1964-09-16

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, September 16, 1964
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, September 16, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



ANNOUNCEMENT OP PAY INCREASES FOR EMPLOYEES

Mr. Speaker:: I have an announcement which I am sure will interest all hon. members. It relates to salary revisions for employees of the House of Commons. I should like to make an announcement which will, I know, be of interest. At their meeting on Monday, September 14, 1964, the commissioners of internal economy approved pay increases for House of Commons employees in classes and grades comparable with those included in group B of the civil service. An extract of the minutes of the said meeting in connection therewith will be laid before the house shortly.



COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, in English and in French, two exchanges of notes in connection with the Columbia river treaty. The first is an exchange of notes between Canada and the United States of America confirming the entry into force of the proto-20220-5114
col of January 22, 1964, to the Columbia river treaty, and dated September 16, 1964, and the second is an exchange of notes between Canada and the United States of America authorizing the Canadian entitlement purchase agreement provided for under the Columbia river treaty, and dated September 16, 1964.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Herridge:: A sell-out.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What theatrical features have been produced by the national film board?
2.	What was the true cost of each, including its fair share of all overhead?
3.	What is the purpose of each?
4.	What is the policy of the national film board regarding production of future theatrical features?
5.	How many original motion pictures were produced by the national film board in each of the past five years?
6.	How many original motion pictures were produced for the national film board by private Canadian companies in each of the past five years?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the national film board as follows:
1.	(a) Royal Journey, 1951; (b) Pour la Suite du Monde, 1963; (c) Drylanders, 1963; (d) Le Chat dans le Sac, 1964; (e) Nobody Waved Goodbye, 1964.
2.	(a) $88,962, final cost (including production overhead); (b) $82,625 final cost (including production overhead); (c) $211,479, final cost (including production overhead); (d) $45,982, total cost (including production overhead); (e) $73,593, to July 31st, 1964. Final cost estimated at about $5,000 higher in each case.
3.	Under the terms of the National Film Act 1950 the board is established to produce films in the national interest and in particular to interpret Canada to Canadians and to other nations. Each of the above films fulfils this purpose. Royal Journey recounts the travels of the Queen when she was Princess Elizabeth
! 8070

Questions
across Canada in 1951; Pour la Suite du Monde is about the people and traditions of the Isle aux Coudres in the; lower St. Lawrence; Drylanders recreates the history of a pioneer family which settled on the prairies in the early 1900's; Le Chat dans le Sac is the story of a young man's struggle to decide his destiny in the French Canada of today. Nobody Waved Goodbye is concerned with a young man from a middle class family in revolt against his milieu and is intended to explain some facets of juvenile delinquency.
4.	It is anticipated that the board will produce a limited number of feature films in the future when the subject matter as well as the distribution warrant the feature length format, taking into account the overall balance of its production program and its resources.
5.	1959-60, 95 (including 23 commissioned by other departments); 1960/61, 83 (including 28 commissioned by other departments); 196162, 93 (including 19 commissioned by other departments); 1962-63, 84 (including 19 commissioned by other departments); 1963-64, 90 (including 25 commissioned by other departments).
6.	1959-60, 1; 1960-61, 1; 1961-62, 3; 196263, 7; 1963-64, 1.



KINGSTON PENITENTIARY


Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	How many psychologists, full and part time,
ape employed hi the federal penitentiaries at Kingston, Ontario?	,	.
2.	How many positions' for psychologists, full or part time, are now vacant?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: 1. Three full time; none part time.
2. Three full time; none part time.



KINGSTON PENITENTIARY-PSYCHIATRISTS EMPLOYED

Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	How many psychiatrists, full and part time, are employed in the federal penitentiaries at Kings: ton, Ontario?
2.	How many positions for psychiatrists, full or part time, are now vacant?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Full time, none; part time 2.
,	2. None.



SOIL POLLUTION BY AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS

Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Is the government conducting research into the effects of long term soil pollution with herbicides, pesticides, and other agricultural chemicals and, if so, at which institutions, and under whose direction is such research being conducted?
2.	What is the annual cost to the government of each of these projects?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: 1 and 2. The Department of Agriculture has been directing the attention of available scientists to define where long term pollution may become a problem as the result of agricultural uses of pesticides. At the present time no comprehensive co-ordinated program has been developed or put into action due to the shortage of qualified trained staff. Chemists and biologists capable of conducting the investigations are available now at a few locations, working on local and regional problems of priority that have emerged as the result of local requirements for pest control. The Department of Agriculture is attempting to recruit and train the specialists required to develop research programs at key locations.
Investigations now in progress at research branch establishments as part of existing programs are:
Research station, Kentville, Nova Scotia, director, Dr. J. R. Wright. Investigation of the persistence of pesticides in soil of apple orchards and pastures; the translocation of mercury in apples, vegetables and root crops; the residues in plants and soil from new selective systemic insecticides. Estimated annual cost $20,000.
Research station, Fredericton, New Brunswick, director, S. Hilton. Residues of arsenic and D.D.T. on apples resulting from apple maggot and blueberry maggot control. Estimated annual cost $6,000.
Analytical chemistry research service, Ottawa, Ontario, director, R. B. Carson. Research on methods of pesticide residue analysis in plants, animal and soil. Estimated annual cost $35,000.
Entomology laboratory, Chatham, Ontario, officer in charge, G. F. Manson. Research on factors affecting the efficiency and persistence of soil insecticides. Estimated annual cost $27,000.
Research institute, London, Ontario, director, Dr. E. Y. Spencer. Research on chemistry of metabolism and degradation of pesticides; fundamental research on physiology and toxicology of mode of action of pesticides; physiology and chemistry of natural and synthetic

plant growth regulating compounds; the chemistry and biogenesis of naturally occurring plant toxins and protective substances produced by plants. Estimated annual cost $135,000.
Research station, Winnipeg, Manitoba, director, Dr. A. E. Hannah. Research on the persistence of dieldrin in cereals and forage plants, (program now being revised); chemistry of conversion of heptachlor to hepta-chlor epoxide and factors affecting efficiency of this pesticide in soil (under review). Estimated annual cost $35,000.
Research station, Summerland, British Columbia, director, Dr. C. C. Strachan. Chemical analysis of pesticide spray deposits as part of program of development of local pest control recommendations. Estimated annual cost $13,500.
Research station, Vancouver, British Columbia, director, Dr. R. E. Fitzpatrick. Research on persistence in soil of insecticides used for wireworm control. Estimated annual cost $7,000.



FREIGHT FERRY, PORT AUX BASQUES  NORTH SYDNEY

[Stage Direction]
Question No 1,811-Mr. Muir (Cape Breton
North and Victoria):
1.	With reference to the new freight-carrying ferry to be put into service between Port aux Basques, Newfoundland and North Sydney, Nova Scotia, announced to a meeting of the North Sydney board of trade on March 14, 1964, by the Minister of Transport, how soon will tenders be called for such a service?
2.	Did the Minister of Transport, after the meeting, advise reporters of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald and the Cape Breton Post that such a ferry would carry loaded railway freight cars from North Sydney for unloading at Port aux Basques?
3.	If such a plan is effected, what will be the outcome in the reduction of the stevedore working force at North Sydney?
4.	Has a survey been initiated by the government or the Canadian National Railways to determine the effect on the employment of stevedores at North Sydney as a result of the placing into service of a railway freight car ferry that would carry loaded railway cars from North Sydney to Port aux Basques?
5.	In such a survey, is it being ascertained how many employees will soon be eligible for retirement?
6.	When will tenders be called for the construction of the necessary wharfage facilities at North Sydney that will accommodate the vessels in the Canadian National Railways service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques?
7.	How many vessels will the wharfage facilities be capable of accommodating?
8.	What department will be responsible for the construction of the wharfage facilities in question?
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: 1. Work on the design of this vessel
Questions
is in progress but it is unlikely that tenders can be called before the end of this year.
2. No written statement was given to the press, and the Minister of Transport does not recall giving any categorical statement of this character, although such an inference might conceivably have been drawn from such answers as he made to questions.
3 and 4. There will be a reduction in the stevedore working force after the ferry comes into operation in 1967, the extent of which is now under investigation by the department and Canadian National Railways.
5.	Yes.
6.	The terminal development at North Sydney, which will include provision for both the Argentia ferry and the rail ferry, will be carried out in several stages; tenders on the first stage are due September 30, and tenders on the second stage will be called this winter.
7.	There will be one rail berth at each port, but due to the short time required for unloading and loading these would be able to accommodate several vessels in service.
8.	The Department of Public Works.



WHARF REPAIR AND CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Ouellel: What projects are planned for the repair, construction and preparation work on piers to the counties of Riviere du Loup, Rimouski and Matane during 1964 and 1965?

Hon. J. P. Deschaleleis (Minister of Public
Works): Riviere du Loup-Temiscouata constituency: Cabano, breakwater repairs; Ca-bano, wharf repairs; Cacouna Est, construction of inclined plane and enlargement of wharf headblock; Gros Cacouna, development of harbour; lie Verte, maintenance repairs to wharf; Notre Dame de l'lle Verte, repairs to eastern wharf; Notre Dame de Pile Verte, repairs to western wharf; Riviere du Loup, wharf repairs; Riviere du Loup, renewal of water line on wharf; Riviere du Loup, repairs to river wharf; Riviere du Loup, to complete new ferry landing; St-Juste-du-Lac, wharf repairs.
Rimouski constituency:	Pointe-au-Pere,
wharf repairs; Pointe-au-P6re, harbour improvements; Rimouski, Wharf repairs; Trois Pistoles, repairs to wharf A; Trois Pistoles, new ferry landing.
Matapedia-Matane constituency: Bale des Sables, protection work; Matane, wharf repairs; Matane, protection works; Matane, dredging; Matane, harbour improvements; Matapedia, extension to protection works;



WINTER CLOTHING OF R.C.M.P. GUARDS AT GOVERNMENT HOUSE

Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	Of those members of the R.C.M.P. who served outdoors at the Governor General's residence last winter, was each one issued with a pea jacket and/or storm coat?
2.	Will they be so supplied in future?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: 1. Each member was personally issued with a pea jacket. Eleven members who worked on the day and evening shifts were individually issued with a storm coat. Ten additional storm coats were issued to the post for the use of members working on the night shift.
2. Pea jackets will continue to be supplied
to each member, but since April, 1964, storm coats are no longer issued on an individual basis, and 21 will be charged to the post and worn by each member as required.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL

Mr. Lessard (Lake SI. John): 1.	What was the number of personnel In the Department of Defence Production during each of the last five years?
2.	How many persons left that department and how many have been hired during the same period?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1. March 31, 1960, 1,467; March 31, 1961, 1,515; March 31, 1962, 1,555; March 31, 1963, 1,526; March 31, 1964, 1,639; August 31, 1964, 1829. 2.
Terminations Appointments		
March 31, 1961	199	238March 31, 1962	207	247March 31, 1963	231	202March 31, 1964	222	335August 31, 1964	183	373VETERANS PENSIONS


 -Mr. Lessard (Lake St.: John):		
1.	In each province, how many disabled veterans rely solely upon the pension paid by the government for all their needs?
2.	In each province, how many veterans are receiving a pension for partial disability?

3.	During the past five years, what amount did the federal government pay for veterans pensions in each of the ten provinces?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Canadian pension commission:	1.
Since the payment of disability pensions is made without regard to other earnings, there is no information as to the number of these pensioners who live solely on their pensions. Past experience indicates that the pensioners themselves would resent any effort to obtain this information.
2. Veterans receiving pension for partial disability as at March 31, 1964, by province. This includes all service disability pensioners other than those receiving pension at the rate of 100 per cent.
Province	Number
Newfoundland	1,547
Prince Edward Island	1,470
Nova Scotia	8,153
New Brunswick	5,556
Quebec	16,493
Ontario	50,014
Manitoba	11,359
Saskatchewan	6,237
Alberta	10,675
British Columbia	21,205
3. Amount paid by federal government for veterans pensions during the past five years, from April 1, 1959 to March 31, 1964.	
Province	Amount
Newfoundland	$ 5,683,554.70
Prince Edward Island	8,418,134.09
Nova Scotia	47,208,443.63
New Brunswick	32,210,293.06
Quebec	91,437,230.11
Ontario	294,017,955.35
Manitoba	65,780,754.44
Saskatchewan	35,712,723.74
Alberta	59,335,924.30
British Columbia	120,647,742.67



* GEORGE M. MARSHALL, OFFICE OF MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

Mr. Valade: 1.	Is the salary of Mr. George M. Marshall In the office of the Minister without Portfolio paid by the federal government and, if so (a) what are his duties (b) how long has he been so employed (c) what is his present salary?
2.	Has Mr. Marshall been engaged recently in selling, vending, or otherwise distributing bumper stickers of a three maple leaf design and, if so (a) what proportion of his time has been spent on this venture (b) how long is it expected he will be required to undertake these duties?
3.	Has the government considered the propriety of the action of a public servant engaging in such

a commercial enterprise and, 11 so, what are the government's views In this regard?


Hon. Yvon Dupuis (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. There is no Mr. George M. Marshall in the office of the Minister without Portfolio.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.



AIRPORT TAXI STRIP, RIVERS, MAN.

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What are the details ol the tenders submitted recently for the contract to construct a taxi strip at the C.J.A.T.C., Rivers, Manitoba?
2.	To whom was the contract awarded and for what reasons?
3.	Which of the companies submitting tenders are entirely Canadian owned?
4.	Which of the companies are subsidiaries of U.S.A. companies?
5.	What was the cost estimate for the job?
6.	What are the specifications for the contract?
7.	Is the successful company meeting all these specifications?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Three companies submitted tenders as follows: Tallman Construction Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba, $66,887.90; Claydon Company Limited, Winnipeg, Manitoba, $90,655.80; Central Construction Co. Limited, Brandon, Manitoba, $93,512.95.
2. The contract was awarded to Tallman Construction Co. Ltd., the lowest tenderer.
3 and 4. According to the information available the companies concerned are Canadian owned.
5.	The estimated cost was $83,700.
6.	The specifications for the contract were excavation and rebuilding of an existing concrete apron, a new concrete apron and adjoining asphalt areas.
7.	Yes.



FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO UNIVERSITY SERVICE OVERSEAS

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,870

Mr. Howe (Hamilton
South):
What has been the government contribution to the Canadian university service overseas in each of the last five years?
Paul Joseph James Martin: The Canadian university service overseas was established on June 6, 1961. Since then the Canadian government has extended administrative support and assistance both through the external aid office in Ottawa and through the diplomatic missions in the overseas countries where the C.U.S.O. volunteers have been assigned. This year the Canadian government has given additional assistance by providing the transportation
Questions
from Canada to destinations abroad of all C.U.S.O. personnel proceeding overseas in 1964.



COST FIGURES FOR MACTAQUAC POWER DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Flemming (Victoria-: Carleton):
1.	Has the Atlantic development board Investigated the cost figures submitted to them by the New Brunswick electric power commission for the Mactaquac project on the St. John river and. If so, are they satisfied that the estimated cost figures are justified and confirmed by a reliable independent engineering firm with technical experience and of established reputation?
2.	If not, what was the basis for the estimate submitted and on what engineering report was It based?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Yes to both parts of the question.
2. Answered in 1 above.



ADVERTISING REVENUE, STATION CJBC, TORONTO

Mr. Cowan: What was the division of the advertising revenue of radio station CJBC, Toronto in the months of May and August. 1964, between advertising In the French language and advertising In the English language?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Stale):: I am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that all advertising revenue of station CJBC for the months of May and August 1964 was from advertising in the English language.



MORAL RE-ARMAMENT ORGANIZATION

Mr. Herridge: Is there an organization known as Moral Re-Armament registered with the Department of National Revenue as a religious or charitable organization whose financial supporters are entitled to receive income tax exemptions and, if so (a) is this organization incorporated (b) what is its official address and the names of its officials (c) has a copy of Its articles of incorporation been deposited with the Department of National Revenue?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: (a), (b) and (c). The taxation division's records indicate that the Oxford group
(Moral Re-Armament) in Canada (also known as the Oxford group and as Moral Re-Armament) was incorporated without share capital under the Dominion Companies' Act by letters patent in 1944 and amended by supplementary letters patent in 1956, the main purpose of which is stated to be "to advance the Christian religion".
It has been recognized as a charitable organization by the department since 1956, and

Questions
donors to the organization are entitled to deduct their donations from income for tax purposes.
The department's records show that Mr. Ian Rae is secretary treasurer of the Oxford group (Moral Re-Armament) in Canada, and its official address is 1303 Yonge street, room 37, Toronto 7, Ontario.



OXFORD GROUP ORGANIZATION

Mr. Herridge: Is there an organization known as the Oxford group registered with the Department of National Revenue as a religious or charitable organization whose financial supporters are entitled to receive income tax exemptions and, if so (a) is this organization incorporated (b) what is its official address and the names of its officers (c) has a copy of its articles of incorporation been deposited with the Department of National Revenue?


Edgar John Benson: (a), (b) and (c). The taxation division's records indicate that the Oxford group (Moral Re-Armament) in Canada (also known as the Oxford group and as Moral Re-Armament) was incorporated without share capital under the Dominion Companies' Act by letters patent in 1944 and amended by supplementary letters patent in 1956, the main purpose of which is stated to be "to advance the Christian religion".
It has been recognized as a charitable organization by the department since 1956, and donors to the organization are entitled to deduct their donations from income for tax purposes.
The department's records show that Mr. Ian Rae is secretary treasurer of the Oxford group (Moral Re-Armament) in Canada, and its official address is 1303 Yonge street, room 37, Toronto 7, Ontario.



UNEMPLOYED BY AGE GROUPS

Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Of those presently unemployed, what proportion is between (a) 15 and 24 years (b) 25 and 34 years (c) 35 and 44 years (d) 45 and 54 years (e) 55 and 65 years?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Unemployed in specified age groups expressed as a percentage of total unemployed, week ended July 18, 1964, Canada: 15 to 24 years, 51 per cent; 25 to 34 years, 14 per cent; 35 to 44 years, 12 per cent; 45 to 54 years, 12 per cent; 55 to 64 years, 8 per cent.



U.S. REGULATIONS RESPECTING PESTICIDES

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has the government taken note of the action by the United States department of Interior which has issued strict regulations limiting the use of long-lived pesticides such as D.D.T., chlordane, dieldrin and endrin on public land administered by that department and also has issued directives specifying that if chemicals must be used, priority be given to the use of non-persistent pesticides such as malathlon, which do not retain their toxicity over extended periods?
2.	Is the government considering issuing the same type of regulations in Canada?


Harry William Hays: 1. Yes.
2. Government officials are examining all pest control programs with the object of confirming that they are being conducted in the most appropriate manner and to assure that every precaution is taken to guard against undesirable side effects such as those adversely affecting wildlife and fish.



JAPANESE MARKET FOR YUKON IRON ORE

Mr. Dinsdale: During the recent conversations in Tokyo, between representatives of the Canadian government and the Japanese government, was the prospect of a market in Japan for the rich Yukon iron ore deposits on the Snake river explored and. if so, what conclusions were reached and decisions made?


Mitchell William Sharp: The recent conversations in
Tokyo, between ministers of the Canadian government and the Japanese government, did not involve the specific consideration of the prospect of a market in Japan for Snake river iron ore.
As stated by the honourable the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his report to the house on Tuesday, September 8, 1964, the ministerial committee is not a negotiating body. We did, however, discuss Canadian interests in the Japanese market, including sales of ores and more highly processed metals and minerals.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many categories of cells are there at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary and in each category how much time per day do the prisoners have to spend in their cells?
2.	What are the accommodations in each category of cells-furniture, sanitary facilities, lighting and heating?

3.	How many of these cells were declared Improper for use by the Archambault commission and how many inmates are using such cells?
4.	What are the plans of the Department of Justice to implement the recommendations of the Archambault commission?
5.	How much money has been spent since the riot of 1962 on new buildings, and what are those buildings?
6.	What is the daily ration of food allotted to each inmate?
7.	How many people are employed in the penitentiary and (a) what are their classifications (b) what are the duties of each (c) what is the salary of each?
8.	How many university graduates are employed full time and (a) what are their classifications (b) what are the duties of each (c) what is the salary of each?
9.	How many vacant positions are there in this penitentiary at the present time and, in what classifications are these vacancies?
Return tabled.


SUPPORT PRICES FOR DAIRY PRODUCTS
Mr. Marlineau: 1.	What subsidies or support prices have the government granted for butter and other dairy products in each year since 1939, indicating the amount of the subsidy and the total amount paid each year?
2.	Since 1939, in what years have changes been made to the support prices or subsidies granted for butter, milk, cheese and powdered milk?
3.	What has been, for each year, the total amount paid by the federal government in each province as a production subsidy or support price for each of the products above mentioned?
Return tabled.


CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS UNDER INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Horner (Acadia): Has the Department of National Revenue a list of charitable organizations they use when administering the Income Tax Act and, if so (a) how many institutions are on the list and (b) what are their names?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 163 is acceptable to the government. I ask that motions 164 and 165 be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that motion 163 be carried?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



WINNIPEG


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 163-Mr. Knowles:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any communications from the council of the city
Inquiries of the Ministry of Winnipeg, dated since August 31, 1964. concerning identical prices contained in tenders for the supply of certain items of electrical equipment by Canada Wire and Cable Company Limited. Canadian Westinghouse Company Limited, Phillips Electrical Company Limited, and Pirelli Cables Limited, received by the minister of justice, and for a copy of any replies thereto.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There are news commentaries in the press today of arrangements which have been announced by President Makarios with respect to the relaxation of tension on the island of Cyprus, and apparently certain confidential communications have been going on between representatives of the United Nations and President Makarios. I am wondering could the Secretary of State for External Affairs bring the house up to date, so far as it is possible for him to do so, on what discussions are going on at the moment.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend may perhaps recall that yesterday I referred to the announcement of the government of Cyprus with regard to the relaxation of restrictions in connection with the shipment of food to the Kokkina area. This has now been definitely confirmed, as my hon. friend's question indicates. This and other matters will be covered I believe in a statement that, it is expected, will be made today, though possibly not until tomorrow, by the secretary general dealing with the operations of the force.


George Clyde Nowlan: As a supplementary question, will the statement to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made reference deal with the communications going on between the representatives of the UN and President Makarios?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I believe so.


REPORTED STATEMENT RESPECTING NEW RUSSIAN WEAPON
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence or perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is based on a

Inquiries of the Ministry statement made yesterday by Mr. Khrushchev that his military people showed him, I think last Monday, some new weapon that had the capacity to destroy all life on earth. Mr. Khrushchev is reported also as having said that he was amazed at the power of this new weapon. I should like to ask the minister if he can give the house any indication of the nature of this new, powerful destructive weapon, and if the NATO alliance is giving any consideration to what might happen to what is called the balance of power or balance of terror as a result of this announcement.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: I read the story which appeared in this morning's newspapers concerning the statement attributed to Chairman Khrushchev and purportedly addressed by him to some Japanese parliamentarians. The statement is being examined, but beyond that I would not have any comment to make today.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has received a request from a Mr. Kenneth Bryan of Port Arthur for an inquiry into his dismissal as an employee of the S.I.U. on the grounds that he refused to run for office in the forthcoming S.I.U. elections.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; this matter was brought to my attention earlier today by the hon. member for Fort William. My officials are in touch with the board of trustees, and the matter is under investigation.


Michael Starr: Will the minister report back to the house concerning the action the board of trustees is prepared to take in this connection?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. On Monday I asked the Prime Minister a question about the alleged brutality


of R.C.A.F. guards at La Macaza in connection with a peace demonstration there, and the Prime Minister promised to look into the matter. Since that time a statement has been given to the press by a Miss Kathleen Moses of Niagara Falls, a student at Queen's University, in which she says:
I was carried about 15 feet to the edge of the road. They began to swing me back and forth gently to throw me into the ditch and just as they let go I felt the kick directly between my legs. There was intense pain.
The statement goes on to state that one demonstrator was dragged by the hair, another had his fingers stamped on, and yet another was handled by a guard who put his fingers on pressure points behind the ears. Now that these statements have appeared in the press it seems to me that the request I made last Monday for a full investigation by some independent persons outside the Department of National Defence is completely justified, and I ask the Acting Prime Minister to tell us whether the government is now prepared to order such an investigation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister expressed his concern about this matter, and I should like to take this particular question today as notice. The matter is being looked into.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. How soon may we expect some action in this regard? The incident took place some time ago. The Associate Minister of National Defence carried on an investigation which consisted mainly of getting in touch with the officer in charge of the station. It seems to me that if much time elapses the persons who might be available to give evidence may no longer be on hand, and I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister how soon we may expect a decision from the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am taking this question as notice. It is difficult to say how soon, but there will be no undue delay.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STATEMENT BY QUEBEC MINISTER RESPECTING CO-OPERATIVE FEDERALISM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister being absent, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice, inasmuch as he is quite familiar with its subject matter.

Would the minister care to comment on the statement made yesterday by Mr. Rene Levesque, the Quebec minister of national resources, to the effect that co-operative federalism could result in the painless abortion of the French Canadian nation?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I hope with all my heart that the words of Mr. Rend Levesque were inaccurately reported.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do the distinguished minds who advocate co-operative federalism, according to Mr. Rene Levesque, include the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin)?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question I should like to direct to the Acting Prime Minister in that capacity as well as in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thanks very much.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The question is this. Since August 20 last I have had a question on the order paper seeking information of a purely statistical nature and I am sure the statistics could be obtained within an hour or two. I would like to direct this question to the Acting Prime Minister. Just when can I expect an answer to this question? I am quite sure it could be answered within an hour.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, since it is argued the question could be answered within an hour, I will take a look at the question and see whether that is the case.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The question, for the Acting Prime Minister's information, is No. 1,744.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is an historic date in history.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister
20220-512J
Inquiries of the Ministry yet in a position to make a statement regarding the eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits of the Toronto newspaper employees who are members of the international typographical union?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the insurance officer has ruled that the work stoppage has terminated, and that the first persons affected will be eligible for benefits.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To
what date will these benefits be retroactive?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The date of termination of the work stoppage was September 7. I am not exactly sure as of what date payments will be made, but I will check for my hon. friend.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will they be paid back to September 7?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is what I would like to check, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The complete urgency of this question is based on the fact that qualified applicants have been rejected by the score at Canadian medical schools; that the N.I.H. in the United States is gradually cutting down grants to medical research in Canada; and finally, that we are producing in Canada 50 more medical teachers each year when we need 200 more each year to maintain present medical standards.
Based on this urgency, I would ask the minister if she is about to announce a new policy of assistance to our medical schools and to medical research in Canada, apart from any considerations of the Hall report. Would she call a crash program or a crash policy to meet this apparent emergency?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, even if I were to declare that the government was going to put millions of dollars into building medical schools, it would be some eight years before the schools would produce doctors. But that is not the case. My hon. friend must realize that this matter has been dealt with in considerable detail in the report of the Hall commission; that it is
8078	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry a realm which is primarily one of provincial responsibility; that it is one of our most argent problems, namely that of providing new facilities in order that we may have more medical personnel for any increased medical services for the population.
It has been the subject of discussion not only in my department; this question was dealt with as recently as three days ago in a speech I made to the Nova Scotia medical association and in discussions I have had with them. It is not a matter that can be easily decided; because the amounts of money involved, it will be appreciated, are very great, since each new medical school starting from scratch would cost something in the nature of $15 million to $30 million. And it is a matter which must be considered within the whole ambit of the Hall commission report.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the hon. lady feel there are any specific recommendations in the Hall commission report that will meet this immediate emergency problem?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I refer my hon. friend to the report, Mr. Speaker. There is certainly a recommendation that some five or six medical schools be built in the immediate future. But, as the report points out and as I have just said, it takes some eight years from the time of the decision to build to the time that you can produce a doctor. There is no short cut, unhappily, to providing enough personnel.


William Heward Grafftey: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the building of medical schools, as I said in my question, since the N.I.H. in the United States is gradually cutting down grants to medical research in Canada as such, would the hon. lady be willing at this time to say whether the government will contemplate a new crash policy or program specifically relating to medical research as such?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, because of the decision of the United States government to discourage grants for research of any kind outside its borders in an attempt to conserve its dollars, obviously this country and others involved have had to restudy the question of grants and public support to medical research. It is very regrettable that in Canada wealthy individuals and institutions do not support such research to anything like the extent they do in the
CMiss LaMarsh.]

United States. It is also a clear cut fact that effective research is not just a matter of money. You do not necessarily get results because you put more dollars into research. This is something which we are considering as a whole package, and I must say to my hon. friend that while I appreciate the urgency of the matter in a general way, and appreciate his repeated and continuing interest in it, this matter will have to wait for an announcement on over-all government policy. [Translation]


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Since the minister has just stated that building medical schools is a very expensive proposition and also that this was a matter of provincial jurisdiction, does she intend to recommend to the government that some sources of revenue be given back to the provinces to enable them to solve the urgent and very important problem of medical schools in Canada?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, Mr. Speaker, what the provinces do with the revenue at their command is their responsibility. Whether they direct it to building facilities for higher education or put it into roads or other matters is a matter for them. But I did not say that the provision of new medical facilities is solely a provincial responsibility; I said it is primarily a provincial responsibility. However, it seems to me that we are now talking about a natural resource, the provision of higher education in order that the people's health shall be well protected, and that is a matter which will require the highest degree of co-operative federalism.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Is the minister implying that the federal government might interfere in the field of education with respect to medical schools in Canada?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.

Could he tell the house if consideration will be given to the request made by the house builders association of the district of Montreal, which is also that of every Canadian, concerning the removal of the sales tax on building materials which will soon reach 11 per cent?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I seem to have had this question to deal with before. My recollection is that in the first six months of this year the number of houses completed in communities of 5,000 or more was some 44 per cent higher than last year, and that as of June, 1964 the number of houses under construction was some 7 per cent greater than the corresponding number the year previous. In the circumstances I think any suggestion that the tax policy of the government has done anything to slow down the economy or to slow down activity in the house building industry is completely exaggerated.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question arising out of the answer given by the Minister of Finance in reply to the question I asked a moment ago.
Is the Minister of Finance aware of the fact that from January 1, 1964 to July 31, 1964, 3,902 new houses were built in the Montreal area compared to 4,244 the previous year, a decrease of 8.1 per cent?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In a matter of this kind, Mr. Speaker, it is hardly possible to devise legislation that will ensure an increase in any particular field in every centre in Canada. The statistics I quoted were for the country as a whole. As far as Montreal is concerned, I think everybody knows there is a great construction boom going on in that city, and that it will continue for a considerable time. There is less unemployment there than there has been for years, and Montreal is pretty prosperous.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
Since he practically stated that this 11 per cent tax has brought about this economic recovery in the house building field, would the minister consider the advisability of increasing this tax to 22 per cent so that Canada might enjoy a greater prosperity?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think that would be a most unwise course to take, Mr. Speaker.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet perhaps I might be permitted to answer a question which was put to me by the hon. member for Moose Mountain in connection with a letter dated September 10 from the credit union league of Saskatchewan. This letter was received on the 14th, Monday, and will be answered today. I should like to assure the hon. member that there have been no unnecessary delays in dealing with the applications of credit unions.
The student loans act stipulates that, in addition to chartered banks, lenders shall include credit unions, caisses populaires or other co-operative credit societies which are designated by the Minister of Finance following formal application by them. For this purpose it is necessary for the credit unions concerned to provide adequate information concerning their organization and operations. Before individual credit unions are designated they should, of course, be fully familiar with the requirements and procedures of the act and regulations and satisfy themselves that they have the resources to provide loans to students.
Detailed information and documentation concerning the Canada student loans plan have been forwarded as soon as possible to all credit unions which have written to me. Full particulars from some applicant credit unions have begun to reach the department this week, and their requests to be designated will be acted upon promptly.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamacka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Forestry.
Since the minister stated on several occasions that he was waiting for the agriculture and colonization committee to announce a new feed grain policy and since the com-

Inquiries of the Ministry mittee interrupted its sittings in December 1963 and never resumed them, does the minister intend to have the committee take up its work on feed grain as soon as possible?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I met the chairman of the committee this morning and he told me that the steering committee of the agriculture and colonization committee will meet Tuesday with a view to resuming its work on the feed grain question.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if that portion of the Canadian air division stationed in France has yet been equipped with any armament, conventional or nuclear.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is referring to the squadrons at Marville, they have been partially equipped with the reconnaissance equipment that is designated for them. They have commenced training, but they have not been declared fully operational units yet.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to my earlier question concerning the part of the air division stationed in France. I was asking about fighting armament, not reconnaissance equipment. Do I understand from the minister that these planes are not equipped to fight with either conventional or nuclear weapons?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, their primary role, as the hon. gentleman undoubtedly knows, is reconnaissance. Their secondary role is non-nuclear ground support. The plans to provide armament for the secondary role are going forward, but they are not yet complete.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder whether I could ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if it is right and diplomatic for him to find fault with the NATO military organization, when Canada is not fulfilling her part of the agreement with our NATO allies to provide an air division equipped to fight with weapons and not with photographic equipment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the two parts
IMr. Vincent.]

of my hon. friend's question have no logical relationship, of course, and on that account it is not easy to make the kind of response that one would like to make. I would simply say that it is open to any member of the alliance, in the interests of the alliance, to give consideration to ways of improving the alliance. That Canada is doing, as are other members.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Am I wrong, or were the television and radio reports incorrect when they stated that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was critical of the NATO organization with regard to consultation on military matters amongst the allies?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not listened to these reports. If my hon. friend asks, was he wrong, my immediate reaction is to say of course he was wrong. However, I should like to have a more precise statement of the question before I say in this instance that the hon. member is incorrect.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was not suggesting I was wrong. I was asking the minister if the radio and television reports were incorrect, indicating that the minister was very critical of our NATO allies and that the military organization was unsound.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is paraphrasing now. One would almost be tempted to suggest he should join the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It would be an improvement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would think, in that event, that the television audience would be a very limited one.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask the minister if the planes to which he refers as being currently located in France are the same type as those located in other parts of Europe, and included in the same force. I should like a clearer answer than that which we got from the minister of external affairs.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The planes in all three wings are CF-104 Starfighters. The six squadrons in Germany have a primary strike role and the two squadrons in France have a primary role in reconnaissance. This was all part of the original commitment. If when the administration of the hon. gentleman was in office a decision had been taken to redeploy the planes in accordance with the original intention, then by now all the armament could

have been in place. However, in view of the fact that a decision was not taken then but was left to be made after the administration changed, we have certain administrative requirements in order to fulfil our commitment.


Hon. Paul Marlineau (Poniiac-Temiscamingue):: May I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if at the same time the minister would not investigate the charges that have just been made by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra to the effect that the department of defence is the kremlin of Canadian bureaucracy, and particularly those charges dealing with the command station at Carp, which he compared to a fabulous executive suite.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I suspect that the views expressed by the hon. gentleman were personal views.



REDUCTION IN UNIVERSITY NAVAL TRAINING UNITS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: While I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question raised on Monday last by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) with respect to the closing down of certain Royal Canadian Navy university training units. In reply I told the hon. member that since this related to a general reorganization of all university training units I would give a full explanation later in the week.
As hon. members will recall, during the course of the debate on the estimates of the Department of National Defence in December of last year I stated that it was intended to reduce expenditures on the university reserves training plan by 50 per cent. Since that time detailed studies have been made within the department and, in consultation with the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges, it has been decided that university training will be done on an integrated basis with only one integrated unit at each university where training is conducted. Theoretical training will be based on the syllabus of the Canadian service colleges. Practical training will be given by the individual services. The implementation of this plan, however, is related to the integration of national defence headquarters and the development of the appropriate administrative procedures. In consequence it will not be practical to reorganize units on an integrated basis before September, 1965.
Inquiries of the Ministry
In the meantime, in order to effect the necessary economies to which I referred last December, certain steps have been taken by the three individual services. In so far as the Royal Canadian Navy is concerned, it has been decided to close eight units at the following universities: University of Alberta, University of Western Ontario, l'universite de Sherbrooke, Bishop's University, Ontario Agricultural College, Mount Allison University, St. Francis Xavier, Acadia University and St. Dunstan's University. In so far as the army and air force are concerned, the existing units will be maintained but strengths will be reduced.
In arriving at this decision the individual needs of each service have been considered. The Royal Canadian Navy, because of the reorganization of the Royal Canadian naval reserves, considered that it was not economically feasible to retain training units whose graduates cannot be absorbed into the active list of the parent Royal Canadian naval reserve divisions. With this as a general criterion, all U.N.T.D. units have been assessed on the basis of proximity to associated reserve divisions, enrolment patterns and efficiency. The army, despite the planned reduction in the militia, can absorb the officers from the C.O.T.C. and, because of the dispersion of the militia, geographical considerations are not too important. The R.C.A.F. elected to have smaller intakes and strengths in the university reserve training plan in order to retain their representation and still bring about the necessary economies.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) asked whether representatives were heard from the universities concerned. In reply I can say that from the outset the department consulted the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges requesting their assistance and advice. The national conference of Canadian universities and colleges was provided with information as plans were developed. Representatives of this organization also met with myself and departmental representatives and their advice and opinions, based on information obtained by them from the universities, was welcomed and suggested changes were made to the extent compatible with budget limitations.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister referred to the University of Alberta. He meant the University of Alberta at Calgary, did he not?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is correct.
8082	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



INQUIRY AS TO HOLIDAYS FOR STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the President of the Privy Council if he has anything further to say regarding the consideration being given to holidays for the House of Commons staff?
Kon. G. J. Mcllraith (President of the Privy Council): Well, Mr. Speaker, this matter was discussed at the meeting of the commissioners of internal economy on Monday last. It is a matter for His Honour the Speaker; therefore perhaps it is not proper for me to answer. I must not do that. I think, to relieve the interest of hon. members, I should add that it has been dealt with and some of the staff have already started holidays.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May 1 ask the Minister of Transport whether he has received a report on the unfortunate crash of a T.C.A. DC-8 some months ago near Montreal. If he has received the report will it be made public, and what action does he propose taking in the light of that report?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have this week received a preliminary report. I indicated to the house on July 15- and this will be found on pages 5503 and 5504 of Hansard when I was replying to a question by the hon. member for Three Rivers -that when the investigation then under way was completed the findings would come to me as Minister of Transport. I would then have the responsibility of deciding whether a board of inquiry was to be convened at which the findings in this case would be presented at a public hearing. If such a board were convened, it would not consist of persons who were in the employ of the Department of Transport or T.C.A.
I am giving most urgent consideration to the question of whether there should be a public inquiry, and just as soon as I can reach a conclusion and confer with my colleagues about it, I will make an announcement to the house. I feel that until that decision has been made it would be unwise, and not really in the interests of those we have so much in mind, to make a preliminary report public.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister care to indicate whether there is any indication of sabotage involved or is this something he does not want to disclose until he has decided about an inquiry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps in view of the nature of that particular question and the fact that I should like to be very frank in my reply, my answer is that there is no such evidence.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, September 15, consideration in committee on the following resolution-Mr. Hays-Mr. Lamou-reux in the chair.
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the extension of credit to farm machinery syndicates for the purchase of farm machinery and for the terms and conditions of such loans, the amount of a loan not to exceed 30 per cent of the actual price to the farm machinery syndicate of the farm machinery to be purchased with the loan; and to provide also for the establishment in the consolidated revenue fund of a special account not to exceed $25,000,000 to which shall be charged advances made to the Farm Credit Corporation and to which shall be credited all moneys paid to the Receiver General by the corporation and for other financial provisions in relation to the said fund in connection with the administration of the measure.
Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, in rising to continue my remarks on this resolution I might say, in summarizing my remarks last evening, that I had a certain fear this measure would bring about further erosion of the principle which we established in connection with farm credit in 1960. This principle has become well established and has been widely accepted and acclaimed by farm unions throughout Canada. The principle of which I speak was enunciated in the legislation, and clearly stated that the legislation was to aid those who needed aid, while those who were already on an economic unit or had sufficient capital could not obtain a loan from the Farm Credit Corporation.
I feel I should express some of the fears I have, before the bill is presented to us. We hear much talk about the reduction in the number of farms. A few years ago there were something like 600,000 farms in Canada but today there are only 480,000. From time to time economists and agricultural professors have said the sooner the small farmer was done away with the better it

would be, but I disagree with that theory. I believe there is ample room in Canadian agriculture for the small and big farmer alike. There is enough diversification to make room for all types of farmers.
Parliament should be concerned with helping those who need help most, in other words the small farmers, who should be assisted to diversify and intensify their operations. Parliament should not be concerned with helping the large farmers commercialize and go into vertical integration. A few years ago this was the fear being expressed in farm papers and magazines. They all carried articles and editorials saying we must do something about vertical integration. On the other hand, there was and still is a great deal of talk in farm journals about maintaining the family farm.
I want the minister to tell us what this legislation will do. Will it speed up vertical integration, or will it sustain and aid the family farm? The policy of all parties has been to assist the family farm, and I ask how does this legislation help it? I fear it will do more good for vertical integration and for those who want to promote vertical integration than it will for the family farm. One of the few things the farmer treasures and is prepared to work for is his independence, but with vertical integration the very root of his independence is taken away.
This resolution speaks about the establishment of farm machinery syndicates. Why not call them farm machinery integrated farms? I strongly suspect that this legislation will do nothing for the family farm but will promote vertical integration.
It may be asked how can I, a farmer, be against putting more money into the hands of farmers. This legislation with one hand will do that, but as a legislator I must examine where, how, and to what farmers this money will be given. It is my duty to ask myself will this promote and aid my neighbours and the farmers in my constituency, or will it aid and promote big business? Will it aid and encourage the part time farmer? I greatly fear it will. Will this legislation aid the lawyers, doctors, dentists and all those types of people who are buying farms and going into the agriculture business? I fear it may. We farmers are proud of one thing, our independence. We make up our own minds where and when to buy and when to sell, but integration takes this away.
Farm Machinery
This measure will assist in the effort to reduce machinery costs. A few years ago we heard much about the cost-price squeeze, and this squeeze is just as evident today as it was then, in fact more so. In the middle 1950's the farmers were caught in a drastic cost-price squeeze, but due to a great deal of work done by this party when it formed the government, between 1958 and 1962, that problem was alleviated to some degree. I have here a newspaper clipping dealing with the farmers' cost index, showing that their costs rose to a high of 282 points in April last. Two or three years ago the index stood at about 242 points; thus it has risen some 40 points in the last few years.
A publication issued by the dominion bureau of statistics in July, dealing with the index of farm prices, showed that the price index for all Canada was down to 252 points. A year ago it was 271, and two years ago it was 281. In this situation the farmers again face the severe crisis they were in a few years ago, and I ask what will this legislation do to alleviate that problem.
When the Minister of Agriculture spoke in Lethbridge on April 11 last he talked about parliament and how the opposition was filibustering at that time. According to the government, filibustering is all the opposition does. Whenever anybody on the opposition benches makes a speech, according to the government he is filibustering; but today, so that I may set the record straight, I am expressing my fears with regard to this proposed legislation.
At Lethbridge the minister dealt with many matters, and subsequently the Lethbridge Herald carried an editorial entitled "The Farmers Wait". The minister dealt with the three important measures he intended to place before parliament, and the editorial said:
Most important of the three, according to Mr. Hays, is a measure to deal with the high cost of capitalizing a modern-day farming operation. The machinery necessary for good farming is so expensive that it seriously affects the degree of good farming. Exactly what he proposes to do about it Mr. Hays does not say, because the government is expected to save its policy announcements for the House of Commons. But he does promise that his bill would vastly change the agricultural economy.
How will this measure change the agricultural economy? According to the minister it will change it vastly, but I ask in what direction? Is it going to promote vertical integration? Is this the way the minister is going to change it? I suggest this measure will speed up vertical integration and I see nothing in

Farm Machinery
mark-up is 25 per cent. You take off the 20 per cent, and it still leaves you with 5 per cent clear profit for handling the paper work". The syndicate puts up no money at all as a down payment. This is one way in which you can get around this proposed legislation.
There are many questions I would like to ask in this connection. One is, what is "machinery"? What does the minister mean by "farm machinery"? There are a number of farm implements that I think should be classified as farm machinery and on which Canadian farmers are still paying duty. Last evening I mentioned the cattle feeding industry. The hog feeding industry is another example. It is certainly becoming highly mechanized, and is a prominent industry in the agricultural field in Canada. Most of the self-feeding equipment that is brought into Canada from the United States carries a duty of 22J per cent. Is the minister seriously considering bringing down the cost of machinery? If he is, why does he not take off this 22| per cent duty which applies to much of the self-feeding equipment that is now being used in the feeding industry generally in agriculture?
I take the dairy industry, for example. This is a big industry in Ontario and in Quebec. There is duty on much of the dairy equipment, even down to stainless steel milk pails and stainless steel cans. The duty on both these items is 20 per cent. What is the purpose of this duty? Is the minister seriously trying to bring about a reduction in the cost of farm machinery, or is he trying to enhance the image of the minister himself across the country by bringing in this syndicate legislation?


The Chairman:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired. Does he have the unanimous consent of the committee to continue beyond his time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harry William Hays: May I just say a word here, Mr. Chairman. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Acadia and to the hon. member for Rosthem. If the committee would consider passing the resolution, I would be glad at the next stage of this legislation to deal with all the questions that have been asked. I think they could be taken care of at that time. It seems to me, if I may be really frank, that when hon. members see the bill they will be a bit embarrassed by some of the statements they have made. I would not like this to happen to such fine fellows as the hon. member for
Acadia, for example. If we could do this I am sure it would be a great assistance. I must remind hon. members that as recently as August 26 the Leader of the Opposition said:
So there will be no misunderstanding I say to the minister at once, put this resolution on the order paper and it will receive immediate attention, if he is so concerned about the farmers. Will you do that?
It is here, and it seems to me we can deal with these questions in the examination of the bill. Then hon. members could assess it and speak much more intelligently about it than when they are just guessing as to what might be in the bill.


Mr. Skoreyko:: Mr. Chairman, the minister said a moment ago that some of the questions that had been posed would be answered later if the resolution is passed now. Does the minister not intend to answer the questions before the resolution is passed?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I think the questions that have been raised are pretty well all answered in the bill. If there are others that are not answered, I would certainly be very pleased to reply to those questions.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Does the hon. member have leave to continue beyond his time? Of course he has the opportunity to speak again, but if he is just continuing his remarks I would point out that there are other hon. members who wish to take part in the debate. Has the hon. member leave to continue at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for
Acadia.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a few brief remarks to make, and I will take the risk of being embarrassed by the minister when he brings in the bill. I was wondering about certain types of machinery and whether they would qualify for syndicate buying, if I may use that term. I have in mind something that could be of benefit to a number of farmers in the foothills country, for example. I refer to brush clearing equipment. With regard to my own area, perhaps large grass seeding equipment could be purchased; perhaps large portable grain mills. I wonder whether portable grain dryers would be included. This equipment would have been put to great use if the wet weather had continued on the prairies. Also, would portable grain cleaning equipment and seed cleaning equipment be in-

eluded? In other words, would a farmer and his neighbours be permitted to buy this type of equipment under this legislation?
I would like to ask the minister this question. Could a group of farmers set up a cattle feeding co-operative and borrow something like $75,000, as was suggested by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, for equipping a cattle feeding operation, a hog feeding operation, a turkey feeding operation, or an operation of a similar type? Could a syndicate buy this type of machinery duty free, if any duty applied to it? Much of the duty that does apply to machines used on farms involves machines that have a dual purpose, which are agricultural in some aspects and commercial in others.
As I understand the interpretation of this proposed legislation, it is intended to promote commercial ventures, custom work, and so on. If a person was going into the grain drying business, could he buy the grain dryer duty free, for example; or could he buy seed cleaning equipment, grain mills, brush clearing equipment and grass seeding equipment duty free? If duty does apply to this machinery, could it be bought duty free? If it could, approximately 22 per cent would be saved in regard to most of this machinery. This is certainly well worth considering, because 22 per cent of the cost of the high priced machinery used in today's agricultural economy represents a great deal of money.
I have another question that I would ask the minister. In my part of the country during the past year we experienced a great water shortage. P.F.R.A. did a tremendous job in pumping water to the livestock of many farmers. Could farmers' co-ops be set up through which farmers would be able to purchase their own pipe? This would be of some benefit in the drier parts of Alberta. In many areas throughout the southern part of Alberta farmers have gone into the business of hauling water and have bought trucks for this purpose to haul water for their livestock. Could such equipment be bought on a syndicated or cooperative basis? One would wonder whether many other pieces of equipment-I am sure many hon. members have a number of pieces of equipment in their minds-will qualify under this legislation.
I should also like to see the minister take an active interest in the price of farmers' commodities. Some time ago the turkey producers were alarmed at the removal of quotas on turkeys from the United States coming into Canada. It seems to me that the minister
Farm Machinery
shrugged this off rather lightly, and said in effect; "Everything is all right in the industry. You fellows will have to take a few cents less but don't worry about it. You can eat your own turkeys, I guess, if you get really hungry". That was the sort of attitude he had.
The lamb industry, which at times is a flourishing one in southern Alberta, has suffered a severe drop in price of eight cents a pound over the last six months. Has the minister paid attention to this problem and what is he prepared to do about it?
With regard to the beef industry, I mentioned some time ago that the minister pointed out last year that this was one part of the agricultural economy where optimism was evident. However this has certainly not shown to be the case this year, in fact even in the fall of 1963. Prices and optimism in the beef industry are at an all time low, at least since the last ten years. I have never seen the industry look at its future so dismally. Some months ago I asked the Minister of Agriculture what he proposed to do about the red meat embargo placed on Canadian red meat entering the United States. I asked him twice as a matter of fact, but he never got around to giving me an answer. Perhaps the minister could make a more direct and interested appraisal of the price aspect of the agricultural economy so that the farmers can buy and pay for machinery to enable them to become more efficient.
There are just two or three recommendations which I should like to place on record regarding the manufacturing industry, particularly that part of it engaged in farm machinery manufacture. During the study of this question by the agriculture committee in 1961 I had some points brought home to me with regard to dealers being able to return spare parts which they no longer required. Actually companies do allow for return of parts. They have what they call a parts returnable list; but if a particular part is no longer saleable you can rest assured, Mr. Chairman, that it is not on the returnable list. Therefore this increases the overhead and the dealers' costs. Dealers should be able to return all parts to the manufacturer, and the amount of money paid for them should be refunded. That would lower the cost of handling spare parts and eventually lower the cost to the farmer. Dealers should also be able to stock the cheapest part for any particular machine whether or not the part be made by the company with which he has a dealership. I think it was pointed out time and again in the agricultural committee that

Farm Machinery
every company had a different price for the same sort of bearing. A dealer should be able to stock or buy from the manufacturer the same bearing at the cheapest price.
There must also be more standardization. Time and again in the agricultural committee evidence was submitted that not enough was done by the machine companies to standardize their equipment. In fact it is obvious to many farmers that machine companies go out of their way to make their parts just a little different from the parts of other manufacturers so that other parts cannot be used on their machines. Companies such as Hydraulic Couplers, and many more companies who manufacture repair parts, could in this way bring about a greater reduction in cost of spare parts and repairs to machinery to the benefit of the farmers.
I think the whole matter of dealership contracts should be examined by the combines investigation branch or the whole question referred, as I suggested last evening, to the agricultural committee. The whole distribution system of agricultural machinery should be given close examination. Actually in the 1960-61 inquiry the committee dealt more with the cost of production than with the distribution system. Canadian Co-operative Implements Limited, for example, which had brought in and innovated a new distributing system, was not even heard from during the committee inquiry, and I think this whole question should be dealt with once again. This method of syndicated buying which the government is now promoting could be examined by the agricultural committee to see whether or not it would promote vertical integration or the family farm. It appears obvious to me-I do not want to be embarrassed but, as I said, I run the risk of being embarrassed-that in promoting this resolution the government is sponsoring the virtual take-over of farming in Canada. It has discarded and done away with the principle every political party has stood for hitherto, namely the promotion and maintenance of the family farm. It is just one more manifestation of the millionaire's approach to the agricultural problems in Canada today.


Mr. Peters:: I really had not intended to take part in this discussion of the resolution before the committee, until I heard the minister inform us that there was no point in anybody speaking on the resolution because all the answers were contained in the bill. That in itself would make me, as one who believes in democracy and parliamentary procedure and who has some respect for those

institutions, rise from my seat and loudly complain that the minister already knows what is in the bill, that this resolution is only window dressing, and that although he will get some very good ideas from members of parliament he will give no consideration to them. This in effect is direction of legislation at its worst, because I presume that this bill in particular will follow, not the wishes of the cabinet or the farm organizations, but rather the inclination of the minister himself. Therefore I strongly protest, Mr. Chairman, at the minister's admitting publicly that he has no use for our parliamentary traditions, which ask the government to present a resolution when any legislation involving major expenditure is required. He may not agree that these resolutions serve any purpose, and I realize that the Liberal government are seeing less and less use in them, but I think it is shocking when a minister gets up and says, in effect: "Get on with the bill; I already have the particulars in it, this is only window dressing".


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I did suggest that when the committee had dealt with the resolution the crop insurance bill would immediately follow this bill, at which time there would be ample opportunity to discuss agriculture in all its facets. I was merely suggesting that if the resolution were passed hon. members would have the opportunity to look at the bill. The crop insurance resolution will immediately follow passage of this resolution dealing with farm machinery syndicates.


William Arnold Peters: Well, Mr. Chairman, I accept the minister's explanation, which is not what I interpreted from his original remarks. However, as I say, I accept what the minister says in its inclination. This was not clear to me from the previous explanation. I think that the minister, every farm organization in Canada and every member of parliament who has given any consideration to the farm problem at all will know that one of the major problems that Canada's farmers face is the increase in the cost of the machinery they require to conduct their agricultural operations. I think this fact is reconized by everyone. I believe anyone who really gives consideration to the problem of the high cost of farm machinery, which has been accompanied by the extending of acreages in order to provide economic family farms, will come to the conclusion that the problem is not that the farmer needs to borrow money

to buy new machinery but rather it is the cost of that farm machinery in relation percentagewise to the operation of the enterprise that the farmer may have.
If the minister gives any consideration to the reports of the farm implement companies I think he will come to the conclusion that there is a great deal to be desired in the operations of the farm machinery companies in Canada. In fact some consideration must be given to the whole international farm machinery industry, because if any industry is international it is this one. It might be interesting for members of the committee to review the proceedings of the agricultural committee several years ago when this matter was being considered. They will find that some farm implements sold in Timiskaming are produced in India and that farm machinery sold in other parts of Canada is made in the United States, Great Britain, France, in fact most of the major countries of Europe as well as in some of the countries of Africa and South America. Many of these machinery companies decide that a particular machine will be manufactured in one country, and its manufacture will not be duplicated anywhere else in their vast international empires.
Knowing the minister's background, knowing something about conditions in western Canada and having heard over the years about the co-operatives that have been established in western Canada both to operate farms and for the pooling of machinery, I think this legislation will work to a limited extent. I also suggest that it will work not only in the case of very large producers but in some instances in the case of very small producers who may be unable to get custom work done by an entrepreneur because their farms are too poor and their acreage too small to warrant the custom operator buying equipment in a particular area.
I make the prediction that the legislation we are now being asked to pass, with regard to which the farm magazines throughout Canada will give great credit to the minister for having tried to solve the problem, will never apply to even 2 per cent of the agricultural population of this nation. If this is true, then this legislation certainly is not the answer to the agricultural problem created by the high cost per unit of farm machinery. If this is true, then the minister had better look far beyond this legislation because I think the problem is much deeper.
The committee that dealt with this matter several years ago came to a number of conclusions. Members can look them up for
Farm Machinery
themselves. I will not bore the committee by reading them. But members should look at them because I believe these conclusions caused the Conservative government of the day a great deal of concern. They raised problems that the Minister of Finance in the present government has tried to solve as did the minister of finance in the former government, and in both cases they have been wholly unsuccessful.
I refer to the fact that American companies, in fact, even some with their headquarters in Canada, are operating international cartels in the farm machinery implement industry, and the government, the Minister of Finance and nobody else in this country has been able to come to grips with this problem. Suggestions were made at the time of the committee hearings that there would have to be controls. We have some controls. There are controls on the import and export of many commodities. But have we had the initiative to place import and export controls on farm machinery? No; this is a totally neglected field. The hon. member for Acadia referred to hydraulic couplers for tractors, ejector seats and other accessories for farm equipment which are subject to taxes and tariff restrictions if bought separately. Milking machinery is also subject to restrictions. But in the main, farm machinery can flow across international borders without any control. This means that the companies pay no attention to supply and demand, produce in areas where it is most economical for them to do so and sell in a market where they can and do command the highest prices which the market will bear.
I am not in a position to say that there are monopolies on the national scene, but when you buy an automobile in Canada, whether from General Motors, Ford, Chrysler or Stude-baker, you find that in comparable categories you get about the same kind of product from one company as you do from another for the same price. I do not know whether or not there is a monopoly. There are many more qualified to judge than I am, but it is a surprising situation and it limits the choice of the individual and his opportunity to get a better deal from one company than from another.
There is a similarity between the farm implement industry and the automobile industry. A John Deere tractor costs very nearly the same as a Massey-Harris tractor of similar horsepower, and with similar equipment. These are problems that the government is not prepared to face. I suggest that the

Farm Machinery
reason the committee was not reconstituted a year ago was that the former government did not have the courage to face these problems. If the minister wants to be fair, if the farm machinery dealers wish to be fair, if the farm magazines wish to be fair, they will point out that this major problem is not being faced by this legislation and has not been faced by this or the former government. In fact, I do not expect it to be faced by any government in Canada for some time, because it will require very drastic controls that the capitalistic governments of Canada are not prepared to impose.
This is the minister's own legislation. In my opinion it does not have the approval of his departmental officials and probably does not have the approval of most of the agricultural representatives in the Liberal party. In saying this I do not wish to be unfair. I represent the farmers of Timiskaming in the main, although incidentally I may represent farmers in other parts of Canada. I represent the mixed farmers of the clay belt of northern Ontario who have problems that are peculiar to them, and my representation is oriented to them. I know that the minister has connections with agriculture in western Canada and I am aware of what type of connections he has. I am sure his representation of his people will be the type of representation that will result in legislation of this kind. This may be all right, except for the fact that this is the Minister of Agriculture presenting this legislation and he' has a much wider responsibility. Under that responsibility he must in my opinion take into consideration the aspirations of farmers in other parts of the country.
Last night I heard a member make the very strong statement that in his opinion most farmers could not get along with their neighbours to the extent of buying farm machinery co-operatively. I believe he was correct. I am in a partnership with my brother, and with two brothers it is very hard to decide whether we are going to cut my fall wheat first or cut his fall wheat first. I will decide that mine is riper and therefore it is necessary to cut it, while I am sure my brother will say that his is the riper and the advantageous time to cut it is today.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in western Canada you can sit around and talk about this for several days before you decide whose wheat you are going to cut. In Timiskaming if you do not get it cut while the sun is shining it will probably rain the next day and you will be lucky if the rain does not last for three weeks.

If it does, no one will get the grain cut. If you do not think this will raise the blood pressure of those operating the farm machinery syndicate, I will be surprised. I suppose a scheme like this will work with people like the Hutterites. It will work with the larger groups in western Canada who have an affinity for one another greater than blood. It will work with those groups who have this type of brotherly philosophy that will allow it to work.
If you have ever dealt with a custom combine outfit or, in the early days, with a threshing outfit you will know that money changed hands in order that one farmer could get his grain cut earlier than his neighbours. There was a little bonus slipped under the table or some kind of incentive used. I presume that sometimes the custom thresher paid some attention to whether or not the cooking at one place was better than another. I know farmers well enough, Mr. Chairman, to know that it would not take very many years before there was a falling out of the members of a cooperative if the weather turned bad and only one or two of the farmers were able to have this equipment at the opportune time, while the others were left out.
The minister, of course, comes from an area in which there is a very dry, very stabilized climate, so probably he does not know about this. However, the situation I have described applies in Ontario and Quebec. I believe the result will be that few farmers will get this type of farm machinery. I imagine the hon. member for Kootenay East may find that a syndicate in his area will be able to go into the pulp and paper industry or a saw mill, something of that nature, because he gets along very well with them. There are a few farmers in my area in the pulpwood industry and they may get along to the extent of being able to share a truck for the hauling of their product. I think that in eastern Canada at least we are going to have some resentment on the part of farmers who find themselves out of luck in getting machinery from the syndicate.
When the minister speaks, as I presume he will, I should like to hear from him what he believes the relationship will be between this legislation and vertical integration. We know that vertical integration, in the fields in which it was introduced originally, has not been successful. It has not been the concern of this government but it was of the previous government because after a period of several years vertical integration in agriculture ran its course. I would suggest that this is an-

other type of vertical integration to which the minister ought to give consideration. I hope he will be interested in doing something in this regard.
Now, Mr. Chairman, supplying credit to purchase farm machinery without cutting the cost of that machinery seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. All hon. members agree that the price of farm machinery is too high. Farmers do not say they cannot borrow enough money to buy this equipment; they say the price is so high that it is unprofitable to operate it on the farm. We are not cutting the price of farm machinery; all we are doing is supplying credit through the Farm Credit Corporation to enable farmers to group together to buy this machinery. This scheme may or may not cut the cost per farm unit; it may or may not cut the cost of production per unit, but it will not cut the cost of purchasing machinery.
The minister has not told us if this credit is going to cost the farmer 5 per cent. This question, of course, will be answered when we see the bill. We do not know whether or not the banks are going to lend the money and the loan is going to be guaranteed by the government. This is the manner in which farm improvement loans are made. These questions will be answered of course when the bill is introduced. We have met the problem of the reclassification of farm machinery, and I hope the minister has made provision for this in the bill. I am always surprised when I find certain items that are normally included in the cost of a tractor, such things as the canopy, foam rubber seats, a starter and other amenities that we expect on this type of equipment, are not included. When these things are bought separately and not as part of the original unit there is a tariff on them, and this increases the price because those items are not then considered to be farm machinery. This applies to many other things that are normally considered to be part of the tractor or other farm machines. I hope the minister has reclassified the words "farm machinery" so that they include all the things the farmer uses for agricultural purposes. I would presume, Mr. Chairman, that this applies also to trucks used solely for agricultural purposes.
The minister in my opinion has not been fair to farmers or farm organizations, because of his reluctance to say anything about the problem of farm machinery. By now the minister must have read the report of the agriculture committee which conducted a hearing into farm machinery costs. If he has
Farm Machinery
read it, he will note that there are many things the committee studied to which consideration should be given right away. I feel the minister should be prepared to say whether or not he intends to reconstitute this farm machinery inquiry. He ought to be prepared to attempt to arrive at standardization of hydraulic lifts, power take-offs, and things of that sort that are very elementary. The standardization of this type of thing should be easily legislated by the federal government. Does the minister have anything to say about the maintenance of parts at a reasonable cost for a reasonable period of time? The committee thought this was an important part of the farm machinery and implement industry. Has the minister given any consideration to the remarks made last night by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in relation to the testing of farm equipment? The hon. member pointed out that the provincial governments, particularly Saskatchewan, have gone as far as they can in this field. There is certainly nothing this government is doing better than giving advice and assistance to the provinces to run their own business. This is a field where that could be considered, although I suggest we should do it ourselves rather than have someone else do it.
Has the minister given any consideration to the greatest bugbear in the farm implement industry, namely the problem existing in the used implement end of it? What happens when a farmer trades in an implement? Who gets it and what relation has it to the new implements bought? The minister has said all these questions will be answered when we see the bill. I am quite anxious to see it but I doubt very much that it will answer a lot of these questions, although I hope it answers the questions that have been specifically related to the resolution.
The problems in the farm implement industry and those surrounding methods of reducing the cost per unit of production will have to be answered in many other ways, not all of them in the credit field. The minister will also have to take into consideration the problems he wants the agriculture committee to study. He will have less trouble with farm organizations, the farm press, and indeed with the farmers themselves, if he allows this measure, along with all the others, to be sent to the agriculture committee where they can be discussed, where people who have a great deal of experience and knowledge outside the legislative field would help us to make up our minds on how to supply the

Farm Machinery
fanners with more favourable and satisfactory legislation at less cost to the public and the treasury.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, any legislation introduced in the house to help the agricultural class must necessarily receive the attention of all hon. members, and everyone must see to it that this legislation is enacted as soon as possible.
Yet, it does not mean that we should shelve our responsibilities and take the minister's recommendations for granted.
A few moments ago, when he reiterated his request to the effect that the resolution be passed immediately, my first reaction was to agree. But when I remembered the various questions I asked him, and which remained without answer for many weeks, I revised my way of thinking and agreed with other hon. members that the matter should receive further consideration.
The minister certainly meant well when he introduced this legislation. But, Mr. Chairman, we all know the saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Therefore, in order to warn the minister and help him not commit errors which he would regret later on, I decided to take a few brief minutes to express my views, which are those of my voters at home.
I am very much afraid that the legislation now before us may cause some disappointment, especially among the farmers in the province of Quebec and eastern Canada.
I agree with other hon. members who stated that this measure would affect only an insignificant number of farmers. Moreover, I think what we have here is one more measure tending mainly to help the large farm operators. It seems to me that those are the only measures taken by the present government: measures giving no heed whatever to the family farm or the small farmer.
If there is an important sector in the agricultural field, Mr. Chairman, it is that of the family farm. That is where future farmers learn to work and to till the soil in order to replace their parents. If they are not given the necessary attention, we will sooner or later be the first to suffer the consequences of that carelessness towards that part of our population.
I would like to ask the minister a few questions concerning the measure under consideration. First of all, I would have liked, as other hon. members, to know what he means by farm machinery syndicate. I would have liked to know from the minister whether

these syndicates will be controlled by provincial or federal legislation.
I would have liked also to know what arrangements have been made with the provincial ministers of agriculture during the meetings where this measure has been especially considered.
The minister would certainly have received more attention from this side of the house if, during his remarks, he had explained these points which, I feel, are of vital interest.
We should also like to know the interest rate the borrowers will have to pay; what will be the repayment periods; the amount a syndicate will be able to borrow; and finally whether this legislation will only apply to bona fide farmers or also to citizens who are not farmers.
I am inclined to agree more particularly with my hon. friend from Rosthern (Mr. Nas-serden) when he says that this measure will benefit especially the western farmers and that it ignores the eastern farmers, more particularly those from the province of Quebec, the maritime provinces and Ontario.
I think our people will appreciate the remarks of my hon. friend from Rosthern who is certainly familiar with the needs of eastern farmers.
The question of the price of farm machinery is of capital importance to our farmers. As was pointed out by other speakers, especially the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner), the agriculture and colonization committee considered the matter in the spring of 1961. At the time, to get firsthand information, I sent to 200 farmers of my riding a questionnaire in which I asked them to give me some information on the price and life of the farm machinery required to run a family farm. I also told them I needed all the information available to present their case adequately when the question would be considered by the committee.
Out of these 200 questionnaires, I received exactly 72 completed ones. In my first question, I asked this:
Please, indicate, in order of importance, the farm machinery that you think is most important, as well as its purchase price.
In the second question, I asked:
In your opinion, what is the average Hie of the machinery listed under item no. 1.
And my third question read as follows:
Please, list what seems to you the most important reason which explains the increase in price of farm machinery.

Here is what I learned from the answers to these questions sent to professional farmers:
Tractor, $2,300; baling-press, $2,300; manure spreader, $550; mower, $390; spinner, $410; plough, $230; milking machine, $450; harrow, $395; combine, about $4,000; disks, $600; binder, $550; spreader, $400.
Total cost of purchase would be about $12,500, at 1961 prices. The purchasing price of the above farm machinery has certainly increased considerably since then.
Modern farms are also equipped with a hay conditioner, a potato digger, a beet digger and an ensilage cutter or blower. Unfortunately, I have no detail about the price of this machinery, but I am convinced that it is among the most costly.
According to the information obtained by means of that questionnaire, those machines last between five and ten years, depending on the care they receive. Some farmers who are very careful will keep their machinery much longer, while others who are careless will have to make repairs or trade them in much more often than those who keep them in order.
As for the various causes stated to justify the increased cost of machinery, this is what farmers had to say:
First, many are of the opinion that the commissions drawn by salesmen are too high and the profits of the farm machinery manufacturers are exorbitant.
Moreover, repair and maintenance costs are also very high. The same is true for transportation costs which increase constantly from year to year.
They mention also that tax increases that follow one another contribute enormously to the fact that farm machinery gets more expensive every year.
And there are those who even complain that farm machinery, and more particularly tractors, are unnecessarily luxurious.
In this connection, and more especially with regard to tractors, there is surely a great deal of truth in what some farmers told me, because various manufacturers of farm machinery seem to outdo each other in luxury in order to offer de luxe machinery to their customers, even though the latter do not need them to carry out their work. I am sure most farmers could do without de luxe attachments on their tractors. If the cost of those machines were reduced by as much, farmers could use that money for other purposes.
Farm Machinery
According to the replies received, I was able to realize that the farmers, in general, complain about the discrepancy between the cost and the selling price of their products. And this question of farm machinery certainly enters into account when both the prices I have mentioned are being determined.
Then, before resuming my seat, I wish I could, on the part of the farmers of my constituency, exert some pressure upon the minister to have him bring about measures that will particularly apply to the eastern farmers. We are not jealous of the help given to the farmers of the prairie provinces, but we believe that the central government, especially the present Liberal government, following the many promises made, should give special attention to eastern farmers. An eastern department of agriculture was promised, but such a project remains unfulfilled. Consequently, I would ask the hon. minister and his parliamentary secretary, whose intentions are certainly good, to give-

-to have that "long look" of which the minister speaks so often. We need it in eastern Canada today. We need the help of the minister and we do need that "long look". But, even more important, we need practical measures to help our farmers.
Our farmers are most disappointed. I must tell the hon. gentleman this, because it is true. I would much prefer to be agreeable to him and congratulate him on the measures he has brought in. But my farmers-and I am sorry for this-have asked me to tell the hon. gentleman that they are very disappointed. I do not wish to review the measures he has taken-measures which have had results so unfavourable to our dairy farmers. I have told the government this, time and again, but it has not seemed to sink in too well. However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity of saying that there are many facets to this question; there are many angles. We on this side of the house represent so many people who are professional farmers and therefore know very well about farming and farming problems. These people could give the minister a great deal of assistance in arriving at solutions to some of the problems that are today facing our farmers.
I join those who have spoken before me in recommending that this measure be sent to the committee on agriculture and colonization. There is a wealth of knowledge in that committee, especially in members from this

Farm Machinery
side of the house, and we are all willing to help the government because we realize that the Department of Agriculture is in dire need of help. We are willing to give this help to the minister.


Mr. Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few general remarks at the resolution stage of this legislation. At the outset I would like to quote from yesterday's Hansard, when the Minister of Justice, the house leader, said:
But I think for the benefit of the farmers it would be preferable if we could dispose of the farm machinery syndicates resolution right away.
This may be so, and this is one reason for my rising to my feet, because I am interested in knowing what types of equipment the minister is thinking about in this connection; that is, what types of equipment may be purchased under this legislation. As I see it, farming is pretty well completed for this year, but many farmers wish to lay their plans and arrange their business for the coming year. The word "syndicate" intrigued me, so I looked it up in the Winston dictionary. It says, "Syndicate is an association of persons or corporations to promote some particular enterprise, especially an enterprise requiring a large amount of capital, and control the market in a particular commodity".
This raises the question in my mind as to whether this is a bill mainly for the small farmer who cannot afford a certain type of equipment, or is it going to put some farmers into the category of being more or less small contractors, in terms of equipment costing $50,000 or $75,000? I cannot foresee this bill dealing with some types of farming equipment that we use. I am thinking of haying equipment, loaders, and possibly bulldozers. If one wishes to do bulldozing work, this would be the type of equipment contractors would use for clearing land. Perhaps this is what the minister has in mind, but he has not mentioned it yet. A few minutes ago the minister said that most of the answers were contained in the bill. However, Mr. Chairman, if I understand the position correctly, the resolution stage is the time to put forward ideas that may be introduced into a bill. Despite this, the minister has said the questions have already been answered in the bill.
I would like to point out a few of the difficulties that I think could occur under an arrangement where three or four farmers join together to form a syndicate. I have had some experience, as have many farmers, of buying equipment jointly. I realize that one 
of the drawbacks to this type of co-operative farming is the fact that the farmers will use the equipment and nobody will be its actual boss. Therefore the equipment will not be looked after in the proper manner, and eventually these syndicates about which we are speaking will fall apart. Perhaps again the minister will explain this matter when we deal with the bill. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, I would think that with regard to any type of equipment costing up to possibly $75,000, the people involved would be organizing for a profit. My idea of a bill that would be of benefit to the small farmers would be one that provided for the purchase of the type of equipment that one would buy in order to save money, and not in order to make a profit.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam last evening when he referred to C.C.I.L., as we know it in western Canada, and how it was organized with the idea of saving a great deal of money for the farmers. I believe it is true that many farmers who buy through C.C.I.L. do receive a fair dividend. Again, Mr. Chairman, one of the drawbacks of this arrangement is that only one type of equipment is available and there is no choice. Any farmer who has a specific choice or preference for one particular make of equipment, because he believes it is superior to others, does not fall into this category.
A great deal of the large equipment that C.C.I.L. sells is imported from England, from Europe, and we must realize that when a farmer wants his equipment repaired, he wants the repair to be carried out at once. Anybody who has farmed in western Canada realizes that many times we must have parts flown in from eastern Canada or the United States. I think this is one of the drawbacks of the C.C.I.L. arrangement. Collective parts depots was a subject that was also mentioned. I for one do not believe that this is a feasible set-up. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam mentioned this matter. I do not think there can be co-operation among machine companies any more than there can be between members of different political parties, or members of the House of Commons. I do not think they can agree on one thing.


Mr. Whelan:: Get out in the world, instead of living on a tractor.


Lawrence E. Watson: I believe that a bill such as this, which is of vital interest to farmers all across Canada, should be sent to the committee on agriculture and colonization,

as has been suggested. The committee could then study the bill, and I believe many good suggestions would be brought forward. I hope that when the minister introduces the bill he will specify the types of equipment this legislation will cover. We are looking at the over-all cost of farm equipment, whether it be equipment used in eastern Canada or the large type of equipment used in western Canada. I cannot see that this will have any bearing on lowering the cost of farm equipment. At best it may aid a few of the smaller farmers by enabling them to buy collectively certain types of equipment. The hon. member for Medicine Hat mentioned the figure of $75,000 last evening and I think the minister should tell us whether such a figure is involved here. What types of equipment has he in mind which could possibly cost $75,000. I realize that farm improvement loans have been increased from $7,500 to $15,000, which is all to the good because the cost of equipment has gone up three or four times what it was 15 years ago.
A few other questions I have in mind are these. When we are speaking of partners in a syndicate I should like the minister to explain whether he means such partners will be live partners, or whether just one or two will control the syndicate and the rest will be silent partners. This might again raise the question whether this measure will be of benefit to the small farmer, or will have the effect of organizing a group of big farmers and put them into the farm contracting business.
As we all know, there are many types of tractors and combines today. I would say that the smallest costs about $5,000 to $6,000 and you can pay as much as $12,000 to $15,000. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the minister to allow three or four farmers collectively, after having spent their $15,000 farm improvement loan, to raise another $75,000 to buy some of the bigger tractors and go into commercial custom combining or contract farming.
I should also like to know whether it is the minister's intention that the syndicates be big enough to buy direct from the manufacturer and thus cut out some 40 to 50 per cent profit which is involved in the sale of equipment locally. I am referring to the local dealer who gets about 20 to 25 per cent on selling an implement, and also the wholesalers or general offices located in each province which make, according to the figure I have heard, 35 to 40 per cent for their particular company. That is the profit which eventually ends up
Farm Machinery
in the hands of the company which manufactures the equipment concerned.
I have just outlined, Mr. Chairman, a few of the questions which I have in my mind. I will not say anything more at this point because I should like to see what is in the bill in detail. When I have seen it I may have either some criticisms or some constructive criticisms, whichever it may be, of the bill which the minister is introducing.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to make a long speech but I do have a few questions to ask the minister at this point. I do not expect him to answer them now, but he might make a note of them and perhaps answer them either on second reading or during committee stage of the bill.
My first question is: Have the officials of his department given consideration to the adequacy of this amount of $25 million? I ask that question because just the other day I was in the Northwest Territories attending a ceremony at which the minister himself was supposed to be present but unfortunately was not. However, his colleague the minister of northern affairs was present and made a speech in connection with the crossing of the Great Slave lake railway into the Northwest Territories, and he referred to the fact that this railroad, among other things would provide a means of transportation across some eight to ten million acres of agricultural land which in due course would be opened up. That is borne out by the fact that in the last four years at least 3,500 to 4,000 applications have been made by people concerned in securing agricultural land in the newly opening areas in the constituency of Peace River alone, under the provincial homestead settlements scheme. The amount of machinery which these farmers and potential farmers would require to remove the brush and cultivate the land will take up a substantial portion of the $25 million which the minister is suggesting be offered for this purpose on credit terms.
To underline that I would also call attention to the fact that page 11 of the 1963 report made under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the amendment to which act was the subject of discussion yesterday, shows that $99 million-almost $100 million-in the year 1963 alone was utilized by the farmers in Canada for the purchase of farm machinery under the pertinent provisions of that legislation. In other words, the farmers of Canada purchased $100 million worth of farm equipment under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. It is interesting to note that there were

Farm Machinery
58,000 applications, and that the average loan per farmer was less than $2,000.
The next question I should like to ask the minister is this: To what particular portion of the farming community is this legislation dedicated? Who are contemplated as the beneficiaries under this legislation? The minister may, of course, say that under the Farm Improvement Loans Act it is impossible to grant loans to syndicates and co-operatives, and consequently they are the people who are shut out, under the provisions of that act, as a group, as a co-operative or as a syndicate, from securing these benefits. However, I would point out to the minister that under the Farm Credit Act, which he administers and which the previous government passed in 1959, section 2 defines "farming" as including a co-operative farm association and a family farming corporation. So it cannot be said at this time that prior to the enactment of the legislation which will be introduced following passage of this resolution there is not now in existence legislation which might well cover the particular groups the minister has in mind in this resolution.
It is rather interesting to note in examining the figures in connection with the Farm Credit Corporation-and I am now reading from the annual report and financial statement for the year 1963-64-that while for that year there were 8,689 loans totalling $108 million, with an average loan amount of $12,430, only 1.2 per cent of the loans were for the purchase of equipment. I would then assume-these are figures I do not have, but the minister may have them-that with regard to farm co-operatives and family farm incorporations, which are defined in the Farm Credit Act as being amongst the group who may secure the benefits of the legislation, a very infinitesimal portion of the total moneys lent would be lent to such groups for the purpose of securing farm machinery. Therefore I think this underlines the request I have made to the minister, that at some time he should enlighten members of the committee as to the groups, the people, the individuals who in his opinion are entitled and will be able to secure benefits from this particular legislation, having in mind the figures I have put on the record under the two enactments which at present constitute the sum total of federal farm credit legislation.
Before I sit down there is one more question I wish to ask the minister. This concerns a class of people who have not been mentioned in the debates we have had in the

house in connection with farm credit. I refer to the original settlers of this country, the Indians. I call the minister's attention to the fact that some years ago we had a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which inquired into the whole question of the Indian Act and the economic and social conditions of the Indian. One of the very interesting discussions which took place was with regard to the opportunities afforded to the Indian people under the Indian Act to secure the same types of benefits in the form of credit and assistance as did the other inhabitants of Canada.
It was then pointed out, not only by the Indians themselves but by officials of the department, that these people labour under a considerable handicap because of the fact they do not have title to their lands. Under the Indian Act they hold under what are known as certificates of occupation. As a resident of my province the minister will recall that there is an act known as the metis colonies act which sets up in the northern part of the province and to a large extent in my constituency a number of areas where those native inhabitants, who are no longer under the Indian Act but come under the metis act, secure certain benefits. Tracts of land have been set apart for their farms. They also operate under a system of land holding involving certificates of occupation which do not give them title to the land. Very often in their attempts to secure the benefits of the type of farm credit legislation and farm assistance programs available to other Canadians they come squarely up against this handicap. This was mentioned and extensively commented on and I would hope that in the legislation the minister is going to introduce provision will be made to deal with these people.
It is all very well to say, as has been said, that it is possible to change the provisions of the Indian Act so that Indians can hold title to their lands. At the present time the Indians themselves are very much opposed to this. When we are attempting to establish many of these people and to provide them with the opportunity to attain the living conditions that prevail for all other Canadians, I think it is manifestly unfair that because of their system of land ownership we should deprive them of the opportunities which they would receive under legislation of this kind. I know that many of these people are good farmers and would like the opportunity to settle into the mainstream of our economic life, but by reason of these facts they are

prevented from doing so. When the minister introduces the legislation I hope it will provide for them. If it does not I hope he will consider making appropriate amendments for that purpose.


Mr. Southam:: Mr. Chairman, having had the honour of being a member of the agricultural committee for a number of years I have always been interested in the problem of the cost of farm machinery, and I believe that every member of the house should have the same interest because of the fact that the agricultural economy is still one of the basic and most important economic factors in this great country. I was disappointed yesterday afternoon that the minister gave such a brief resume of the proposed legislation. It seemed to be a rather insipid introduction for something as important as this and consequently I have a few questions to ask. I do not think that members on this side of the house have any apologies to make if we wish to make a few brief remarks, and I can assure you mine will be brief.
Because of the fact that so little explanation was given in introducing the legislation to provide for the extension of farm machinery syndicates I feel we should place our queries on the record. I ask the same question that many members have asked. Will the legislation actually help those farmers who need help? In discussing the problem of the cost of farm machinery with the well established farmer operating on a large scale, I find he feels that because of the legislation with respect to the agricultural economy placed on the statute books by the previous government he has been able to pull himself out of the economic doldrums. Nevertheless he is interested in this legislation also. However it is those smaller farmers who operate the great majority of the 400,000 farms spread across this vast land about whom I am concerned. I am concerned as to whether this measure will actually work in practice.
I can see that a father and a couple of sons, or three brothers could apply to the Farm Credit Corporation and receive a loan up to $75,000 to provide machinery to operate a family farm unit but, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Timiskaming, farmers are free enterprisers and individualists. They are very much concerned about running their own operations. Looking at the matter from the psychological aspect I wonder what would happen if three or four farmers formed a syndicate to buy a tractor costing $8,000 to
Farm Machinery
$11,000, or a $10,000 combine for harvesting, particularly during a fall season such as we are experiencing at the present time.
Who would decide who would use the particular machine when the sun did come out? After all, farmers are most interested in good weather because they are so dependant on the elements. Every farmer wants to get out and do 10, 12 or 14 hours of combining while the weather is right. I am concerned whether there is any practical value to this legislation. I hope the minister will put forward some way of solving this problem when he brings the bill before us.
With respect to the maximum loan of $75,000 which is available under this measure I would ask this question. Will the small farmer take the risk of using his land as collateral in order to borrow to this extent? I find that farmers are most reluctant to incur any large debt unless they can see a reasonable prospect of repaying the loan. There is always the consideration whether the farmer will want to pledge his chattels and land as collateral for a loan of this size.
As has been pointed out by other speakers, there is another factor that enters into the picture where you have a co-operative enterprise for the buying of machinery involving four or five farmers who purchase a machine. Who will be responsible for the repairing of the machinery? Will the machinery be maintained? Not long ago one of our members was talking to one of the Russian visitors to Canada who were interested in our farming operations. This Russian visitor looked at the tractor and asked the farmer how old it was. The farmer said it was 11 years old. The Russian visitor immediately raised his eyebrows and asked how he maintained such a lifespan for a tractor. The farmer said that the individual who purchased it took pride in keeping up his machinery; he greased it regularly and repaired it regularly so that the life of the tractor was extended. He asked the Russian what the situation was in Russia. The reply was that when they bought machinery to operate their communal farms the lifespan was perhaps a year and a half or two years. You can see the difference. If we set up these syndicates, will the machinery have the normal life expectancy it should have under the free enterprise system?
We find today that we have a number of farmers who, by agreement, will have one farmer buy a tractor or a big combine. In order to help him finance the cost of this machine he will do some custom work in the

Farm Machinery
neighbourhood to supplement the work that has already been done by farmers who have combines of their own. In order to take advantage of the sunshine and get his crop harvested, a farmer will seek the help of this neighbour and this, in turn, helps to liquidate the cost of the investment. By injecting this new feature of the farm machinery syndicate into the picture, are we going to interfere with this operation that is already established?
I believe the hon. member for Acadia has already referred to vertical integration. We had quite a bit of discussion about this in the agriculture committee several years ago. I should like to see the bill before I make too many comments on the subject, but this is something we have to guard against. We should not be providing large sums of money to commercial operators who are not really farmers in the ordinary sense of the word but who, because this money is available, want to get into the agriculture picture and make a fast buck, as it were. We want to be careful we are not encouraging further vertical integration.
The cost-price squeeze was referred to by some members. I believe the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam dwelt upon it at length. This is an old phrase, but I believe it has importance in the agricultural economy. I am wondering, in relation to the cost-price squeeze about which we speak, if we are putting the emphasis in the right place. We are interested in the high cost of machinery. I find in talking to the farmers in my area that a number of them are asking questions about the prices of the farm products they have to sell. We talk a lot about keeping down the prices of the things the farmer has to buy, but can we do something about raising the price of the things the farmer has to sell? I think this is an important aspect that has not been given too much consideration by the present government. We brought in several measures, of course, to help alleviate this condition. The Agricultural Stabilization Act is well known and well established now and has gone a long way toward helping the situation. I think it should be looked at again and perhaps made more effective in the light of the experience we have had since that legislation was introduced.
Another thing we did which helped to reduce this cost price squeeze was to get ourselves into a sellers' market so far as our wheat was concerned. As the members of the committee know, when we took office in 1957 and 1958 there was a large volume of grain

in the prairie provinces and there were high storage costs on it. By getting out and making contracts with other countries, we got ourselves into a liquid position. We got into a sellers' market, with the result that when the last world wheat agreement was completed some three years ago we got the world wheat price up 10 cents or 12 cents a bushel.
The next major move, and the most effective of all, was the revaluation of the Canadian dollar. This in effect placed another 15 cents per bushel on the value of our Canadian wheat. This 25 cents per bushel extra, when applied to a crop of 400 million bushels, which is a modest average production in western Canada, gave us another $100 million which did not come out of the pockets of the taxpayers, but came out of world markets. This was another step in reducing the cost-price squeeze.
I suggest to the committee that we have to look at both sides of this picture so far as the machine dealers are concerned. I understand that a number of machine dealers in various parts of the country have been able to grant a little higher value on the trade-ins. This has worked to the benefit of the purchaser. The machine dealers have been able to recover these increased costs by putting this machinery out for custom use in the neighbourhood. Again, some farmers in the neighbourhood who want to take advantage of the good weather will go in to the machine dealer and rent some of this farm machinery. They take it out to the farm, put it to work and then bring it back to the dealer. The result of this has been to help the dealer get his value out of the machine and to help the farmer get his crop harvested. It is a mutually satisfactory business and helps both sides. This practice has not been too widely developed as yet, but it has been developed and it would be a mistake to interfere with it.
The hon. member for Timiskaming said something about the former government not taking action so far as the agriculture committee was concerned in connection with this inquiry into the price of farm machinery. As a member of that committee I may say that it was one of the most worth-while committees of which I have ever been a member. We had 29 meetings and we heard witnesses from all across Canada, particularly those in the machine industry. We were not altogether satisfied with some of the testimony because we were repeatedly told that the answers to some questions would give information to competitors. Had we carried on as the government, we had arranged to have these wit-

nesses recalled. I was interested in hearing the hon. member for Jasper-Edson say that there were machine companies in Canada who were selling the same machines in Scotland for $600 less than in Canada. There was an indication of this sort of thing in the testimony given to the agriculture committee. As a result of that, we were prepared to recommend to the house that we send four or five men, one from each party in the house, on a short tour of Europe to look into the situation. However, the work of that committee was not completed. I do not believe we should bear too much criticism of the kind we received from the hon. member for Timiskaming, because I believe we would have been able to come up with very good results had we completed our work.
With these few remarks, I should like to suggest that before we finally pass this legislation it should be placed for some time at least in the hands of the committee on agriculture and colonization for further study.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Hays thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-121, to provide for the extension of credit to farm machinery syndicates.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: By leave now. Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: By
unanimous consent, Mr. Hays, seconded by Mr. Favreau, moves that the said bill be read a second time.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I understood we would give this first reading and leave second reading until a later date, and that we would go on with the farm crop insurance measure at this time.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say there was an agreement or an arrangement. I had suggested that if it were at all possible for the present bill to be carried through its three stages, it would foe a different thing from the crop insurance bill, because the present bill, if it is passed, may 20220-513
Farm Machinery
be implemented right away for the benefit of the farmers, for reasons which have been explained by my hon. colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays). But if there has been any misapprehension on the other side I must say there was no agreement or arrangement. There was only a very strong suggestion by myself, to the effect that I have just explained. I had the very clear impression that sympathetic consideration was to be given to it, and I may say I was not surprised a few moments ago when there appeared to be consent to go on with second reading. 1 repeat that I did not have the same insistence for the crop insurance measure.


Michael Starr: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Events have moved a little too rapidly at this time. It was our complete understanding that we would give the bill first reading today, go on with the crop insurance item and then carry on with the second reading of the bill at the next sitting of the house.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I would not want anybody to be taken by surprise or to imply anything which has not been decided. Therefore, if it is the intention of the official opposition not to proceed with second reading of the farm machinery syndicates bill today, I can only repeat there was no formal arrangement but just a very strong hope on my part.


Mr. Jorgenson:: The minister is to be lauded on his efforts to get this legislation through for the benefit of the farmers, but I am sure he must realize this is new legislation. It is a departure from anything we have seen and hon. members would want to give it careful examination before agreeing to pass it. There must be a number of questions that can be raised on second reading, and I believe hon. members would want to proceed with the crop insurance item.


Guy Favreau: I am not trying to benefit from any surprise which may have been caused by this apparent decision of the house, and the government is ready to consider that only first reading has been given, and to have second reading at the next sitting of the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. When shall the said bill be read the second time? Next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Crop Insurance Act CROP INSURANCE ACT



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING REINSURANCE PROGRAM

Harry William Hays: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Crop Insurance Act to authorize the governor in council to enter into agreements for the purpose of establishing a crop reinsurance program to supplement provincial crop insurance plans; to provide for the establishment in the consolidated revenue fund of a special account, to be known as the crop reinsurance fund, to which shall be credited amounts paid by a province under a crop reinsurance agreement and out of which shall be paid amounts required for the payment of reinsurance claims; to authorize advances from time to time from the consolidated revenue fund by way of non-interest bearing loans to the crop reinsurance fund; and to authorize the rebate, to grain growers whose grain is grown on insured lands, of sums paid by way of levy under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Harry William Hays: Crop Insurance Act
1959, the minister of agriculture indicated that the lands operated by farmers who purchased crop insurance coverage under a provincial scheme would be excluded from benefits of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and that they would not be required to pay the 1 per cent P.F.A.A. levy on grain sales. However the act in its final form only provided that the initial payment farmers receive at the time of delivery of grain should be exempt from the levy. Interim and final payments made by the wheat board still remained subject to the levy. The reason for this was because of certain administrative problems encountered by the Canadian wheat board. We now feel we have a solution for these problems which will enable us to carry out the original intent of the act to exempt insured farmers from any payment of the levy.
As the house knows, only three provinces- Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island-have so far joined in the program, although Alberta and Nova Scotia now have crop insurance legislation on their books. Manitoba has had the most ambitious crop insurance scheme so far. It is expected to cover some 6,200 farmers this year with about $15 million worth of insurance. Some 2,200 farmers have been insured in Saskatchewan and 75 in Prince Edward Island. Altogether that is about 8,500 of the 480,000 farms in all of Canada-not a very substantial proportion.
May I say in conclusion that the government believes this legislation will encourage more provinces to participate and encourage them to offer crop insurance coverage much more widely. This would mean crop insurance becoming available to many more farmers eventually, we hope, in every province thus removing their long-standing fear of being ruined overnight by disasters over which they or anyone else have no control.
By making the crop insurance program more effective with the changes this government proposes, there will be available a most important new stabilizing force, not just in our farm economy but, because of the importance of our farm economy to so many other areas of activity in this country, also in the economy of the country as a whole.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: These amendments to the crop insurance legislation which was placed on the statute books by the previous government in 1959 are, I feel, a logical development in view of the experience of the government, and of the province of Manitoba

in particular in this field. When the legislation was introduced by the hon. member for Calgary North, he indicated that in the light of experience it might be necessary to introduce amendments from time to time so as to improve the act, bring it up to date and enable it to do the job it was intended to do in all circumstances.
I was interested in one comment the minister made. He said he was convinced of the value of crop insurance. We are pleased to know this, because the members of the party to which he belongs were by no means so convinced when they made their comments on the legislation brought forward in 1959. They said, as I recall, that it would be of little value or benefit to anybody and that farmers would not participate in the scheme. However the wisdom of the former government in introducing this legislation, as well as of the Manitoba government in following it up by complementary legislation, has clearly been justified. It has been shown that crop insurance is not only desirable but that it is almost a necessity in these days of high fixed costs and fluctuating yields.
This is not the only example of hon. members opposite being converted to programs initiated by the previous government. I recall the comments they had to make about sales of wheat to China. I remember how they beat around the country telling everyone that these sales were just a flash in the pan- the sort of thing that would not be repeated. I was interested in the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce some time ago when he said they are looking to China as a continuing market for wheat. I have digressed a little here, Mr. Chairman, but the minister gave us that opportunity a short while ago when he said he wanted to get this farm machinery syndicates bill through, and if we wanted to discuss farm problems generally we could discuss them on this bill. When we were discussing supplementary estimates I remember the minister suggested we should deal with general farm policy on the main estimates; and when we got to the main estimates he suggested we should deal with these matters on the particular items. Then when we reached that stage, the minister wanted us to discuss these questions somewhere else. I suppose that now we are dealing with the crop insurance resolution the minister will suggest that we discuss these matters on next year's estimates.


Harry William Hays: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would hope we can get this crop insurance legislation through for next spring, so it

is all right for the hon. member to speak as long as he wishes; but the farm machinery syndicates bill is wanted right away, so I hope we can get it through quickly.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I am not sure it is that urgent, Mr. Chairman; the crop is just about off the land and most of the farm machinery that will be required will not be required until next spring. However so far as this legislation is concerned, I think it is of great importance that it be dealt with at the earliest possible opportunity, because in my own province of Manitoba, which is the pioneer in the field of crop insurance, they have been asking for this legislation since 1962 and the government of that day-


Harry William Hays: Nineteen fifty eight.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: My hon. friend is wrong, Mr. Chairman, because it was in 1962 that there was a formal presentation and request for a reinsurance proposition and there was an amendment to the existing act. We were dealing with it at the time, and I regret to say that there was some opposition to the introduction of this amendment to the crop insurance legislation. The opposition was from treasury board, because they felt it was going to cost the treasury too much money. However, this is certainly far from the truth, because rather than costing the treasury money, I feel this amendment to the legislation is going to save the treasury money.
The minister indicated that this legislation was going to afford the provinces an opportunity to expand their crop insurance program and enable them to get into the business of crop insurance under a more developed program than exists at the present time. I was speaking to the minister of agriculture of the province of Manitoba only yesterday, and he was very happy to learn that this legislation was coming forth, and was anxious that it should be passed as quickly as possible so they could extend their plans in regard to crop insurance to cover about 50 per cent of the farmers in that province for next year.
I sometimes feel that the public generally misunderstands the role of crop insurance in an over-all farm program. Crop insurance by itself is nothing more than a device that levels out yields from year to year. This is a very important function of a farm program. If we are to provide the degree of stability in agriculture that is necessary to maintain income levels that will take care of the high costs of production, this type of program is very necessary. In crop insurance we find one facet of a farm program that deals with the vari-
Crop Insurance Act
ability of income due to the fluctuation of yield. It is fairly obvious that crop insurance, taken by itself, can have no influence whatsoever on the variation of income due to price variations. Therefore another piece of legislation was introduced by the previous government to take care of that aspect of income variations. That policy was embodied in the provisions of the price stabilization bill, which does provide some degree of stability in prices, preventing the violent fluctuations of prices of agricultural products.
Then again there is a necessity to provide for credit to farmers, and this has been dealt with by the farm credit legislation, the Farm Improvement Loans Act and other items of legislation that deal with farm credit. Another program that was initiated by the previous government in an effort to provide greater stability on farms was a program of accelerated marketing research, a program that I feel is necessary if the increased production that is a result of better research, a better application of the products of research, is to find markets. These four items of the previous government's farm program-which, incidentally, were not too well received by the opposition at that time-have become the mainstay of the agricultural program and have formed the bulwark of the program designed to provide some stability in agricultural prices.
At the present time crop insurance in the province of Manitoba is extended to about 6,000 farmers, as the minister indicated, with a total liability of something like $14 million. At the time the program was initiated, in the 1960-61 crop year, something like 2,500 farmers signed up for the program, with a total liability of $4 million. With the provisions of this amendment to the Crop Insurance Act it is hoped that within the province of Manitoba the total liability next year, covering about 50 per cent of the farmers, will amount to something over $25 million.
We can readily see that with the extent of this coverage the liability assumed by the province is far greater than the resources that a provincial government is capable of bearing in the event of a disastrous crop loss. So the introduction of this legislation is designed to provide that the federal government will assume that liability; not at any loss, I might add, to the federal treasury over the long period, because the premiums being paid by the provinces will be actuarially sound and designed to take care of crop losses over a period of years.
The minister mentioned that the period of research that had gone into the development

Crop Insurance Act
of the crop insurance program went back 35 years. I think it was based largely on the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I have always felt that for several reasons the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, although in some respects it might be followed, is not an accurate or reliable guide to follow in the developing and processing of data for crop insurance programs. First of all, in a crop insurance program there will be a number of areas that are engaged in the production of grain at the present time that will not be covered by crop insurance because the premiums, the risk factor, in those particular areas are too high for the farmers to take advantage of crop insurance. Therefore, in my opinion they will seek other forms of production, perhaps other forms of production more remunerative to those particular areas and perhaps more suitable for the type of soil in those regions. Second, Mr. Chairman, the advances that have been made in technology, in farming methods, over the past number of years would tend to minimize the risk factor as opposed to 35 years ago. I am speaking of the extensive use of pesticides, which have minimized crop losses due to insects, which was at one time a source of some difficulty which the farmers had to face in relation to crop yields. The use of insecticides and herbicides has done a great deal to increase production. Fertilizer application and more modem methods of farming have all contributed to higher average yields than was the case even in the 1930's. I think the figure for the average rainfall during the 1959-1964 period was far less than it was during the 1930's; yet the experience particularly of 1961, when the drought situation was considered quite severe in western Canada, shows that the yield for that year was much higher than any of the yields we experienced in the 1930's when the drought was perhaps not quite so severe. I think this can be attributed to the fact that farmers are taking advantage of the more modern methods of farming and are using more fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides. So I think that we can logically expect that the experience over the next few years of the incidence of crop loss will be that it will be lower than it was in the past number of years, and for that reason I think we can look forward with some degree of optimism to the application of crop insurance. Because of the risk factor the premiums will be lower and the cost to the farmer not as great as some people have anticipated.
I have heard many farmers, and indeed speakers in this house suggest that rather
[Mr. Jorgenson.l
than introducing amendments to crop insurance legislation, or even introducing crop insurance legislation itself, we should simply amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and develop that program to replace crop insurance. I should like to draw the attention of the committee to some of the difficulties which might be involved in amending the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to meet today's conditions, and if the variability of income due to crop losses is also to be met.
In 1939 P.F.A.A. was intended as a relief measure, and as such has done I think a creditable job over the years. The difficulty with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act regulations is that the regulations do not apply on an individual basis, and in my opinion it would be a mistake to attempt to make payments on an individual basis under P.F.A.A. unless some effort were made to amend the regulations so as to change the method of payment into the fund. At the present time the levy is imposed on the deliveries of grain to the elevator on the basis of 1 per cent of the value of the grain sold. If the levy were simply increased this would mean that those farmers selling the most grain-who ostensibly would be the farmers who were the most productive and successful-would be paying into the fund a great deal more than those farmers who suffered crop losses year after year. To a large extent it is obvious if one examines the record of P.F.A.A. that the majority of payments made under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act are in specific areas. If one examines these areas a little more carefully he will discover that to a large extent these areas are classed either as marginal or submarginal areas.
Therefore the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, although as I have said a creditable piece of legislation which has done a tremendous job over the years, is diametrically opposed to the attempt today to encourage the proper utilization of the land. We have two acts; we have the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act which is calculated and designed to encourage proper utilization of land, and more recently the ARDA legislation, which is intended to do the same thing. My view and my experience of prairie farm assistance is that it has the opposite effect and a tendency to encourage improper use of land, for the reason that there are two programs here diametrically opposed one to the other. The natural result is, first, confusion in the minds of the farmers, and second, an improper utilization of their resources.



IB, 1964

[Stage Direction]
I suggest to the committee that simply making amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, of which there have been many, will not resolve this basic difficulty and take care of the situation I mentioned earlier with regard to the need for larger payments in the event of crop losses. Anyone with experience in farming today knows full well that a payment of $800, which is the maximum payment under P.F.A.A., will do nothing to offset the cost incurred by a farmer whose expenses amount perhaps to $10,000 to $15,000 a year. Something more realistic, something which will take care of the cost involved in production today, is necessary, and I feel that this legislation is the answer. I am glad to see that the minister has chosen this time to introduce this amendment, because in my opinion it is necessary if the provinces are to take advantage of the provisions of the Crop Insurance Act.
I might mention that under P.F.A.A. something like $330 million has been paid out up to the report of last year. At the same time there has been collected and paid in by the farmers themselves, I might add, some $142 million, with the difference of something like $187 million being taken up by the federal treasury. I would venture to suggest that the statistics developed by the crop insurance corporation in the province of Manitoba, as well as by the Department of Agriculture, clearly indicate that if crop insurance had been in effect during that same period of years in Manitoba the amount of money paid into the province under crop insurance would have been considerably less than the amount paid under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and the benefits to the farmer would have been considerably greater.
Every argument I have attempted to put forward here this afternoon on behalf of crop insurance indicates that the need for this legislation and amendment to this legislation is very great, and we are certainly pleased that the minister has finally introduced this amendment. But in saying that, we hope the government do not take the stand that this particular amendment to the crop insurance legislation is going to be the final word on crop insurance, because it is far from that. Crop insurance, like any other program, must be continuing. It must be continuously examined in the light of existing conditions and amended wherever necessary. As I said earlier, there need be no fear on the part of the government that because it has introduced this legislation there is going
Crop Insurance Act
to be a great deal more expense incurred by the federal treasury. In my view there will be far less because there are many ad hoc programs now in effect to take care of crop disasters. We had an example of this recently in the Ottawa valley, when the provisions of the feed grain assistance program were implemented to provide assistance to farmers who suffered losses of hay and losses from starving cattle, a fact which was dramatically portrayed in a picture I saw in one of the Ottawa newspapers. I recall that a number of years ago the crops in western Canada were unharvested and remained out all winter and some assistance was provided at that time. Disaster loans have been provided. All of these ad hoc arrangements, which are designed to take care of particular situations arising from time to time, can fully and completely be taken care of under a comprehensive crop insurance program. For this reason, as I said earlier there need be no fear on the part of the government or on the part of anyone in the country that vast sums of money from the federal treasury will be poured into this program, because such is not the case.
The first two provisions of the measure stipulate that the federal government shall pay 20 per cent of the premiums and 50 per cent of the administration costs of the money paid out. This is true, but it is no more than is being done under the provisions of the unemployment insurance fund. In my opinion this is not so costly that the people of Canada cannot assume this responsibility, when you consider the value received for the dollars they put in, when you consider the stability it provides for agriculture and when you consider that agricultural stability provides stability in the economy because farmers are able to purchase the machinery and other things they require, which keeps the factories and the people working in those factories busy.
This was amply demonstrated within the past year. The huge sales of wheat to communist China and Russia and the buoyant market situation have provided a buoyant economy in this country, and I think to a large extent this is a reflection of the ability of the farmers to purchase these items of machinery. Anything that can be done to provide for real stability in agriculture is money well spent, as far as I am concerned.
Again, I do not think it is necessary for us to limit our sights to the provision of crop insurance for crops only. What is wrong with thinking in terms of catch insurance
[Stage Direction]
Crop Insurance Act
for fishermen? What is wrong with thinking in terms of providing insurance for hay crops as well as potato, other vegetable and tobacco crops? All these crops can be profitably insured and provide the degree of stability which, as I said earlier, is so necessary today to meet the high costs of production.
In my own province of Manitoba the crop insurance corporation has provided for the efficient farmer, the farmer who is farming his land in the best possible manner, the opportunity to get his insurance somewhat cheaper. This is based on the same principle as ordinary insurance. Where the risk factor is smaller the premiums are smaller. The result is better farming methods, which the government simply must encourage, and a lower cost to the farmer for insuring his crop. In addition, it is consistent with our aim of maximizing the efficient use of all our resources, human, financial and land.
In conclusion I should like to read the last paragraph of a statement made by the minister of agriculture of the province of Manitoba, Hon. George Hutton, to the federal-provincial conference on agriculture held in Ottawa in 1962. I think this is something that will give us some food for thought when we are considering this legislation.
He said:
We think that there is one question that should be squarely faced-should governments sit back and be forced by circumstances into programs which may be mediocre or poorly planned or do governments have some responsibility to sell a program of value to the farm community?
This is certainly my opinion so far as crop insurance is concerned. I am somewhat distressed by the reluctance of some provincial governments to participate more fully in a crop insurance program.
For generations the threat of crop loss due to natural disaster has hung like a cloud over the farmer of Canada, especially in the west. We know that the loss of production has been the most significant factor in years of low income to farmers and the largest contributing factor to instability in farm income. I think that if you will study the principles of crop insurance you will find an application to your province. You will find that there is a planned approach to this whole question of assistance at times of crop disaster. The farmers are ready; the farmers are willing. We should be too.
I think this sums up my attitude with respect to this legislation, and again I should like to thank the minister for introducing it at this time.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the members of this party have always been strong supporters of the idea of crop insurance. As far

back as 30 years ago we placed in our program crop insurance and unemployment insurance as two of the methods of protecting people against a disastrous decline in income. We advocated at that time that there should be unemployment insurance for those who, through no fault of their own, were thrown out of work and that at the same time there ought to be crop insurance for those farmers who, also through no fault of their own, were deprived of their normal livelihood. We campaigned very hard for that during the 1930's and for that reason we welcomed the Prairie Farm Assistance Act when it was introduced in 1939, and we supported that measure.
I have always looked upon the P.F.A.A. as really being the farmers' equivalent of unemployment insurance. While it is true, as the previous speaker said, that the government of Canada has had to subsidize P.F.A.A., it is equally true of course that the unemployment insurance fund is subsidized, since its revenue is made up of a three way split, contributions by the employee, employer and the government of Canada. Therefore I do not think that prairie farmers need to apologize at any time for the fact that the 1 per cent levy on their grain which they contribute to the fund has not been sufficient to cover the cost, with the result that over the period of years since 1939 very considerable contributions from the federal treasury have been required.
I am one of those who felt that the P.F.A.A. legislation could be revamped and extended into a genuine national crop insurance plan. I agree completely with the last speaker that it would have to be almost entirely revamped and reorganized in order to make the P.F.A.A. system applicable across Canada and applicable to all the different types of farmers on an equitable basis. I think this could have been done, however. To do this it would have been necessary to divide the country into regions and each province into regions. I think the levy would have to vary from district to district according to the productivity of that area so that the levy would be higher in high risk areas and lower in the good crop communities.
I also think, as he does, that to have extended P.F.A.A. and make it a national crop insurance plan it would have been necessary to insure farmers on an individual basis. But that is not as difficult now as it would have been 25 years ago because the farmer has his permit book from the Canadian wheat board, he has to register how many acres he

is sowing to different kinds of crops and the government has a record of every bushel he delivers to the elevator. Therefore it would not be as difficult now as it would have been 25 years ago to pay benefits from a national crop insurance plan on an individual basis.
The problem of the farmer who stays on land which should be taken out of production would be met to a very large extent by varying the levy according to the area and according to the production record. It would also have been necessary to extend the benefits of a national crop insurance plan organized on the P.F.A.A. pattern to cover crops other than cereal grains. I think this might have been done. I was very sorry at the time it was not done because I think P.F.A.A. had caught the imagination of the farmers. It had demonstrated its worth as a stabilizing factor in farm income.
I still think, had it been extended into a national crop insurance plan the farmers would have accepted it. It would still have been possible to take advantage of that and to have had crop insurance either run by private insurance companies or by municipal hail insurance groups, or by provincial governments to provide additional crop insurance if the farmers wanted it. I think a national crop insurance plan that would have provided a minimum guaranteed return to every farmer in the event of a crop failure would have been accepted and would have been extremely beneficial. I have always regretted that this step was not taken.
Instead, in 1959 the Crop Insurance Act which it is now proposed to amend was brought into effect. I think all members will agree that it has not been an outstanding success in terms of the extent to which farmers have availed themselves of it. Only three provinces have entered into agreements with the federal government. In the case of Prince Edward Island only 75 farmers, I think, come under the plan, so one can virtually rule them out and say that really there are only two provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, that have made any extensive use of this plan. Now, a national crop insurance plan that covers in all of Canada only about 6,000 farmers out of 400,000 farmers is a long way from a national crop insurance program.
There is no doubt in my mind as to why there has not been greater acceptance of this plan. The crop insurance plan that was introduced in 1959 transferred from the federal government to the provincial governments what had been solely a federal responsibility. It laid upon provincial governments a respon-20220-514
Crop Insurance Act
sibility which they could not possibly discharge if that plan went beyond a merely pilot project stage. Up until 1959, the entire cost of operating crop insurance that we had under P.F.A.A. was met either from the 1 per cent levy which a farmer paid on his deliveries of grain, or from the federal treasury. But when crop insurance was introduced the provincial governments, that had up until that time no financial responsibility whatever, found that they were to be called upon to pay, first of all, 50 per cent of the administrative costs; second; since the federal government was paying 20 per cent of the premium costs the provinces were expected to match this, so the provinces were now called upon to pay 20 per cent of the premium costs. These two items, if the plan were to have very widespread acceptance, could amount to a considerable sum of money.
However, I do not believe that was the main reason the provinces were cautious and reluctant about entering into crop insurance. What really frightened the provinces was the fact that under the crop insurance legislation they were underwriting the entire cost of a large scale crop failure. Under the act as it now stands, in the event of a crop failure if the reimbursements exceed the amount of the premiums which have been collected and the reserves which have been built up, the provinces must pay the first $200,000. They may then borrow from the federal government 75 per cent of the balance. What does this mean? It means that in addition to the provinces paying 50 per cent of the administrative costs and 20 per cent of the premiums they could, in the case of a severe crop failure, be called upon to pay $200,000 plus 25 per cent of the balance of the cost of the crop failure, and accept as a contingent liability the other 75 per cent.
As long as the crop insurance plan is on such a very small scale as it has been in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, this has not been a serious problem. However, every member here knows that if we had any of the catastrophic crop failures such as we have had in some parts of Canada, particularly the prairies, if we had a drought, frost or an infestation of grasshoppers or a severe rust epidemic which took out an entire crop-and this has happened in the past-the amount for which the provincial government could find itself responsible might be in the tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars, if the plan covered every farmer in the province. This is why the provinces have been extremely wary about rushing

Crop Insurance Act
into a crop insurance agreement with, the federal government or to sign up farmers on a very large scale. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I do not believe we will ever have a national crop insurance plan unless the federal government is prepared to accept a much larger share of the financial responsibility than they are doing under the present legislation.
It is true that in the legislation which the minister is now bringing down this burden is ameliorated somewhat. There is to be some provision for reinsurance and some additional assistance by the federal government if the provinces get into financial difficulty. I do not want to discuss the details of that until we have had a chance to look at the bill itself. The point I want to make is that even the provisions which are outlined now by the minister are not sufficiently generous to make it possible for the provinces, with any degree of enthusiasm, to enter into a crop insurance arrangement. Unless the federal government is prepared to assume by far the major portion of the financial responsibility and leave to the provinces mainly the administration and a very small financial contribution, we are not going to have crop insurance on a nation-wide basis.
This crop insurance plan we have at the moment is simply a pilot project. It will be useful in the future to farmers who have availed themselves of it. It will be useful to the government in that it will enable them to gather statistics, to work out techniques, by which crop insurance may be improved and extended. If the minister wants to do something for the farmers he had better start working on a national crop insurance plan, and if he wants such a plan to be accepted, then he must either make it a national plan, operated by the government of Canada, similar to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, or if he wants to decentralize he must be prepared to offer the provinces much more generous terms than those contained in the present act, or those forecast in the legislation he proposes to bring down.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In the few minutes left before we rise I would like to say that the resolution before us is a step in the right direction toward a national, comprehensive crop insurance scheme, but in my view it is a very limited step.
I must draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that there seems to be a great
degree of unanimity between the Conservative party, the New Democratic party and the Social Credit party with respect to some of the lessons we have learned over the years regarding crop insurance, and particularly the provisions of P.F.A.A. As has been pointed out a number of times today, this legislation requires complementary legislation to be passed by the provincial legislatures before it has effect in any of the provinces.
It has been pointed out that for a number of years there have been pilot projects in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and that these projects have not been completely satisfactory. We also know that Prince Edward Island has very timidly moved into this field, and that during the past session the Alberta provincial legislature considered legislation to set up a crop insurance program. Up to the present time these programs have not been too successful, but on the other hand we have had 25 years experience evolving a satisfactory crop insurance scheme within P.F.A.A. for most of the prairies. It would be unfortunate if we were to try to sidestep all of the experience and practice that has come from that operation.
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, It is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General that this honourable house attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
An act respecting the Guarantee Company of North America.
An act to incorporate Congregation of the Marist
Sisters.
An act to incorporate Meota Pipe Lines Ltd.
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, September 17, 1964