to table his telegram, and I would certainly be very glad to table my own.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him can he tell us whether the
Minister of Transport made this trip on a commercial flight or whether he used one of the government's planes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of Transport will be in the house tomorrow and he will be able to answer this.


John George Diefenbaker: A man on a mission.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Can he tell us whether, before the passage of the resolution respecting the Canadian flags, we will have to rescind the order in council of 1945 respecting the red ensign?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will be able to deal with these questions when the resolution is debated. On the point just raised by the Minister of Labour and others in regard to the method-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This just shows my continuing regard for the hon. gentleman. In regard to the curiosity displayed as to whether the Minister of Transport paid his own fare, I have just been informed that the Minister of Transport went to England by T.C.A. commercial flight, accompanied by his wife and daughter. He will be returning alone today. He bought his own tickets and the visit had been arranged some time ago, long before the question of the Queen's audience arose. I hope my hon. friends' curiosity into the affairs of the Minister of Transport is now satisfied.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, now that we have that information, could the Prime Minister pass it on to Mr. Smallwood, who claims
Inquiries of the Ministry great honour was done to Newfoundland iix having a Newfoundland minister chosen?'


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is more important to pass it on to my right hon.. friend.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: As a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member what the supplementary will be on? It seems to me the matter has been debated at length.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On the flag issue, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question. If the Prime Minister refuses to split his resolution on the flags and if his motion is defeated by a majority of members, can he tell the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question was asked yesterday; therefore it is repetitious and out of order.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he tell the house on what occasion he thinks the Canadian government will hoist the union jack on its buildings? In what circumstances will the union jack be raised here in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that when the resolution is debated. It is quite obvious these questions are out of order now.



USE OF OTHER NATIONAL EMBLEMS ABROAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. At this time when there is more and more talk about national emblems, we are getting in the mail here, in parliament, from an organization whose name I do not know, literature telling us about another national emblem, that is the Eskimo ookpik. I quote:

This wise but humorous little character has been adopted by the government of Canada as one of its emblems, and is rapidly becoming established as a symbol of Canada.

Is it true that, to make matters worse, another national emblem will represent us at Philadelphia in the United States?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the rules given to me a question should not inquire whether statements made in a newspaper are correct.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-POTENTIAL DANGERS ON SKEENA RIVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could divert the government's attention to something a bit more important, and ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Skeena river is at least approaching the levels of the 1948 flood; that it is flooding in the Bird's lake area; that some bridges are in danger of being washed out by potential floods, not only there but in other parts of B.C.; and may I ask the minister if he would use his good offices to work in conjunction with the provincial government to prevent any disaster occurring in that entire area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday we had a question on the Fraser river and it was allowed because it was very urgent and I understood the flood conditions could be quite serious. This question does not seem to have the same urgency. Would the hon. member put it on the order paper?


Frank Howard: It has precisely the same urgency, because the lives and property of people are involved in the flooding of the Skeena river just as dangerously as in the flooding of the Fraser river in 1948.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put it on the order paper; and may I quote the rules of the house which have been furnished to me, and of which the hon. member must know?


Frank Howard: I must decline your invitation to put it on the order paper, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In the present negotiations between the S.I.U. and the shipping companies operating on the great lakes, are all those who are negotiating on behalf of the S.I.U. Canadians?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to make inquiries and advise my hon. friend.
[Mr. Caouette.l



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that Air Canada has given notice to a number of its employees at Winnipeg that by June 4 they must choose between transferring to Dorval and forfeiting their seniority rights? Is this in keeping with the undertaking given by the Prime Minister that the employees would not be forced to move?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have no information to that effect but I will look into the matter immediately.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General a question. Is the Postmaster General aware of the fact that a new batch of what we commonly call hate literature has arrived in Ottawa and is being circulated to members of this house, postmarked Winnipeg, and seeking among other things to vilify the Prime Minister by linking him with an alleged international plot to have alien troops occupy Canada? I have the material here.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend gave me notice of this question but I must say I have received no such literature. I have made inquiries and my department has received no such literature. If my hon. friend or any other member of the house has any such literature and will send it and the envelope or container in which same was mailed to me or my department, we will look into the matter.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Is the Export Credits Insurance Corporation contemplating making an advance of some $21J million to a Yugoslavian firm for the construction of a $40 million pulp mill in Canada?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minisler of Induslry):: Mr. Speaker, the Export Credits Insurance Corporation reports to parliament through the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I would refer the question to him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct the question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put the question on the order paper?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is not a detailed question, Mr. Speaker. I am simply asking for a yes or no with respect to whether such an advance is under consideration.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, negotiations have been going on for some time between the Yugoslavian government and the Canadian government with respect to the financing of a pulp mill. I am not quite certain at what stage the negotiations now stand.



PEACE RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of great urgency to the conservationists of British Columbia because they are interested in what the federal minister's decision will be, and I address it to the Acting Minister of Transport. Has the B.C. hydro and power authority asked the minister for his approval for the flooding of the reservoir behind the Peace river dam without the removal of forest growth and vegetation except for the partial clearing of certain channels necessary to meet the requirements for very limited navigation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This seems to me an ideal question for the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to expand on it at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it a fact that the Farm Credit Corporation is refusing to grant loans because the fund is depleted?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: No, this is not correct.
Inquiries of the Ministry



SOYBEANS AND SUGAR BEETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent, Oni.):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman is now in a position to answer my question, taken as notice by the parliamentary secretary on April 9, regarding 1964 support prices for soybeans and sugar beets which are now planted.


Harry William Hays: I can probably answer the question now. As far as soybeans are concerned, we have not crossed that bridge as yet. We hope to do so very soon. As far as sugar beets are concerned, the government will be supporting them at $13.72 a ton, the same as in the last few years.



STEPS TO IMPROVE REPORTED LOW PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Len-nox):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last week eggs sold in Napanee for 21 cents a dozen. What is the minister doing to improve the ridiculously low price for this product now being produced at far below cost by the poultrymen of Canada?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, we have a stabilization board, with which I am sure the hon. member must be very familiar, which supports eggs at 34 cents a dozen. I would suppose that in this case if these people keep their tickets they will be receiving a deficiency payment when the year is completed. It might be of interest to hon. members to know that last year the price of eggs was very, very high and consequently the demand for chicks was also high. In some provinces we had a 30 per cent increase in poultry, hence the large amount of eggs. But we do have a support program at 34 cents a dozen, and I suppose these people will be receiving a deficiency payment.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Agriculture advise the house whether he has given any consideration to paying these deficiency payments on a quarterly basis?


Harry William Hays: We have been considering this, Mr. Speaker, but no decision has been made.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: May I pose a question to the minister who reports to the house for the C.B.C. Yesterday morning between six and six thirty I listened to radio station CBI, the C.B.C. station at Sydney, Nova Scotia, at which time they commenced their programming with the playing of a song entitled "The Maple Leaf Forever". May I ask the minister if this song has been adopted by the C.B.C. as a new national anthem?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. gentleman put this question on the order paper.



REQUEST FOR SHOWING OF FILM RESPECTING PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I wanted to ask the Secretary of State a question, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the decision of Intervideo Productions to screen a slash print of the Pearson story next week in Ottawa at Crawley Films. I wanted to ask the minister if he would consider asking the C.B.C. if it would show one of the good prints of this particular film to parliamentarians at approximately the same time, so we could see this film at its best and get a better idea as to the decisions that were taken in regard to it.


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: I will put the request of the hon. member to the C.B.C. and advise him later.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I had considered raising it as a question of privilege, but perhaps this is as good a place as any to raise it. The Prime Minister will recall that on May 21 he indicated to the house that he had not previewed the film in question in his office. Last night his parliamentary secretary, when answering a question raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur at the adjournment, had this to say as reported on page 3829 of Hansard:
On two occasions the Prime Minister himself was present; the first was in December in Toronto, to see the earliest assembled version, and the second was in Ottawa after substantial editing but without the advantage of a sound track.
Can the Prime Minister now say whether or not he saw the film in his office in Ottawa, and if not where he did see it in Ottawa?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not see it in my office. I saw it in Toronto at a studio, and it was shown in an office in the east block. I saw part of it there but the sound track was so bad I left after a few minutes because it could not be understood.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: I have a question supplementary to


the previous question asked of the Prime Minister. I was wondering if, as a sophisticated critic of art, he would tell us what he thought of the film "Mr. Pearson" when he saw it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I found it exceedingly interesting, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Revealing?



REPORTED SMALL CANADIAN COVERAGE IN NEWS BROADCASTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State?
I appreciate that he has nothing to do with the C.B.C., but I would like to know if there are any reasons why, for example, the C.B.C., on its nightly television news, gives us about five minutes of Canadian news and ten minutes of foreign or international news. Would it not be possible for the Secretary of State to suggest, at least, even if he is not responsible for the C.B.C., that we get Canadian news over the C.B.C. network?


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


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I think the Secretary of State was ready to answer my question.
Would you allow him to do so?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, all I have to say is that I shall be very glad to pass on to the C.B.C. the views of the hon. member, and I shall inform him of their answer.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: When the Prime Minister was in New York on the week end, according to the press he discussed with President Johnson the functions of the Canadian truce teams in Laos, Cambodia and South Viet Nam. Would the Prime Minister be prepared to tell parliament whether there is in contemplation any further authorization or enlargement in the functions of the truce teams; and was there any discussion or consideration given to the enlargement of Canada's role or any new commitment contemplated for Canada in this area?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no consideration being given to the enlargement of Canada's role in that area, nor was this matter discussed in the talks I had with the President in New York. The President did bring up the question of Southeast Asia, which is a very serious area in terms of peace and security, and at the same time expressed a hope that we would be able to get our new commissioner out to Viet Nam with a minimum of delay. The Canadian representative on the commission left Viet Nam some weeks ago. He was to have been replaced by a senior officer of the department, but that officer's wife took seriously ill and this postponed his departure. The President expressed the hope that a Canadian would be out there as soon as possible, and I think the new commissioner has left for Viet Nam today.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: I rise on a question of privilege. I had intended to bring up this matter on the orders of the day, but in view of the nature of the subject I now think it is more fitting to raise it as a question of privilege. It was to have been addressed to the Minister of Transport but in his absence I will address it to the Prime Minister in order that the departmental officials may correct the situation now.

My question of privilege is in reference to a crown corporation, more especially Air Canada. I received yesterday by mail a letter from Mr. Roger Laplante, 80 Bennett street, Thet-ford Mines, Que., who in the evening of May 16, stopped at the Dorval airport and went to the dining room called "Le boulevardier". He then ordered a meal for himself and his family and, after having greeted the waitress, he simply asked her whether she spoke French. This is what she answered:

"No, sir. I am sorry. We can serve in any other languages but French. We have no use for it here."

I would ask the Prime Minister to see that unfortunate incidents of this kind be avoided in the future, not only for this gentleman and his family, but also for all those who might receive similar answers. Could the Prime Minister also suggest to this person to make sure that such incidents are never repeated?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire about this matter and give the hon. member an answer soon, I hope.



MR. WINCH    REFERENCE TO FLAG BY MEMBER FOR JOLIETTE-L'ASSOMPTION-MONTCALM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: rise on a question of privilege. I know that according to normal procedure a question of privilege should be raised at the time it occurs. The matter to which I refer occurred last night between ten and ten thirty, during which period we operate rather strict rules, so this is my first opportunity, as I see it, to rise on a question of privilege with regard to it. It is something which I cannot ignore.
I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a statement made in this house after ten o'clock last night by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). It is to be found reported in Hansard. on page 3827 in the left hand column, almost the last paragraph. It reads:
Mr. Speaker, personally I object entirely to the inclusion of either the union jack or the red ensign in any bill for, in my opinion, both flags represent imperialism and foreign domination.
Sir, I may be a sentimentalist, but I wish to rise on a question of privilege and say this; that we have been living under a flag for many years and developing our country under that flag for many years-


David Réal Caouette: Which flag?


Harold Edward Winch: The red ensign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: -and for a member of this house to get up in his place and say that this flag-until we have a new one, perhaps- is representative of imperialism and the domination of our country is, in my opinion, entirely wrong because it is completely untrue; it is false; it is despicable, and I think any man who would say that, in this House of Commons, requires psychopathic treatment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. [Translation]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, as far as the question of privilege is concerned, I wish to make it clear that I gave my personal opinion according to my own convictions and conscience. If I offended some hon. members, 1 beg their pardon, but I wish to repeat that I maintain my statement.
I would not like anyone to think that I intended in any way to offend the feelings

Inquiries of the Ministry of any hon. member who is not in agreement with my opinion. This is a democracy, we have a bill of rights and if I made such a statement, I assume the whole responsibility and I would not like any other hon. member of the house to take offence at the statements I made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. These matters are highly emotional and they are charged with feeling. I do not think the Chair should try and improve the atmosphere at the moment, except to say that we have a lot of important business before the house and I suggest that we get on with it.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Since I had the pleasure of listening to him on television Sunday, although, unfortunately, I missed a portion of his speech, I should like to ask him if within a few months the problem of the railway in Montreal East is not settled, he still intends to submit his resignation as Minister of Public Works?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Three Rivers seems concerned. However, in order to put his mind at ease, I shall tell him that the consideration of that problem is getting along very well and we think that we can find a solution. I also take this opportunity to say that the management of the C.N.R., of which Mr. Gordon is president, showed a lot of understanding in looking for a solution.
For the benefit of the former minister of transport, could I add that it is a problem that could very well have been settled over six years ago?


Léon Balcer: Unfortunately, the hon. member for the riding in that district of the city of Montreal has never resigned.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that today's press carries an announcement that Sir Guy Powles, the New Zealand ombudsman, will be visiting Canada in September to address the Canadian Bar Association, would the minister consider 
inviting him to Ottawa in order that he might discuss a similar topic with the committee on privileges and elections?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.



CROWN ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. I wonder if the minister could inform the house whether any decision has been made in relation to the possible disposal of the sites at Cranberry Portage and Bird, Manitoba, which were formerly occupied by installations of the mid-Canada radar line.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We have been holding discussions with representatives of the government of Manitoba in an effort to make the most beneficial use of these sites now being given up by the Department of National Defence. No final decision has yet been reached.


Robert Simpson: Has any offer been made to turn these sites over to the Manitoba government?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We are not negotiating on a basis of firm offers. This is a discussion with the object of putting this land to the most advantageous use.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister?
Following this statement made at Lennox-ville last Sunday by Hon. Lionel Chevrier, as reported in Le Devoir of June 1, 1964:
If we want our two linguistic groups to cooperate satisfactorily, we will some day have to amend the constitution.
Could the Prime Minister tell the house whether those views reflect the intention of his government and, if so, if that objective will soon be reached?


Mr. Speaker:: These are statements made by private individuals outside the house, and it seems to me such questions are out of order at this time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour a question?
What does the Minister of Labour intend to do for the unemployed getting no unemployment insurance or social assistance?


Mr. Speaker:: While the question is very interesting, it certainly raises a matter far too large for the hon. member to expect an answer on orders of the day.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, may I transfer my question for debate at ten o'clock this evening?



QUEBEC-STEPS TO PROVIDE WORK FOR UNEMPLOYED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Si. Hyacinihe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Does the minister have a few projects which he could submit to his colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), in order to provide work for the 150,000 unemployed in the province of Quebec?


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



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have wanted for some days to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I recognize that she is still convalescing, so I would like to ask the question of her parliamentary secretary, who probably could take it as notice.


An hon. Member:: He is convalescing too. Mr. Douglas: I would like to ask the government if they will give some information to the house and the country as to what action
20220-244J
Inquiries of the Ministry is being taken with reference to the fact that the milk supply in the city of Vancouver has now reached a serious stage of pesticide contamination, to the point that a great many citizens are apprehensive and are not sure-whether they should continue to allow their children to drink from the milk supplies in. that city.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the question as notice, if the hon. member will agree, and I will try to give him an answer tomorrow.



EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chailerion (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is the minister aware that a federal government agency, namely the Port Albemi harbour commission, has made a claim of some $55,000 on the disaster fund; and if so, is the government considering increasing its grant so there will be no danger of federal agencies taking money that should rightly go to private people who suffered from the tidal wave?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me this is a question for the order paper.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister with respect to Senate Bill No. S-26 introduced yesterday, concerning the Roose-velt-Campobello park. Will the government give consideration to moving this bill forward quickly, because similar legislation has been passed in the United States; it is noncontroversial and it would be a help to have this program ready before summer. I ask this question because it appears it is going to be a long summer if we are to deal with all these other matters, and the Minister of Transport is the only one who has had a holiday.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the minister's holiday was a short one and I hope the rest of us will get a longer one. But in view of the fact that it is likely to be a long summer, I hope we cam get this non-controversial bill through quickly and at an early date.

Inquiries of the Ministry
PUBLIC WORKS	ROYAL VISIT



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the statements made over the week end by the Minister of Labour in reference to the step-up in public works projects throughout Nova Scotia, would the minister take into consideration reactivating the projects in Cape Breton South, especially those concerning harbours?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put this question on the order paper. I realize its importance, but it is a question for the order paper.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence, who I see has just stepped out of the chamber, sir. It arises out of information I have received in connection with the air force day program this Saturday at station Rockcliffe. Can the minister inform the house whether any arrangements have been made, either by his department or by the government, for participation in the proceedings on air force day this coming Saturday; because we are told that the majority of that participation is to be by personnel and equipment of the United States air force rather than the Canadian air force.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to take that question as notice and answer it tomorrow.


Erik Nielsen: We will have no more air force then.



PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.-INCREASE IN ELEVATOR CAPACITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I can direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In order that we might have in the city of Prince Rupert a brand spanking new edifice over which to fly our national flag, can the minister announce when he will authorize the expansion of the grain elevator facilities there?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, we still have this under very serious consideration.



POSSIBLE CANCELLATION DUE TO BRITISH ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon I put a question to the Prime Minister and he replied that he would get the necessary information. I asked him if, in the event of a general election in England next fall the Queen would be prevented by regulations or protocol from coming to Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this question is completely out of order.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General, who reports to parliament for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I want to ask the minister whether he has any plans for amendments to the National Housing Act which will be placed before parliament, in view of the report of the corporation that housing construction in the Atlantic area has decreased 23 per cent so far this year compared with last year. If not, I wonder whether the minister would ask the officials of C.M.H.C. to look into this matter, which is one which provides so much employment for that area.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. gentleman's first question may I say that the proposals which the government have to lay before the house are incorporated in a resolution on the order paper. With regard to the second part of his second question, I will be glad to look into the matter.



BRIDGES


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: the second reading of Bill No. S-21, to authorize the construction and maintenance of a bridge across the St. Lawrence river between the city of Ste. Foy, in the county of Quebec and the municipality of St. Nicolas, in the county of Levis, both in the province of Quebec.

He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill authorizing the construction and maintenance of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river, between the town of Ste. Foy, in the county of Quebec, and the municipality of St. Nicolas, in the county of Levis.
This bridge will be situated very near to the present Quebec bridge, perhaps a thousand feet up the river from the present bridge. The purpose of this bill is to comply with the Navigable Waters Act, which requires an act passed by parliament. If hon. members will pass this bill, I can assure them that the work will not begin until the plans and specifications have been examined by the experts of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport. If, after examination of those plans and specifications, no impediment to navigation is found, an order in council will be passed so as to permit the province of Quebec to proceed with building the bridge.
The same procedure was followed, a few months ago, with regard to the Boucherville bridge, and I do not think it necessary to add any further detail at this stage, because this is just an authorization. It will not cost the Canadian government a single cent, for either the construction or the maintenance of that bridge. This is simply to give an authorization, and if hon. members want further information about this matter, I shall be happy to give it to them when we reach the committee stage.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am glad, on behalf of the official opposition, to give my support to the proposal just put before the house by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets).
Under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, all works carried out on or above the St. Lawrence river must be approved either by the Department of Public Works or the Department of Transport. Such approval takes the form of an order in council passed by the Canadian government.
As pointed out by the Minister of Public Works, the bridge will be parallel to the present Quebec bridge. The tremendous increase in traffic in that area has made it absolutely necessary to build this new bridge, and I believe it will be of very great service to the people.
Of course, that decision rests with the provincial government and I am not in a position to discuss the amounts that will be spent by the provincial government for those various undertakings.
However, I hope that the Minister of Public Works, when the various clauses of the bill are under consideration, will be able to give
Ste. Foy-St. Nicolas Bridge us information of interest to the federal authorities because, in short, the responsibility of the federal government is to make sure that nothing will interfere with navigation or ice movements.
Moreover, I understand that it is a suspension bridge. In my opinion, it is most important to know if piers will be built in the St. Lawrence river, and if they will be located in the channel of the river. Moreover, it must be known also if those piers could eventually delay the normal flow of ice or create ice-jams. As a matter of fact, the minister might tell us if the construction of that bridge will entail the services of an icebreaker during the winter months.
We know that at the present time there is an icebreaker in service in Quebec harbour. The job of that icebreaker is to make sure that there are no jams around the piers of the Quebec bridge so that the bridge is not affected by the ice. I hope the minister will be in a position to give us that information a little later.
Mr. Speaker, there is another matter which I do not wish to labour very long, but in which I am greatly interested. I refer to a bridge spanning the St. Lawrence river and built by the provincial government.
Just recently, I had the opportunity to be present at the formal beginning of the construction of the Three Rivers bridge, a most important bridge, since it links the most important city in Canada to the south shore.


Gilles Grégoire: Order.


Léon Balcer: Well, unfortunately, last Saturday La Presse published an article on the bridge at Three Rivers, in which Mr. Gerard Pelletier, the chief editor, asked the provincial authorities very pertinent questions which, I hope, will soon get a reply.
As my hon. friend for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) was so happy to point out, I am out of order. Consequently, I shall say nothing else about the bridge at Three Rivers, which will cost $35 million I believe. However, I should like to ask the minister to tell us later on this afternoon the approximate cost of those works and the date of their completion, if he has that information.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: In committee.


Léon Balcer: I do not wish to insist, but I hope we will get that information.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, it was only to be expected that the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) would congratulate the government which will do for the Quebec area what it has done lately for the Three Rivers area..

Ste. Foy-St. Nicolas Bridge
However, in spite of the fact that this problem does not come under our jurisdiction, since part of the bridge will be situated in the Quebec-Montmorency constituency- in the bill, Quebec is probably mentioned because it refers to a provincial constituency, but the federal riding is Quebec-Montmorency -and since especially the mayor of Levis mentioned some time ago and has repeated quite often since that the project is absolutely fantastic and ridiculous, I wonder whether we should not try to stop it.
However, that is none of our business, and it will be up to the people of the province of Quebec to judge the actions of the provincial government.
That bridge is located only a few hundred feet from the present Quebec bridge. The purpose of building that bridge is to alleviate traffic, but its approaches will be those now used for the Quebec bridge. Mr. Speaker, I wonder really what the provincial authorities were thinking about when they decided on building that bridge which, no doubt, will afford better facilities to cross the river, but people will not be able to use it because traffic before reaching the bridge will be too heavy during rush hours.
A few years ago the Quebec board of trade as well as other organizations prepared a brief in which it stated that the best way to alleviate traffic to and from Quebec would not be to improve the situation on and around the Quebec bridge, nor to build a tunnel between Levis and Quebec city; it would be better to build a bridge more to the east, that is between the island of Orleans and the municipality of Beaumont which is located on the other side of the river. That would make it possible to solve the traffic problem for the people coming from the lower St. Lawrence region who want to cross at Quebec city to go to Chicoutimi, the Saguenay area or the north shore. That would also enable the people coming from the Saguenay area or the north shore who want to go to Gaspe or the south shore, to get there directly, without having to go right through Quebec city to its western limits in order to take a bridge that will not be more efficient than the first because of its access roads.
Mr. Speaker, we do not want to stop this bill because the federal government has simply to make sure that the new bridge will not interfere with navigation in any way, win meet all the requirements of the Department of Transport and will not interfere either with the free flow of ice in winter.
If all those conditions are met, of course we will accept it. But since a part of this bridge wfll be in my riding-and even if it had been logically placed between Orleans

island and Beaumont on the south shore, it would also have been in my riding-and as I am very much interested in this question, I want to point out, that in my opinion, the purpose which was stated by the provincial authorities is quite wrong. And I know, from a very reliable source, that some people bought land in the neighbourhood of the proposed bridge and that they will be in a position to sell those lots for the construction of the bridge, a thing which they would not be able to do if it were built on the east side of Quebec city.
I shall quote, once more, the statements of the mayor of Levis, to the effect that it is absurd to build a bridge near the other one, because they would be too close, and also because the second one would lead to a municipality much less important, St. Romuald- I understand that, like for the city of Three Rivers, it is for its inhabitants the greatest city in the world, but on the south shore, the economic complex actually surrounds the city of Levis. Besides, that is the opinion of the mayor of Levis who feels he is managing one of the largest cities on the south shore. However, as far as I am concerned, I would go much farther to the east, that is between Orleans island and Beaumont. The bridge would then achieve the specific purpose for which it is being built.
Once again, I want to call your attention to the fact that individuals may have bought land near the site of the proposed bridge in order to take advantage of the sale of those lots. Indeed, can any level-headed person imagine the reasons for the construction of a bridge about 1,400 feet west of the first one. If any one can think of a good reason, I would be glad to hear it, and to admit that this project is sensible.


David Réal Caouette: Political patronage.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just finished speaking is interested in this from a constituency point of view and I, and I am sure my colleagues, were interested in the matters he raised. He reminded us, as did the preceding speaker, of the question of the Three Rivers bridge and of the doubts that were put in our minds by some of the information we got last session about the costs to the federal government, and of the repairs to ensure that navigation was possible.
It is quite apparent that this is not a money bill in any sense; that it is just enabling legislation, and that all it does is protect the federal interest, but I am rather shocked that the hon. member indicated that property buying was taking place. It almost sounds as though the bad old days are back in Quebec.

Under the new regime of purity and magnificence it is almost unbelievable that this kind of thing would go on.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Patronage.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I cannot believe that there is any patronage in Quebec any more, not with the government of Jean Lesage. That is one of the reasons I feel it is most unfortunate that the hon. member raised this, because in a way it is irrelevant to the bill but it does cast a bit of a slur on this great government of Jean Lesage, incorruptible and set off on a new course in Quebec provincial politics.
The hon. member for Lapointe tells me Lili St. Cyr is no longer there but that there still is patronage. Actually Lili St. Cyr was a foreign element, and I am sure patronage is also a foreign element under the great government of Jean Lesage. The predictions concerning this bill are that federal jurisdiction and federal responsibility will not come under any particular difficulty or strain, always remembering of course that so far as the Three Rivers bridge was concerned, depending which argument you supported, the federal government might have responsibility for up to $60 million as a result of something that had been entered into by the federal Department of Transport.
We are going to support this bill, Mr. Speaker, but we confess that we do not know a great deal about the implications that are involved, as referred to by the hon. member in whose riding it is going to be built. These definitely raise certain doubts in our minds which I hope the minister can allay. If, as the mayor of Levis has said, this is a ridiculous and silly kind of business, the minister should let us have his reactions to this. He should tell us whether he is approaching it simply from the point of view that the province is within its rights to ask for this, and ours is not to ask the reason why but to do or die. I take it that is his attitude. If he gives us the assurance that the insurance provisions of the bill are adequate, we are prepared to support it.
It seems to me there is really not much more one can say in this kind of thing except to make certain that the engineers of the federal government have looked at the situation and have ascertained that the provincial government cannot get involved in some kind of projection that will cause navigation difficulties. I suppose that in regard to anything connected with the Quebec bridge everyone always remembers the history of the structure, the disaster that took place there many years ago, and the fact that it was one of the great political incidents in our parliamentary history. Because there is no question in this particular case of a federal contribution I
Ste. Foy-St. Nicolas Bridge would hope that this situation never develops with this bridge. We wish the provincial government well, although I cannot say the same so far as these property holders are concerned if the hon. member in whose constituency the bridge is to be located is correct in his facts.


David Réal Caouette: Ste. Foy-St. Nicolas Bridge
I call the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) to that fact because, besides being a member of the Liberal party, he is a man who, in philosophy and action, is an authentic liberal, which means he also thinks of others and not only of himself.
I am sure that the minister can pay attention to those many requests which were presented to him in the past asking, not only for a new bridge on the site of the present bridge, but also for a tunnel between Quebec and Levis. That would probably not cost the government any more than the new bridge. And the traffic improvement would be much greater than that anticipated by the building of a new bridge near the existing one.
We should also safeguard the provincial rights. The province requests permission from the federal government, since the St. Lawrence river, which is a navigable river, a national and even an international river, must be crossed. It is especially on that account, I believe, that permission is being asked of the federal government; second-it should be first but it is second-it is because the province does not feel financially able to build this bridge by itself. So, it applies to the federal administration for assistance in the building of this bridge.
However, the bill says that the province of Quebec requests only authority for construction and maintenance of this new bridge, which is to be located close to the old Quebec bridge.
I believe the minister should rather study the opportunity of seeing to the building of a tunnel between the cities of Quebec and Levis. This would assist not only the people coming from outside Quebec or Levis, but also the residents of those two localities, who number about half a million people. This tunnel would render a tremendous service to people on both sides of the river and would also be of considerable assistance to visitors whether in summer, or winter.


Mr. Reynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, following hon. members who spoke before me, I must say that I am also particularly interested in the building of that second bridge in Quebec.
I had the opportunity-as the people of the county of Levis know-of being responsible as president of the chamber of commerce of Lauzon for some research work with regard to the building of direct means of communication between Levis and Quebec.
Moreover, I also attended during the week end the convention of the chambers of commerce of Chaudiere and Etchemin, which unanimously voted a resolution asking for a

meeting with the provincial government to discuss those means of communication between Levis and Quebec.
I do not object to the building of that bridge, Mr. Speaker, far from it, because it would be most useful for the people of metropolitan Quebec. However, there is still an urgent need, that of some direct means of communication between Levis and Quebec, either by means of a tunnel, as the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) said earlier or by means of another bridge.
But the problem will not be solved, because the studies made either by the committee of the city of Levis or by the bureau for commerce and industry of metropolitan Quebec, thoroughly prove that the greater part of the traffic which now uses the Quebec bridge does not come from the west, but from the east, and has to put up with the heavy traffic crossing Levis, either going through the town itself or using the trans-Canada highway which is now located right in the middle of that locality.
Therefore, although it is a solution, I do not believe it is the real solution to the problem of communications. The problem will remain. A small part of it will be solved.
So, I ask the provincial government to continue all its research to find as soon as possible, a real solution, I repeat, a real solution to that most urgent problem, the solution of which is a necessity for the development not only of the constituency of Levis but of the Quebec metropolitan area as a whole.
Consequently, in closing, I say again I have no objection to this bill being passed here, as several hon. members have said before me.
All we have to do is to authorize the government. We are not too much concerned with building or other specifications. I repeat that the provincial government must take the necessary steps to find a solution to this most urgent problem, for the benefit of the people of my riding in particular and of the province of Quebec in general.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question? Does he really believe that it would be reasonable for the provincial government to build a second bridge or a tunnel at the same time as that one, simply to comply with his request?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: I will say this to the hon. member for Three Rivers. In my opinion, the construction of a second bridge would not be a futile expense. I know that the minister of highways and the minister of public works in Quebec have made statements on that subject. Expenditures made for that purpose are

justified, as far as I can see, because, as we know, a steel complex will be set up on the south shore and other industries will eventually be established west of the Quebec bridge, which will justify the construction of a second Quebec bridge. But that does not solve, I repeat, the real problem.
I do not know, whether the provincial government, when it decided to build this second bridge, had future industries in mind, but I know that, for the people of Levis, the problem has been there for several years and it is that problem which, for the people of Levis, must be solved.


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, we are not against the building of a second bridge between Quebec city and the southern shore of the river, but I agree with the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) when he says that we should have a bridge to the east, that is at Beaumont, connecting Orleans island; that would greatly alleviate traffic congestion at the Quebec bridge.
I think that it is not so much the Quebec bridge that created traffic congestion. Of course, I am not an engineer to say that, but when you think that we have a four-lane highway to the Quebec bridge which motorists have to use to cross the river and, on the other side, traffic going only one way, you know why we inevitably have a traffic snarl.
I think that the building of a second bridge up the river from the existing one is but a half-measure.
If it is impossible to improve traffic on the other side of the bridge, on four double lanes, then I suggest that the bridge is useless and several million dollars invested for the construction of this bridge will be spent, uselessly, if it is impossible to relieve traffic on the other side of the bridge. I do not think that the construction of a bridge at such a place would be the ideal solution, besides the fact that the minister stated a moment ago that work would not be undertaken as long as the plans have not been approved by the department.
Well, as the hon. member for Villeneuve said, power cranes, power shovels and the complete machinery are already at the site of the bridge to build the approaches. Therefore, I ask the minister to secure the necessary information, so as to know if all that machinery will be used for the construction of the bridge which is discussed here.
With regard to the traffic going towards the Quebec bridge, a lot of it comes of course from the Saguenay region. It goes through Quebec city and crosses the bridge to take the trans-Canada highway leading toward the lower St. Lawrence region. It was claimed
Ste. Foy-St. Nicolas Bridge that the traffic comes from the east and not the west. I do not understand why the government of the province of Quebec discarded the possibility of building a bridge, or better still a tunnel, between Quebec city and Levis. In my opinion, that would make it possible to get the traffic moving much faster than it does at the present time.
Indeed, as the hon. member for Villeneuve pointed out, the Levis ferry service is owned by a company whose shareholders are mostly Liberals, and it is to please those people that the government is trying to do without the construction of a tunnel. At any rate, I should like to ask the minister whether the Quebec engineers truly intend to provide a double lane so that the traffic may move smoothly on the other side of the bridge.
It is useless to build a second bridge if it will not speed up traffic on the other side. In my opinion, the minister should get in touch with the Quebec authorities as soon as possible to ensure that traffic will move faster on the other side of the bridge.
Mr. Speaker, if the engineers who took part in the building of the roads on the other side of the bridge, had considered, instead of directing the traffic towards one area only, the building of a double lane west of the present bridge, towards an area accessible to the trans-Canada highway, we would not have to face this problem today.
Most of the traffic is not on the bridge but on the other side, on the south shore, where all the traffic has to go the same way, on a one-way road. That is why I do not understand the engineers who accomplished this feat of skill, that is a four double-lane road leading to a one-way road.
I hope then that the minister will be able to give me an answer later on, when the bill is considered in committee.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat sceptical about accepting this bill, following the statements made by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay). In other words, the federal government must approve a bill concerning the construction of that bridge which will be undertaken by the province at the estimated cost of $50 million. The initial problem will not be solved, as mentioned by the hon. member for Levis. We, on this side of the house, do not want, by accepting this bill, to entail, for the Quebec government almost unnecessary expenditures in order to solve a problem which is not really the essential one. Moreover, as the hon. member for Levis so aptly said, the chambers of commerce have also protested to the government of the province of Quebec, in order that this bridge might be constructed between Levis and Quebec, and

Ste. Foy-St. Nicolas Bridge not between Ste. Foy and St. Nicholas, in Levis county.
Therefore, I believe that the argument presented to the house by the hon. member for Levis is a want of confidence motion in respect of the Quebec government. In other words, it win not settle the major problem as desired by the people of the towns of Quebec and Levis.
I am wondering what we are going to do. Shall we accept criticisms of the hon. member for Levis who claims that the acceptance of this bill would not solve the major problem pointed out by the chambers of commerce of the area or else, should we accept, on this side of the house, to approve a bill which will result in a capital expenditure of $50 million for the province of Quebec without solving the major problem at all?
Hence, Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Levis was right in presenting to the Quebec government an ultimatum to solve the present problem by building a bridge, or better still a tunnel between Levis and Quebec. So, we take into consideration _ the notice given by the hon. member for Levis, and I am asking the minister whether it would not be possible to postpone the discussion on this bill, since the hon. member for Levis maintains that it will entail almost useless expenses and will not solve the major problem.
In other words, this bill will be a disapoint-ment to the citizens of Levis, whom he has the honour to represent in this house, as well as to the population of Quebec city.
I think it would be better if the provincial government went back on its decision, and I ask the minister to help it so that a tunnel can be built between Quebec and Levis. I am convinced that the hon. member for Levis will be the first to congratulate the government for the decision it will have taken then. The chamber of commerce and the people of the ridings of Levis and Quebec will be very grateful to him for having forced the provincial government to change its decision in order to solve the problem it is facing today. In the public interest, I think the minister should postpone the study of this project, to prevent the wasting of $50 million, especially since we know that this solution will not solve the major problem.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has very badly interpreted my words.


David Réal Caouette: Order.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I want to correct the words uttered by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
	.
He quoted me as saying that this second bridge will bring no solution whatsoever to the present situation.
I never said this would not bring any solution; on the contrary, in answer to the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), I said that would be a solution for the time being.


David Réal Caouette: A half-measure.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: The provincial government
should study the advisability of solving the most urgent problem, that is the means of communication between Levis and Quebec.
I never said that, in taking this decision, the provincial government had not taken a good decision.
Here, we only have to approve the principle of the construction of that bridge.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege the hon. member for Levis tells us that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before the house starts a debate on the question of privilege that was just raised by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay), I must inform the house there is no basis for a question of privilege.
As far as the hon. member for L6vis is concerned, he will have another opportunity, if the debate is protracted or if the house goes into committee, to speak again and to give the explanations he wants.
However, there is certainly no question of privilege, and I do not believe the house should discuss at this time, at any greater length, the interpretation of the words uttered by the hon. member for Levis.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, if we go by his remarks, the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) does not seem too interested in this bill. Indeed, to judge from the number of Liberal members who are in the house at present, 11 out of 35, the question does not seem to interest them too much either.
It is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on Bill No. S-21 to authorize the construction and maintenance of a bridge across the St. Lawrence river between the city of Ste. Foy, in the county of Quebec, and the municipality of St. Nicolas, in the county of Levis, both in the province of Quebec.
As members of the federal parliament, we merely have to authorize the construction of a bridge over the St. Lawrence and we should be glad to do so even if we feel that it would have been better to build the bridge in the

eastern rather than the northern part of Quebec city as provided in this bill, considering that the new structure will be quite close to the Quebec bridge and that it would have been more useful to residents of the eastern part of Quebec city, since it would have saved them a detour to reach the city.
Naturally, the new bridge will help solve the traffic problem on the existing bridge, but the usefulness of the structure and the convenience of the people must also be taken into account. In my opinion, the most pressing need is the construction of a tunnel to connect Quebec city and Levis. I hope the provincial authorities will submit such a request shortly since it will be a pleasure for us to give them our authorization.
In my opinion, the most important problem should have been settled and this new tunnel should have been built before considering the building of this bridge, but I think that the province is already committed, some work has already begun on the north shore of the St. Lawrence. Moreover, section 3 of the bill provides that:
-the province shall, before commencing the construction of the bridge or ancillary works, submit to the governor in council for examination and approval-
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the province has complied with this provision of the act since, according to the information I have received, it would have proceeded to more than the appropriate surveys. In fact, it seems that the building of the approaches is already started.
And the provincial authorities will have to inform the Canadian parliament of the location of all other bridges in the area, as section 3 of Bill S-21 so provides.
It is easy to give this information, as there is only one bridge connecting the two shores.
In their place, I would be embarrassed to propose the building of another bridge about a thousand feet above the existing bridge, especially when one is aware of the urgent needs of Quebec city's eastern section.
Use could perhaps be made of Orleans island, which seems to have been placed there by nature for this purpose, so that a bridge connecting the two shores could be built, half bridge, half tunnel. This would be easy to build and I think that this would ease considerably traffic in Quebec city and the vicinity and, by this very fact, traffic in the Saguenay area and eastern Quebec.
However, since I am not an engineer, I am not in a position to give any advice on this matter. Nevertheless, from what I have been able to note, I am of the opinion that asking to build this bridge does not show much imagination. And if I were sure that the approval of this bill for the construction of
Ste. Foy-St. Nicolas Bridge a bridge would delay the construction of the tunnel, I would be one of the first to try and stop the passing thereof, in order that the city of Quebec might be able to get a tunnel, a project which the citizens of Quebec are entitled to.
Accordingly, I accept today the construction of this bridge as an improvement, for the time being, while waiting for the construction of the tunnel, as we have accepted a temporary one at Three Rivers.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I may not have many suggestions to offer in regard to the Quebec bridge, but I cannot let this opportunity go without making a few comments.
When travelling to Quebec city, in summertime or during the Quebec winter carnival, the motorist soon realizes that the traffic problem, when approaching Quebec city, is a matter which should be taken into consideration by the public authorities.
Especially during rush hours, even on week days, there is heavy traffic on the Quebec bridge and it is most difficult to get through.
A few years ago, it was decided to build another bridge in order to ease the situation which is most harmful to the city of Quebec, especially during the tourist season. Visitors become so annoyed that they finally get discouraged and forget about seeing the old capital. The building of a new bridge should ease traffic to Quebec city, and we should be glad that such a decision was taken.
However, if we look closely and logically at the situation, taking into account the fact that the heavy traffic comes from east of Quebec bridge, we cannot but conclude that the ideal place to build such a bridge would be between the cities of Quebec and L6vis.
I appreciate the position of the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay). I know that the question of a second bridge which would be built elsewhere than between those two cities would be most embarrassing for him, because his constituents would ask him why he did not exert more pressure to have the bridge built between Quebec and Levis.
As the hon. member for Levis has pointed out, the construction of a bridge at St. Nicolas will only solve the problem in a temporary way. That is why I ask the hon. member for L6vis and his colleagues of Quebec city to exercise all the influence they have in order to convince the government of the province of Quebec to make sure that this problem will be solved as soon as possible and in the most sensible and permanent way.
I think that the chambers of commerce and the various public bodies are in favour of the

Ste. Foy-St. Nicolas Bridge proposed building of a bridge between the two cities, which seems to be the most appropriate location.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I ask the other members from the province of Quebec to make representations to their half-brothers of the provincial government in order that this matter of prime importance be settled to the satisfaction of all concerned, from the financial point of view as well as in the interest of the city of Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on Bill No. S-21.1 will not deal with the traffic aspect because I feel that this problem has been well put before. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Beaule) and the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Plourde) have shown that the chosen site was not the best location for the bridge and the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) himself, stepping on his pride, has admitted that his colleagues of the Liberal government of Quebec were wrong. As far as I am concerned, I will deal with another aspect of the problem which is just as important, in my opinion, that is the aesthetic value of the present site.
Quebec bridge was well designed and constructed. It was built by engineers who were bent on achieving what is called the seventh wonder of the world. We had, in that part of the Quebec region, a wonderful site, a beautiful bridge. We have postcards which illustrate this very well, and we are proud to show this magnificent spot to our visitors. We are glad to have postcards and pictures which show the scenic beauties of the Quebec region.
And now, Mr. Speaker, against the most elementary notions of aesthetic values, we are going to build a new bridge right next to the one which already exists. That means people coming from the west will no longer be able to admire the beauty of the site as it exists now and those coming from the east will see a monster rising at the side of the magnificent Quebec bridge.
That new bridge is being built by the provincial government and the department of cultural affairs, which normally should protect the scenic and aesthetic wealth of our province, has shown in the past that it did not have the required competence to look after such matters and to assist in the development of such resources in the province of Quebec.
I see the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lamontagne), the Secretary of State, is laughing, because the minister of cultural affairs in the Quebec government is also a member for Outremont. It must be in that riding that
[Mr. Ricard.I
they usually try to have elected those who-could not get elected elsewhere-


Maurice Lamontagne: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: I notice that one was sent to cultural affairs in Quebec and the other to the C.B.C. in Ottawa. There must be some relationship, Mr. Speaker, because both are assigned to the same field of endeavour.
Now, the minister of cultural affairs of the province of Quebec never had anything to-do with that in the past. Previously he had been appointed attorney general, and it was-said that that department was the least well-organized.
As for the member for Outremont who is-responsible for cultural affairs in Ottawa, he was more of a pseudo-economist.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: The hon. member knows very well that he is getting away from the matter under consideration. I urge him to come back to the study of the bill now before the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, it is very appropriate to talk of bridges about the hon. member for Outremont and the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) because it is the bridge between Quebec and Ottawa with regard to co-operative federalism.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not share the view of the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I do believe my remarks were outside the question but I must say that I could not let pass this wonderful opportunity, all the more so since the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) seemed to agree with what I was saying about Quebec's minister for cultural affairs.
Mr. Speaker, you will tell me that there is a difference between the artistic value of the present Quebec bridge and the construction of a new bridge. That is true, it is not the same thing. But I think that it would be advisable just the same to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) to make sure that the new bridge will hold its own with the present one and that the aesthetic value of that site as a tourist attraction will not be impaired by the construction of another bridge which, according to the hon. member for Levis, will solve only part of the problem.
In my opinion, the artistic and tourist aspects must be seriously considered before a new bridge is built and we must make sure that the value of the present site is not diminished.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the fact they want to build two bridges one beside the

*other is a sign of the Liberal philosophy as we see it now:	two flags, two national
anthems, two bridges. They want to give everything twofold when we need only one. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is agreed to fly a flag over each bridge-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Two Social Credits.


Mr. Dupuis:: Two Creditiste parties.


Maurice Lamontagne: Two leaders.


Gilles Grégoire: Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I think it is worthwhile to point out that the Minister without Portfolio just uttered his first remark since Christmas. I think that deserves a round of applause from all members of the house.
In concluding, I should like to add that, as one living in the Quebec area and in the city of Quebec, I think that the proposed bridge will not settle the traffic problem, because most of the traffic is between Quebec and Levis, where all the traffic from Gaspe peninsula is going to Quebec. I think the best solution would be a tunnel between Quebec and L6vis. A bridge between those two cities would somewhat spoil the scenery and it would not be as useful as a tunnel. It would be easier to build a tunnel and it would do a lot more to settle the problem.
There is also the traffic between Montreal and Quebec. So, I think that instead of building a second bridge right next the first one, it would be better to go a few miles farther up and build another bridge so that the traffic coming from Montreal and going to Quebec or vice-versa would cross that new bridge without having to tie up the traffic coming from the Beauce region to cross the Quebec bridge.
Those are a few suggestions we had to make, and I hope the Minister of Public Works, whose artistic and tourist sense of value I know and appreciate highly, will take them into consideration and will recommend to his Quebec colleagues to spare the present scenery.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I rise basically to speak on the Quebec bridge, although I am perhaps motivated by nostalgia more than anything else because, as most hon. members know, I was born in Quebec city and spent the greater part of my years in the district known as Sillery, which has very close historical ties with the Quebec bridge. I realize that a previous speaker mentioned the historical significance of the bridge, of which I am greatly aware having had friends and relatives killed in the building of that particular bridge. I also remember survivors of the collapse of the Quebec bridge telling
Ste. Foy-St. Nicolas Bridge me of the tremendous feats of heroism and also the tremendous hardships which those unfortunate victims who were imprisoned in the steelwork suffered. I think it is also of passing interest to the house that one of the greatest spies of the first war, the German von Ribbentrop, I think his name was, worked on the Quebec bridge until the outbreak of the war.
The previous speaker, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), talked about the dual nature of our party-two flags and so forth. I would imagine that of all people in the house aware of the advantages of doing things in pairs the members of his party should remember the great year they had last year when they had two heads, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) and the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caou-ette). Fortunately, I think-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has just mentioned that there are two leaders in our movement. Last year there was only one leader, there was an assistant leader, a deputy leader. The hon. member has no right to ascribe motives to us, and he knows that very well. At that time, there was no question of two flags. We could walk together under the one and only flag.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What has this to do with the bridge?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind all hon. members that we are now discussing the construction of a bridge between Quebec and Levis.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I agree to call a truce on the subject, Mr. Speaker. However, I would point out that there are lots of precedents in the province of Quebec for locating bridges within a few thousand feet or yards of each other. We had an identical situation on the island of Montreal when the previous government, and I commend them for it, built the magnificent Champlain bridge, which is situated only a few thousand yards upstream from the Victoria bridge and downstream from the Mercier bridge. I think the construction of the Champlain bridge has contributed greatly to the development of the south shore, and I humbly suggest to the members of this house that the construction of a new bridge in the general area of the present Quebec bridge will have at least as one of its side effects the hastening of the development of the south shore of the Quebec city area.

Ste. Foy-St. Nicolas Bridge
I agree, of course, with my hon. friend for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) that the problem of communication does exist in his particular part of Quebec. There again bridges are needed, and I think it is the general conclusion of those who are familiar with Quebec city and its problems of communication and development that the area needs to be serviced by more bridges or possibly more tunnels. I think the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), whom I respect, touched on a very significant point when he emphasized that one of Quebec city's greatest attractions is its characteristic beauty, and of necessity this must be shown and made as convenient as possible for tourists to reach. The tourist trade as it is developing at the moment flows into Quebec city usually from New York state and from Montreal, and first contact with the city of Quebec is generally made in the vicinity of the present Quebec bridge. So from that aspect if no other I think it is high time that a new bridge is built in that area.
I also agree, as a student in and friend of Quebec city, that the time is coming when construction of other means of communication between Quebec and Levis, Montmorency and through to the island of Orleans must be provided. I think that this bridge is the first step only in the eventual development of communications on the island. In this regard I congratulate the members from Quebec who are normally so very jealous in this house of provincial rights and jurisdiction and who feel it is almost a sin to criticize the province of Quebec. I am glad to see so many Quebec members assuming their rights as federal members of parliament and passing judgment on what is happening in the province of Quebec. That is a healthy sign because it makes one realize that the members from Quebec are beginning to act as federal members of parliament and starting to realize that they were elected to the Canadian parliament, not to the Quebec legislature. I think that their criticism has been a constructive side issue, but I hope that we pass this bill as fast as possible.


Mr. Jean Berger (Monimagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, I have no apology to make to the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), because I am much more interested in this subject than he might be. As a matter of fact, every week end I use the existing Quebec bridge as well as the ferry service. I can tell you that the area I represent here and also the Montmagny-L'Islet county in particular, are interested for many reasons in the construction of this new bridge. Of course, maybe
[Mr. Maekasey.l
we would have a tendency to complain because we, the people of the lower St. Lawrence area, would perhaps like to have an easier way of communication before getting to the Quebec bridge.
However, the insistence shown by some impetuous provincial autonomists is a strange thing. The government of the province of Quebec, its engineers and others who are interested in the project, have decided this for several reasons. The premier of the province of Quebec, Mr. Lesage, has recognized the future importance of another bridge to relieve the metropolitan centre of Quebec city and Levis. I know very well that the premier of the province of Quebec has given careful consideration to the bridge question. He has explained why it has to be built at that particular place.
If we look at the highway system at the entrance of Quebec city or on the Levis shore, and at the way the laying-out normally develops, we can understand much better, if only we take the trouble to study these things, the reason why the contemplated bridge we are now discussing will be built exactly where the present engineers have advised to build it.
I am consequently in favour of the passing as soon as possible of the bill now before us because this is most urgently required. I rely upon the probity and honesty of the premier of the province of Quebec, who has assured us that as soon as the project will be economical-it will necessarily have to come to that-we shall have a bridge that will provide better transport facilities to my own constituents as well as to the people in the adjoining counties. At present and under existing circumstances, the bill is the only solution we have to improve the highway system we now have in the province of Quebec.
I have faith in the future but I believe that we shall have to keep on defending provincial autonomy. I was surprised this afternoon to see that certain impetuous members, who are in favour of provincial autonomy, had not shown great respect for that in the house- yet it is not a holiday today. Fortunately, I find however that there are still courageous members who keep a watchful eye on the provinces' autonomy and I hope they will keep up the good work, as I will myself, and as we have given proof of it in the past.


Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might have refrained from bringing my contribution to this debate after those which we have already heard concerning the advisability of authorizing the construction of this second bridge above the one which is now handling road traffic from Levis and

Quebec as well as from many other ridings in eastern Quebec, such as the constituency of Montmagny-L'Islet.
Quite recently we found out what a traffic tie-up could be like on the Quebec bridge and even off the bridge. Fifteen days ago the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, the hon. member for Levis and myself shared that experience when we almost missed our plane for Ottawa, not because of the Quebec bridge itself, but on account of some minor work being carried out on the approaches to the bridge. I am therefore somewhat surprised to find that, because of his respect for provincial autonomy, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet seems to have made himself the defender of this bill which authorizes the province of Quebec to build this second bridge on a site which, as the hon. member for Levis said, answers neither the present traffic needs of the counties extending eastward along the lower St. Lawrence nor the traffic coming from the densely populated area of Saguenay-Lake St. John and going to the eastern part of the province.
I wonder whether we should not more specifically ask the Minister of Public Works to see whether it would be appropriate not only to plan or build a bridge according to the principle of co-operative federalism, but to consider the building of a bridge which will truly answer the traffic needs in those counties.
I live in a rather sparsely populated area, counting from 75,000 to 80,000 people, the greater part of whom, because of their trade, business, cultural needs and medical care- they sometimes have to resort to the hospitals in Quebec city-have to contend almost daily with bottlenecks on the approaches to the present bridge.
With regard to the highway which would better ease the traffic coming from the east Quebec city, I think the best solution would be to review the matter, while respecting the rights and autonomy of Quebec, but in accordance with logic.
For several years I was president and vice president of chambers of commerce, and the hon. member for L6vis just remarked, in his brief speech, that only last Sunday the chambers of commerce of Beauce, Jonquiere, Dorchester and Levis held a meeting to ask for this highway problem to be settled so as to help commercial and agricultural traffic between Quebec city and the farming and business communities of the neighbouring counties who are in almost daily contact.
Therefore, I think that the argument advanced a while ago by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency is a good argument.
As concerns arguments put forward by other hon. members, I do respect their opinions,
Ste. Foy-St. Nicolas Bridge but I do not believe the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet can say the representations of the newspapers on this problem, following Mr. Lesage's statements, justify the exorbitant expenses that will be incurred for the building of this bridge.
A year ago it was learned a tunnel between Levis and Quebec was out of question. However, that project was studied by engineers and experts as well as by the L6vis council and other councils of neighbouring and eastern Quebec municipalities. That project had been seriously studied-even the financial possibility of building this tunnel as an easier means of communication between L6vis and Quebec.
It was a surprise for everybody, as well as for public bodies such as chambers of com-ferce, Richelieu clubs and other associations which had advocated this construction, to learn that a tunnel or a second bridge that could have easily served that area through Orleans island and Beaumont was to be replaced by a bridge located at a distance of a few hundred feet from the present bridge.
We are all somewhat surprised, for, even if we are federal members of parliament, we represent a Quebec population, and, personally, I represent the Beauce population. Now, when the first statements were made to the effect that a second bridge would be constructed about 200 feet above the existing bridge, it was a surprise for the inhabitants of the neighbouring counties.
I therefore believe it my duty to express this amazement before the house and to ask the Minister of Public Works to think the project over and to try establishing new contacts, in the name of co-operative federalism for it is a delicate step for us to oppose the authorization requested by Quebec. I think it is normal that we should ask the Minister of Public Works to suggest to provincial authorities to think the matter over before implementing this bill, which does not meet the present needs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their very interesting remarks, especially those specifically concerning the bill under consideration.
I would like to answer all the questions, but I think that it would be easier to answer directly the questions asked when the house will be in committee.


David Réal Caouette: Agreed.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I hope that my hon. friends will agree to proceed immediately with the second reading, since no objection has

Ste. Foy-St. Nicolas Bridge been raised against the principle of the bill. My advisers will then be here and I will be in a position to answer the questions of the hon. members. This is a project of the Quebec provincial government which selected the site of the bridge and our only responsibility is to see that this structure will not hinder navigation on the St. Lawrence river.
According to all preliminary plans studied by our engineers, this construction will not create any difficulty and will not impede navigation as a result of ice, because the free space between the central piers of the bridge will be much greater than in the present bridge. As far as its height is concerned, it will be the same. All things considered, our experts have declared that there would be no difficulty at all about it, and I am sure that what has been pointed out by the hon. members will be examined by the province of Quebec and undoubtedly appreciated accordingly.
Now, I hope that the house will give second reading to this bill and, along with the departmental experts, I shall try to answer all the questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the motion carried? [Text]


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a few questions to the Minister of Public Works so as to know whether he shares the opinion of the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) who feels that it would have been more desirable that a tunnel be built between Quebec and Levis to solve the present crucial problem and that this bill has been rejected by the hon. member for Levis and the chambers of commerce of this region.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I would have a very interesting answer to give to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm but it is not our practice to deal with purely provincial matters.
The construction of that bridge is strictly a provincial local matter, and 1 think that we would be ill-advised to assess the pros and cons, namely if this bridge should be located farther upstream from the site now selected and so on. For all those reasons, I believe that it is not desirable for me to express any opinion. Besides, I could say this: Technically speaking, nothing is impossible so far as the construction of a tunnel or a bridge is concerned. Anything can be done. Only the cost has to be considered, but as we have now before us a bill from the province of Quebec
[Mr. Deschatelets.l
-and I would say the same thing for any bill presented by other provinces-we take it as it is and we must only see if, from the navigation point of view, it might be a source of problems.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would the minister agree if the province of Quebec decided to build a tunnel between Quebec and Levis, or would he seriously object to a different project?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I shall answer in this way: we would act exactly as we did in the case of the Boucherville tunnel and bridge project. Plans and specifications which were examined, when the matter of building a tunnel came up, did not present any difficulty as far as navigation was concerned. Consequently, we authorized it and any other project presented by the province of Quebec would be treated in the same way.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister when the work on the bridge will start and when will it be finished?
I would also have two or three other questions to put to the minister.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry but I am unable to answer that question. The former minister of transport, the hon. member for Three Rivers, is well aware of this: If a private company were building that bridge, the order in council that would be signed would give a time limit within which construction should start, but when we deal with a province, if there is no problem with regard to navigation, we just issue an order in council.
I regret to be unable to say when the work will start and will be completed. On the other hand, I am under the impression that work will start as soon as that order in council is issued.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a supplementary question? I understand very well that the minister is not in a position to answer my question and, furthermore, it is not essential to the said bill.
However, there are a number of other essential questions. What will be the number of piers in the St. Lawrence river and what will be the distance between them? Will those piers narrow the channel in the St. Lawrence?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, it is a suspension bridge. It will have two main piers and the distance between them, as far as I know, will be approximately 1,800 feet, that is a little longer than the distance between the two main piers of the present Quebec bridge.

In view of the fact that the profile of the new bridge will be practically the same as that of the old bridge, icebreakers will have all the space required to do their job on the St. Lawrence river, just as they do now, as far as the old bridge is concerned.


Léon Balcer: A last question, Mr. Chairman. Can the minister tell us whether or not it will be a toll bridge?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I am not in a position to answer this question. In fact, the hon. member for Three Rivers will admit that his question is not directly connected with the problem under consideration.
Those are matters of details which will certainly be disclosed when the order in council is approved.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the minister, since we are still considering clause 1.
It is obvious that the new bridge will not be named "pont de Quebec". It will also probably not be named "pont de Levis". Will it be named "pont de Sainte-Foy" or "Saint-Nicolas" or will it be given the name of a prominent member of the federal or provincial Liberal party?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, the question of naming that bridge never came up. It will certainly have a name, but it is a matter for the provincial authorities to decide and if the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency has a favourite name, he only has to submit it to the Quebec provincial authorities.


An hon. Member:: The Deschatelets bridge.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The Balcer bridge.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to ask the minister one question.
I said earlier that what slowed down the traffic was the fact that the motorists coming from north and south were converging in the same direction. Can the minister tell us whether the construction of four-lane highways has been provided on the other side of the bridge, so that the traffic can be directed more quickly on the south shore?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is talking about the access roads. I must tell him this. I believe it is a six-lane bridge, three on each side, each 36 feet wide for a total width of 72 feet. On the other hand, I understand that the bridge will have an over-all width of about 90 feet.
Now, with regard to access roads to the bridge, I have no information on that.
A while ago one or two hon. members said that the work had begun. The construction work cannot begin until the order
Ste. Foy-St. Nicolas Bridge in council has been signed and approved. It will not be signed until the engineers of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport have examined the plans in detail. It is at that time only that the order in council will be signed and the work can begin.
I have the impression that work is being done at the present time along the approaches in the province of Quebec. There may be equipment or machinery for that work, but I do not think that this work has any relation to the building of the bridge. I must say to the hon. members that I am convinced that the work has not begun. In fact, it cannot be started before legislation has been passed by the government and an order in council has been approved.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Chairman, could the minister inquire concerning the work in progress concerning the approaches of the bridge which is to be built under this bill?
If the minister wishes me to do so, I will bring him next week proof of the fact that work is being done at present in connection with the bridge.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I think this question is covered by sections 2 and 3 of the bill under consideration.
What the Navigable Waters Protection Act forbids is the construction of the bridge and the execution of any related work.
Moreover, according to the act, the federal government has no jurisdiction a quarter of a mile from the bridge, or on provincial property. Indeed, I feel that we would be quite ill-advised to tell the provincial government that they must stop their machinery and equipment approximately 50 feet from the bridge and that they must not continue with the preparation of the approaches to the bridge.
I think that this should answer the question asked by my hon. friend but, at all events, I will inquire so as to be sure I am not making any mistake when I tell him that the work has not yet begun.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Chairman, a while ago I asked the minister whether he knew about the highway system that we are going to have on the south shore as the traffic at present is not as heavy on the bridge itself as it is on the other side of the bridge.
Does the minister know about the proposed highway system that motorists will be able to use to reach the bridge, because at present north and south traffic converge in the same direction? That is where the actual problem lies, not the bridge.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the hon. member no doubt knows

Ste. Foy-St. Nicolas Bridge this area much better than I do, I suggest that if he has any representations to make- and they are no doubt very interesting ones- he should make them to the government of the province of Quebec.
The federal government has no jurisdiction over the approaches. I inquired about this a moment ago, and I was told that the road to this bridge is not linked in any way with an access road to the trans-Canada highway.
However, the hon. member's remarks should be brought to the attention of the government of the province of Quebec, where they would certainly be given due consideration.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question which may not be related to the bill now under consideration, but I wonder if the minister could tell us what will become of the existing bridge?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, the present bridge will be used for the purposes intended.
However, one must not forget that this bridge was built many years ago, that traffic has substantially increased and that Quebec city is facing the same traffic problems as all other large cities of North America. This proposed bridge will probably be followed by others to meet the present requirements. In fact, it is possible that my remarks will not be directly related to the bill which is now before us but we must not forget that when we are talking of a six-lane trans-Canada highway, we should have in mind an eight or ten-lane highway. Unfortunately, the financial aspect does not permit us to do everything we would like to.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question to the hon. minister.
Since there was mention of the trans-Canada highway, whether this request is refused or granted, could the minister tell us if that would affect in any way the existing routing of the trans-Canada highway from St. Etienne, in Levis county, towards Quebec city?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, the present route will in no way be affected.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, one more question. I see that it is one minute to five o'clock and I would not want to delay the passing of this bill.
Could the minister tell us what will be the exact distance between the existing bridge and the proposed bridge. Could the minister also tell us if the distance between the two bridges will be sufficient so that the Quebec bridge, which is federally owned, will not lose any of its appearance or its soundness, for instance?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: According to my information, the new bridge will be 1,650 feet up the river from the present bridge, and I am told that-


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the minister. Could he tell the house what financial assistance the federal government intends to grant toward the building of that bridge?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Not a penny, Mr. Chairman.
Clause carried.
Clauses 2 and 3 carried.
On clause 4-Regulations.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister if subsection 2 of clause 4 is necessary. It reads:
All persons affected by any regulation made under the authority of this act shall comply therewith.
In my opinion, that subsection is superfluous. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for anybody, and I cannot imagine why subsections such as this one should be written into the statutes of Canada.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member's comment is taken very seriously. With his permission, we shall take it into consideration. But, as this subsection is identical to the one incorporated in other measures we have already passed, I would suggest we adopt the clause in its present form. However, we shall certainly take the hon. member's comment into consideration as regards future bills.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported.
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I thank all the hon. members.

Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time, now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


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



PRIVATE BILLS


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: the second reading of Bill No. S-18, respecting the Montreal board of trade.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Bill No. S-18, an act respecting the Montreal board of trade, is in essence similar to hundreds of other such bills which have come before this house in previous sessions.
I would beg the indulgence of hon. members for a few moments to draw to their attention that at a time in our history when we are more than ever aware of our heritage the Montreal board of trade is requesting a minor adjustment in its charter to assist the development of an organization which was formed not 50, or 100 years ago, but in 1822, 142 years ago. It is significant, I think, that human nature rarely changes. Back in 1822, a group of merchants, dissatisfied with the chaotic conditions of the time, banded together to improve the trade and commerce of the island of Montreal by some form of organization. Trade at that time was impeded by laborious methods of communication which necessitated decisions being made and bills being regulated in England; it often took three months before decisions could be rendered. Twenty years later, in 1842, these merchants were granted a royal charter which gave them certain powers on the island of Montreal. I do not intend to discuss these powers in detail, but they have some history attached to them. For instance, members of the board of trade were given the task of policing weights and measures and controlling the quality of flour, meat and so forth. They grew in reputation and respect and were eventually granted exemption from jury service, in those days a mark of esteem granted only after careful deliberation. I think, however, that the Montreal board of trade will best be recognized, at least by members from my area, for the fact that it was directly concerned with the establishment of the great port of Montreal and directly responsible for the system of canals which permitted trade to flow up the great lakes into what is now Canada.
In those days the board of trade took an active part not only in the expansion of trade and commerce but in the field of education both of its own members and of the citizens of the island generally. Since then, of course, the work of the board has changed considerably. Many of the functions that were performed at that time have been taken over
Private Bills
by municipal, provincial and federal organizations. However, the board of trade is still of tremendous usefulness in the business world of Montreal and it maintains direct relationship with trade matters. For instance, it has developed one of the most complete libraries in the world on the subject of exportation and importation, and today it renders a most useful service to its members by providing information on tariffs and so forth. The Montreal board of trade has continued to serve the community for 142 consecutive years and today it is as vigorous as it ever was. Some 2,800 firms in the Montreal area, both large and small, are among its members.
Unfortunately its present premises in the historic centre of Montreal, on St. Sacrament street, were built between 1900 and 1903 and are no longer adequate. Moreover, the efficiency of the board is lessened by the fact that the geographical face of Montreal has changed. Today, St. Sacrament street is no longer the hub of the world of enterprise in the city. Business has a tendency now to move uptown, as it is commonly called. In order that the board may become more efficient and serve its members better, it is desired to move to what is commonly known as uptown. Such a move is presently being held up, and one of the reasons is the fact that in 1890 a minor change in the board's charter limited the real holdings of the board to $1 million. Certainly, in 1890, $1 million was a considerable sum of money and it stood the board in good stead until the present day. As all members who are familiar with the city of Montreal know, the cost of buying land and erecting a building on a suitable location is such that this limitation to $1 million is proving an impediment; it is holding the board back. A similar problem affecting the Toronto board of trade was, I believe, placed before this house some time ago.
In these circumstances, the board is seeking to end the limitation imposed upon it in 1890. It is asking that the restriction to physical holdings of $1 million be removed so that it may feel free to move to a new location and thus continue its fine work for the business community of Montreal. I would humbly ask that this request be acceded to, and if the bill should pass second reading today that it be referred to the standing committed on banking and commerce where witnesses may be called for or against the proposal.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-31, respecting Sir John A. Macdonald day.
He said: I invite the attention of the house with my usual brevity, of course, to a bill the passage of which would I believe do something to strengthen our sense of national purpose and mark at least one step away from those long years of Canadian neglect of the great men whose labours and vision have made our land great.
One is appalled to note how little is known about Sir John A. Macdonald. The minister of education in the great province of Ontario was alarmed when he discovered that many school children, otherwise well informed, knew not the name of the father of our country. And I have noted on a certain radio program emanating from Ottawa where they question listeners about the names of various characters-and they do not always get them right-there is no alacrity of response when they inquire about Sir John A. Macdonald. Indeed, in Canada, while thousands would know the birth date of Abraham Lincoln or George Washington it would require a little research to find the birth date of Sir John A. Macdonald. We recognize St. Patrick's day and St. Andrew's day, as is right and proper. We recognize Robert Burns day, too. But I am inviting the house to set apart a Sir John A. Macdonald day. In doing so, no party here represented would suffer and I think all would gain something by recognizing what the great Joseph Howe said long ago-I shall quote his words, as many hon. members have done before me.
A wise nation preserves its records, gathers up its muniments, decorates the tombs of its illustrious dead, repairs its great public structures and fosters national pride and love of country by perpetual reference to the sacrifices and glories of the past.
My hon. friend from Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Alkenbrack) did a real service when in connection with an earlier bill brought before this house he dealt with the career of our great first, first minister who was born on January 11, 1815. His holiday, if we should proclaim one next year, would mark the 150th anniversary of Macdonald's birth.
I am sure parliamentarians know Sir John
A.	Macdonald's life. They know what manner of man he was-the great John A., the lovable John A., the puckish John A.; although at times he was plunged into the loneliness of despair and the unhappiness of frustration, beset by doubts and anxiety-and, heaven knows, he has reason enough for both. And he was not a teetotaler; I think that is

now part of the record. He was quite a hard drinker. Indeed, he said in those memorable words:
The people of Canada would rather have John A. drunk than George Brown sober.
He demonstrated the accuracy of his prophecy, if not the virtue of his habits. He was a man who, entering public life in 1844, remained in public life for nearly half a century; a cabinet minister for a third of a century, and prime minister for nearly 20 years. A gay man was John A.; a popular man; a beloved man, but also a great man. What were the secrets of his greatness and what in his life, in his record, is of value to us today? I think much. First he was a nation builder; a practical man of common sense and shrewd judgment. In one of his first speeches in the old legislature of Canada he stood up and said:
In a young country like Canada I am of the opinion that it is of more consequence to endeavour to develop its resources and improve its physical advantages than to waste the time of the legislature and the money of the people in fruitless discussions on abstract and theoretical questions of government.
We do not have many political philosophers in Canada, and we Conservatives can claim that John A. Macdonald was one of them. Yet with all his hardbitten common sense he was a visionary. He saw a greater Canada. When others saw only narrow, small confines for the little political communities of what was then British North America in the middle of the 19th century, he saw a transcontinental dominion and he made his vision a reality. Of him Laurier said:
His actions displayed a far reaching vision beyond the event of the day, and, still higher, permeating the whole, a broad patriotism, a devotion to Canada's welfare, Canada's advancement and Canada's glory. It may be said without any exaggeration whatsoever that the life of Sir John A. Macdonald, from the day he entered parliament, is the history of Canada.
That is what the great Laurier said about the great Macdonald. It was not easy for him to pursue his vision of a transcontinental dominion. We think at times in our political life today that we have bitterness, but the days in which Sir John A. functioned were replete with invective and political suspicion of motives which were not always quite above reproach. The suggestions involved in his new state were so difficult, but resisting alike the blandishments of those who would surrender supinely to incorporate them with the great republican neighbour and those whose range could not transcend a weak, inglorious colonialism, he and his associates built a country monarchical and free, American yet not republican, dedicated to the British institution from which it sprang but destined

surely for independence, with its own unique political institutions, the greatest of which is that in which we are all functionaries. It is well known that in his last great campaign, when he faced what he thought was a great danger to Canada's continuing independence he made this stirring statement. He was not the greatest orator of his time, but he said:
Shall we endanger our possession of the great heritage bequeathed to us by our fathers, and submit ourselves to direct taxation for the privilege of having our tariff fixed at Washington, with the prospect of ultimately becoming a portion of the American union?...As for myself, my course is clear. A British subject X was born-a British subject I will die. With my utmost effort, with my latest breath, will I oppose the "veiled treason" which attempts by sordid means and mercenary proffers to lure our people from their allegiance.
It was almost his "latest breath", because the election of 1891 killed Sir John A. Macdonald. But he was something else, and I think this is of interest to all of us. He was a party man. Macdonald always said his greatest work was done before confederation. Some historians would question that. But he did see, like Bryce and many other students of politics saw later, that political parties are actually older than democracy and that no great free country can exist long without them. In 1854, with great finesse, with infinite patience, with broadmindedness, with understanding, with good fellowship, with a sense of purpose, he joined the Progressive Conservative party, then called the Liberal Conservative party. Then in 1864, the year of the Charlottetown conference, through the great magnanimity of a man who was not always magnanimous, George Brown, he formed a coalition and so came to Charlottetown with a united political group in 1864. There again the gifts and abilities of the man when he built a party were applied to creating a nation; and we know what emanated from that great meeting in the city which I have the honour to represent in this House of Commons.
The architect of confederation was also the father of Canada's great historic parties. He did in his time what Sir Wilfrid Laurier was to do a few years later. He created, inspired and led the second great national party, and when we reached that stage we reached a mature political society, broadly based, with a unified course. In any country such as ours where regional feelings and backgrounds are strong, differences are never too far below the surface, differences of religion, ethnic background, economic inequality, geographic separation. In spite of all these discordant forces Canada, first under the great Liberal Conservative party and then-and I cannot pretend that it is quite as good as the one I have just
Private Bills
mentioned-under the Liberal party of Laurier, was brought together with a great degree of unity and there was progress in this country.
He was something else than a party man. He was a moderate. In an age when it was so easy to ring the welkin on particularism, on regionalism, and indeed on bigotry, he took another course. Macdonald, in his close association with Cartier was surely an essential factor in confederation and the building of the party which became the vehicle ushering in confederation. In a day of bigotry and bitterness he avoided both. As a great Canadian historian-I think not a Conservative one; I was a student of this man-Professor Lower, has said:
His stand with respect to the race question was consistent throughout his life whatever the cost to himself...he refused to raise the race cry at a time when he was in low political water.
His words to Brown Chamberlain, editor of the Montreal Gazette, further clarify his attitude:
The trouble is that you British Canadians can never forget that you were once supreme, that John Baptiste was once your hewer of wood and drawer of water. You struggle for ascendancy. If a Lower Canadian Britisher-
That is quite an expression, Mr. Speaker, but it was recognized in those days:
-desires to conquer he must stoop to conquer. He must make friends with the French without sacrificing the principles of his race or lineage. He must respect their nationality. Treat them as a nation; and they will act as a free people generally do-generously. Treat them as a faction and they will become factious.
So he wrote many years ago. As the professor says:
Wise words-the beginning and the end of our Canadian puzzle but by few indeed taken to heart. Can the man who wrote them and who lived them be accused of having been a "mere opportunist".
Then at another time when his own party was torn because of excessive religious particularism, if I may use the euphemism, although it is more than that; when the country was being torn apart by one of the greatest of all political ills, and the identification of an ethnic region and a geographic region within a political party line became threatening he said:
Let us forget this cry and we shall have our reward in seeing this unfortunate fire which has been kindled from so small a spark extinguished forever and we shall go on as we have been going on since 1867 as one people with one object, looking to one future and expecting to lay the foundations of one great country.
Macdonald was always a one-Canada man; he was always a strong-Canada man; and he did not hesitate to use the greatness of the national political apparatus to further national aims and to strengthen national purpose.

Private Bills
There is much one would like to say about this man whom we should honour more, but I can only conclude my remarks, so inadequate to the greatness of my subject, by calling on the members of this house. We are at this moment in danger of embarking upon another sea of discord. Let us find out whether out of our historic past and our common tradition there is something to symbolize greater unity, something around which we as Canadians and we members of this house as legislators may find a rallying point.
We Canadians are perhaps not very picturesque people. We are not terribly emotional. We are a bit casual about many things and certainly about our history. I would invite the support of this bill to honour the founder of our country, which sets aside a day when we, like him, can move our thoughts in the direction of unity and of greatness, away from discord and those matters which would separate us and undo those things which would bind us together. Because only thus can that land which he and his associates built up and is called Canada be worthy of his name.


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to follow and to support the urbane, erudite and always affable member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie), whose presence in this house has ever provided an aura of grace and decorum in an often times tempestuous place. I would point out that the hon. member, in presenting to the house a bill whereby we might pay some homage and honour to the attorney general for Canada west, as he was prior to confederation, is doing something which many of us in this house feel is important. He is doing something which should have been done before and something to which we should all give our very serious and considered attention. I would certainly agree with the hon. member when he states that too often in the past in this country, and in this house in particular, we have ill honoured our past. We have not paid sufficient homage to our history, and in so doing we have probably failed to strengthen that foundation for this nation which can only be made strong, and on which we can build a greater future, if we honour and strengthen our past as the hon. member would have us do.
With respect to Sir John A. Macdonald, whom the hon. member would have us honour here, I would point out that certainly some considerable tribute has been paid to him in the biography of Donald Creighton, who I understand to be of a similar political vintage both of the hon. member and to Sir John A. Macdonald, as a result of which his 
two-volume biography may have been somewhat coloured but is nevertheless a great tribute to Sir John A. Macdonald. It is one which is worthy of him and the contribution which he made to Canada.
I think that in this biography of Mr. Creighton's we have a precedent, which we hope will be emulated in the future by our writers and historians, whereby a very great and important source of history and of honouring our past traditions will be found. I think many of our heroes of history have not been sufficiently written about and reported upon, particularly in popular, readable histories of the style of Mr. Creighton's. I may say in this regard that having read this to a very large degree panegyric of Sir John A. by Mr. Creighton, I had a few qualms in doing a little research into the political affiliations of its author, and I thought possibly I would get a view from the other side. Subsequent to reading this biography I read Sir Richard Cartwright's biography of Sir John A., and if one treads a road between the two he might possibly achieve the true picture of Sir John A. I would not suggest to hon. members of the party of which the hon. member for Queens is a member that they would find the complete truth according to their liking in Sir Richard Cartwright's biography. The social graces of the attorney general for Canada west are given more preeminence in that biography than they are in the biography of Mr. Creighton.
With respect to honouring other days, there is only one remark of the hon. member's to which I would take exception, and that is the inference he drew that we honour St. Patrick's day and that St. Patrick's day in his view, I gathered from his remarks, should not have the honoured place that it does have in the annals of our celebrations. Coming from the Ottawa valley I must take great exception to any such suggestion. I would suggest to the hon. member that in honouring St. Patrick's day we do no less honour to Sir John A. Macdonald, except that we possibly honour St. Patrick's day with a little more revelry and a little more boisterously.
I would also point out with respect to the 1864 cavalcade to Charlottetown, which is being celebrated this year and which we sincerely hope will be celebrated with honour and broad acclaim throughout the nation- because it was certainly this meeting which ultimately led to confederation-that this was originally to be a meeting, as the hon. member for Queens no doubt knows far better than I, only to discuss maritime union. In fact, the meeting had virtually been abandoned when the members from Canada east and Canada west embarked on their jolly cruise, and the

meeting ultimately became one for confederation of all the colonies of British North America. I understand that the maritime papers in particular paid considerable tribute to the social graces not only of the attorney general for Canada west but to the many members who came from the parliament of Canada to Charlottetown, and their convivial ability to carouse well into the night was apparently one of the many reasons why the maritimers took so gleefully to the idea of confederation. May it be that this summer, when we are all celebrating that momentous event of the Charlottetown crusade, that we will enjoy the festivities as did our parliamentarians of those days.
I would point out in regard to the subject of our history generally that we have not paid sufficient heed or tribute to our history in the past, and there may be good reason for this. I think from the very nature of the diversity of our foundation, and by virtue of the fact that there were two basic founding races and languages at the root of our confederation, it may be that in the past-and I think politically this has been the case in the past-we tended to steer away from our history because that history would have pointed out the very differences that exist. There was a tendency to bury our heads in the sand like an ostrich and to say in the nonFrench parts of Canada: "We will study our history and you study yours, and never the twain shall meet". I think this is the reason we have paid insufficient heed to our history. We have not sufficiently glorified our heroes because we were, on both sides of the coin, afraid of the past.
I think that is the situation in which we find ourselves today it is self-evident that in fact this has been a tragedy, that we should have paid greater heed to our history. Perhaps the very differences of our foundation, had we come to know each other better through a more pervasive knowledge and wider acceptance of our respective histories and heroes, would have been resolved and made our foundation the stronger today. In this regard I have a few quotations which I think may be pertinent.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Mac-quarrie) has very aptly brought before the house a quotation from Joseph Howe in regard to history. Here is something that Benjamin Disraeli said in the House of Commons in 1849:
The memory of a great name and the inheritance of a great example is the legacy of heroes.
I commend that thought to the house. Here again surely the memory of our heroes, such men as Sir John A. Macdonald who helped
Private Bills
to found this nation, would give a great inheritance and a great example to those who come after them, and should be better known.
I might say in this regard that we on this side of the house can take particular pride and honour in any suggestion to honour Sir John A. Macdonald because I think even those who know little history appreciate the fact that there would have been no confederation if George Brown had not made a very great personal sacrifice. Maurice Careless in his recent biography certainly gives credence to the belief that possibly Brown gave up his place in history to a very considerable degree by affiliating with Sir John A. Macdonald in the confederation movement. At that time it was the only thing that could be done to avoid the stalemate that existed, and certainly we would have had no Canada today had not Sir John A. and Sir George Brown worked together to bring about confederation.
I would also point to a quotation from Pliny the Younger found in book 5 of his "Epistles" where he says:
I hold it a noble task to reserve from oblivion those who deserve to be eternally remembered.
So I think we can see that historically all nations who have been worthy of the name and who have contributed something to the progress of mankind have heeded the admonition of Joseph Howe. On the other hand, we have those who decry the need for history and with whom I do not personally agree. But it may be of interest to the house to know that there are some who feel it is not necessarily important to record and honour the past in order to create a great nation. Among the great iconoclasts in this regard was Henry Ford, who said when he appeared as a witness at Mount Clemens, Michigan, when he was suing the Chicago Tribune in a libel suit in July, 1919, and I quote from the record of the trial: "History is bunk".
That may be, Mr. Speaker, but I suggest that, bunk or no, it should be recorded and given a place of honour in our annals. Again, Thomas Jefferson said in his "Writings":
History in general is only as infamous as what is bad in government.
Thomas Carlyle said:
Happy the people whose annals are blank.
Montesquieu said:
Happy the people whose annals are tiresome.
Again, this view of history was probably summed up best by Schiller in his "Tablets" when he said:
How the best state to know? It is found out like the best woman-that least talked about.
According to these gentlemen the less you talk about your history the better it is, but I think most of us would decry this view and

Private Bills
accept the fact that what is very much needed in this country today is a greater appreciation and a wider knowledge of our history.
Not too long ago I had the pleasure to be in Washington during the Easter period, and I was very much impressed with the enthusiasm and the great thirst there is on the part of the people of the United States of America for their history and their past. One could not go to the Washington monument or the Lincoln memorial without coming away with a great awareness of the sincerity of the people of the United States, of their keen desire to know more about and feel their past and their history. Surely monuments such as these and also the Jefferson memorial in Washington are something we should think about very seriously.
When one sees thousands of boys and girls climbing the stairs or taking the elevator to the top of the Washington monument and then coming away with a deeper knowledge and appreciation of their past, when one sees in that great monument the contributions brick by brick and stone by stone by the various states, from various churches, from various groups throughout the length and breadth of that nation who have contributed funds and materials to that monument, he cannot but wish that we had memorials of this kind, great achievements in architecture and construction but, more than that, great achievements commemorating the past history of the United States and its heroes, which is something that we do not appear to have accomplished here.
I had the pleasure and honour of visiting the Lincoln memorial just at sunset and reading the second inaugural address which is completely inscribed on the walls of that great memorial. When one sees the figure of that great man with the second inaugural address facing it, one cannot help but reflect on the very great part that Abraham Lincoln played in their history and one cannot help but wish that we here in Ottawa had memorials to commemorate at least Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the same fashion, to the same degree and with the same dignity and exaltation that accompany the Washington monument and the Jefferson and Lincoln memorials in Washington.
True, we have memorials and statues. I think that the memorial chamber of the House of Commons is something we should all be proud of and cherish, but I think we need to do something on a wider scale and of greater stature, something to indicate that we are very proud of the heroes of our past, be they of French or Anglo Saxon origin, or be they of the other peoples who have contributed so greatly to this land. I think we

need to honour our past and our heroes more now that we have ever needed to before, because if this nation is to survive it can only survive if we appreciate our roots, if we appreciate our antecedents and if we take gladly now the very fact of our differences. If we try to hide our differences, if we are a little diffident about the fact that in our past we have different founding races and nationalities, then indeed we will not thrive and we may not even survive.
So, Mr. Speaker, may I commend the hon. member for the thought he has expressed in this bill. I take great honour in supporting the thought he has expressed. I should like to go a great deal farther than he has suggested. I believe the time is ripe not just to spend public moneys on bridges and other utilitarian things. If we have found out nothing else in the past two or three years, surely we have found that a nation does not survive by bridges, roads or public buildings alone which have utility as their only purpose. We need monuments. We need heroes. We need to look proudly at our roots of the past.
In supporting the hon. member's bill I suggest that not only should we have a Sir John A. Macdonald day, but that as a start in honouring our past history we should build here in Ottawa, the capital of this nation, the place where all people should come who wish to honour our history, two great memorials of the same stature and the same architecture as the Washington monument and the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials. We should build two great memorials honouring Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Let us start from there and then let us build other monuments to our past so that all who come after us may be proud of the antecedents of this nation and of our past history.


Mrs. Jean Casselman (Grenville-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very closely to the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) and welcome indeed his support of Bill No. C-31. It is probably no surprise to any member of this house that I too wish to support this bill. Unlike those young people who have not yet heard of Sir John A. Macdonald, I cannot remember a time when I did not hear of him very frequently, if not daily. Sir John A. Macdonald is synonymous with Conservative, in fact, with Tory, and no matter how many times I am called a Tory I have always, however it is meant, taken it as a compliment. I am a Tory. However, it is quite obvious that that is not the reason I am supporting Bill No. C-31, an act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald day. It would not be reasonable to invest this bill with political overtones or party ambitions. It would seem to me to be an insult to our historical growth to do such a thing.

First of all, I would support it because I am sure of the basis of this bill, because of the character of the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) who has introduced it. There is no more intelligent or sincere member in this house. He has not been known, to my knowledge, in this chamber or outside of it to make statements that have not been well thought out and always moderate. Second, I feel that in reaching this almost unbelievable standard of living that our country enjoys, in spite of our short age, our geography, our climate and our relatively small population, we have of necessity concentrated on material and physical demands. We must beware of neglecting the intangibles which would probably have come automatically through development under slower conditions of growth.
Every country has had its national figures and history is more meaningful, more real and more alive when we see it through personalities. Those who follow can identify themselves with other human beings in many different ways. It seems to me that this is the purest link with our past, with what may be unfamiliar and increasingly obscure as the years and the decades go by. Every Canadian should have a deep feeling for the process of compromise, conciliation, diplomacy and the enormous effort that went into the confederation of 1867. How better to develop this feeling than to set aside a day which will recall the successful results? By calling this day after Canada's first prime minister, we will also recognize a factor that must not be lost sight of in the dust of the political arena, and that is the factor that the office of prime minister warrants respect on all occasions. It is a permanent position not to be overridden by new theories or even by rebellions. Respect does not develop automatically. The respect accorded Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II has not come about by accident. Into it goes many years of attitudes, changing, maturing, sometimes weakening and sometimes strengthening.
Victoria day goes all the way back to 1845, and now incorporates Elizabeth II's birthday as well as that of the early Queen Victoria. Victoria day and Dominion day are really the only two of our nine statutory holidays that can be completely designated as historical. Although Remembrance day has a close connection with our national history, it is none the less more personal. That day our minds dwell most on the courage and service of Canadians and their individual and personal sacrifices.
It seems to me the time has come when we should guard the legends, the memories that deepen and strengthen in any country as the years go by. We can well afford at this time when our need for unity is so great, when
Private Bills
our desire for unity is so often expressed, to make every effort, take every possible step that will lead us in that direction. I feel that a national holiday named for our first prime minister would be good for Canada and good for Canadians. It would remind us of our history and our form of government in a pleasant, relaxed way. Citizens need not always be reminded of government by taxes, ponderous speeches or by the political thrust and cut, which is sometimes tiresome to those who do not follow it closely.
Let us give Canadians a holiday by means of this act, thereby reminding ourselves that, overriding the problems that come and go in any country, is the fact that we are glad that confederation took place in 1867. We are glad that we have a system of government headed by a prime minister, and all that that means in protection against rigidity, against oppression and rule by force.


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable hesitation that I follow the outstanding contributions made by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie), the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) and the gracious lady member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Cassel-man). I want to say that I am wholly in sympathy with the aims of the hon. member for Queens, namely that we should do more to protect the records of our past and to see to it that all Canadians are aware of the accomplishments of the statesmen who helped, as a team, to make Canada possible. I am not sure that I would be wholly in accord with the idea of a holiday specifically set aside as John A. Macdonald day. Certainly this prime minister, our first, was a remarkable Canadian and a man who contributed a tremendous amount to the development of the nation.
I thought perhaps one of his greatest accomplishments, and I am not sure I wholly applaud it, was the fact he was able to break the back of Nova Scotia's opposition to confederation by enticing Joseph Howe into the federal cabinet in 1869. I am not just sure how that was accomplished. There have been suggestions from time to time that the social graces that were mentioned at an earlier stage of this debate may have had something to do with that accomplishment. It was said by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on June 8, 1891, at the time of the death of Sir John A. Macdonald, that Sir John A. Macdonald now belongs to the ages and that it could be said with certainty the career that had just closed was one of the most remarkable careers of the century. I think this tribute from Sir Wilfrid is the measure of the mark Sir John A. Macdonald made on Canada.

Business of the House
While he has been one of the truly great Canadians of the past, I suggest that we must find a way somewhat between the neglect of the past for public figures and the extreme cult of the personality with regard to historic figures that has been shown in the United States and some other areas. We must find a middle path. We must find recognition for all of the great statesmen and prime ministers that followed John A. Macdonald I think that that recognition cannot be best found necessarily in national holidays. I feel that at the present time our July 1 holiday is a holiday that marks the memory of John A. Macdonald, Laurier, Joseph Howe and of all of those men collectively in something like a typically Canadian approach to our memory of the past.
I believe that our broadcasting systems, radio and television, and our schools could do far more than has been done in the past toward honouring the memory of our great men. Some of us had occasion, a year or two ago, to see a documentary on C.B.C. television concerning the life of Joseph Howe. It showed only the picture of a man that was a bit on the seedy side at the end of his career. It showed little of the greatness of Joseph Howe or his accomplishments. Coming from a province that has sent forward as prime ministers Sir Robert Borden, Sir John Thompson and Sir Charles Tupper, and a province which educated Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, I must say that I feel all these men and many others who served this nation should be recognized by the publication of concise and readable biographies. If necessary, government action should be taken to commission a number of concise biographies which could then be part of the curriculum of the schools of our country. I suggest this plan, if it would not be considered an invasion of provincial rights. Certainly, there is a great deal that can be done in that direction. I know of nothing that puts it better than the words that were read by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) in which Joseph Howe said that it was the wise nation that preserved its record.


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock p.m. this day are as follows:
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), the administration of justice, the holding of Mr. Eric Hooper, a United States

citizen in a Toronto jail for an undue length of time; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), the administration of justice, representation by counsel of persons detained for deportation; the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh), transport in the prairie provinces, the closing of railway stations and the removal of agents.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


Harry William Hays: the second reading of Bill No. C-100, to amend the Farm Credit Act.
He said: First, speaking about the substance of this bill, I should like to say I appreciate- and I am sure the farmers of Canada will also appreciate-the co-operation of all members in getting through the resolution stage so that we could have the bill before us during our discussion today.
The bill proposes a substantial increase in the public funds available to the Farm Credit Corporation and a doubling of the maximum amount of loans available to farmers from the corporation.
In discussing the bill I would like to explain why the government believes these changes are necessary to help farmers establish economic farm units and to assist them in building better houses and other buildings, and in buying the livestock and equipment they need to operate efficiently. The Farm Credit Corporation was established in 1959 as a revised version of the old farm loan board. The corporation's authorized capital was set at $8 million. The Minister of Finance was then authorized under section 13 of the Farm Credit Act to lend the corporation up to 25 times the authorized capital, or $200 million. This was increased to $300 million in 1961 and $400 million in 1962. But the volume of the corporation's lending has continued to increase so rapidly that it is in danger of running short of funds unless parliament fairly quickly approves the further extension of its resources proposed in this bill. The corporation had its busiest year ever during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1964. It approved 8,689 loans for a total amount of $108,009,100.
I have here a brief table summarizing the growth of lending by the corporation since its inception and I would ask permission to have

these figures printed in Hansard. They are provided by the corporation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreeable?



SUMMARY OF LOANS APPROVED BY

[Stage Direction]
2,	1964	3863
Farm Credit Act
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to is as follows:]



THE FARM CREDIT CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
Number of Loans Approved	Amount of Loans Approved
Increase over Previous Year	Amount Approved	Increase over Previous Year	Average LoanFiscal Year	Loans	Number	% Increase	Amount	% Increase	$	$	s1959-60*	5,339	534	11%	40,031,250	9,886,300	33%	7,5501960-61	5,597	258	5%	60,704,050	20,672,800	52%	10,1201961-62	5,885	288	5%	68,574,850	7,870,800	13%	11,9001962-63	7,438	1,553	26%	90,924,300	22,349,450	32%	12,2001963-64	8,689	1,251	17%	108,009,100	17,084,800	19%	12,430
* Under the Canadian Farm Loan Act until October 4, 1959.
Harry William Hays: The money available to the corporation is used much in the nature of a revolving fund. Principal repaid by farmers which in the last year amounted to about $25.5 million is available for re-lending, thus reducing the net amount the corporation must borrow from the Minister of Finance.
As I indicated a moment ago, because of the increased lending in recent years the present funds are not going to be enough to meet the needs of farmers this summer. The corporation has commitments to the Minister of Finance or to farmers in the form of loan approvals of about $378 million. This leaves only $22 million, besides principal repayments by farmers who already have loans, to cover new loan commitments. Based on current demands for loans and the rate of repayment on existing loans by farmers it is estimated that the additional $200 million in funds which this bill proposes to make available should be enough to keep the corporation in loan funds until late in 1966.
Before discussing the other amendments to the Farm Credit Act which are proposed by this bill I would like to point out that these are not all the changes we are considering in farm credit legislation. Because of all the changes taking place on farms, changes are taking place in the requirements for farm credit programs. The federal government is involved in farm credit in various ways. The Department of Veterans Affairs through the Veterans Land Act administration provides credit to full-time and part-time farmers who 20220-245*
qualify as a result of military service. Intermediate term credit is available to farmers through loans from the chartered banks guaranteed by the government under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The Department of Forestry in administering the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act is also vitally interested in farm credit, and the use of credit in furthering its programs. All the provinces are also involved one way or another in providing credit to farmers.
For all these reasons we have decided that there is a need for co-ordinated study and research in this field to provide a basis for a more comprehensive farm credit policy which will take into consideration all forms of credit needed by farmers.
We want to find out where the gaps are in existing credit facilities and what role should be assigned to each of the various agencies in the farm credit field. We have, therefore, established an interdepartmental committee on farm credit. It is under the chairmanship of the director general of my department's economic branch. It has representation from the Veterans Land Act administration, the Department of Finance, the Department of Forestry and the Farm Credit Corporation. It has been established on a continuing basis. Its function is to appraise the total credit needs of Canadian agriculture, arrange for studies and research for that purpose, and consider and report on submissions and representations to the government about farm credit matters. From its appraisal of credit requirements this continuing committee on

Farm, Credit Act
farm credit will make recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture about existing farm credit services and any new services considered necessary for the proper development of Canadian agriculture.
One of its first responsibilities will be to consider and recommend ways in which the provinces and the committee might best cooperate to ensure that federal farm credit policies are co-ordinated with the programs and the needs of individual provinces. We recognize that existing farm credit programs are doing a good job for farmers within their respective bounds. But I believe this committee will provide the basis for bringing about greater co-ordination of existing programs and ensure that we keep right on top of new credit problems arising from the dynamic changes now taking place in agriculture. In the meantime, however, there are new farm credit needs which must be met now, and in the legislation proposed in this bill we are trying to meet them in so far as they refer to long term mortgage credit.
The Farm Credit Corporation recently reviewed government sponsored farm credit programs in 11 principal agricultural countries. It has made a more detailed study of two national farm credit services in the United States, and it has also made a survey of a cross-section of 2,600 Canadian farmers, to see just what their present uses of credit are, what they think they will need in the immediate future, and any shortcomings they think exist in present services. The complete results of this survey are not yet available, but it has already been shown that many of the farmers consulted felt that existing limits on loans from the corporation are too low. So we want to move on this now. We want to do everything we can to make sure the corporation fulfils its role in the long term mortgage credit field.
Since the corporation started its operations in 1959 the percentage of farmers taking maximum loans has gradually increased. In the last fiscal year 11.3 per cent of those who borrowed under part II obtained maximum loans of $20,000, and 15.6 per cent of those borrowing under part III took maximum loans of $27,500. In other words, about 1,000 farmers last year borrowed the maximum amount available to them under the Farm Credit Act. In many cases these maximum loans were not enough to meet the farmers' needs for long term mortgage credit. As a result, instead of having long term loans to carry debts which should have been carried by long term loans, many farmers had to carry this type of debt on short term, or intermediate term loans, often at interest rates much higher than the corporation's or, for that matter, at rates much higher than

would be considered an economic or unsubsidized rate of interest for the corporation. There has also been an increasing number of farmers operating good family farm units who have not borrowed from the corporation because the present maximum loans would not have been enough to meet their minimum needs.
Canadian farmers have established an excellent record with the Farm Credit Corporation. They have shown that they know how to use credit to increase the efficiency and productivity of their farms; they have shown a willingness to use good advice from the corporation, and they have also shown a willingness and an ability to repay their loans. If we are going to make it possible for them to go on producing more efficiently and to improve their standards of living, and in doing so to continue improving their service to the Canadian consumer and the general economy of the country, then I believe we have got to do everything we can to ensure that they can get the credit they need.
The present limits are $20,000 under part II of the act, which covers standard loans not supervised by the corporation, and $27,500 for loans under part III of the act, which covers loans that are supervised by the corporation. Hon. members know, of course, that the maximum term in each case is 30 years. Rapid changes have taken place in agriculture since that time and it is evident that the present limits on loans are no longer adequate to establish efficient, viable family farms in many sectors of Canadian agriculture. By doubling the size of the loans, as proposed in this bill, the government believes an important step will be taken toward improving the corporation's capacity to help farmers in the way they need help and in a way that enables them to help themselves. That is the kind of help all our farmers want-a chance to make the best possible use of their time and energy and the resources of their farms. I want to point out also that the proposed increase in the maximum loans obviously will not prevent the corporation from continuing to make small loans to those farmers who do not need or want big loans.
Now I would like to say a few words about interest rates. Hon. members will be aware that the royal commission on banking and finance has recommended that loans made by the corporation should be at an economic rate of interest. The present statutory limit of 5 per cent is, in effect, an uneconomic or subsidized rate. The present cost of money to the corporation, based on a 20 year term, is 51 per cent, and the cost of administration was a little less than 1 per cent during the past fiscal year. The government recognizes,

however, that the primary objective of credit from the corporation is to help farmers to build up their farms to an efficient economic size so that they will have an adequate standard of living and be able to repay their loans.
We have taken the position that in order to assist the smaller farmer to expand his enterprise to economic size and improve his standard of living we should be willing to provide him with the required credit up to the amounts available under the Farm Credit Act at the present time at a rate of 5 per cent. However, when the farmer borrows amounts above the present limits, we believe it would be reasonable that he should pay for this additional money at an economic rate which will vary, of course, from time to time according to the cost of money to the corporation. I might say here that this economic rate is the price that the federal government will have to pay for money. It is proposed that this rate will be fixed by the corporation, subject to approval by the governor in council, and will not be more than the interest charged to the corporation for this money, the cost of administration and a reasonable reserve against loss.
I do not believe farmers will object to paying this economic rate. They are getting this additional capital now at costs much higher than will be charged them by the corporation, and on terms which are much less satisfactory to them. Many farmers have said, "Make the credit available to us so that we can establish good, efficient farming enterprises, and we will pay the interest rate that is required". The additional cost, when spread over a number of years, will certainly be less than the additional income the farmers will be able to earn by getting this additional credit on proper terms.
Some of the other amendments proposed, while they may not seem significant at first glance, can be of real importance in the operation of the corporation. One amendment will make it possible for the corporation to lend to the executor or administrator of an estate of a deceased farmer, and thus the corporation will be able to assist the farmers' heirs to continue to operate and develop their farms, even though the estate may not yet be fully settled. Another amendment will make it possible for a father or an uncle to borrow money to assist a son or nephew or other relative to buy a farm. This particular amendment will be of great assistance to the corporation in its efforts to establish young men in farming. Many of these young men being started in farming obtain loans under part III of the act. As the act now stands, when a farmer borrows money under part III, part of the loan is secured by chattels and that part must be repaid within ten years. This
Farm Credit Act
means that payments during the first years of the loan, when the young man has the least equity and the least income and is trying to develop his farm, run as much as 30 pex cent higher than they are during later years. So we are proposing that the corporation^ be permitted to amortize a loan under part III of the act throughout the entire 30 years. This will eliminate the large payments during the early years while the young farmer is struggling to build up his farm. This particular proposal will make it much easier for farmers just getting started.
I think we would do all farmers a favour in considering this bill if we remembered that the Farm Credit Act is intended to serve only the long term credit field. Intermediate term credit for the purchase of livestock, machinery and other such purposes is provided for under other legislation and we can discuss these other credit problems when such other legislation is before the house for consideration. I would not wish to leave the impression that the present bill represents all the changes we will eventually want to make in the operations of the Farm Credit Corporation. The government is concerned, and I am sure hon. members are concerned, about the welfare of those farmers who are unable to qualify for loans under the Farm Credit Act, either because of the limited production from then-farms or because they do not have the required equity.
The Farm Credit Corporation has done a lot to assist the small farmer to enlarge his unit to the point where he can make a good living for himself and his family. About 45 per cent of the money lent by the corporation last year went to help farmers to buy more land. Unfortunately, there are many faced with problems which credit by itself will not solve. Others who want to start farming, and have not the capital they need to get going, could not afford to borrow and pay back all the money needed to buy a good farm together with the livestock and equipment, particularly with the price of land in some parts of Canada today.
To solve these and other problems of a similar nature requires the co-ordination of the resources of several agencies. We need to get all of the people who are involved in agricultural development to work together to develop and to apply the policies and programs to get at the roots of the problems.
One of the principal purposes of the farm credit study committee we have set up will be to determine how credit can best be used as one of the means to assist these people. As the committee's work gets under way we can expect further improvements in our program

Farm Credit Act
to help farmers. Meanwhile, the amendments proposed by this bill will do a lot to improve the capacity of the corporation to reinforce and strengthen the family farm in Canadian agriculture. They are amendments which we believe are needed right now. I think there is a lot to be said for doing everything we can to keep the family farm. As the communist countries have learned all too well, there is nothing like the pride of ownership to encourage a farmer to do his best. After all, why should he not do his best when he knows he is doing it for himself? But besides the obvious benefits to all Canadians that arise from this pride of ownership on our farms, there is the feeling of independence and self-reliance which farmers get from working for themselves. This is something which cannot be measured in dollars and cents, but I do not think any hon. member would argue that it is not a very valuable extra commodity that this country gets from its farmers.
This measure, Mr. Speaker, is in two parts. We are now considering the farm credit bill, and then there is the administrative side of the act. The annual report of the Farm Credit Corporation is now in the hands of the queen's printer and we will be tabling it in the house before the end of June. If hon. members wish to question the administration we would be quite happy to have this report referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization for consideration. The officials of the corporation would welcome this opportunity to discuss the administration of the Farm Credit Act with the agriculture committee in the hope that improvements may be made, because hon. members represent the different views and problems of all of the provinces. We are trying all the time to improve the administration of the act, and I think this would be an opportunity for hon. members to bring forward their ideas on the administration of the act. I spoke to the manager of the corporation this evening and he said he would welcome the opportunity to have this report before the committee where we could probably learn a great deal more. In the last few months we have been able to cut the time for servicing these loans by days. At the moment we are lending something like $1 million a day and we have about $22 million left. Some days it is a little more than that, but I am sure hon. members can see the urgency of getting the bill approved by the house so that credit to the farmers is not held up.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Farm Credit Act
I am convinced that over a 10 year period, the Farm Credit Corporation can, with a 5 per cent rate, meet its obligations without having to be subsidized by the federal government and the Department of Agriculture.
Moreover, even if the Minister of Agriculture grants a subsidy of a few hundred thousand dollars for the farm credit administration, that is worthwhile because this legislation enables our farmers to organize their farms on a basis which gives them a decent living.
There are improvements in the legislation now under study. For instance, we see that apiculture will be included in the description of the word agriculture; this new description which extends the meaning of the word agriculture will be accepted by several persons as an improvement. But it will be necessary for the Farm Credit Corporation to pay special attention to those who will apply for a loan, because we must not forget that agriculture, in certain area, operates on a commercial basis.
Moreover, there are in this legislation changes concerning loans under Part III of the act. Formerly, an amount of money was loaned and had to be repaid within 10 years. With this new legislation, authority is given to spread the repayment over a 30 year period.
Looking at that, a question immediately comes to mind which I should like the minister to answer. That question will also be asked by all farmers already having a loan under part III. What will happen to those who already have been granted a loan by the Farm Credit Corporation and who have to pay back the amount, under part III, on a 10 year basis? Will the Farm Credit Corporation be authorized to extend those payments from a 10 year to a 30 year period?
No reply was given to that question, that is, in his statement the minister did not deal with this aspect of the question. So, on the farmers' behalf, I ask him to consider the possibility of having those borrowers benefit from that amendment and placed on an equal footing with the new ones who will be entitled to pay back their loans under part III over a 30 year period.
Mr. Speaker, although we are discussing this evening the first amendment to a piece of legislation introduced by the previous government, I find once again that there are not too many Liberal members in the house. The fact is to be noted, because each time we speak of agriculture, each time we are dealing with a farm problem, the same thing happens. Our good friends the Liberals show little interest.


Mr. Choquelle:: That is not true.


Clément Vincent: If you wish, we shall figure out how many government members there are in the house now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should like to call the hon. member to order by asking him not to stray from the subject now before us.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I wish to point out that my remarks fall within the limits of this debate because we are discussing a very important measure, and if our friends the Liberals do not want to discuss it or hear about it, it is because they are not interested in the part this government must play to help agriculture in Canada, especially in eastern Canada-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. In my opinion, what the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) is saying is entirely incorrect. Nothing could show better the interest the Liberal members take in agriculture than the fact that we are studying tonight an excellent bill introduced by the government. Therefore, agriculture is close to our hearts.


Clément Vincent: I thank the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) for saying that this is an excellent bill, because it is simply the logical follow-up to the legislation we passed in 1959. That is partly the reason why I pointed out that there are only 16 Liberal members in the house; I wanted the hon. member for Lotbiniere to rise and praise the merits of this act passed by the Conservative government in 1959.


Mr. Habel:: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member wants to be fair to his colleagues. He must read the papers and he knows very well that most Liberal members are attending a banquet tonight. Therefore, I ask him to show his colleagues the same respect we have for the members of his party when they have party meetings.


Mr. Graffley:: Is that a question or a statement?


Clément Vincent: I thank the hon. member for calling my attention to the fact that tonight 116 Liberal members are attending the banquet of the Liberal federation and are, therefore, more interested in Liberal banquets than in agriculture.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Just like you, when you have meetings.


Clément Vincent: Now, Mr. Speaker, we will have the opportunity of examining the bill thoroughly, section by section.

As I said, we approve of several of the proposed amendments since they will improve the legislation enacted in 1959.
Yet, we will have criticism to offer concerning other amendments such as the possibility of charging more than 5 per cent interest on certain agricultural loans.
Members of our group advocate the establishment of a uniform 5 per cent interest rate. We feel the federal government can authorize the Farm Credit Corporation to grant loans to Canadian farmers at no more than 5 per cent interest.
We would also ask the government and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) to consider the possibility of providing in the legislation that existing loans, which were granted under part 3 of the act and which are to be repaid within ten years, be revised in such a way that those borrowers may be on the same footing as those who borrow from the corporation in the future.
A while ago the minister stated that the official report of the Farm Credit Corporation will be referred to the agriculture committee after its publication. We welcome that announcement because corporation officials will surely be in a position to give us information which will be useful not only to hon. members but also to all farmers in Canada. However, before accepting the minister's proposal outright, I must tell him that the committee on agriculture must first of all study the question of feed grain before tackling any other matters.
To conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said at the beginning. We shall approve Bill C-100 with some reservations, as I pointed out earlier.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, this is a most important piece of legislation, which will affect the lives of a good many Canadian farmers across the country, their families, the communities in which they live and the nation as a whole. I rise on behalf of this party to support the principle of the bill. We will have some suggestions to make in respect of one or two amendments when we get into committee of the whole. But, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays). Knowing of his firm belief that free enterprise should extend from here to eternity, I wish to congratulate him for introducing this socialistic piece of legislation which gives effect to socialist philosophy as preached by this group throughout the years, to the extent that it provides for co-operation between the government and individual farmers by way of long term low interest loans to the advantage of the government, 20220-246
Farm Credit Act
to the advantage of the farmer and to the advantage of the state. This is the gospel that we preached in this house ever since this party was formed. I sincerely congratulate the minister. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the minister were in this house for 40 years he would finally apply for membership in our party.
This party, as its predecessor the C.C.F., has for many years urged the need for long term low interest loans to farmers. There is quite a long history of long term low interest loans in European agriculture. However, it has only been developed in satisfactory form in recent years in Canada. I remember well that I made my first speech on behalf of this party on this subject in 1945. It has taken a long time for this party and farmers organizations to create a public climate that would affect the opinion of old line parties in this house to the extent that we saw this legislation introduced initially by the former government.
For years farmers organizations across Canada have been urging the need for this type of legislation. For years we have known that the private credit sources could not meet the need, would not accept their responsibility, would not provide loans for a sufficient length of time, would not provide loans at low enough interest and would not condition those loans with satisfactory security for the farmers' tenure. I cannot help mentioning at this time that I am sure there are a good many people in Saskatchewan who rejoiced when a C.C.F. government was elected there and prevented the private lending agencies from collaring their farms because they were behind in their payments a year or two as a result of poor crops and low prices.


Mr.   Paiterson@: And they rejoiced when it went out.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I hear some muttering from the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson). Honestly, I believe that is a most unkind remark coming from one who is entitled to prefix his name with the word "Reverend".
As a result of this agitation years ago, as a result of the agitation of the old progressive party, which had an influence on the Liberal government of the day and which was later absorbed by the Liberal party, the old Canadian farm loan board was established and functioned for many years. It was an improvement over the previous years, but the legislation was too restrictive and the administration of the act was too rigid. I can illustrate this by citing several cases in my own constituency. I am thinking at the present time of one farmer who made application

Farm Credit Act
to the old Canadian farm loan board on three occasions for a loan. All he received was a letter from New Westminster-nobody visited his farm-informing him that the area in which he lived was not a suitable area for farming, would not provide a satisfactory security for a loan, and so on. On his first application to the Farm Credit Corporation he received a loan in the amount for which he asked, $17,500, and he is doing well now.
This shows the improvement in the act passed by the last government. I admit freely that these amendments are a further improvement of that act. Now, a lot of the research, shall I say, in connection with the problem was done under the Veterans Land Act by the Veterans Land Act administration. I think we should give them credit. They had an opportunity, because of the nature of the legislation which was given effect shortly after the conclusion of the second world war, and they made good use of it. For the first time we had loans on a certain basis and counselling from the administrators of the Veterans Land Act. I think we should pay particular tribute to the work done by Brigadier General J. T. Rutherford, who was chairman of the Veterans Land Act administration, the vice chairman, Mr. G. Owen, the senior officials and the officials in the country.
I would say that I have had quite a long experience in dealing with farm problems, the farmers' need for credit and that sort of thing. I can tell you that my family needed it. If it had not been for relatives dying in the old country we could have starved to death at one time. We could not get credit at that time, but circumstances are somewhat different now. These gentlemen were pioneers in this field, and this new approach to farm credit took advantage of the experience gained by the administration of that act when they not only did research at the head office but co-operated with the officials in the field.
I do want to mention what I think should be considered the lending policy bible. It was prepared by the two officials I have just mentioned. I believe it is an excellent document and I think every member of this house should keep a copy in his files and refer to it. Mind you, the situation will change as we acquire additional experience and the results of more research into this problem, but I do think this publication lays the foundation for the philosophy of farm credit in Canada. I wish to quote briefly from this book which deals extensively with the whole question. Dealing with lending policy, it says:
The Farm Credit Act, which was proclaimed on October 5, 1959, replaced the Canadian Farm Loan Act. It set up the Farm Credit Corporation, reporting to parliament through the Minister of
[Mr. Herridge.j
Agriculture, to take over from the Canadian farm loan board which had reported through the Minister of Finance.
I think that was a wise improvement. When administration is in the hands of a minister of finance the approach is different from that which becomes evident when administration is in the hands of a minister of agriculture-and I am not blaming ministers of finance. They, naturally, concentrate on an entirely businesslike approach whereas a minister of agriculture is in touch with farm requirements and farm organizations. When the minister of agriculture of that day was introducing this legislation he defined its object as follows:
To assist Canadian farmers in the voluntary reorganization of their industry into economic family farm units, each of which will be of sufficient size to produce, under the operation of the owner, the farm income necessary to meet all operating and maintenance costs, provide an adequate livelihood for the owner-operator and his dependants, and retire any required credit, with interest, within an appropriate term.
I think this is a good definition of the economic family farm unit. All that is required for its success is, first, good land, then markets, and then long term loans at low interest to be repaid out of the production of the farm. The publication goes on to deal with the part this legislation will play in rural development and the author mentions that the legislation is a calculated risk. He says:
There is no doubt that in bringing down the Farm Credit Act when it did, and in its present form, the government was relying to a very considerable degree on its being efficiently and fearlessly administered in line with its objective of helping to create economic units suitable to, and which could operate profitably in, each agricultural area of the country. This is your job and mine. It is a big responsibility, a great trust, and an inspiring challenge.
Fie goes on to assert that farmers should he informed of their rights under the act. I think this is a wise observation. Then he deals with the initial interview in connection with counselling, and indicates situations in which loans would not appear to be indicated and situations in which loans would appear to be indicated. Later, he discusses administration in general, and finally he winds up the preamble to this excellent publication by noting the need for co-operation. He states:
It is most important, therefore, that there be close liaison and co-operation between the corporation at head office, branch and field levels and these other agencies at concurrent levels in order that we may be of mutual assistance to one another in the attainment of a common over-all objective.
Then he urges co-operation between the different branches of the government service, the farm press and radio, national farm

organizations and their branches, the Veterans Land Act administration, the extension services of the provincial department of agriculture, provincial farm credit agencies and agricultural colleges, faculties and schools. Further on, he deals with the need for public relations. Once again, I wish to say that this is an excellent resume of the basic philosophy of farm credit as applied to Canadian conditions.
Although the act as it now stands is an excellent piece of legislation, the farm organizations, as a result of changing conditions and new experience ever since 1959, have been urging amendments and I wish to quote briefly from a speech made by president J. M. Bentley of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island on January 21. This is what he had to say:
In the field of farm credit, I would like to pay tribute to the work of the Farm Credit Corporation. It has been instrumental in enabling many farmers to secure economic farm units and has ensured a higher standard of living for many farm families. However, not all the problems of farm credit can be met by the Farm Credit Corporation as it exists today. Agriculture is changing so rapidly through mechanization that the credit needs of farmers are changing as well. I would like to suggest that we should consider establishing means of thinking the problem through by study and analysis and arriving at new and sound proposals. There are a number of areas in which farm credit needs are not now being adequately met:
1.	Loan limits are probably inadequate under present conditions.
He mentioned this need first, and I see that the request is now being met in the amendments proposed in this bill. The list continues:
2.	Adequate arrangements for meeting the problem of transfer of farms on the retirement, or death, of the present owners.
I have personal knowledge of a number of cases where this type of amendment is needed.
3.	Operating, or intermediate credit needs, are not being adequately met by the farm improvement loan program or the present banking system.
We are looking forward to amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Then the president goes on to deal with the need for emergency or disaster credit which, I trust, the minister is considering. I am one of those who believe that a disaster suffered by a farmer as a result of floods or other natural agency should be borne by all of us, not by the individual alone, and this could be done at very slight cost to the nation or to the farm population as a whole. Then, Mr. Bentley continues:
In the study and analysis of the above areas, the advisory committee of the Farm Credit Corporation should be given more status and authority so that it can perform a most useful and im-
20220-246J
Farm Credit Act
portant function. The advisory committee should not merely confine its activities to matters arising under the act or to matters referred to it by the minister, or the corporation. It should be able to initiate study into the legislation itself and be able to advise the corporation on emerging problems and needs as they arise from time to time.
I read that paragraph because I should like the minister to comment on this suggestion by the president of the federation of agriculture. I judge from conversations I have had with farmers and with officers of local farm organizations that there is great merit in the suggestion. It is one which I think could be put into effect simply by means of administrative changes; there would be no need for any alteration in the legislation, and no doubt this will come about as a result of the minister's more socialistic approach to life.
As I said earlier, the purpose of this legislation was to maintain, improve and develop the economic family farm unit in Canada. Before concluding, I would suggest that changing circumstances in the future will lead to further amendments being required-[DOT] changes in administrative forms, and so on. I believe there is a great need for continued research on the part of officials of the corporation and the related agencies of the federal and provincial governments, in order that we may make these adjustments from year to year if necessary so as to make the act as satisfactory and as useful as possible. I noticed an article in the current issue of the Family Herald. I am a simple sort of soul-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -and I enjoy reading farm publications. I enjoy reading the letters from people asking how they can cure mam-mitis in dairy cows, or asking how they can solve some legal problems. These are all human problems to me. I am sure the minister reads them as well and I am sure he would be a very excellent person to answer these questions. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, there is an article in the Family Herald of June 4, which publication came on my desk just today. I notice that these farm publications are getting like the others now; they are issued before the date they are supposed to be published. However, Mr. Speaker, this article is entitled "Credit. One economist: Banks don't know farm needs". I shall quote from this article because I think it is worth while:
For the bulk of Canada's farmers the higher ceilings for Farm Credit Corporation loans asked for in agriculture minister Harry Hays' first measure before Commons will not make much difference. Only 13 per cent of farmers who have received F.C.C. loans so far qualified for the present maximums of $20,000 and $27,000. F.C.C. officials estimate that only some 80,000 or 90,000 of

Farm Credit Act
Canada's farmers will be able to take advantage of the bigger loans when the present ceilings are doubled.
I think that is a pretty healthy number, to start with. The article continues:
The new amendments fall into line with one of the recommendations of the royal commission on banking and finance: That with the high cost of farms today present F.C.C. ceilings simply are not high enough to ease the transfer of many of our farms from one generation to another. The amendments would increase the ceiling on part II loans from $20,000 to $40,000 and on part III loans (for younger farmers under supervision) from $27,000 to $55,000.
The whole question of farm credit has been under review for some time by F.C.C. and departmental offices.
Then this article goes on to indicate the need for continuing studies in this direction. This, Mr. Speaker, is a farm journal indicating that these private sources of credit are simply inadequate under present circumstances. Before concluding I wish to say a word with respect to public relations. I do think that everything possible should be done to inform the farm organizations and the farmers of the terms of this act, its administration and the requirements that have to be met to qualify for loans, and so on. On occasion I have met farmers who were quite uninformed in this respect. I have just been informed by my colleague to my rear that the minister is now writing a weekly column. 1 had overlooked that. I suggest that the farmers, when they read the publications for which he is writing, could be informed through that column. The farmers organizations and other organizations should be kept well informed in this regard.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps your colleague could use his column.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I find that in this type of society these people are too segregated anyway. One finds a small town or village surrounded by a farming community, and very often the organizations have no idea of the detail of this type of legislation and how it is being administered to serve the farmers and producers of the area. I suggest that the officials of the minister's department could very well take time out now and again to give talks, on this and other subjects relating to agriculture, to farm organizations and other organizations in the towns and cities around the countryside that are concerned with agriculture. These talks could be given to Rotary clubs, chambers of commerce, labour organizations, and so on. I suggest it would be a good idea for the minister's officials to make a point of talking to some of the meetings of local labour organizations and letting them know of the farmers' problems and what the government of Canada is doing in an effort to
XMr. Herridge.]
meet these problems. The more we understand one another's problems, the more we will march together. I am a firm believer in this respect, Mr. Speaker, in so far as the differences that are supposed to exist between Quebec and the rest of Canada are concerned. These differences are supposed to be very sharp indeed. When the young hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) has spoken he has sometimes said some quite unpleasant things from my point of view; but actually he is a thoroughly decent type when you get to know him. The point is, you must get to know him.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that this information can be given through farm periodicals and the press in general. This is about all I am going to say at this time. We will have some comments to make on the various clauses of the bill when we are in committee, and we propose to introduce one or two minor amendments in an effort to improve it somewhat, particularly the lowering of the interest rate to 5 per cent so that it is 5 per cent across the board. In conclusion I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for the introduction of these amendments, which we in this group consider to be another step forward in the march toward a Canadian co-operative commonwealth.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that every member of this house wants the farm units in Canada to be economical. We take the position, as has been stated by other hon. members of this house from time to time, that land values are continuing to rise, that machinery prices are continually going up, and therefore for farmers to maintain, or first of all establish, economic units it is necessary for the amount of available credit to be increased in line with these increased costs. I want to say at the outset that there are a number of amendments to the Farm Credit Act included in this bill, but I suggest that the main one is to increase the maximum amounts available.
I want to say to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) and to the government that simply increasing the limits-the maximum limits, if I can put it that way-to an individual farmer is not going to solve all the problems respecting farm credit. As the Minister of Agriculture pointed out earlier this evening, and as the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) repeated, only some 13 per cent of the loans granted now are for the maximum amount available. In my experience in discussing this matter of credit with farmers, the limits have been part of the problem in their view, but in addition to that there are many other regula-

tions and points of administration that require review and amendment as well.
Dr. J. C. Gilson, associate professor of agricultural economics of the University of Manitoba, made a rather exhaustive study of farm credit and farm credit requirements in 1958. He had this to say:
Farm credit is a two-edged sword, make no mistake about that. Used wrongly it can cause grief and financial disaster. On the other hand, credit can be one of the most powerful "tools" of production in modem farming. It takes money to make money, and credit is frequently the starting point.
I want to agree with many of the assertions the Minister of Agriculture made this evening, particularly with respect to the matter of increasing the limits from $20,000 to $40,000 under one part of the act and from $27,000 to a maximum of $55,000 under another part.
There are, as I said at the outset, a number of other measures. Dr. Gilson points out six of these problems which arose in 1958, many of which are just as valid today because the legislation which has been passed through this house and the consequent amendments have not in fact met the problem. In the first place, he says it is practically impossible to estimate the number of farmers who need credit at the present time. There are several types of situations, however, where it is safe to assume that greatly increased amounts of farm credit are needed. The first item he lists is the situation where a father transfers his farming business to his son-in other words, the family farm. Dr. Gilson points out that in this area there was practically no legislation in 1958 to deal with this very serious problem of farm families losing their equity in the family farm owing to a death in the family and a transfer having to be made. The bill before us tonight meets this problem to some extent because it does allow for the administrator of an estate to carry on and have credit made available to him, so that the land and other assets do not have to be sold.
In addition to that another amendment allows a borrower to acquire farmland or to advance money to a son-in-law, daughter or other relative. I think that is a very important improvement. As a matter of fact, the province of Alberta recognized this question of transfers within the family in 1959 and brought in an act specifically designed to take care of such matters when a father had reached retirement age, and so on. I think that what is in the bill is definitely a step in the right direction, although the bill does not go far enough. The reason I say that is because the major responsibility for farm credit rests with the federal government rather than provincial governments. We all know that under the constitution of Canada the federal
Farm Credit Act
government is charged with, and given full responsibility for, the control of currency, credit and matters dealing with monetary and fiscal policies in the nation. I think farm credit is primarily one of such activities. Whenever any of the provinces have needed to move in the direction of farm credit it is because the federal government has failed to recognize the need and to pass legislation to fulfil that need.
I believe there are at least four general considerations which should be taken into account in arriving at a sound credit policy for the Canadian farmers. First of all-and this is provided for partly but not completely-there should be provision made for supervised credit primarily for young farmers in low income families. We know there are many very ambitious and capable young men who have the talent to go into the business of farming as a lifetime occupation but are unable to do so because there is not enough credit available for them at the outset to set up an economic farm unit. The raising of the maximum limit alone will not solve this problem.
Another matter not dealt with by the bill is that debt repayment schedules should be tied to rises and falls in farm incomes. I think that most members from the rural areas will agree with me when I say that quite often, in fact in the majority of cases, loans made to farmers are spread over a 20 or 30 years period. There are only a limited number of years when the annual income falls below that level which makes it impossible for him to meet the loan repayments and interest, and it is in that limited number of years that the farmer gets into difficulty. What happens is that he is usually forced to go to other markets and lending institutions outside the Farm Credit Corporation and farm improvement loans legislation and borrow money, not only to carry on his operation but also to meet the required repayments as well. I think there should be some provision made to make it possible to extend the term of repayment by one year when a farmer's income in one year drops below his ability to make the payments required.
I also think it is desirable that the complete financing of farm units be undertaken by one lender. For example, Dr. Gilson says that farms should be financed as a whole unit in contrast to a piecemeal approach. Under the terms of the Farm Credit Act and the farm improvements loans legislation it is possible, or will be when this bill passes, to borrow up to $55,000 both for farm equipment and for land. If we are to make this farm credit administration comprehensive and complete, there should be some provision in the act for these disastrous years, when a

Farm Credit Act
farmer is simply unable out of his current income to make the payments he is obliged to make for those years. Quite often these secondary loans, if I may call them that, are taken at substantially higher rates of interest, which only adds to his burden further down the road. I say that because I think that if arrangements were made for these disaster years it would keep the security for the loan made by the Farm Credit Corporation in better standing. With a secondary loan the farmer would be saddled at some later time with higher interest rates and would find them difficult to meet.
I agree with increasing the amount of loans so as to keep pace with the increasing price of land, farm equipment and so on.
The reason I urge the minister and the government to take into consideration this matter of providing some provision for these bad years is because I think, if we look at farm land values over the years, we see we really do not have depreciation at all. In fact, if history is to repeat itself for the next 20.years concerning what we have had during the past 20 years, there will be an appreciation or an increase in the values of all farm land, rather than depreciation, and no one is going to be able to run away with a farm. If the Farm Credit Corporation takes security in a farm, that farm will be there. The dollar value of the farm will be higher, five years after a loan is made, than it is at the time the loan is actually made.
I think the government should also give consideration to increasing the percentage of loan available in relation to the appraised value because, as I pointed out, the farm is there. It consists of land and is a very solid and substantial security. Also, Mr. Speaker, I think that some of the methods and the values that are allowed at this time respecting land are completely out of line with the market price.
We know that F.C.C. and other lenders are very conservative in their appraising of land values, and in many cases when a young farmer is getting started, if he can only obtain something like 75 per cent of the appraised value, this amounts to less than 50 per cent of the actual purchase price. I think that the supervisors, appraisers, assessors-whatever you want to call them-while they have been doing a commendable job have been prevented from using realistic and up to date valuations. For this reason I would urge the government to take another long, hard look at this matter.
The minister referred to what he called an economic rate, when he talked about the interest rates that are to be charged on the added amounts to the maximum limits. I am not sure where that term, economic rate,

comes from, but I think that 5 per cent is probably a maximum economic rate and, from the connotation left on that term by the minister, it seems to me he was talking about the cost to the government of the money that is going to be provided. I think that charging a rate above 5 per cent is anything but an economic rate and, if it carries very much beyond that, it will be uneconomic for farmers to purchase land.
Looking at farm costs over the past few years-and the minister has admitted this- depreciation and the other costs of maintaining machinery on farms are not only getting to be, but are now, the major cost factor. He referred to some cases where farm costs studies showed that depreciation and machinery costs amounted to over 50 per cent of the total cost of operating farms. Mr. Speaker, it would be easy to take the position that one could lay all the responsibility for this on the farm machinery companies for increasing the price of their farm equipment. But that is not quite accurate because farmers, by and large, are buying bigger equipment, more complex equipment, and therefore it follows that the price of this equipment increases. In many cases if it is used properly, and used often enough, it will pay for itself in spite of the increased cost; but nevertheless I think it is another important field that could be investigated, and we could have some action with respect to this matter of farm machinery costs.
During the last session of the legislature, the Alberta government passed a bill that in fact allows the province to underwrite the cost of certain pieces of equipment bought by a farm machinery co-operative. In my view this is another example of the provincial governments being forced to move into an area of legislation because the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities.
There are many pieces of farm equipment which are used on a farm for but a few days each year, and it would certainly be an economic advantage for several farmers to own one of these pieces of equipment and use it for a few days in rotation. I could name a number of these pieces of equipment, but I am not going to do so because I may leave some out. In other words, I would not be able to cover the whole list.
If we accept the premise that the federal government should be primarily responsible for farm credit, then the federal government should also be prepared to accept the responsibility for providing some farm credit to small co-ops of farmers who want to buy some of this expensive machinery that could be used by more than one farm unit.
I do not want to detain the house much longer tonight because I think there are many

things in this legislation that are improvements. However, at the same time I would not like either the Minister of Agriculture or the government to think that they have solved all of the problems of farm credit in the country, simply by raising the limits and making these very few minor amendments which are proposed in Bill C-100, the bill before us tonight.
Mr. Speaker, there is also a need of land levelling with respect to large irrigation systems which have been developed over the past number of years in western Canada. One of the most desperate needs, that has not been met to date, has been for some kind of credit to be available over a long period of time so that this land can be levelled to the point where farmers can spread irrigation water economically. Once this land levelling is done, and is done properly, it enhances the value of a farm almost into perpetuity, and it never has to be done again.
It is true that at the present time there is provision under the Farm Credit Corporation to borrow money for this specific purpose, but I think we need to recognize that almost 100 per cent of the money needed for this specific purpose should be supplied through the form of credit. I say this because it enhances the value of the farmland. It immediately increases the productivity of a farm, and there is no depreciation on it at all.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, right at the present time I am having a little difficulty with the income tax department concerning some farmers who have in fact done this work, because the income tax department takes the position that there is no depreciation on farm land, that is, on this levelling; and I agree. At the same time the farmers have in fact paid out some money to do these improvements, but the income tax department will not allow them to charge it up as an operating expense because it is a capital improvement. Therefore the income tax department, or the Department of National Revenue, will have to take another look at it, and have it one way or the other. It is simply unfair for them to suggest there is no depreciation and therefore farmers cannot claim a deduction from capital cost while on the other hand suggesting it is not an operating expense.
As far as this party is concerned we are going to make one or two suggestions as we go through the clause by clause study of the bill. We think that the bill contains some improvements in the present act, but at the same time we believe that smaller borrowers should have been given consideration along the lines I suggested with respect to a different kind of appraising, and particularly by making provision in some way for those years when the farmer's income is insufficient
Farm Credit Act
to make the payments demanded of him for the year in question.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on Bill No. C-100 amending the Farm Credit Act. I must congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for having introduced in the house this bill which involves some rather interesting amendments. We can congratulate him now to make up for the times we criticize him, because tonight he deserves it. I do not know whether it is due to the fact that his attendance in the house has been more regular that he felt more deeply the needs of the farmers, but we notice that he is getting to know his department better and that he has a fuller understanding of the subject. I want to congratulate him personally for that.
The proposed amendments will not solve all the problems besetting our farmers. But when we take action like that, we encourage our farmers to become more interested in the land.
I was listening a while ago to the minister when he said that the Farm Credit Corporation will have granted 9,875 loans in 1964. We can say that this is a progressive step when, two years ago, we find that 5,885 farm loans had been granted by the Farm Credit Corporation in 1962 and 7,438 in 1963. This year, we have 9,875 loans.
Our pace is rather normal. I believe that, with the amendments introduced this year by the minister, the year 1965 will register a new expansion of farming, in general.
Then, I see in clause 1:
The definition of "farming" is to be broadened to include bee-keeping.
That provision pleases me above anything else because, for the past three or four years, many farmers in my riding have been trying to get by as well as they could on their farms. I realize that they will welcome that amendment which will allow them to operate on a more economic basis that sector of agriculture which was forgotten by all previous governments. I understand this field of agriculture is sufficiently important to interest many beekeepers, Mr. Minister, and I am glad you thought of them.
The same thing can be said of the word "farming" in the explanatory notes. In that amendment, it seems that more emphasis is given to the real meaning of farming. I notice also in the second paragraph that the word "farmer":
-means a person whose principal occupation is farming. This amendment would enable the corporation to deem the executor or the administrator-

Farm Credit Act
How often have I seen, Mr. Minister, farms where the father had died and all the children had to leave the family home, because only the head of the family was recognized as a farmer. Now, under this amendment, the executor of the estate can administer the estate of the deceased farmer, that is to say he is considered as the farmer just like the deceased himself, no matter if the executor of the estate is the son of the deceased or a relative of the deceased. In other words, this amendment will protect and preserve many of our farms which today, after 10, 15 and 20 years, have yet to find somebody to resume farming.
Clause 2 would increase the capital of the corporation. Here again, this will permit the corporation to take another step forward. It will perhaps permit 2,000 or 3,000 more farmers to resume work on their farms, operate new farms or save old farms. In the province of Quebec, as I said earlier in the house, the question is not to take over new land at the present time, but the biggest effort is rather to get back into production abandoned land which represents a proportion of 30 or 35 per cent of all farm land.
Mr. Speaker, I was told by officials of the Farm Credit Corporation in Roberval that at the rate things are going at present, we will have granted this year from 125 to 130 loans in the Roberval constituency alone. I hope that, following the proposed amendments, we will be able to grant 200 or 250 loans next year, for even 500 loans would not be too great a number in my constituency.
Provision of clause 3 will enable a farmer to borrow from the Farm Credit Corporation to advance money to a member of his family desirous to acquire farm land. This is of great interest to farmers' sons and there are many of them in my constituency.
In fact, my constituency includes large families of farmers and the majority of the sons in those families have tried to work in industry, but since they do not have the required training, they have to come back home after five, six and even eight years of work in an industry and they try to buy land.
I have discussed this problem with the agronomist of the Roberval constituency who told me that the applications of some 40 sons of farmers who wished to buy these lands where they would have amply provided for their needs had been refused. In fact, I know these farmers; they are hard workers and the new provisions of Farm Credit Act will allow this group, which could not do so last year, to take advantage of the Farm Credit Corporation.
I am sure that, as a result of that amendment, it will be easier to help young sons of farmers who wish to return to farming.

As for the rate of interest, I hope that it will be reduced and, above all, that it will not be over 5 per cent.
The minister said a while ago that loans of $40,000 to $50,000 would be more costly. I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. I do not understand why someone who can borrow from $15,000 to $20,000, at a rate of interest of 5 per cent would have to pay more to borrow $40,000 to $50,000. No, I cannot understand that.
And if the rate of interest is set at 6 or 7 per cent in order to improve the standard of living of someone, it will certainly not be the standard of living of farmers. It will be that of the lender, of the chartered bank, or of any other lending company. If we really care to propose amendments in the interest of the farmer, let the interest rate remain at 5 per cent, while increasing the amount of loans to $40,000 and $50,000.
Mr. Speaker, I would have wished for a little more time to deal with other subjects, but a friend of mine asked me three or four minutes to make known his own point of view. I shall therefore give him the floor, but before doing so, I would like to deal with the operation of the Farm Credit Corporation. That is mainly at fault in my electoral district. But those who are dissatisfied are those who have not been able to avail themselves of such loans, because the personnel in charge of administering the act was not competent.
I already said to the house that the personnel was not competent, whether because its members were too few or because some lacked the required knowledge. There is a proverb that says: One cannot give what one does not have. If a young counsellor does not know anything, what can he do? How can he assess a land? I have found that out by myself in my own riding, and that is the reason why I asked the minister to keep his eyes open and send an investigator into the field. I am sure that this investigation will prove the truth of my allegations.
Last year I asked for an increase in the number of advisers in the province of Quebec. I am sorry the last report does not give these details, as did the report for 1962, because no comparison can be made with other provinces.
We wholeheartedly hope for an increase in that personnel and for the updating of their knowledge.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I shall say but a few words. I do not want to miss this opportunity of discussing the bill before us.
After the speeches made by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) and

the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), I wish to point out that we should congratulate warmly the minister on the presentation of this bill. This clearly indicates-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member want to direct a question or to take a substantial part in the debate?


Auguste Choquette: No. I wanted to take part in the debate, not in a substantial way perhaps, but in an ordinary way.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In the circumstances, I must recognize the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis).


Auguste Choquette: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I had not seen the hon. member for Carleton. I know he is more competent than I am to speak about agriculture.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton):: I think that the tributes which have been paid the minister in regard to this bill tonight have been quite unusual and well deserved. I was a little overwhelmed by the reference made to him by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) who said he thought the minister's thinking was 40 years ahead of the thinking of his party. Certainly, in my opinion there is no question but that the philosophy of the bill is just plain, common sense and I would not embellish it with any label like socialism or anything else. It is a philosophy which will enable farmers to do a job which is today increasingly difficult for them to perform in an age in which capital is more and more important.
There is no question but that this act, which is under the administration of the Department of Agriculture, is the proper machinery for the extension of farm credit. I am very happy with the amendments which are coming forward and which will mean, in effect, that instead of the industrial development bank getting increasingly into this area, as it has been as a result of vertical integration, the administration will be in the hands of the department whose orientation is more in the direction of service than it is in the direction of straight financial administration. I believe the hon. member for Kootenay West made this point and made it very well in the course of his speech.
The transfer of the administration of the Farm Credit Corporation from the Department of Finance to the Department of Agriculture does represent a fundamental change in the philosophy of that act, and the amendments which are coming forward are in keeping with that spirit.
I presume it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Churchill:: I would like to ask the acting house leader if we will continue with this bill tomorrow or do we shift to something else?


Mr. MacNaughi:: Tomorrow, we will take up the government notice of motion which appears on Votes and Proceedings as the last item on page 2, that it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the ratification of a treaty between Canada and the United States of America relating to cooperative development of the water resources of the Columbia river. When that is concluded, we will go on with second reading of an act to amend the National Housing Act. The next item will be the continuation of this debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And what about Friday?


John Watson MacNaught: On Friday we shall not be considering estimates. We shall be going on with legislation, very likely the amendments to the National Housing Act.



PROCEEDINGS OF ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: The question I wish to debate tonight is a simple one. Although Mr. Speaker ruled the other afternoon, it should be put on the order paper, he did not state why it should be put on the order paper rather than answered in the house. I suggest it is an urgent question and it is one which is directly related to rail line abandonment.
At the present time there is on the prairies, as hon. members know, an agreement between the railway companies and the government that no action will be taken to proceed with rail line abandonment until a complete survey of the situation has been made. I understand that such a survey is under way at the present time. My question to the government was this: Will the government consider freezing the action of the railway companies at the present time in making application to the board of transport commissioners to close certain branch line stations and do away with station agents? Steps of this sort are very similar to abandoning the line itself. As there
3878	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion is no minister to speak for the Department of Transport in the house tonight and since the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is not here-


An hon. Member:: The parliamentary
secretary is here.


John (Jack) McIntosh: -I would ask the parliamentary secretary, then, to request the minister to give this matter his serious consideration. As I have just said, this action by the railway companies is tantamount to rail line abandonment. I have had experience of these applications by the railways and it is my personal opinion that the companies know what conditions should exist before the board of transport commissioners will entertain applications for abandonment. In my opinion the railway companies do everything within their power to see that these conditions exist before they make applications. In one case I have in mind they even took the telephone out of a station so that the people in the area could not telephone to the station agent to find out when a train was due to arrive. I might say that on branch lines trains seldom run to schedule. People would not know when perishable goods were coming in. Moreover, there are no modern facilities in many of these stations. They are of old vintage. Some of the old prairie towns have been modernizing themselves in latter years, but the railway companies do nothing at all to introduce people to patronize their

mode of transportation. In other words, it would appear to me, as one who comes from the prairies, that the railway companies are only concerned with making money out of handling grain; they are not concerned with the service they can give the people on the prairies.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary if as soon as possible he would request the board of transport commissioners or the minister to give early consideration to preventing the consideration of these applications until the survey has been completed. I do not wish to say more at the present time. I hope the hon. gentleman has got my point. It is one which is directly related to rail line abandonment and it amounts to practically the same thing, particularly in areas where permission is given by the board of transport commissioners.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The
agreement between the railway companies and the government did not embrace the removal of stations or agents, but all representations by hon. members, and by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek in particular, will be given due consideration and we shall be glad to follow up his remarks.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.07 p.m.

Wednesday, June 3, 1964