1964-09-29

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: 
Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it would give me great pleasure to reconcile the statements and explain them to my right hon. friend. Understandably, I have seen the release by the dominion bureau of statistics to which my right hon. friend refers. I think I explained a week ago Monday-I am sorry I did not make it clearer-that the tremendous growth in output in the first quarter, while it would be maintained in the second quarter would probably not show much of an increase over the phenomenal figures of the first quarter.
But perhaps the easiest way of clearing this up-and I am sure there has been some misunderstanding in the mind of my right hon. friend-is to point out that the gross national product in the first quarter of 1964 20220-540J
at market prices was 8.1 per cent higher than in the corresponding quarter a year earlier.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The gross national product at market prices in the second quarter of 1964 was 8.2 per cent higher than in the corresponding quarter a year earlier. It is quite true that in the second quarter the increase over the first quarter of 1964-dealing with 1964 only-was only slightly higher than in the first quarter; and that is understandable because, as all hon. members know, no one expected the phenomenal growth of the first quarter to be exceeded substantially in the second quarter. This was predicted and expected. If we are dealing with one quarter of one year as compared with one quarter of another, it is safe to say that the rate of growth in 1964 has been maintained through the second quarter.
On the point about the balance of payments, current account, I think my right hon. friend quoted the figures for the first six months. If he would refer to the quarterly figures he would see that there was an improvement in the second quarter as compared with the first quarter, in fact quite a marked improvement. Therefore I think I am in a position to reassure my right hon. friend that the economy is doing fine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the decibels of applause from the government side of the house of course do not give an answer to the question. Would the hon. gentleman say why new residential construction dropped 25 per cent in the second quarter, why housing starts were down 26 per cent and completions were down 31 per cent?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, we all know that it was the policy of this government to try to shift some of the employment opportunities in housing from the summer months to the winter months, and this has been remarkably successful. The success of this policy is reflected in the very great improvement in the employment statistics during the winter of last year. If you shift business and housing activities from one quarter to another as was done, then understandably in the second quarter there must be some reduction.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Diefenbaker:	Understandably the
government has to shift, too.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: supplementary question to the Minister of Finance concerning the remarks he has just made. Would he consider withholding the extra 3 per cent sales tax or removing it altogether so the $500 winter bonus would have some effect?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have answered that question on several other occasions.


Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compton-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
If national productivity is increasing, can the minister tell us whether the purchasing power of Canadians is increasing at the same time? Is there some balance between production and consumption in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do think this question should be, shall we say, reworded.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has a delay been caused in the departure for Canada of Professor Nicolaev of Moscow state university to take up his post as visiting economics professor at the Regina campus of the University of Saskatchewan, and have inquiries on this matter been made to the minister by Saskatchewan university officials?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the principal of the University of Saskatchewan was in touch with me yesterday. The professor in question will arrive in Regina on October 3. There has been no delay; there has simply been a requirement that the necessary formalities be complied with.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question concerning Cyprus to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of the minister's answer to me last Thursday that he was content that the problem of freedom of movement of United Nations troops on Cyprus had been settled, and in the light of his answer yesterday to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that the UN force is not being hobbled, I should like to ask him whether he still feels this way in view of the reports that the Turkish Cypriots continue to refuse to turn over the strategic Kyrenia-Nicosia road to the United Nations who, by agreement, are supposed to exercise exclusive control over the entire 18 miles?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, when my hon. friend asked me that question last week the reply was one which I think fitted the situation. He is now referring to an incident. There will be other incidents. The fact that these arise does not alter the fact that the reply I gave yesterday and the reply I gave a week ago were, in the circumstances, the kind of replies that the circumstances warranted.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question. I take it from the reply of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that his answers vary from day to day according to circumstances.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, my replies vary depending upon the circumstances to which they apply and not on the sometimes insecure foundation of the questions put.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, is the secretary of state then suggesting there has been no interference with the UN force by the Turkish Cypriots?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is really too intelligent to persist in that question.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: It is obvious that some of the members have been absent for some time.


Mr. Winkler:: Not for three months.


Frank Howard: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether it is the policy of his department or his government, in the compilation of estimates, to prepare them on a five year basis rather than one year, as has been the case hitherto?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted to compliment my hon. friend on his floral decoration, which looks very nice. In answer to his question may I say that it is still the practice to prepare the estimates on a one year basis for presentation to the house, although I think it is helpful in the preparation of those estimates-and perhaps one day this will be the case in their presentation too-to take a longer look and a longer sweep.


Frank Howard: May I ask a supplementary question. As I remarked earlier, roses grow despite the fact that the Liberals are in office. I wonder whether the minister could explain how it is that his colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is able to write to the united fishermen and allied workers union in British Columbia in regard to that department's expenditures and tell them that "the departmental expenditures will be maintained at the same level at least during the next five years"?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a perfectly reasonable prognostication for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to make. I have not seen the whole letter, but on the basis of that extract I would certainly support the statement.


Frank Howard: It is not a prognostication, Mr. Speaker; it is a definite commitment.



REPORTED U.S. PRESSURE TO REVALUE CANADIAN DOLLAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Sf. John):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance?
Following a report from the United States to the effect that the U.S. government was bringing or would bring pressure to bear on the Canadian government to have the Canadian dollar value set at par, does this
Inquiries of the Ministry government intend to do so, since everything seems to go very well, as was mentioned by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon)?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, there has been no pressure of any kind, and there is no intention on the part of the government to change the value of the Canadian dollar.



INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND-PROPOSALS BY FRENCH MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance?
At the last meeting of the international monetary fund held in Tokyo, did the minister support the proposals of Mr. Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the French minister of finance, to improve the international payments system through abolition of the gold standard?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, Canada supported an expansionary move on the part of the international monetary fund. To the extent that the proposals of the distinguished finance minister of France included some novel ideas we were sympathetic to them; but on balance we felt that his proposals would be restrictive rather than expansionary.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance following on his answer to the hon. member for Chicoutimi a few moments ago. I am interested in his statement that in the view of the Canadian delegation the proposals of the government of France would be restrictive rather than expansionary, because of the fact that many distinguished economists have been advocating similar proposals for some time to relieve the liquidity situation in connection with foreign exchange. I gather the French proposals were somewhat along the lines of those proposed by Dr. Triffin, and I wonder whether the minister could explain how the conclusion was reached that they would be restrictive rather than expansionary?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I could give a short, sharp answer to a question of this kind, but I would be glad to do so at the first available opportunity.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. This morning the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues met with the mayor, aldermen and park commissioners of the city of Vancouver to discuss proposals for the redevelopment of downtown Vancouver and the disposition of the R.C.A.F. air base at Kitsilano. I am wondering whether the Prime Minister is able to report what progress was made and whether any decision was arrived at.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the discussions were very friendly and very helpful, and they are continuing this afternoon.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Has there been any decision on the part of the government not to give part of the Kitsilano air base to the C.B.C.? The Prime Minister will recall that the head of the C.B.C. when he was in Vancouver in June said "We are going to get this", and I am now wondering whether there has been any change in that situation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. gentleman would not expect me to answer that question while the discussions are taking place.



EXTENSION OF FM BROADCASTING TO QUEBEC CITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
In view of the fact that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has just announced its frequency modulation programs for the fall, could the minister inform us as to whether the corporation intends to extend these programs to the city of Quebec?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the programs announced recently only concern the cities of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa.
I shall ask the C.B.C. about its intentions regarding the city of Quebec.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. Being responsible for C.M.-H.C., is the minister aware that certain of the members of the Fraserview veterans tenants and home owners association have today received letters from the local office of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation advising that tenants may remain if they send in a signed acceptance of the increased rents and pay the current rent to October 1; and can the minister say whether those who do not do so will be forcibly evicted?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a question for the order paper.


An hon. Member:: That is effective October 1.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That is not a matter for the order paper. In spite of the fact that the Minister of Labour thought September had 31 days, today is the second last day of this month and this is a matter of great urgency to these people. There is only 24 hours in which they can possibly have an answer. I submit the government has played around with this question long enough and that these people have the right to know now what the answer is.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the government has not played around with this matter for a long time. The government has made a decision.


John George Diefenbaker: What is it?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The time limit does not expire until midnight tomorrow night, and already out of a total of 600 over 500 of the tenants have acquiesced in this decision. There is still time for some of the others to reach a conclusion, and no decision can very well be taken, as the right hon. gentleman should know, until that time expires.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the
government has been finally activated into getting together with these people I am very happy to hear it.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That is more than the previous government did.


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider delaying any drastic action until these people have had a chance for a public hearing?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, that question was answered on or about July 15 and again in the month of August.



AVAILABILITY OF APPLICATION FORMS FOR WINTER CONSTRUCTION BONUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. When will the application forms for the bonus on winter built houses be available?


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: September 31.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: I will advise my hon. friend.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the reply of the minister, and I think this is a most urgent question. I have a supplementary question if I can get an answer to the original.


Mr. Churchill:: What is your answer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I answered my hon. friend, and I am sure he did not hear me because of the noise in the chamber.


Malcolm MacInnis: Having acknowledged the fact that I did not hear the minister, would he now please make himself heard and not be arrogant?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to make inquiries and advise my hon. friend as to the date when these application forms will be available.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Check your calendar carefully.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister whether he would consider the fact that many prospective home builders now wish to put in basements before the frost sets in, and will this disqualify them from the bonus if they proceed with the building of the house during the specified time?
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what potential disqualification my hon. friend has in mind.


Malcolm MacInnis: To clear it up for the minister, the potential disqualification is the fact that prospective builders who wish to put in basements before the frost sets in do not wish to disqualify themselves by so doing before the specified time of the bonus that is applicable. Is that clear enough?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thought the question had to do with application forms; however, it has to do with the conditions of the program. These conditions are clearly set out. I do not think the case indicated by my hon. friend would constitute any disqualification.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the strike deadline set for tomorrow midnight by the United States longshoremen's international union and the distinct possibility that Canadian longshoremen in eastern ports may walk out in sympathy with this strike, can the Minister of Labour assure us this is only a possibility? If not, what action is the government prepared to take to avert this situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make a comment on a situation that is still hypothetical.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the responsible minister may I direct my question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether any agency of the federal government is negotiating with any agencies of the provincial governments with respect to the transfer of jurisdiction over the Indian people of Canada from the federal government to the provincial governments.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this question has come up several times and has been answered. I suggest that my hon. friend put it on the order

Inquiries of the Ministry paper and he will get a written answer, or perhaps he could bring it up at ten o'clock this evening.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct this question to the Prime Minister. Are representatives of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration meeting at the present time with various provincial representatives in order to secure from the provincial representatives acceptance of responsibility over Indians? Right at this very moment are meetings taking place?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but if my right hon. friend had given me notice of this question perhaps I would have been able to get the most up to date information.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, possibly if the minister were in his place, where he should be, we would have an answer in the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if in fact the conference to which my hon. friend refers is taking place, perhaps the minister is at it.


John George Diefenbaker: It is some of his juniors. [Later:']


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, again respecting this matter of the Indians I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Have the Indians, their bands or tribes, been consulted by the government as to whether they would be prepared to be transferred from federal to provincial jurisdiction? Second, will the Prime Minister give the house the assurance that in whatever discussions are going on at the moment, of which he has said he has no knowledge, nothing will be done to deal with the transfer of Indians from federal authority without the consent of the Indians themselves; because I am sure he will agree that any other course would be to place them in the position of being chattels.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the latter part of the right hon. gentleman's observation. So far as the first part is concerned, I shall give a detailed answer tomorrow.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revel-sioke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a ques-IMr. Pearson.]

tion to the Acting Minister of Transport. Can he advise the house whether it is the policy of Air Canada to transship air cargo to Japan by a foreign carrier rather than using the service of a Canadian air line that maintains a regular service to that country and has all the necessary facilities and aircraft based in Vancouver?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the
allegations in the hon. member's question as notice and try to get some information on the subject.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked a question of the Acting Minister of Transport, who promised to look into the matter immediately and inform me whether the government would invite representatives of the provincial governments interested in the railway legislation to attend the meeting arranged for Thursday.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me a question, as appears on page 8483 of Hansard, concerning the arrangement that had been made for members of the House of Commons to meet informally in private session to hear an explanation of the railway bill from officials of the Department of Transport, and to get background information on the subject. The hon. member asked that representatives of the provincial governments be invited to attend and I undertook to give the matter consideration.
The answer is that because of the nature of the meeting arranged for tomorrow it would be quite inappropriate to invite representatives of the provincial governments, particularly in view of the fact that most of the provinces most directly concerned with this legislation participated actively in the discussions after the Mac-Pherson royal commission report was tabled and while the legislation was being drafted, and are already experts on the background information with regard to this complex bill.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As a supplementary question, is the minister aware of the fact that these provinces are of the opinion that they have received a pledge from the federal

government that they will be considered, at a time when they can make some recommendations to change legislation before decisions are finally reached? It was on this point that I was directing my question yesterday.


George James McIlraith: I am thoroughly familiar with the understandings with the various provincial governments. I do not accept that they are in precisely the same form as the hon. member puts them forward, but the assurance was given the provinces that they would have an opportunity to present their points of view at the committee stage of the bill.



ONTARIO-LOCATION OF PROPOSED NUCLEAR PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry and ask him whether Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has yet reached a decision on the exact location in southern Ontario of the proposed new nuclear power plant.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is aware that primary responsibility for selecting the site rests not with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited but with the Ontario hydroelectric power commission. Further, the selection by the Ontario hydroelectric power commission is subject to approval by the atomic energy board of Canada, and to my knowledge the formal submission to the atomic energy control board has not yet been made by the Ontario hydroelectric power commission.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Can the minister inform the house whether the government is ready to recognize the right of the provinces to be consulted on the flag issue, by placing the matter before the provincial attorneys general for their opinion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is very important, but it does seem to me it is one for the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE



REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF NORTHERN ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Norihwesi Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. Is he in a position to answer the question directed by the hon. member for Churchill to the Minister of Finance on September 25, which asked if the President of the Privy Council would consider postponing the implementation of drastic cuts in northern allowances to federal employees working in northern parts of Canada?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, an order was issued a few weeks ago graduating the impact of the change in the rate of allowances. The further point raised by the hon. member for Churchill had to do with time differences in implementing certain changes by various departments. The practice is that the treasury board makes an order which fixes the maximum allowance that may be granted, and the application of that order is left to the different departments, so it is possible for a difference to arise between departments as to applicability at any given time.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: As a supplementary question, would the President of the Privy Council give consideration to hearing representations on this important matter from the staff associations representing federal government employees in various parts of the north?


George James McIlraith: I do not know whether there would be any useful purpose served by that. They have already made their representations in the ordinary way, but if further representations are to be made, I will certainly be glad to have them.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice a question.
Did the minister, or any minister of the crown, meet over the week end the Quebec minister of education, Hon. Paul Gerin-Lajoie, to discuss the repatriation of the Canadian constitution?
8532	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I did meet Hon. Paul Gerin-Lajoie, not over the week end but yesterday. We had several matters to discuss and of course I took that opportunity to bring up the question of amending the constitution.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Would the Minister of Justice tell us if he intends to discuss tomorrow amendments to the constitution, even if Mr. Lesage stated, as headlined in this morning's Le Devoir:
Too early to discuss changes in the constitution.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it is evident that the business of the house, as announced yesterday, remains unchanged.
Probably my hon. friend and myself do not give the same interpretation to newspaper headlines, because I understood, although I have not yet read Mr. Lesage's speech, that in his opinion the time was not ripe to make substantial changes to the very text or to the spirit of the constitution. In my opinion, he never said that the time was not ripe to repatriate the constitution.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Will the minister assure the house that the federal and provincial rights of all Canadians will be preserved in regard to equality and the propagation of true co-operative federalism fostered, at the forthcoming meeting of the provincial attorneys general?



SOCIAL INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour a question arising out of a business reply card distributed by a life and casualty insurance company based in Toronto. The message on the card is:
Important-If you have received your social insurance number you can qualify for the federal social security plan-Pays for food-Pays for clothing-Pays for shelter-Even a guaranteed income to your family after death.
While the card has a certain amount of humour about it, it could create a good deal of confusion, particularly because of the ref-


erence to the social insurance number. Could the minister investigate this and see whether there has been any liaison or whether there is some relation between this and the Liberal social security plan we have all heard about since 1919?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely the hon. member would take particular delight in putting this question on the order paper.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria, B.C.):: I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister had an opportunity to continue his investigation into the incident I described to him yesterday in my question about the injured cadets of the Royal Military College who were refused admission last Saturday to the Queen Mary veterans hospital in Montreal? If so, does he wish to make any amending statement to the house?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I cannot at this stage accept the suggestion that treatment was refused. I am given to understand that a full report will be brought in from the Queen Mary hospital this afternoon, and perhaps I shall be in a better position to reply fully tomorrow.
In answering a question yesterday from the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) respecting this situation I attempted to give the house the little information which had come to hand, while indicating that it was sketchy and incomplete. I am now informed that implications were read into my remarks, and I wish to correct them now. There was no suggestion in my observations that there had been any misbehaviour on the part of these cadets, and if anyone read this into my remarks, I apologize. Any such suggestion is totally unwarranted, and there is no evidence whatever that any misbehaviour had taken place.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Could he tell the house whether it is the intention of the government to grant, as it

was done on the occasion of the last visit of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, a one month amnesty for each year of sentence to all prisoners in federal and provincial jails in Canada?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in that regard I must say that one of my predecessors in the Department of Justice, Hon. Davie Fulton, on the occas-casion of the last royal visit, when the provisions of the Parole Act were just being implemented, announced in a statement made on behalf of the government of that time, that it was the last amnesty to be granted on the occasion of a royal visit.
I looked into the matter, as the government also did, and I must say that for the reasons then mentioned by Hon. Davie Fulton, it is also the opinion of this government that in view of the implementation of the Parole Act these last six years, it would not be proper that an amnesty be granted this year on the occasion of the royal visit, and that is the recommendation that will be made.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question.
Could he tell us on what date such a decision was made?


Guy Favreau: It was in 1959 and I believe the press release was issued two weeks prior to the royal visit.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Justice, but my question concerned this government's decision not to grant an amnesty.


Guy Favreau: I do not know the exact date, Mr. Speaker, but it was made during a cabinet meeting held some time last week.



INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENT OF PAROLE ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Remi Paul (Berthier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I would have a supplementary question to put to the Minister of Justice.
At his meeting last week on St. Helen's island, with the solicitor general of the province of Quebec, was the amending of the Parole Act discussed?


Mr. Speaker:: This surely is a question for the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry DORCHESTER PENITENTIARY-REQUEST FOR



STATEMENT ON STABBING OF GUARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice if he is in a position to reply to my question of last Friday concerning a report on the fatal stabbing of a guard at the penitentiary at Dorchester?


Guy Favreau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am now in a position to inform the house that yesterday Mr. D. M. McLean, regional director of penitentiaries for the Ontario region, was appointed as a commissioner of inquiry and is proceeding to Dorchester penitentiary to inquire into, and report upon, the circumstances of the alleged murder of Edwin James Masterton, a guard at Dorchester penitentiary. I think Mr. McLean's report will be in our hands within the next ten days. The young inmate named Colpitts was arraigned at court in the Dorchester county jail on Friday, September 25, charged with capital murder. He is being held in Dorchester penitentiary until such time as his case has been before the grand jury.


Robert Carman Coates: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister plan to take any special action to eliminate the inmate arsenals which the hon. member for Vancouver East indicated recently were a fact in federal penal institutions and can be pointed to as the prime cause of this fatal incident?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to receive the report and study it before answering that question.



REQUEST FOR GRANT FOR 1966 QUEBEC FESTIVAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question concerning another matter. During his meeting with Hon. Paul Gerin-Lajoie, was there any discussion of the famous Quebec winter games problem, the solution to which is most impatiently awaited and urgent?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the same decision should apply to the hon. member for Lot-biniere. Order paper.
8534	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



REMISSION OF FINES AGAINST PORTUGUESE FLEET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: On Friday last, as appears on page 8429 of Hansard, the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria directed a question to the Minister of Transport concerning the deposit or fine levied against Portuguese fishing vessels after landing in harbour, and the changes in its application. By way of an answer to the question I would advise the hon. member that on Saturday, September 12, at a press conference in St. John's, the Minister of Transport announced that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had agreed to restore the former system of requiring deposits of from $300 to $500 against the possibility of the desertion of fishermen from ships, in place of the higher deposit of $1,000. The higher deposit will continue to apply to merchant ships but the lower deposit is all that will be required of fishing vessels fishing off the coast of Canada.
This ruling will apply, of course, in all ports, not just in St. John's, as suggested in the question: but the reason for reverting to the old policy was the fear expressed in certain quarters that the higher deposit might result in the Portuguese fishing fleet moving from St. John's to St. Pierre as its main port for taking on supplies. It should be emphasized that the lower deposit with respect to fishing vessels applies in all ports, not just in St. John's, Newfoundland.
The hon. member also asked for the authority for the fine or deposit being levied. The authority is section 62 of the Immigration Act.


Robert Muir: May I thank the acting minister for his reply to the question I asked on Friday, and add that I am sure I speak for all members of the house when I say how much we regret the fact that the Minister of Transport is ill and wish him a speedy recovery and return to this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Muir: My supplementary question is this. Am I to understand from the minister's answer-
I did not quite catch all of it-that no concession has been granted to the port of St. John's, Newfoundland, which will not be given, or has not been given, to the port of


North Sydney or any other port in similar circumstances?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there has been no discrimination as between ports. The order applies to all ports equally.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: May I take this opportunity to answer a question which was asked by the hon. member for Medicine Hat on Friday last as reported in Hansard at page 8432, and again referred to yesterday, at page 8483 of Hansard, concerning the shortage of certain types of passenger accommodation on Canadian Pacific Railway trains between Montreal and Vancouver.
I have obtained the necessary information from the C.P.R. and the answer is as follows. Railway passenger equipment is used to capacity only over very short periods. Even in the heavy passenger months commencing in the latter part of June until after Labour day, there has been space available on Canadian Pacific transcontinental trains except for odd week ends this year as in past years.
However, as is normal in the heavy travel periods, some types of accommodation are often not available; for example, bedrooms or compartments. Passenger travel falls off drastically after Labour day, and accommodation is curtailed in accordance with demand. There has been sleeping car accommodation available on "The Canadian" every day over the last two weeks between many points, although special space, such as connecting bedrooms or drawing rooms, has not always been available.
The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary asked a related question concerning the difficulty experienced by railway union members as distinct from fare paying passengers in obtaining accommodation. The answer I have been given is as follows. During peak travel periods free transportation is not provided to employees on "The Canadian"; however, they can secure tickets at half the regular rate. Free transportation is provided on "The Dominion" during peak travel periods, and on "The Canadian" for sleeping car accommodation at other periods, restricted to advance reservations for upper berths only. Special arrangements are made for employees who, because of age or infirmity, require better accommodation.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether he has yet had a reply from the government of the state of Alaska to the counter offer of the Canadian government?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I informed the house yesterday that we had made an offer to the government of the state of Alaska in the same amount of money and on the same terms, namely one year's test for keeping the highway open this coming winter. I have a wire here, and I do not think I can do better than read the wire I have received from Governor Egan:
Have received your telegraphic notification that your government ready participate with state of Alaska in winter maintenance of the Haines road between miles 48 and 94 on the same one year trial basis as the winter of 1963-64 providing for the payment of $127,050 in U.S. funds. As governor of Alaska this message is formal acceptance of agreement as stated in your telegram. We intend prepare for winter maintenance prior to signing written formal agreement as last year for signatures at earliest possible date.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask a related question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister whether he can state the view of the Canadian government on the statement of Premier Bennett proposing a plebiscite of the people of the Yukon for the taking over of that territory by the province of British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This question has just dawned on me as the result of an answer given by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to an hon. member on this side of the house, which answer indicated that the government of Canada had been in direct negotiation with a state of the United States in regard to coming to an agreement.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs this question. Is not this a violation of the principles of protocol and a trespass upon his jurisdiction, when these matters should be considered between the government of Canada and the government of the United States and vice versa,
Inquiries of the Ministry and not between a government and a state or a province and a state?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows perfectly well that the relations between one country and another are normally undertaken through the foreign offices of both governments. But with regard to what has happened in this transaction, nothing has been done that necessarily ignores that situation.


Mr. Knowles:: It is a precedent, though. AGRICULTURE



DAIRY PRODUCTS-CONSIDERATION OF EXPORT SUBSIDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture which he may like to take as notice. In view of the reference by Mr. A. B. Williams, chief of the federal stabilization board of the Department of Agriculture, to the plight of the Canadian dairy farmer in his inability to compete profitably in abundant but low priced foreign markets, what consideration is the government giving to the fact that if Canada wants to export dairy products, subsidies will have to be paid to the producers to compensate for the lower prices that are essential for sales abroad? In general, when will the minister be announcing a new policy?


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



TURKEYS-REIMPOSITION OF QUOTAS ON IMPORTS FROM U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Realizing that the minister has had recent consultations with the Canadian turkey producers in regard to their request for an embargo or curtailment of imports, would the minister say what his advice was to these people at that time?


Mr. Speaker:: Is there any particular urgency in this question?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: If not, would the hon. member put it on the order paper.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It has been a contentious question, Mr. Speaker, and I think the minister was ready to reply.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member the Minister of National Defence whether would be prepared to debate it at ten o'clock newspaper reports are accurate, to the effect and give notice.	that nuclear missiles have been provided for
the Honest John battery with the Canadian NATIONAL DEFENCE	brigade in Europe; and if so, as of what date?



EQUALIZATION OF PAY FOR PREVAILING RATES EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. Several weeks ago he promised to look into the question of the prevailing rate employees at Dana. Has he a report for the house now?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, the information has not come back yet. The actual examination of the situation is undertaken by Department of Labour officials and then is dealt with by treasury board. A final report is not yet ready, but when it is ready I shall be very glad to give the information to the hon. gentleman.



COLD LAKE, ALTA.-CONTRACT FOR AIRPORT HEATING SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, referring to the answer I had given him last Friday, asked if the conversion of the heating units in 850 married quarters connected with R.CA..F. station, Cold Lake, would be carried out subsequent to tender call. As I indicated in my reply of last Friday, under the arrangements made by the Department of National Defence the Cold Lake Pipeline Company Limited is responsible both for the distribution system and the conversion of furnaces at Cold Lake. This company is required to guarantee and service the conversion units and, in consequence, it is its responsibility to arrange such work to be done by competent subcontractors.
In reply to the hon. member's specific question, I am informed that tenders were called by the Cold Lake Pipeline Company for the conversion of the furnaces in the married quarters units and that the lowest tender submitted has been accepted by that company.
PROVISION OF NUCLEAR MISSILES FOR EUROPEAN BRIGADE On the orders of the day:


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the battery is now operational. It is not the practice to give dates on which units become operational.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether these nuclear missiles are being held in storage, or have they been placed in position on their rocket dischargers?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Under ordinary circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think they would be held in storage.



NEGOTIATIONS TO WITHDRAW FROM NUCLEAR DEFENCE ROLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister of external affairs, in view of Canada's more active participation in the nuclear club, whether he would give a report to the house on the progress of his negotiations to extricate Canada from her nuclear role, as promised by the Prime Minister?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend persists in asking this question week after week. There is only one thing to do, and that is refer him to the original reply.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Melville asked whether any further information was available regarding the presence in Toronto of two United States strike directors. The hon. member was referring, of course, to Mr. Ameln and Mr. Hogan, about whom the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made a previous statement in this house. During the orders of the day on Friday the minister advised the house that according to information received from the immigration office in Toronto these two

gentlemen are continuing their activities in Toronto tor the same purpose for which they were admitted and had not, to the minister's knowledge, taken part in any violent activity.
I can now say that in providing the minister with a report on the activities of these two men, the immigration office in Toronto checked all possible sources, including the city police in Toronto, and no charges have been brought against them. There is no evidence whatever to show that they are responsible for any acts of violence which may have taken place, or that they are in any way violating the conditions under which they were temporarily admitted to Canada. According to union officials they are still acting in an advisory capacity to the union. The fact that there has been no negotiation between the union and the publishers since about the end of last month does not in itself affect their status in Canada under the Immigration Act.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice in his capacity as house leader. Would the minister tell me what consideration is being given to having the Canada Elections Act referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections before this session eventually ends?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, this is one matter which I will take under consideration.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, September 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hays for the second reading of Bill No. C-121, to provide for the extension of credit to farm machinery syndicates, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Nugent.
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, last evening I rose to speak to the amendment. In summarizing what I said last night let me say that we on this side were disappointed at the action of the government in not giving their unanimous consent to the subamendment. The only conclusion we can draw from this action is that the government were somewhat ashamed and afraid to let this
Farm Machinery
bill go to the agriculture committee, where it could have received the close scrutiny which some of us feel it merits.
I was also surprised last evening at the action of the members of the other opposition parties, the smaller parties, who talk so long and loud about house reform, issue ten point programs and statements and so on. They are all in favour of house reform. In their arguments last night on a point of order which was raised they even said they were in wholehearted support of the principle of the subamendment.


George James McIlraith: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But they voted against it because at that time they were not in favour of house reform. They issue ten point programs to the newspapers for publication, but when the question is put and the opportunity is given them to break new ground they are not willing to do so. Last evening clearly proved that they were not willing to do that.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that inasmuch as we are discussing the amendment we should stick to the amendment.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to raise a point of order. The hon. member who now has the floor has no right to reflect upon a vote taken by the house. I also think he should clearly distinguish between breaking new ground and breaking the rules, which is what he is now doing.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Some hon. members are thin skinned. Last night the hon. member for Medicine Hat spoke on this piece of legislation and on the amendment, and what did he say at that time? As reported at page 8508 of Hansard he said:
I think the farmers should be allowed to consider the law and test it to see what kind of problems will be created.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, he is saying that he thinks the farmers should be allowed to get into trouble, if they can, under this piece of legislation, and then come back to us within a year and we will try as legislators to bail them out. He is asking, why should we look at this bill? He says the Minister of Agriculture says it is good legislation and that it is good for the farmers; let the farmers get into trouble and then we will bail them out. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that I am glad this party takes its

Farm Machinery
responsibilities in this house more sincerely than that. We are prepared to look at the legislation and consider it.
Last night the Minister of Agriculture proclaimed that we in the opposition had asked for this legislation but that now we had it we would not pass it. He almost cried because the member for Acadia had spoken twice and had just blown a lot of hot air, or so he thought. He thought we were holding up this legislation because we wanted an election. I am convinced he thinks this legislation is so important that we might have to fight an election over it. Perhaps he was afraid that was the case.
Let us look at the facts. Our leader said "Bring in the legislation and we will proceed to pass it". That is what we are now doing. The minister should not be too concerned because we want to change the legislation slightly and improve it a great deal. He should not be alarmed because of the attitude taken by those members who feel their concern and responsibility very deeply. The minister was concerned that we should condemn this legislation on the one hand and observe that it had some beneficial aspects on the other. I suggest that is the situation in respect of an honest appraisal of any piece of legislation. Surely it is the duty of a member of parliament to point out his concern about a legislative measure. It is the duty of every hon. member to make known his fears and to point out those aspects of any measure which may be of some benefit.
As I sat and listened to the minister's remarks last evening I thought to myself that he is the Minister of Agriculture for Canada and the man to whom the farmers look for leadership. I listened to his speech in the hope that it would contain some answers to the questions which have been asked, but all it contained was a bunch of picayune political remarks about this brother and that brother, and about Chinook winds blowing in southern Alberta.
The Minister of Agriculture did not rise in his place and defend this measure. This is a measure he could have brought in over a year ago, but he could not persuade his government to allow him to put it on the paper until this fall. He could not persuade his government to adjourn the flag debate and allow him to bring this measure before the house at that time. He could not persuade his government to allow us to debate this measure today and tomorrow, and perhaps pass it. No; tomorrow we must consider more estimates.


An hon. Member:: Why don't we pass it today?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Perhaps we will. Why did we not debate this measure last Wednesday rather than consider estimates? Who is holding up this measure? The government could have proposed this legislation a month ago and allowed us to debate it last Wednesday, at which time we perhaps would have passed it. I suggest this measure has been delayed as a result of the order of government business; or the lack of order, one might say.
Mr. Speaker, let us consider for a moment the leadership that is being given by the Minister of Agriculture. What do the farm publications say about his leadership? The minister referred last evening to the Family Herald, a well known and respected weekly farm paper. What does that publication say about the minister's leadership? What does the Country Guide, a monthly farm magazine, say about the minister's leadership? I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Country Guide in September, 1964. It states:
One of the ways that the Department of Agriculture has of passing information along to farmers is through news releases directed to the farm press. A recent one surprised us. The information in it was about Hon. Harry Hays, Minister of Agriculture.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Acadia is hardly addressing himself to the bill now before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Timiskaming has indicated he wishes to speak on the same point of order.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the remarks made by the minister last evening during his speech, which were very seldom in order in that they were not directed to the amendment or the bill, but were highly political. I suggest the hon. member for Acadia should be allowed to reply.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have not heard the remarks of the hon. member for Acadia, so it is rather difficult for the Chair to decide

whether or not they are out of order. I suggest he be allowed to continue at least for the time being.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the thin skin of the hon. member for York-Scarborough, who has travelled as much as he has. I should have thought by this time he would have developed a thicker skin, particularly in view of some of the places he has visited. I should like to thank the hon. member for Timiskaming for his support.
I should like to continue reading from this editorial which refers to the leadership given by the Minister of Agriculture. It states:
This is authoritative: it is a sober, objective evaluation of a fledgling politician. It is made, and signed, by none other than the same Mr. Hays. It is part of an 8-page "news release" from Canada's Minister of Agriculture. It is at once an insult to that office and to the farmers of Canada who look to the minister for leadership.
We quote further from the above document, so inaccurately entitled a news release. "Following his election to the House of Commons and appointment as Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Hays devoted his energy initially to mastering the intricacies of his vast department and becoming familiar with the ways of the Commons. His policy of thought before action led some of his critics initially to underestimate his capacity to handle his new career."
Initially Mr. Hay's most frequent action was to put his foot in his mouth. Now through issuing propaganda missives so laudatory to himself, he is evidently trying to cram the other foot in too.
A great parliamentarian once observed, "A man does not increase his stature by standing on his dignity." Neither does he increase his standing in the public eye by mistaking propaganda for information.
The Minister of Agriculture holds his high office both by virtue of election to parliament and by appointment to cabinet. He is in a position of trust and of power. His job is an arduous one demanding of time and talent. If Mr. Hays wishes to devote his energies and those of his department to extolling his own alleged virtues, farmers will have to look elsewhere for leadership.
Mr. Speaker, that is what this well known and respected farm magazine has to say about the leadership we have received from the Minister of Agriculture.
Some hon. members have expressed their fears and doubts in respect of this bill. Some of us have been concerned that any benefits to be derived from it will go to persons other than farmers. The minister has optimistically assured us that this proposed measure will be of benefit to farmers. At one time during the debate he rose in his place and said he did not want to embarrass the hon. member for Acadia, but that he thought all his questions would be answered. The minister exudes optimism. He even spoke of his own optimism
Farm Machinery
in that famous Chicago farmers club speech when he said:
To be the Minister of Agriculture, to be the mayor of a city, to be the auctioneeer of a good sale, or of a poor sale, you have to be a bit of an optimist and to show you how optimistic I am about the problems of the farmers and that sort of thing I'd like to tell you a story about an uncle of mine.
I am not going to tell you that story about his uncle.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to hear your decision as to whether the remarks of the hon. member for Acadia are pertinent to the amendment now before the house. In my submission they are not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would think that the point now made by the hon. member is well taken. I feel the hon. member for Acadia should restrict himself to the principle of the bill now before us. I know he perhaps feels he should reply to some of the statements made by the minister in his speech; but on the other hand-and I was in the chair last night-I feel that the minister was, generally speaking, relevant to the bill before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Therefore I would invite the hon. member for Acadia to respect the rules and limit his speech to the principle of the bill before the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, surely it is not agreeable to the house to have rules for ministers and different rules for members elsewhere in the house. I was here last night when the minister was speaking, and he made a political attack on several members on this side of the house. He made accusations against them that had no relation to the bill whatsoever. Surely it is open to us on this side to reply to those statements of the minister. We cannot have two sets of rules, one applicable to ministers and one to others.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There is, of course, only one set of rules, and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre will notice that I recognized the right of the hon. member to reply to statements made by another hon. member on the other side of the house. That is why I feel the Chair has been lenient to this point in not interfering with the hon. member although to some extent, and I am sure all hon. members will agree, he was not strictly relevant to the principle of the bill before the house.

Farm Machinery


Edward Nasserden: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A point of order was raised and-would the hon. member kindly resume his seat-it seems to me it would be conducive to the good order of the house if the hon. member for Acadia were allowed to continue his speech.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: 
Mr. Cashin:: Would the hon. member permit a question?
Farm Machinery


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, I am sorry, I will not. The minister did not permit me one last evening as he said he had not much time. I don't think I have much time left, either.
The minister said he envisaged this bill as an answer to all machinery problems on farms today, but I have here an article written by two members of the Saskatchewan department of agriculture entitled, "What about machinery co-ops?" This article says how successful they are, but it points out quite clearly that the only machines on which farmers can co-operate are those that have no specific time use, no specific time at which farmers must use them in the cycle of their work, which is the very thing I said two weeks ago at the resolution stage.
It goes on to point out that some of the coops are not successful where members share the crops harvested. If you pool the harvest in a co-op, then it really does not matter whether your own crop is taken off first or your neighbour's down the road. The machinery will take off the best crop first. This article, however, does not point out the need for legislation such as this. I shall read just one sentence from it:
One of the major drawbacks to many machine sharing arrangements is to get agreement on seeding and harvesting dates on the various members' farms.
This is one of the great bones of contention, and points out the folly of the minister's remarks about three families joining together to share machinery.
The minister also said we had offered no suggestions for improvements. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) spoke on this legislation, and he too thought it would help farmers buy their harvesting equipment. How will it? At present a small farmer can borrow $15,000 at 5 per cent interest under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. If he does that he can buy his own tractor, his own combine or his own threshing machine, which will take off his own crop, and it is reasonable to say that if the machine is used only on his own crop it will last much longer and require fewer repairs. Certainly the example which the minister gave had many holes in it.
Corporations can now borrow money under the Farm Improvement Loans Act if they are engaged solely in agriculture. Each corporation can borrow $15,000 at 5 per cent interest, and if the minister wanted to enlarge these corporations he could have done so by amending that act to allow each member of a farm corporation to borrow $15,000

Farm Machinery
from a bank, at 5 per cent interest. This would allow them to get their machinery much cheaper than under the terms of this bill.
What rate is going to be charged under this legislation? There is the cost of borrowing the money, a certain sum set aside for losses, and then a 1 per cent service charge. How often have you, Mr. Speaker, and all other hon. members condemned people for tagging on a service charge to the interest rate? Bills have been presented in this house and the other place, stipulating that the interest should be clearly stated as one item, without the disguise of a service charge. In years ahead if this service charge is not enough I suppose it will be increased to 1J or 2 per cent. Why can't the minister say on this bill, "This is a good piece of legislation. It is an enlargement of the farm improvement loans. We want to help the farmers, not abuse them with something like a 7 per cent interest rate"? That is what the interest rate is going to be. Let the minister stand up and say if I am wrong.


Mr. Hays:: Absolutely wrong.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then how much will it be? I am prepared to sit down if the minister will answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Silence.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister says I am wrong, but when I ask him what the answer is he remains seated.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, when we get to the clause by clause examination of the bill we will be very glad to explain this. We have been waiting now for pretty near a month. The farmers have been waiting for this bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister again drags in this red herring about our having waited nearly a month. Why was this legislation not on the order paper a month ago? Why did he not break into the flag debate with it? His government would not allow him to bring it in. We asked for it every day-


An hon. Member:: He was out auctioneering.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Maybe he was. You cannot blame him if he can make $40,000, as he did on one auction sale a year ago. It is great money. At that time he said he never collected it-he just turned it over to the Liberal party. The minister talks about
[Mr. Homer (Acadia) .1
our holding up this legislation. Why was it not debated last Wednesday?


Harry William Hays: Why do you not pass it today?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We may; we may.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister wants to put the blame on us for holding up this legislation, but in his speech last night he said:
However, at this stage I believe the farmers of this country would like parliament to pass this legislation. Let us get it into operation in time to help them plan for their spring operations.
Is the minister confused, as the Minister of Labour was a few minutes ago, on what month it is? We are still in September. Spring may start as early as March in some parts of the country, but that is a little while away yet, and if we do not pass the bill today we can pass it tomorrow. This hocus pocus that the minister continually plays with does not hold him up as a leader of agricultural policy, as a leader for farmers across Canada to look up to and respect, to look to for leadership in their hours of need when they are caught in a cost-price squeeze, when they are caught in the land squeeze, as so many of them are today.
Last evening we proposed an amendment to refer the bill to the agriculture committee. There is no need to get this measure operational until next spring. We do not want to pass it until next spring. I have suggested its aim could be accomplished under the terms of the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The industrial development bank has been making loans for similar purposes for the last four years. Our party, in moving the amendment it did, was in full support of the principle but we wanted to take a further look at this proposal. We are completely in support of the principle but we would like to refer the matter to the agriculture committee. This was clearly stated by my hon. friend from Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent). I am sure the party to which I belong would be prepared, now, to withdraw that amendment if the government would give us an assurance that the legislation before us would go to the committee on agriculture. I should like to see the minister stand up now and give us that assurance. I want to see this legislation applied across Canada in the best possible form. I want it to apply to all farmers, rich and poor.
The minister has confidence in this measure. He has nothing to hide. Why does he

not let it be examined, after hearing witnesses, by members of this party and of his own party? I am prepared to support the withdrawal of this amendment if the minister will make it clear that he has faith in this legislation and is convinced it will stand up to close scrutiny in the agriculture committee. That is all we are asking. I have said this bill will benefit only the large farmers. Let the minister announce that this measure will go before the agriculture committee where witnesses can be heard and these matters cleared up. What is he trying to hide? What is he trying to ram through the house by saying continually: You have held this measure up too long already. What is he afraid of? Is it the interest rates? Is it the definition of farm machinery? Is he afraid of the clause which provides for these promissory notes? Is he ashamed of that clause? Why should that clause be in the bill at all? Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act farmers have had the best record of all with regard to the repayment of loans; the loss has been less than one tenth of 1 per cent. Why does this particular provision have to be in the bill at all? Is the minister trying to muddy the good name of farmers, though most lending institutions respect that good name which farmers have built up over the years by keeping their word?
What is the justification for this provision that every farmer who enters a syndicate must become liable for the total amount of the obligation incurred? How many farmers would sign promissory notes to pay back possibly $50,000, while their own interest may be only one tenth of that sum? Let us take this measure before the agriculture committee so that we may find out what the experience of the industrial development bank has been with regard to loans to farmers. Let the farm unions come in and tell us what they think with regard to this proposal. These are organizations which have offered valuable suggestions in the past. Why is the minister trying to rush this legislation through? He has said himself that this is experimental legislation. Yet we are not supposed to say a word on it; we are supposed to pass it without question. To do so would be a poor discharge of our responsibility. The very fact that this is new and experimental legislation is good reason for referring it to the committee on agriculture for further perusal.
This whole business of corporations and partnerships could have been arranged, as I suggested earlier, under the terms of the Farm Improvement Loans Act which this
Farm Machinery
house has lately revised. All that is offered in this measure could have been dealt with then and the whole matter could have been decided at the same time. The advantage would have been a 5 per cent interest rate on all machinery loans. The machinery would have been taken as the primary security, not a promissory note signing away a farmer's land, homestead and everything else against the total loss which might occur within a syndicate. Some hon. members have expressed the view that signing such a note would seriously impair a farmer's credit rating. What is more necessary to a farmer today than a good credit rating?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. I may say the Chair has taken into account the three minutes or so which were taken up with points of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sure the house would give me unanimous consent to continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Otto:: On a question of privilege. The hon. member for Acadia in the course of his remarks and in the heat of the moment made a statement which is of concern not only to members of this house but to farmers as a class. Comparing farmers who had formed themselves into a syndicate, with the Knight family, he said they would have no respect for co-operation with each other, but only for the almighty dollar. I am sure the hon. member did not mean that, and that he would not like such a suggestion to remain on the record.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will speak on that question of privilege for just a minute or so. I was trying to establish the difference between a family operation and a purely business operation, one in which a group of farmers had joined together. I said that a family operation, one where the father was watching over the son, was held together by a blood relationship and would be far different from one in which five or six businessmen were in business together. Their primary interest would be in seeing that the syndicate made a dollar. I know, of course, that if a company-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made an explanation of the statement which was drawn to his attention. I think that was necessary, but there is no question of privilege.

Farm Machinery


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I do not
wish to get into what I might call the verbal slugging match between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) and the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner). In fact I do not think I would qualify in such a league. But I do want to press the minister to answer the perfectly reasonable suggestion which was made by my hon. friend from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and supported by my hon. friend from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge).
They suggested the minister should indicate that after this bill had received second reading it would be referred to the standing committee on agriculture. It seems to me that this is a reasonable suggestion. Indeed, I cannot imagine anyone refusing it. Such a course would remove doubts about this legislation. It would I think shorten the debate at this stage, and surely the minister desires to shorten debate. He himself complained mildly in his remarks, that I thought were occasionally a little truculent, of lawyers such as the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) injecting themselves into a matter that is primarily a concern of farmers. Surely this is a very good reason why this particular matter should be referred to the committee in which most of the members are in fact experienced farmers and can go into this matter. It would be better to do that, and more appropriate, than to refer it to a committee of the whole.
The minister has told us this is a new type of legislation in Canada. If that is so, why should not the members of this house who are on a special standing committee to deal with questions of agriculture have the opportunity to question in a way and bring out things in a way that cannot easily be done in committee of the whole? It seems to me that as a matter of general principle that is a sound procedure. Surely we should be using the committees of this house more than we are doing; and it seems to me to be particularly appropriate to the bill that we are now considering on second reading.
I am no expert in agricultural matters, but I am concerned with questions of liability, responsibility and legislation. It seemed to me that two questions have been raised in this debate which have not been answered by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), or at least not adequately answered by the minister. I know this is not the stage to discuss the different clauses of the bill in detail; however, I think it was the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) who raised what seemed to me a very serious point that

should be discussed, namely the fact that under one of the key clauses of this bill members of the syndicate or partnership are required to sign a promissory note for which they are jointly and severally liable. This may mean the assumption of an obligation with regard to, I think the figure was $15,000 but it may, for all I know, be more than that for certain types of equipment. The question is raised, and properly raised: Would this affect the creditworthiness of the farmer who joined this syndicate? The minister says it is a simple matter and only farmers can comprehend it. But the question of getting into partnership and assuming liabilities for large sums of money is something that farmers as well as everybody else are well advised to look into carefully and take advice on.
Before I approve this particular aspect of the legislation, Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to hear what bankers would say about this aspect of the signing of a note. I can think of the case where many other members of the syndicate, perhaps ten others, would perhaps only contribute $1,000 toward the syndicate; but you sign a note for $20,000. Would that in fact affect the creditworthiness of the farmer? We have not been told anything about this. It is the sort of point that surely could properly be considered in the agriculture committee.
There is another item in the bill that I wish to question. Again, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to discuss the clauses of the bill. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) described, in language which I suggest is entirely just and appropriate, the provisions of clause 9 which provide that the governor in council may make regulations defining the key phrases used in this bill. The hon. member for Peace River described that method of legislation as repugnant and objectionable. I second those terms; I suggest it is repugnant and objectionable to ask this house to pass legislation which does not even define the meaning of the key phrases it uses and says, "We will have someone else define them for us later". I suggest that is legislative and parliamentary irresponsibility.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it would be a very excellent thing if this bill went to the committee on agriculture. I do not profess to know what is the proper meaning of the term "farm machinery". I might not know one piece of farm machinery from another, but I know there are members on the agriculture committee who are well able to provide adequate definitions for the purposes of this bill. Why should they not have the oppor-

tunity to do so, so that when we legislate, our legislation is in proper form and is not repugnant and objectionable, as the hon. member for Peace River adequately defined it? This is not the way to do business in this parliament; this is not the way to legislate. This would be objectionable in any legislation, be it farm legislation or any other legislation.
We in this group have made it abundantly clear that we support the principle of this bill. We commend the minister and agree that he should accept the plaudits that have been offered to him for having introduced it. We have no objection to that; it is his right to do so. It is his right, also, to characterize the objections of the opposition in whatever truculent terminology appeals to him; he can do that if he likes. But I suggest to him that if he wants to get the early passage of this legislation, if he wants to get the support of this house, if he wants to get the backing of this house in putting this legislation through, and if he wants legislation to be improved by the parliamentary process and not just laid down and our being told, "Take it or leave it", he will accede to the suggestion that has been made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and repeated by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). I do not want to subscribe to everything said by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner); but he, too, said that if this reasonable step were taken, the amendment -which I simply do not support because I think it kills the principle of the bill, and I am in favour of the bill-would be withdrawn. I suggest that this be done, Mr. Speaker, so that we may get on with this legislation.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Speaker, I have been very anxious-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Who is holding it up now?


Richard Joseph Cashin: -for some time to participate in this debate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Who has been holding you back?


Richard Joseph Cashin: I have withstood, as have all hon. members, what began to be a mild chinook from Alberta which reached hurricane force. Then, of course, we had the pleasure of one of those regular, polite little sermons that come from our friends in the New Democratic party. I would like to comment on some of the things the hon. member for Acadia raised in this, his most recent
Farm Machinery
participation in the debate. I am not telling hon. members anything new if I state that the member for Acadia was true to form and contradicted himself in his usual fashion today.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When and where?


Richard Joseph Cashin: However, Mr. Speaker, I would not want to put the hon. member to the embarrassment to which he was subjected some time ago by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis). I would say this to you, though, Mr. Speaker, that I did note that the hon. member for Acadia, of all people, if you please, was talking about feet in mouth. I would say to him that if the minister, who. he felt was having some difficulty getting his foot in his mouth, had as wide a mouth as the member for Acadia, he would do it with great ease; and when his foot got there the minister would then have more brains in his mouth than the hon. member has in his. head.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to the hon. member, as I took the liberty of suggesting to the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner), that the hon. member who now has the floor is not debating the principle of the bill. I would enjoin him to. limit his remarks to the bill before us.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that as a new member here I must apologize; I was probably following more the example of the member for Acadia, who finds it impossible to address himself to the merits of the legislation and be political at the same time. The minister of course was able to do this, to discuss the merits of the legislation and at one and the same time be political. When I have the experience of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) I will of course be able to do that. In the meantime I will have to content myself with being somewhat on the level of the hon. member for Acadia. Hope springs eternal in the human breast, and some day I may rise above this.
If I may refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Acadia on an earlier occasion when he addressed himself to this subject- and I think I am in order in so doing-as reported at page 8320 of Hansard he said:
I have looked at the bill very closely, Mr. Speaker. I studied it over the week end and thought of it a great deal.
That may seem difficult for him, but he said that is what he did.

Farm Machinery
I am a practising farmer and I realize the important part that money plays in the agricultural world today.
That is an astounding statement in itself and undoubtedly will be subjected to great analysis by historians in years to come. However, in reply to those remarks I should like to say that since that speech he has spoken at least once more and has shown little or no indication that he has studied this bill, although that should not bother us too much. I would suggest to him as his own little centennial project that between now and 1967 he study this legislation, and perhaps when it comes up for review at that time he might be a little more enlightening than he was this afternoon or during his earlier interjections in this debate.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up the time of the house, but when I hear such high and mighty contributions as the last legalistic peroration I think it has gone far enough. I wish to reiterate that we on this side of the house make it very clear that our intentions are to have this piece of legislation placed before the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and at this time we will terminate this debate in the hope that the government will take the necessary action to see that this piece of legislation is placed before that committee.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I have an opportunity to close the debate?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister has already spoken on the amendment, and I have now to put the question on the amendment. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister would like to make a statement on referring the bill to a committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister has already taken part in the debate on the amendment and therefore cannot speak a second time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But his parliamentary secretary could.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before Your Honour puts the question may I say that perhaps the minister was trying to rise to assure the members of the house that this matter would be going before a committee. If that is the fact there would be no need for a vote.
[Mr. Cashin.l


Harry William Hays: No.


Mr. Danforlh:: The minister says no.


Mr. Brown:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). Had I voted 1 would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Ormision:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Favreau, for Mr. Hays, seconded by Mr. Sharp, moves that Bill No. C-121, an act to provide for the extension of credit to farm machinery syndicates, be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? Agreed. Carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
And more than five members having risen:


Some hon. Members:: Too late.
Farm Machinery


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, we would like to vote on it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the motion has been declared by the Chair as being carried.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There is nothing before the house at the moment, and the Chair has to recognize a motion made by the government on the government's bill.
Mr. Hays, seconded by Mr. Sauve, moves that I do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole-


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Obviously the hon. member cannot move anything now when there is nothing before the house.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair is now reading the motion put by the minister, who is the sponsor of the bill on which second reading has just been given. Mr. Hays, seconded by Mr. Sauve, moves that I do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole on the said bill. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Some hon. Members:: No; carried.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Carried on division.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Motion agreed to on division and the house went into committee. Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Ros-thern.


Edward Nasserden: Does the minister want to speak first, Mr. Chairman?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May we please have order in the committee. There are conversations which prevent the Chair from hearing the hon. member for Rosthern.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, this bill is one of the most interesting ever to have come before parliament. A few moments ago someone across the way used the phrase, "the farmers' friend," and I want to say that he who is responsible for bringing this measure before parliament certainly cannot claim the distinction of being the farmers'

Farm Machinery
friend, when one considers the proposals embodied in this bill to provide credit to farm machinery syndicates.
It has been said that this legislation is daring, and last night the minister invited some comment in that regard when he referred to the fact that I had said it was not only daring but foolhardy. I would like to refer the minister to Funk and Wagnalls new practical standard dictionary for the definition of the word "daring": bold, venturesome, audacious, presuming. And if we turn to the word "foolhardy" we find: "bold without judgment, reckless, rash". And so on.
I intend in the remarks I have to make on the subject of this bill to outline those aspects where this legislation falls far short of the objectives held out before the Canadian farm people by the minister during the last several months. First I would draw attention to the fact that during the debate last night the minister referred to the speeches made from this side of the house as being long and taking up far too much time. I should also like to refer to the fact that several months ago, at the time of the byelection in the city of Saskatoon, the minister was a distinguished speaker there. Referring to agriculture on that occasion he had this to say:
Mr. Pearson has admitted quite freely that we have made some mistakes because we tried to do too many things too fast.
This is not one of the things they have tried to do too fast. It is several months since the minister first indicated to farm people and members of this house that legislation would be brought forward to do something about the cost-price squeeze which affects agriculture. Today we have witnessed an expression of arrogance on the part of hon. members opposite, inasmuch as once again they have sought to deny the committee structure of the House of Commons. They have refused us the opportunity to take a close look at legislation which is in the making. I know why they fear such an examination. It is because they have so few members who are willing or able to attend the agriculture committee in the House of Commons. Throughout this session when that committee has held its meetings-and I confess it has not held the number of meetings it should have held-there has been a notable absence of Liberal members from that committee, despite the fact that there are many names on the list of Liberal members prepared to take an active role with regard to agriculture matters. On more than one occasion we have
[Mr. Nasserden.l
had to wait over half an hour to get a quorum. I hear the President of the Privy Council saying this has nothing to do with the legislation before us. It has something to do with the government's refusal to place this legislation before the committee on agriculture for study and deliberation.
Last night we heard a tirade from the Minister of Agriculture. I really must say I enjoyed listening to him. I say this very sincerely. The hon. gentleman not only puts his foot into his mouth but he leaves it there. A number of things which he said last night were, in my opinion, noteworthy. One of them is as follows:
It is a simple method for our individual Canadian farmers to join together in a co-operative venture.
He went on to say:
The primary security for loans under the proposed act will be the promissory note signed by the members of the syndicate. Collateral security will be taken where required on the machinery being purchased with the loan, but the corporation will not be taking security against any of the other assets owned by individual members of the syndicate. There should therefore be no conflict with the security requirements for loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
The hon. gentleman could not have stated better the contention made by members speaking from this side of the house, that these provisions should have been brought forward as an amendment to the Farm Improvement Loans Act legislation rather than administered under the Farm Credit Corporation as is now proposed. It would have been very simple to have done this. If the minister were the farmers' friend he would bring legislation before this house to provide loans to purchase farm machinery at an interest rate of 5 per cent instead of the 6 per cent, 7 per cent and more which this money will ultimately cost under the Farm Credit Corporation. If the minister were the farmers' friend he would not load up the Farm Credit Corporation, which is already suffering from the weight it is carrying, with this additional burden. If the minister were the farmers' friend, and the taxpayers' friend, he would not bring forward a measure providing for the expenditure of $25 million when legislation by virtue of an amendment to the Farm Improvement Loans Act could have made provision for the banks to perform this service, while at the same time giving the farmer a more expeditious answer to his credit needs.
It was an interesting speech, I must say, despite the fact that the minister read every word of it. I hope the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) followed every word

of it, because he is an authority on following those who read speeches in the House of Commons. The Minister of Agriculture said this:
This is something brand new in Canadian agriculture. It is an experimental type of legislation and we will be ready to make whatever changes in its operation experience indicates.
Well, the minister can come into my riding at any time he wishes and tell the Mennonite people of my riding that this is a new departure. I recall when these people first came to Canada, with very few assets apart from their willingness to work hard to try to become a part of this nation. At that time they engaged in a good many co-operative activities-the pooling of machinery, the pooling of land on occasions, and similar arrangements. Over the years these people, who have proven to be some of the best farmers in Canada, have come to the realization that they get along much better by branching out on their own as individuals in order to build up farm enterprises and a place in the community. Having said this, I know there are many people who are in a limited way sharing in the cost of farm machinery today. But when I look at this bill and at the measures we already have on the statute books I cannot understand how a minister of agriculture who is trying to assume the role of the farmers' friend could bring into this house a measure providing for interest rates such as will be charged under these arrangements, as well as giving rise to the delays which must necessarily occur as a result of the exhaustive study which members of the Farm Credit Corporation must make in assessing the creditworthiness of each application. I cannot understand the minister doing this when all that is required is a simple amendment to the Farm Improvement Loans Act which would provide for the type of operation now contemplated.
Last night the minister said there was a demand that he should bring forward this legislation. Then he proudly said "We have brought it in" or "I have brought it in". But I ask the minister whether this is the type of legislation he promised the farmers of this country during the last several months. It is not, as I understand the statements made by the minister from one end of this nation to the other. Indeed, sir, if I recall correctly he started out by promising the farmers of this country some sort of rental arrangement under which they might secure farm machinery at rates conducive to the use of machinery on that basis. This measure, if it is anything, is a duplication of various other 20220-541J
Farm Machinery
acts that are now on the statute books, acts that could have served the purpose just as well by a very simple amendment thereto. When we consider the bill itself and look at the financial provisions under clause 7, I would say that I never saw so much window dressing in all my life. I believe that if you look at the Financial Administration Act you will find almost word for word everything that is written into clauses 7 and 8 of this bill. If you go on to clause 11 you find something that is written into the present Farm Credit Corporation Act almost word for word.
We on this side of the house have certainly asked ourselves why the government has taken this very difficult way of implementing the desire that we believe is in the minds of all members of the House of Commons, namely to provide credit on a more comprehensive basis for all those who may need it. I recall the election propaganda issued during the last two election campaigns. On September 22, as reported at page 8313 of Hansard, I made some reference to this when I said:
This pamphlet sets forth the basic problem. It is stated that the basic farm problem is the cost-price squeeze on the farmer's income. This is an important thing to remember when we are considering this bill, which is to provide credit for the purchase of farm machinery by syndicates. The other point that should be raised at this time, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that this bill provides for setting aside $25 million for the purposes embodied in the bill.
I compared that with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, which total some $140 million. I went on to say:
This bill does not lower the price of farm machinery. When one considers that $25 million is being set aside by this measure, and when one thinks of all the other things that could be done for farm people-
And so on. That is one of the questions that we have to concern ourselves with here today. I believe it is not too late for the minister to give some consideration to making the provisions of this legislation part of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, thus eliminating the high cost farm people will be faced with in respect of this particular measure. If the minister does not do that, there is only one conclusion to which I can come, namely that this is one of those pieces of legislation that is comparable to the Gordon budget, that first budget, that abortive budget; it is comparable to the Canada pension plan, which wasted so many hours of the time of the House of Commons and today is still not before us in a concrete form in which we can deal with that particular

Farm Machinery
matter. This legislation illustrates the same kind of carelessness that typified the introduction of the flag resolution by the Prime Minister himself.
Sir, I must ask you and the members of this house why our Prime Minister has let the minister bring this measure before us in such a thoughtless, careless way; careless of the time of parliament, careless of the benefits that could accrue to farmers, careless of the long term significance the encouragement of this type of legislation is going to give to a type of farming that many farmers in this country do not want to see develop. It is just another one of those acts of carelessness by the present Prime Minister. We had it first of all in the budget. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, why we had that budget? The Minister of Finance wrote a book, and he had to bring in the kind of budget that he brought in, abortive though it was. The Minister of Agriculture made a speech, and he had to bring in a bill such as this, regardless of the needs, wishes and desires of farm people. If we look at this bill, it says that the "minister" will be the Minister of Agriculture. Well, I hope he will be. Then it says:
Where an individual has two or more major occupations, one of which is farming, the corporation may determine which of such occupations is his principal occupation for the purposes of this act.
Then clause 3 deals with the promissory note and other security required for the purposes of obtaining a loan. This security is almost identical with that required by the banks in regard to farm improvement loans at the present time.
I do not wish to take up any more time at the moment, Mr. Chairman, but I would ask the minister to tell us why the provisions of this legislation were not enacted by way of amendment to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Also why does he think a higher interest rate is preferable? Why does he think the Farm Credit Corporation should be saddled with this additiqfjal load? Why does he think the banks cannot provide this service? If the minister answers some of these questions it will give us a better idea of what he has in mind. I have another question in regard to clause 9. We cannot help but ask the minister why we in parliament are not to be given the opportunity to deal with the regulations that will govern the ability of a farmer to secure assistance under this type of legislation. Why should that be left to the privy council, to someone else-I should not say "outside this parliament" because we
[Mr. Nasserden.l
hope they are in this parliament; but certainly they are outside the reach of the ordinary member of the House of Commons. I would certainly like an answer to some of these questions, Mr. Chairman.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say just a few words with regard to this bill now before us in committee. I might say at the outset of my remarks that it is too bad that certain amendments that will be put forward in committee of the whole could not have been put forward in the agriculture committee, where I think a better atmosphere exists. I think once you are in a committee partisanship seems to fall away.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What a dreamer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You hear evidence from various witnesses who support proposed amendments, for example, or are opposed to proposed amendments. The question is simplified and ironed out much more quickly in the agriculture committee than is the case in committee of the whole house. I feel somewhat regretful that the government voted against-


Mr. Macaluso:: Speak for yourself.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sure the hon. member for Acadia would not want to make reference to a vote which has already been taken in the house. I could refer him to standing order 35 at pages 22 and 23 of the standing orders, which states that it is not the practice in the house to comment on an issue which has been decided in the house.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, if I ran contrary to the rules. I had no intention of doing so but I did want to point out that in the agriculture committee various witnesses are called to present briefs relating to a given subject, amendments are put forward and substantiated by many interested parties attending the committee, and in this way a lot of the partisanship evident in the house, particularly of the kind apparent when the minister spoke last evening, disappears in the proceedings and the committee can get down to business in a much friendlier atmosphere, and proceed along legislative lines which will bring about the most beneficial results for the country as a whole.
It is evident from some of the remarks which have been made that some hon. members are concerned about this legislation. Even the title "Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act" is frowned upon by many farmers because they do not like the word "syndicates". Farmers value their independence

and frown upon syndicated farming. They also frown upon non-resident farming. They have always valued the social relationship which exists where adjacent land is occupied by families similar to their own, which brings about a much friendlier atmosphere, one might say, to rural living. Therefore one must gather from this debate as it has progressed that many members are concerned about this legislation.
How it was devised I am not too sure; nor am I sure why it was brought in. The government have not allowed it to go to committee where briefs could be put forward by interested concerns. I think the industrial development bank could lend a great deal of advice and throw much light on this subject of lending money to farm corporations, which is what a syndicate is, in a sense. A syndicate is a corporation to some degree or other. The industrial development bank has been making loans for agricultural purposes for the last four years. In the last year they lent something like $4.8 million and made available 175 loans to corporations and groups of people who were interested in getting into the agricultural industry. True it is that some of these loans could well be made by marketing institutions rather than farming and productive institutions in the agricultural field.
I said in my earlier speech on the principle of the bill that as an active farmer I am now engaged in some five different machinery-I do not like the word "syndicates"; there is nothing formal or written down, but let me say five different machinery agreements. These agreements are not even all with the same neighbours, surprising as that may seem. But they are all machines which, apart from the snowplow, may be used at any time in the farm cycle. They are small machines which can be purchased outside of a syndicate. Some of them might well be purchased as a result of a farm improvement loan by one farmer, and other farmers have made contributions.
There are many aspects to this bill which, if we were able to meet them in the committee stage in as agreeable a form as possible and in as non-partisan a manner as possible, we might be able to improve, and even remove the word "syndicate" from the title of the bill, because I personally think it will be frowned on, by small farmers particularly. As I look at the bill from clause to clause I think it is only fair to say that perhaps some of the doubts I have I should put before the minister now, so that when we get into the various clauses themselves the minister will
Farm Machinery
be able to deal with them quite fully. For example, what does the word "farming" mean? Clause 2 defines farming as including livestock raising, dairying, fruit growing and all tillage of the soil. Then again I observe that this act will be administered by the Farm Credit Corporation. The Farm Credit Corporation make no loans during the wintertime; they only lend money when the soil can be tilled. This bill is going to make loans to a syndicate of farmers, and farming includes any method which tills the soil. Are we to gather from that analysis that loans will only be made under this act during the frost-free periods in this country? That is one of the first questions that I ask from looking over this bill.
Farming also includes livestock raising, and I should like to know how comprehensive is that term. Does it include the raising of horses?


Richard Joseph Cashin: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes; I have quite a bit of time now.


Richard Joseph Cashin: My question is this. In view of the fact that the hon. member has received the maximum P.F.A.A. payment each and every one of the last five years, does he really feel so qualified to pontificate on these complicated matters facing Canadian farmers? Also in view of the advantages of that legislation, does he really feel justified in opposing this legislation?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I think if the hon. member looks a little further he could go back beyond five years, although I do not know what happened during the six years he was talking about. I think this fortifies my qualifications for speaking to the bill this afternoon. If I was able to collect such a payment as a bona fide farmer, it proves that I am qualified to speak as a farmer this afternoon.


Mr. Watson (Chaieauguay-Hunlingdon-La-prairie):: Would the hon. member permit another question? Speaking as a farmer I wonder whether he would agree that the Farm Credit Corporation has personnel which are more competent to assess the borrowing potential of an individual farmer than is the industrial development bank of which he talked a few moments ago?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would agree with that, yes. But then again I would say that perhaps a local bank manager might be more

Farm Machinery
qualified still to appraise a new industry or a new invention on behalf of, say, 20 different farmers. He might be better able than the Farm Credit Corporation to appraise the worthiness of making a loan. Therefore while the hon. member may be right when he says that the Farm Credit Corporation is a better institution for this purpose than the industrial development bank, it still may not be as good as the opinion of a bank manager making loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
To get back to my trend of thinking with regard to the word "farming" and its definition in the bill, we see it includes livestock raising. Does that include the raising of horses? Some members on the other side say yes, it does. They know the answers.
One could perhaps go further and ask whether the raising of pleasure horses could be included in the definition of farming under this legislation. I refer to horses of the saddle or pleasure variety. Is the definition of farming wide enough to include the raising of race horses? Would race horses be considered as livestock under this legislation? If I or my constituents commenced to raise race horses could we apply for a loan under the provisions of this legislation?
One might also ask whether fur farming could be included within the definition of farming for the purposes of this legislation. Fur farming is considered to be farming, under the provisions of other legislative measures. Perhaps one might ask whether beekeeping could be considered farming for the purpose of this legislation. Perhaps bees could not be considered to be livestock, but the keeping of bees is considered to be farming for the purpose of certain legislative measures. One could go very far in projecting his thoughts along this line.
The Minister of Transport is an avid spokesman in support of the fishermen and I am sure that he would like to have fish farming included in this definition. Will these loans be available to fishermen? I am in a quandary as to exactly what kind of farming will be included within the category of farming as defined in this bill. We must remember that this legislation will be interpreted by the officials of the corporation, and a great deal of thought should be given to this question.
Last evening the minister pointed out that only individuals whose basic income is derived from farming will be eligible for membership in a syndicate for the purpose of obtaining a loan under the provisions of

this legislation. If I am wrong in interpreting the minister's remarks in that regard I hope he will correct me before I proceed much further. The clause of the bill itself suggests that it is the majority of the syndicate whose principal occupation must be farming. However, last evening the minister said that all of the members of the syndicate must be farmers, and that the majority of them had to derive their basic income from farming. I hope I am interpreting his remarks correctly in that regard.
Those are some of the thoughts which entered my mind as I read this bill, and I think the time to raise these doubts is during the consideration of clause 1, when the minister and his officials are present to consider these questions, and perhaps provide answers when we deal with the bill clause by clause.
I am sure a number of members will have a great deal to say in respect of clause 3 which states that each member must undertake jointly and severally to sign a promissory note for the total amount of the loan. The thing about that provision which is of concern is that the loan is to be primarily secured by the promissory note, and second, by a mortgage on the machinery. I suggest that this is a departure from the principles contained in the farm improvement loans legislation, in respect of which the loan is secured primarily by a mortgage on the machine. Under that legislation, if a farmer defaults the bank can actually and physically seize his machinery, whether it be a combine or any other piece of equipment which is urgently needed. The farmer does not have to sign a promissory note under the provisions cf the Farm Improvement Loans Act, yet, as stated by the minister last evening, under the provisions of this legislation loans will be secured by a promissory note signed by each member of the syndicate, and second, by an attachment on the equipment purchased. I suggest this is a vast departure from the principles contained in the Farm Improvement Loans Act. As a farmer and a legislator I do not like that provision and do not understand why it is necessary.
Is it the experience of the government in respect of loans to farmers that farmers are poor credit risks? Is that the experience of the Farm Credit Corporation? I do not think that is the case. Has that been the government's experience in respect of the Farm Improvement Loans Act? I suggest the facts indicate directly the opposite. Less than one tenth of 1 per cent has been lost by virtue

of loans made under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I do not have comparable figures in respect of losses incurred by the Farm Credit Corporation. I do not know the number of foreclosures that have occurred as a result of default in respect of loans made by the Farm Credit Corporation, but I am sure that number is small.
Why is clause 3 necessary in its present form, making a promissory note the first security and a mortgage on the machinery the second security? I wonder who the financial wizard was who decided to include that provision in this bill. Who was the financial wizard who questioned farmers' credit to the extent he found it necessary to include this provision? Farmers' credit has been excellent over a period of years, particularly in respect of the purchase of farm machinery. That fact can easily be established.
Last year one of the local weekly newspapers reported that $228 million had been spent on new farm machinery in that year. The Farm Credit Corporation made loans available to the extent of $99 million. I suggest that every second piece of farm machinery purchased is purchased at least in part by money the farmers have received under the provisions of farm loan legislation, yet only one tenth of 1 per cent is lost in this regard. Why is this clause necessary? This legislation applies to a group of individuals who over a great number of years have established an excellent credit reputation, yet the Minister of Agriculture, the farmers' leader and spokesman in the government, suggests they are a bad risk. He indicates that belief by that provision of this bill, which says that each member of a syndicate taking advantage of the provisions of this proposed legislation must sign a promissory note to cover the total amount of the loan.
Perhaps we should consider clause 3 a little further. Supposing for example 20 farmers formed a syndicate and put up $1,000 each. Perhaps they would want $100,000 to purchase some farm machinery. They would then require $80,000. Let us assume for example they needed this money to set up a large feeding plant. It might be dirt moving equipment or anything else that might be envisioned under this legislation. Each farmer only has $1,000 invested in the purchase. There are 20 of them and they borrow $80,000 or $4,000 apiece. Why should each farmer have to sign a promissory note guaranteeing he will be responsible for the
Farm Machinery
full $80,000? I cannot see it. Have the farmers been that bad a risk? Can the minister, our leader in farm matters and farm legislation, not trust us a little more? What small farmer is going to join with 19 others, put $1,000 into an enterprise and sign a promissory note for $80,000 when his whole farm and all his machinery, lock, stock and barrel, are not worth $80,000? Is he going to put his family into debt for years to come in this way? Is he going to enter into that kind of contract? I think not.
I am sure many members have many reservations with regard to clause 3 of the bill. Many members, particularly those who are farmers, are somewhat hurt that the minister would view our credit standing so poorly. We are somewhat hurt that the Liberal government would look on us as such a poor credit risk. I feel this deeply and I know other farm members feel likewise. Why should this be so? Is our past record with regard to machinery loans so poor that we have to be singled out for this heavy penalty? I do not want to dwell too long on that particular point. I know that when we come to this clause of the bill many members will be concerned about it and I may have something more to say about it at that time too.
Let us look at the interest rate. Clause 1 says that this legislation is to be known as the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act. As I pointed out in an earlier speech, under the Farm Improvement Loans Act a partnership can borrow up to $15,000 at 5 per cent interest. The Farm Improvement Loans Act deals specifically with loans for the purchase of farm machinery. If we leave out the word "syndicates" this bill under clause 1 would be known as the farm machinery credit act.
There is one piece of legislation already on the statute books under which individuals or partnerships can borrow up to $15,000 at 5 per cent interest. This bill makes no suggestion as to the interest rate. It says that the interest shall be made up of the cost of borrowing plus a reserve against losses, plus a service charge of 1 per cent. I know that a great many people throughout the country feel the same way as the farmers do. One class of operator that farmers have looked down upon and despised to some extent is the non-resident farmer, people who live in cities or towns and live off the land by operating farms. Another thing we look down upon is service charges. There is a service charge added to too many things that people have to buy today.

Farm Machinery
When a person obtains a loan from a finance company and asks what the interest rate is he is assured it is a nominal charge. When he asks how they arrive at the total figure that must be repaid he is told that it includes a service charge. In this instance we as legislators are resorting to what I call a foul practice. Let us be bold and put the interest rate in the legislation for all to see, so that all will see what they are entering upon in obtaining the loan.
From time to time pieces of legislation have come before this house and the other place which, while they may not have been passed and placed upon the statute books of the land, have received wide acclaim. These pieces of legislation have sought to provide that in any sales contract the interest rate should be clearly stated. Why do we as legislators have to resort to saying that a service charge of 1 per cent shall be added to the loan? I would much prefer the minister to say that the interest rate will be the same as that charged by the industrial development bank or under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. If he really has the interests of the farmers at heart he will do this, and I know he will because he has told us he wants to lower the cost of farm machinery. If I or some other member propose an amendment to set forth an interest rate of 5 per cent in the legislation, which is the rate under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, I know the minister will not reject it and place a further burden upon the small farmers of Canada.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must also advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will just have to make another speech.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock p.m. this day are as follows: the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), social insurance, distribution of business card by Toronto insurance company; the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), agriculture, turkeys, reimposition of quotas on imports from the United States.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to hold up the committee at any great 
length, but one of the things I think should be said at this time is that the viewpoint of the official opposition is that we will approve of anything that will help the farmer in the purchase of machinery and will keep his costs down.
At the very outset I must confess that I am no farmer, but I have learned one thing, that you can learn a lot by listening to farmers. For this reason I asked at the resolution stage if this matter might be put into a committee so that the viewpoint of farmers operating in the field could be brought to bear on the officials who could answer some of the technical questions.
Tonight I am going to repeat one of the proposals made this afternoon by the hon. member for Rosthern, as an example of the type of thing that intrigues me as a person who is interested in trying to provide policy that will meet the objectives in view. If I understand the hon. member for Ros-them correctly, he has posed the question as to why this new organization is attached to the Farm Credit Corporation, rather than using one of the vehicles already in operation.
At present we have two main credit agencies at the federal level. For long term mortgages we use the Farm Credit Corporation, and the primary purpose of it is to try and work with the farmers in planning together to give each individual farmer a unit of operation which is economically sound. If a farmer borrows money on this long term basis he hopes by so doing to build himself an economic unit that will make more money as a consequence of what he has borrowed. No one recognizes more than myself the tremendous contribution of new thinking on farm credit that the Farm Credit Corporation has offered to this country, and now we have a proposal that a new, supplementary agency be added to the corporation to handle these loans to groups of farmers.
The question that intrigues me is, why the Farm Credit Corporation? I am not an expert on these things but I would like the minister, who has the advice of experts, to answer that question. Why not the farm improvement loans operation? Let me recount some of the salient points.
First of all, the farm improvement loans operation is run and administered by the banks. They have demonstrated over a period of a good many years that they have been able to lend money, mostly on farm machinery, and for a loss rate so low that over 19 years all the federal taxpayer has had to pay is roughly one tenth of 1 per cent. This

is a remarkable lending experience. The losses have been so low on loans to individuals that by a simple guarantee of 10 per cent from the federal government to the banks, the banks have been able to lend farmers, over these past number of years, $1.5 billion, mostly for farm machinery.
When you lend money to farmers under the Farm Improvement Loans Act the federal government is not required to put up capital. If this particular lending arrangement for the syndicates were put under the Farm Improvement Loans Act the federal government would not be forced to increase its debt by a nominal $25 million, and this point should be considered. Second, under the method of operation of the Farm Credit Corporation, with the responsibility resting on them to see that each particular plan is a good one, a great deal of time will be consumed in getting these loans processed.
One of the great advantages of the Farm Improvement Loans Act is that these matters can be handled in a few hours, because the bankers know the credit rating of the farmers in their areas, and if the agreements and deals worked out are satisfactory under the act the loans go through very quickly. There is no criticism here of the Farm Credit Corporation because it, as an agency of the federal government, must use all the protective devices to protect the public money, and it is answerable to the House of Commons for any mistakes. The bankers are in the business of doing this all the time, and if there is any particular loss it is transmitted to the federal treasury which pays out, under the act, 10 per cent of the loss.
We have a much more complicated arrangement under this bill, and I say that the Farm Credit Corporation on a time factor would take longer. That is the second reason I ask why the government picked the Farm Credit Corporation for the purposes of this bill, when we already had in effect legislative enactments which required very limited administrative machinery to supervise this work with the banks? Why could the banks not move into this additional field of lending money to groups of farmers?
The third point I would like to raise is that to my knowledge the Farm Credit Corporation is heavily overworked. One of the reasons for its great success is that it has kept its staffs small and well trained. It has a type of staff that is able to work easily with the farmer, and now the minister proposes to take a heavily overworked staff and 20220-542
Farm Machinery
put this additional burden on it. The only explanation the minister can give is that he intends to enlarge the corporation's staff and build up a brand new agency to administer this particular type of loan. I would like his answer to this argument, which was implied in the remarks of the hon. member for Rosthern.
The farmer knows that if he goes to the banks, under the Farm Improvement Loans Act he can borrow up to $15,000 at an interest rate of 5 per cent. Under this bill he will probably have to pay an interest rate above 6 per cent. If you take the lending rates currently in effect for this type of loan, and add on the 1 per cent service charge and the other charges, you are going to have an interest rate that is above what is available to the farmer under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
If you take the case of the 70 or 80 per cent of the farmers who are reasonably literate, they know they have available to them the Farm Improvement Loans Act under which individually they can borrow up to $15,000 at 5 per cent interest. Farmers are now faced with a new type of legislation. If three or four of them band together they can each borrow up to $15,000 with a maximum of $100,000 applicable to any group. For this they pay 6 per cent or 6J per cent interest. What will they do? In connection with the type of legislation they are used to, usually the banker asks them how much cash they have in the deal. Let us say it is 25 per cent or 30 per cent. The banker then advances the balance at 5 per cent interest. Under this new scheme farmers have to pay a higher interest rate. What is to stop two or three of them getting together, each pledging his credit for the amount of the loan they need, and getting the money to buy this machinery at 5 per cent under the Farm Improvement Loans Act? Why should they switch over and go to a new agency to get the same amount of money on a down payment of 20 per cent at a higher interest rate? These are considerations which make us wonder whether there is not some truth in the proposals put forward by my hon. friend from Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden).
The test of the decisions which will be made by many farmers will no doubt be this question of interest rates. This will be the factor borne in mind when making a decision to form a syndicate and sign a promissory note for the total indebtedness of that syndicate, or else to use the arrangements now open to them under existing legislation. We

Farm Machinery
should like the minister to give us the answers to these questions if he can, because if his answers are sensible and logical we can at least be satisfied that we have done our duty as an opposition in raising these matters. I do not intend to deal, now, with this matter of a service charge and the feelings of all farmers with regard to it. I think the same argument applies in this regard. However, for the reasons I have stated, I should like to know what advice the minister has received from his experts. Members of the opposition are not being allowed access to the expert opinion which is at the minister's disposal, because we cannot get this measure before the standing committee. What arguments can the minister put forward against using the machinery of the Farm Improvement Loans Act for the purpose envisaged by this bill? If the real purpose of the measure is to encourage farmers to work together, using the same machinery so as to reduce the unit cost of operation, what would be the advantages of operating through a new organization with a new staff as opposed to using existing machinery at lower cost? These are pertinent questions and much will depend on the answers the minister is able to provide.
I do not mind telling the hon. gentleman that we have an amendment ready to put forward on clause 1. Whether we do so or not will depend on his reply. If the answers he gives us are reasonably satisfactory and show there is a real purpose in using a new organization, duplicating the work of one we already have, then I think we would be prepared to drop our amendment. I suggest therefore that in the interests of facilitating the passage of this legislation at the present stage we should be given answers to what I think were sincere and penetrating observations by my hon. friend from Rosthern.


Harry William Hays: In reply to the questions raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and the hon. member for Rosthern I can tell the committee frankly that when we first devised the bill now before us we gave these matters a great deal of careful consideration.
It was my feeling first of all that we could handle these arrangements through the provisions of the Farm Improvement Loans Act. We discussed the matter with all the officials concerned in the various departments, and as I have indicated this was our original intention. Later, when we had taken a look at the facilities available in the Farm Credit Corporation, the majority of our people thought

the method now suggested was the better way of handling this problem.
As hon. members know, the rate of interest under the Farm Improvement Loans Act is 5 per cent. Inasmuch as loans made under this measure will have a short term of seven years, our thinking is that the interest rate will not be more than 6 per cent. Loans made under the farm improvement loans legislation, including loans for livestock and machinery, amounted in the last fiscal year of which we have records to between $133 million and $135 million. We know that farmers borrowed from other sources $245 million at interest rates of between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. This was the basis for our reasoning in doubling the amount of money available for farm improvement loans. I may add that investigations carried out by people outside the department indicate that the amount borrowed by farmers from other sources was nearer $400 million than $245 million.
The reason we wish to place the administration of this measure under the Farm Credit Corporation is that we have there the supervisory staff to put together the formal agreements which will make it possible for groups of farmers to borrow the money they need. The money will be paid jointly to the dealers and to the syndicates. Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act I believe the borrowers have to put down 33 per cent. Under the present proposal they have to put down only 20 per cent. After listening to all the arguments-and no doubt the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has listened to many such arguments, too-I was finally convinced that the approach now recommended to the committee is the proper one. We came to the conclusion that if we were to put the administration of this scheme under the Farm Credit Corporation we would be able to serve the farmers better than would be the case if it were handled under the farm improvement loans provisions. That is the main reason for taking the course we now suggest should be followed.
I think the hon. member for Qu'Appelle asked some other questions. I believe he asked whether we intend to use the same staff. We propose to do so, but of course it will be necessary to add additional staff. If there are any other questions on this clause I would be glad to answer them.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think we could bring down what the minister has just told us to one simple answer. The reason the hon. gentleman has decided to use the Farm Credit Corporation machinery is essentially because of

the value of the supervision-he contends that this makes it worth while for the farmer to pay the extra 1 per cent. After listening to all the reasons he has given I believe that is, essentially, the argument in favour of asking farmers to work with this new organization.


Harry William Hays: Yes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before this clause carries I should like to say a few more words. Before dinner I expressed some concern with regard to the interest rate, with regard to the definition of the word "farmer" and with regard to the effect of a contingent liability upon a farmer's credit rating. Farmers, particularly small farmers, are and will be concerned about this clause.
I would like to say a few more words with regard to this piece of legislation before we get into the clause by clause discussion. This bill deals with farm machinery, and we must consider what will be included in this definition. I notice that the Department of National Revenue in certain rulings uses the general application in this regard-you might call it a rule of thumb-of determining whether any implement or machine a farmer uses has moving parts and-


Lucien Lamoureux: I would ask the hon. member whether he is now on clause 1 or clause 2.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am dealing with clause 1 and the title of the bill, an act which may be cited as the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act. If one is somewhat hesitant about using the word "syndicate", he might call it the farm machinery credit act. I think generally most small farmers particularly will view with some scepticism the word "syndicate" in this title, so I will in my remarks refer to it briefly as the farm machinery credit act. Enlarging upon that title in clause 1, Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with the question of farm machinery and what types of machines it is envisaged will qualify for loans under the bill.
I was saying that the Department of National Revenue use as a rule of thumb this method of determining whether it is a farm machine; they say that an implement or a machine that has no moving parts is not a farm machine. This is the way in which the Department of National Revenue defines farm machinery. I wonder whether this is the definition that will be applied under clause 1, wherein it is said, "This act may be cited as the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act", or the farm machinery credit 20220-542J
Farm Machinery
act as I would prefer to call it. Do the provisions of this bill apply only to machines with moving parts that are used on farms? One might say that all farm machines have moving parts, but this is not necessarily so.
This has been a subject of continuing interest to me. If one stopped and thought about farm machines, he could list any number of machines used on farms that really have no moving parts. Let us consider a silo. The minister has said this bill will apply to a feeding plant, as I call it; in other words, a co-operative set-up amongst a group of farmers to feed out, to finish, a bunch of feeder steers. This would include, particularly in eastern Canada, a silo, perhaps a silo filling machine, perhaps a silo unloading machine-if that is the right term for the automatic silo feeders. But the silo itself is what I am concerned with. The silo itself has no moving parts. In a feeding plant such as I envisage, which might well qualify under this bill, a silo would represent the biggest cost. The filling machinery would be costly; the automatic feeding machinery from the silo would be costly; but the steel, glass-lined silo might be the most costly item in that plant. Would that qualify under this bill? No moving parts are permanently attached to such a silo. These are some of the fears that occur to me in connection with this legislation.
One could project that thinking further. What does "farm machinery" mean? Would it include milking parlours? With regard to milking parlours, the stalls are taxable; there is a duty of 22J per cent on their entry into Canada because they have no moving parts. Would they qualify under this legislation? One could list a whole host of farm machines and farm implements in this connection. Let us go back to the feeding plant. I mentioned the silo and the automatic unloading equipment attached to a silo. Let us suppose we are setting up a feeding plant for hog feeding and that we are doing it by means of self feeders. A system of self feeders has no moving parts attached to it. The grain moves and the hogs eat it; they get fat, and they move-but the self feeders themselves have no moving attachments on them. They are subject to 22J per cent duty on entering Canada under the rule of thumb the Department of National Revenue applies with regard to the definition of "farm machinery". I ask the minister and his officials, would they qualify under this legislation, this farm machinery credit act? One could go further

Farm Machinery
When dealing with a definition of this type, Mr. Chairman, one could also consider such things as antibiotics, and items of that kind used on farms. I do not intend to deal with this question in detail, but I should like to ask the minister to propose at least some general definition of "farm machinery", to be applied to the provisions of this bill.
Will electric livestock water heaters be considered to be farm machinery under the provisions of this measure? That is a very small item necessary to the raising of cattle, but will it be included? That item carries a 22 per cent duty when imported into Canada, and a farmer must also pay an 11 per cent sales tax. The department of revenue does not consider those items to be farm machinery because they have no movable parts, and they are subject to duty.
Under clause 1 of this proposed bill will electric fences be considered to be farm machinery? Electric fences are necessary in a grain or grass feeding plant, particularly in the dairy industry, as well as the beef raising industry, where a feed rotating procedure is followed in order to put the cows and steers on fresh grass. Electric fences are often used in this way. The department of revenue says there are no moving parts to an electric fence, therefore they are not farm machinery. I suggest that none of the officials of the department have touched an electric fence that was in operation, or else they would know that something is moving. A 22J per cent duty is levied against these items on importation. They are also subject to the 11 per cent sales tax.
The minister has suggested that I have not referred to anything which would reduce the cost of farm machinery to the farmer, but I suggest that this could be accomplished by removing the duty applicable to the list of things to which I have referred in the last three minutes. By doing so I suggest he would reduce the cost of farm machinery.
Mr. Chairman, what does the minister mean by the term "farmer"? I suggest that that could cover a great many occupations. There are many things that could be done to alleviate the burden now borne by farmers during this period of cost-price squeeze. I hope the minister will give us some idea about what he thinks this legislation will accomplish in the way of alleviating this burden. It is about time the minister did let us in on his feelings, and I think he should do so during our consideration of clause 1 of this bill which, if I had my choice, would be entitled, "farm machinery credit act",

leaving out the word "syndicate". I have left out the word "syndicate" because I am sure it will be distasteful to farmers. This act is in effect a farm machinery credit act. The minister has yet to present to this committee his view of what this measure will encompass. The parliamentary secretary has said that as far as he is concerned the interpretation of this act and its terms should be left to the officials of the corporation. I say that is not good enough because we as members of parliament would like an opportunity to examine and question the interpretations of these provisions.
Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly supported the suggestion that this measure be referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization because that committee I feel could have dealt fully with the provisions and interpretations of its clauses. That committee could have called experts from farm unions, who I am sure would have come willingly and presented briefs, and then examined that evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion in respect of the interpretation of the bill's provisions. I am sure witnesses of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture would have been pleased to attend the meetings of that committee in respect of this bill. Many organizations which are concerned with the welfare of farmers generally I am sure have taken a very great interest in this proposal. Representatives of those organizations might well have provided a broader explanation of the terms of this proposed measure.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I
gladly rise to speak in respect of clause 2 of this bill, although I have no intention of delaying the passage of this bill. I feel we must give this legislative measure the fullest consideration possible, as responsible members of parliament. I am disappointed that the minister did not give us an explanation of how he interprets the term "farm machinery" during our consideration of clause 1.
Earlier this afternoon I asked several questions which could be related to clause 2, and I wonder whether the minister is now prepared to answer them. What does the word "farm" mean? My understanding is that included in farming is the raising of livestock, dairying, fruit growing and the tillage of soil. Let us concentrate for a moment on the term "livestock raising". I ask the minister point

Farm Machinery
blank: Does this include the raising o 1	Mr. Horner (Acadia): I am asking about
horses?	pleasure horses.


Harry William Hays: Do you want me to answer now?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, I should like you to answer right now.


Harry William Hays: In clause 2 we use the same definition in so far as farming is concerned as was used in the Farm Credit Act. It seemed to be best that we use that definition because it has been successful and there have been no amendments or changes. Therefore "farming" is defined in the same way as in the Farm Credit Act.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That does not quite answer my question.


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: What about defining farm machinery?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The clause says that farming includes livestock raising. I put my point blank question again. Does that include the raising of horses?


Harry William Hays: "Livestock" is defined in the regulations and I think that horses are included, although I am not sure. It is exactly the same as in the Farm Credit Act. I can find out if you wish.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I understand the minister has officials of the Farm Credit Corporation before him. Perhaps they can help him out. I can think of many small farmers who are in the business of raising horses for pleasure. The minister will understand that term. It is the raising of horses for sale to people who want them for pleasure and other reasons. This is a big business in Canada today, particularly in Alberta, and as the minister comes from that great city of Calgary in the heart of Alberta I know he is very familiar with the situation. Perhaps he can give me a little better answer, having in mind particularly the part that horses have played in farming in years gone by. I am sure they would be included but I want a little confirmation.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Are they a farm machine?


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman-


Harry William Hays: Race horses would not be covered but otherwise I think horses would be covered in that what we have in mind is horses used for tillage of the soil. I think that is the way it is under the Farm Credit Act. The hon. member also asked about machinery-


Harry William Hays: I would not suppose it would cover horses for pleasure, no.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: So raising pleasure horses is not farming? What is it?


Harry William Hays: I do not think they would be included, not unless they were used to hoe the garden or something like that-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not want to pursue the question-


Harry William Hays: or tillage of the soil or on a hay rake, and so on.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I raise a few saddle horses and I do not use them to till the garden or on the hay rake. I use them to round up my cows. Would you call them working horses or pleasure horses?


Maurice John Moreau: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will he tell the house what machinery he is going to need to raise these horses?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have asked a question that I hope the minister will answer.


Harry William Hays: Those horses would be included if you used them as work horses.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But if I made it my sole occupation, and I know men who do and I know the minister knows men who do-


An hon. Member:: E. P. Taylor.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am not talking about E. P. Taylor. I am talking about a lot of people who love good stock horses. The minister knows exactly what I mean. There are many people right in the vicinity of Calgary who raise stock horses. By that I mean working horses. Is this considered farming under this legislation, or is it not? That is my point briefly and succinctly. I want an answer or I am going to continue to speak.


Harry William Hays: If you are tilling the soil you are farming.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Oh, guff. There are many ranchers who never touch a plow.


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


An hon. Member:: Go and get your horse.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Liberal backbenchers are laughing and making jokes about a serious matter. They must all be Irishmen because they have a degree of wit.

Farm Machinery


Maurice John Moreau: Will the hon. member answer my question? It was a serious question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sorry; I am busy.


Maurice John Moreau: What machinery does he envisage would be required to raise a couple of saddle horses?


Harold Warren Danforth: Did you ever feed a horse?


Maurice John Moreau: Plenty.


Harold Warren Danforth: Then you know the answer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is a serious question. I would not be a bit surprised if there are many persons living in the minister's constituency who are engaged in the business of raising pleasure horses and stock horses. I am lumping them together because many a good pleasure horse does not make a good stock horse. You do not know until you break the horse what he is good for. I am lumping the two of them together. You people over there talk about our holding up the debate. The former member for Assiniboia held up the passage of the Farm Credit Act for two days on the question of horses alone.


An hon. Member:: He was defeated on that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let us not get carried away. I am just asking for a simple definition of livestock, as used in clause 2. It has always been my belief that horses fall under the definition of livestock. I am specifying the types of horses in which I am interested, stock horses and pleasure horses. Many people right in the minister's constituency are engaged in the raising of both. There are not too many in my constituency but certainly there are in the foothills of Alberta and throughout the whole province. The pleasure horse has become big business in Alberta.
Some members may say: What machinery is required to raise pleasure horses? First of all you have to have brood mares and you have to have a stallion. You have to have hay and grain and a barn. You have to have pens. You have to have a show ring and many other things. I am not asking for a lengthy detailed explanation. The minister is a well known westerner, a former mayor of the city of Calgary and I ask him: What is Calgary noted for? Where was he when Calgary grew up and established the name it has all across Canada? All I am asking him to do is to stand up and say that certainly a working horse on a ranch does not have to till the soil.

That is all I am asking him to say. All I am asking him to say is that a person who raises ranch working horses can also raise pleasure horses. I am saying that these are livestock. Is the minister prepared to answer?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Acadia has raised a very serious point. To make it easier for the minister I should like to suggest to him that under this definition of farming I think the committee would be very glad to include livestock in its broadest generic sense. If a person is raising rabbits and is making money out of raising rabbits and needs machinery, he should be eligible for a loan under this legislation. I would suggest that any use of the land for any type of livestock out of which money is made should be included in the definition.
I think I can help the minister out by suggesting that if he stood in his place and said he would be glad to recommend to his officials that the wording "livestock" be broadened out to include any form of livestock used by a farmer for the purposes of profit, then I think the hon. member for Acadia would be satisfied, and so would any farmer who raises rabbits-if he wants to raise rabbits-


Maurice John Moreau: White mice.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: And white mice, if he can sell them.


Mr. Roxburgh:: And cats.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Any of these would be legitimate livestock, and I think the officials would be very happy to say they would be glad to consider such a recommendation from the minister. In that way we would all be happy.


Harry William Hays: I shall be very pleased to accommodate the hon. member for Acadia by making that recommendation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Can I take it, before this clause passes, that livestock will be understood in its widest generic sense?


Harry William Hays: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle said he thought this matter could probably be covered by my making a recommendation to our officials that all livestock be included, and I would be glad to do that.


Edward Nasserden: Is beekeeping equipment and apiary equipment to be included in this definition of farm machinery?


Harry William Hays: We have not included it in this bill because it seems it would be very difficult to use this sort of thing co-operatively. Beekeeping is not included.


Edward Nasserden: Apiary equipment is used eo-operatively in some places and lends itself very well to co-operative use. It would be a very serious omission if it were left out and I would like to see it included, particularly for northeastern Saskatchewan which produces some of the best honey in Canada.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Does not the Farm Credit Corporation now consider beekeeping as an agricultural pursuit?


Harry William Hays: Yes, this is so.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, last night I vaguely and rapidly touched upon a matter which, in my humble opinion, is interesting and significant. I am happy to see my hon. friend, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), arrive in the house, because I think he might advise his colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), on the legal scope of the bill now before us.
I would like to call the minister's attention to paragraph (c) of clause 2.
Could you give the Minister of Justice a copy of the bill to enable him to follow my remarks?
Under paragraph (c) of clause 2, we read this:
(c) "Farm machinery syndicate" means an association formed (i) by an agreement in writing, approved by the corporation, between not less than three individuals.
Under this bill a syndicate is to be created for the purchase of machinery, and the text of this legislation once more ignores the basic principles of the civil law of the province of Quebec, which, in clause 984 of the civil code, provides some essential terms to legalize any liability resulting from a deal between an association of at least three persons on the one hand, and the Farm Credit Corporation, on the other hand.
Under the definition given to us, there is no mention of the legal capacity of people who eventually might transact business with the corporation.
What is going to happen, Mr. Chairman, if three minors-let us say 20 year old boys, the sons of good farmers in one and the same district-appear before the Farm Credit Corporation, to sign an agreement among themselves, some sort of written document, setting them up as a company?
At this point the company will be in conflict with the terms of the civil code. And what will happen if, incidentally, those three minors who are to be recognized as being able to enter into a contract under the defini-
Farm Machinery
tion given in subsection (a) are in conflict with the Farm Credit Corporation?
Is the corporation going to prosecute minors who will be regarded as of age under the act? Or, if the act is passed without full compliance with the legal conditions required to transact in the province of Quebec, we will have a completely worthless contract under the law, one that is worthless ab initio.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, the federal legislator is going to allow such interference in the jurisdiction of the civil code.
It looks as if the government, on the pretence of co-operative federalism, are disregarding the very basis of the important principles granted the provinces under the British North America Act. As a matter of fact, civil law is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
By virtue of what legislation, Mr. Chairman, are syndicates going to be established within the meaning of this bill? Is it under some provision of the revised statutes of the province of Quebec?
I would suggest that the Minister of Justice refresh his memory by taking a close look at chapters 117 to 123 of the revised statutes of the province of Quebec where certain basic conditions have been set down by the legislators.
We will find that for a farm corporation or an agricultural co-operative syndicate to have legal existence, and in no circumstances whatsoever are less than ten people recognized as constituting a legal partnership in the province of Quebec.
Now, our learned friends opposite will put aside this agricultural economy, which is recognized in our revised statutes of the province of Quebec, leaving aside the most imperative provisions of the civil code of this province.
I do not know the provisions of the civil code of the other provinces, but I speak as a lawyer from the province of Quebec. I ask the minister whether he submitted this text to the advisers of the Department of Justice when, without any right, in flagrant violation of the sacred right belonging to the provinces in the field of civil law, such a stand is being taken. By what right will the federal government now create agricultural corporations without respecting the required legal capacity of the contracting parties, so that there might be a legal act between on the one hand the farm corporation or syndicate, as provided by this legislation, and the Farm Credit Corporation?

Farm Machinery
I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, supported by his parliamentary assistant and learnedly enlightened by the Minister of Justice, as well as the other learned lawyers sitting on the other side, like for instance my good friend from Lotbiniere (Mr. Cho-quette), the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance)-


Auguste Choquette: Do not forget the Minister of Justice.


Rémi Paul: And also the Minister of Justice. I still remember a brilliant contribution on his part concerning coloured legislation.
Well, I hope that tonight they will give us further proof of their legal knowledge inorder to enlighten my poor intelligence- quite confused in this matter-because I feel that this is another shocking intrusion of the federal authority in the field of the civil law of the province of Quebec.
I am waiting for your comments, Mr. Minister.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, may I answer at this time on the part of the Minister of Justice, because the speech of my hon. friend does not deserve the answer of a minister as distinguished and competent as the Minister of Justice. It rather requires a humble member like me to refute in a few words all the objections raised by my hon. friend, objections which do not surprise me since they come from a lawyer who has been practising law for so long.
The first objection of the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere is very easy to refute. He worries considerably for the minors. Now, the question of the minors is quickly decided. One has only to read clause 3 of this bill to see that the corporation may grant-it is not obliged to do so-a loan.
Let us suppose that three minors call on the Farm Credit Corporation. Knowing that under the civil code of the province of Quebec minors enjoy some special protection, the Farm Credit Corporation will of course, take all possible precautions in its transactions with these minors to ensure all the necessary protection.
Consequently, I do not see where the problem is. This is a totally useless objection since the Farm Credit Corporation is not required to allow the loan; however, it should grant it to responsible persons of age having the necessary maturity to meet their obligations.
As concerns the second objection raised by my hon. friend, this is not a real objection-


Mr. Mariineau:: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Auguste Choquette: Certainly.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I would like to know if, in his opinion, it would not have been preferable to rewrite clause 2(c), substituting for the words "three individuals" the words "three persons with legal capacity"?


Auguste Choquette: I should let the Minister of Agriculture answer this suggestion. This does not mean-


An hon. Member:: The question was put to
you.


Auguste Choquette: If you want me to answer, let me finish. The point made by the hon. member is certainly very interesting. I will not dwell on details, Mr. Chairman, only I do not prize the useless objections raised by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere.
Second, the hon. member says: Does it not take ten persons to form a syndicate? And he goes on: We are not dealing with a professional syndicate as defined by the labour legislation of the province of Quebec but with a corporation wishing to borrow money; the English word is more precise: We are dealing with a "partnership".
Consequently, whenever a partnership applies to the Farm Credit Corporation to make the required loan, it can do so and I fail to see how the provincial jurisdiction is thus transgressed.
All the member has to do is to refer to the civil code; he may have not read it for some time but as for me, the recollection of it is still fresh in my mind as I was out of the university more recently than he was. Should the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere obligingly read section 1830 and the following ones, he will realize that this bill does not transgress in any way the provision of the Quebec civil code and does not represent in any way an infringement upon the provincial jurisdiction. We are dealing with corporations which are to be created and are going to borrow money while respecting at the same time the jurisdictions concerned.
In other words, the objections raised by my hon. friend are not objections, they are useless and dilatory as are all objections or obstructions from the Conservative party. [Text]


Lucien Lamoureux: I believe the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere has some further remarks to make on the same subject and it might be wise to hear him out.


Rémi Paul: Once again, Mr. Chairman, we And that legal knowledge is not learned by osmose. If the hon. member for Lotbiniere has the great privilege of having a father who sits at the appeal court, I think that he himself could be a practising lawyer and then, he would not have dared put forward observations as weak as those he just offered.
First of all he said that clause 3 answers the arguments I raised because the Farm Credit Corporation may or may not grant a loan.
What would happen if the under age person declared he was of age? What would happen to the contracts entered into? What would happen, for instance, to the great many loans obtained by under age persons?
My learned friend refers to the partnership. So, according to him, because the English version refers to partnership, the provisions of the civil code are set aside. My learned friend refers himself to the civil code, to sections 1830 and the following, dealing with the corporation.
Therefore, I am quite justified to say that the federal legislator is asked to legislate in a field where civil law is involved. An attempt is made to bring forward a legislation without taking all necessary measures to prevent so-called legal acts which are useless in any case because of the legal incapacity of certain contracting parties. In addition, I shall point out-


Auguste Choquette: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Rémi Paul: Surely, if it is an intelligent one.


Auguste Choquette: Does the hon. member know the principle of civil law, stated in article 1005, which says that:
A minor who is a.. .trader..is not relievable for cause of lesion for contracts made for the purposes of his business-
If the occasion arises, would the minor not be a trader, and in that case, do you not know the principle of the civil code which says the "the minor who is a trader, is considered of full age for the activities related to his business"? It seems to me that you should know that; it is as clear as crystal.


Rémi Paul: It seems to me that in the remarks I made yesterday-would the hon. member for Lotbiniere kindly listen to me if he wants an answer to his question? Yesterday, I did mention that this legislation is intended to destroy the small farm, the small farmer's land. This is so true that the hon.
Farm Machinery
member for Lotbiniere now mistakes the merchant for a farmer. Now, the farmer will become a merchant.
He refers us to section 1005 of the civil code. I wonder where we are going. A while ago when I referred to certain provisions of the revised statutes of the province of Quebec, chapters 118 to 123, I simply pointed out to the Minister of Justice that there are certain legal provisions in the province of Quebec to permit the creation of an agricultural syndicate.
I respectfully submit that the federal government now wants to set up an agricultural syndicate, putting aside the economy of the administrative law of the province of Quebec in that regard.
To merely say that the Farm Credit Corporation may or may not transact with persons on the ground that they are under age would protect the corporation from the danger of such transactions. And I respectfully submit that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) should insert a paragraph in order to clarify this clause, as my hon. friend from Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) was pointing out when he specified that the persons called upon under this act to transact with the Farm Credit Corporation should have the legal capacity to do so, as is stipulated in the various civil laws of the ten provinces of Canada.
The only purpose of my remarks is to protect the federal funds in preventing corporations from losing money through loans granted to minors who have no capacity to contract, and to see to it that the civil law, which is of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, is complied with.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Cho-quette) and the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul), even if they do not talk exactly the same language, both agree that the bill, as it stands at present, must respect the civil law in the province of Quebec and, in the other provinces, the common law, that is, the law which governs the parties in civil matters.
After listening to the statements made by both hon. members, I agree with them, and in order to reassure them, I can tell them sincerely that no illegality will ensue from the application of the act. On the other hand, may I be allowed to give some details which will be my modest contribution.
I must first point out that the purpose of this bill is not the creation of an agricultural syndicate or an agricultural co-operative

Farm Machinery
within the meaning of provincial laws, for instance, in Saskatchewan and even less in Quebec. For the purpose of this bill, the word "syndicate" is used only to designate the groups which jointly and severally will contract a loan and undertake a pledge. Once more, I say that no provision of this bill tends to the creation of agricultural syndicates according to the technical meaning of those words. It is only the word that will designate the group of borrowers.


Mr. Gregoire:: Will it be possible for those agricultural syndicates to form into syndicates within the meaning of the act?


Guy Favreau: It is merely and solely a group. If more than three persons join together for the purpose of this act, we will call that a syndicate.


Gilles Grégoire: If those three persons wish to form a corporation, are they entitled to do so? Under the Companies Act, can they incorporate for the purpose of forming a syndicate for the purchase of farm machinery?


Guy Favreau: In my opinion they could not take advantage of the provisions of this bill should they incorporate into a syndicate under the Companies Act, because its purpose is to protect the small farmer so that he may benefit from the prerogatives and advantages granted corporations or large groups, and that is the reason why they are allowed to pool their borrowing capacities and take advantage of the provisions of this bill without any infringement of the civil law.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the
minister a question? Does that mean the only legality of the syndicate will be under the terms of this act?


Guy Favreau: No, Mr. Chairman.


William Arnold Peters: Will they only be establishing the legal identity of a syndicate under this act, and in no other way?


Guy Favreau: The act itself, of course, does not prevent the freedom of any individual farmer to join a group or a syndicate or to become incorporated. I said for the purposes of this act they are merely called a syndicate, but they remain three or four individuals, a group, for the purposes of benefiting or profiting from the advantages of the act. There is no question here of interference with any provincial act, as I see it, such as the farmers co-operative legislation of Saskatchewan or la societe agricole du Quebec.


William Arnold Peters: My second question is, would membership in an organization, a co-op or a company be a bar to application for a loan under this act as a syndicate?


Guy Favreau: No, Mr. Chairman; but they must contract, or make the agreement, as individuals. The fact that they are members of a syndicate under clause 2 does not prevent them from so doing, but they must act individually.


Gilles Grégoire: And this is my last question: Does this mean that the incorporated syndicates will not be entitled to a loan under the present legislation, either as syndicates or as individuals?


Guy Favreau: You are right, it is the object of this legislation to benefit the small man.


Gilles Grégoire: This would also mean that individuals would be unable to enjoy the privileges provided by the Companies Act to buy farm machinery under this legislation?


Guy Favreau: Only as far as the legislation authorizes their incorporation. This is quite clear. For these people, the fact of benefiting individually or as a group under the present legislation does not stop them from availing themselves, for any other purpose, of the possibility to incorporate under some provincial act.
With regard to applying the civil code I can understand that the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere is worried. If I had the slightest doubt with regard to the legal capacity, in Quebec or any other province, either under the civil code, or the common law, being affected by that statute, I would worry too, as does the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the minister permit a question?
If he believed-


An hon. Member:: Let him continue his remarks; wait until he finishes them.


Paul Raymond Martineau: My question is quite relevant, and if the hon. member has some questions to ask, let him do so, but, as far as we are concerned, we shall exert our rights.
Therefore, my question is relevant and I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to call to order this hon. member who seems to disregard the standing orders.


Gilles Grégoire: He is never here.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am asking the minister whether in his opinion, minors without any

legal capacity could obtain a loan under this legislation?


Guy Favreau: I feel that the intervention of my colleague on this side of the house was quite justified, and that is why I presume that the hon. member for Pontiac-Temisca-mingue (Mr. Martineau) grasped my intention. This is precisely the point 1 intend to develop.
I am satisfied, and I assume this responsibility as government adviser, that this bill affects in no way the contracting capacity of individuals to the extent where, in the province of Quebec, for instance, a minor is unable to enter into a contract, except, of course, as pointed out by the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette), when protected by the civil code in the absence of a burdensome contract and when a loan is granted in cases where only persons of full age may normally obtain a loan. This legislation presupposes the full application of the civil code of the province of Quebec, and the common law in other provinces. It seems clear that the legal capacity is not affected by this legislation. It provides, however, for standards which will guarantee to the crown the reimbursement of loans by stipulating in every case the joint responsibility of the commitment.
For my part I believe that nothing has been changed. Besides, it must be noted that in any legislation on farm credit, passed under any government, the administration thereof presupposes the capacity to contract, because under any act, if one borrows from a crown corporation, the loan will be controlled as concerns its validity, its legal competency, unless a statute is to the contrary-and here, the statute is not to the contrary, since normal laws concerning legal competency have been taken into account.
I do think that after this discussion the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere will be satisfied that there is no exclusion from application of provincial legal standards, and this is inferred from the act itself.


Rémi Paul: Would the minister allow me a further question?


Guy Favreau: Certainly.


Rémi Paul: If, in clause 2 (i), after the words "between not less than three individuals", the words "having the legal capacity of contracting" were added, would that not make the text more intelligible? This is not obstinacy on my part. My interpretation of the civil code or the common law may be too narrow or too literal. If we added "having the legal
Farm Machinery
capacity to enter into an agreement", that would not quite clarify the situation, as the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue said so rightly a little earlier.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I respect the views of the hon. member and the reasons which lead him to make that suggestion but speaking personally as a civil law expert, I would much prefer not to include it because I think it is paying a greater tribute to civil law to presume that it applies rather than to have the federal government interfere by including a clear reference to the capacity.
Besides, if we had a reference to the capacity to enter into an agreement, that might be taken in some quarters as a federal responsibility for having mentioned it, and failure to mention the other provisions which protect minors and adults in some other sections of the code, might be thought to be excluded.
I am not saying they would be, but personally I feel much more at ease with a statute which fully supposes application of the Quebec code and the common law in the provinces of British tradition.
I think that under the circumstances we can agree on that.
Finally, there remains only to mention the reference to co-operatives found in clause 2, subsection 1, paragraph (c) subparagraph (i) (A). If you read the text closely, you will note here also, that there is no question of interference in the organization of existing cooperatives. It is only a matter of stating clearly that, even if they belong to a co-operative, that is a group of people engaged in collective farming, the said members will be able to take advantage of the act if they agree to do so individually.
In other words, as the first part of the subparagraph refers to a person who independently engages in farming and may take advantage of the act, there is reason to fear that this will exclude those who operate farms as a group, that is, in agricultural cooperatives. It is stated that this may not be an independent operation, but as long as the member of a co-operative agrees to commit himself individually with the other members of the group, we shall nevertheless allow the man who is not an independent farmer to take advantage of the act.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is just a matter of making the necessary distinctions, but I think this has been a useful discussion, since it has enabled us to clear up some points that were causing concern.

Farm Machinery


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask the minister whether he thinks the words "and in accordance with the provincial statutes in such cases" could be added at the end of paragraph (c) of subparagraph (A)?


Guy Favreau: With due respect for my excellent friend who has just made this suggestion, I must answer that here again there is no possibility of interference with the regulations of co-operatives as such.
It is only stated that the fact of belonging to a co-operative which has its regulations will not prevent a person from taking advantage of the act as an individual. The word "co-operative" is only used as a reference to those who engage in farming independently. That is the only reason.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Clause 2 deals with the establishment of those farm machinery syndicates, but it does not provide for cases where it would be advisable to dissolve such a syndicate, even though only made up of individuals. If, for example, three individuals buy some rather expensive farm machinery and one of them dies six months later his legal heirs are responsible for the total debt made by the deceased, but his wife is unable to continue to operate the farm because the children are too young. Then, the legislation should provide for the dissolution of such a syndicate.
Does any provision deal with the dissolution of a syndicate?
In other circumstances it may happen that three farmers disagree and that they wish to dissolve their syndicate.
Does a clause of the regulations deal with this matter? I am asking the minister if he intends to include such provisions.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, my attention has been drawn to clause 9 concerning the regulations to be passed and I am advised that pursuant to subparagraph (A) of clause 9, such cases will be provided for in the syndicate contracts so that, in case of death, the debt will be charged to the heirs who will not be compelled to pay immediately, the syndicate being, after all, reduced but not dissolved. This is provided for under the regulations.


Gilles Grégoire: 
Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member for Lotbi-niere says that this is not a companies act. It is so in the sense that all members of a syndicate are jointly and severally responsible for the whole company, so that if one member does not live up to his obligations, the other two are jointly and severally responsible.
If an individual dies, the heirs or the wife of the deceased, who do not want to continue the operation of a farm, are nevertheless still jointly and severally liable, under the will, unless they refuse to accept it. Or if one of the three individuals uses the machinery in the wrong way, the two others are still jointly and severally liable for the machinery as a whole. Nothing is provided to meet those conditions.
It is provided for the setting up of syndicates which are not real syndicates, since none of the three participants is protected. None is protected; the three of them are jointly and severally liable. If they want to withdraw from the company, they cannot do so either, unless they are still jointly and severally liable.
There is no regulation of the Canadian parliament, nor in any civil code of the various provinces, or in the common law

which provides that heirs are held responsible for unattested commitments of the deceased or the testator.
I would ask the Minister of Justice to provide at least for those cases, because I feel the poor farmer does not always think of all those legal subtleties of which he is unaware and which might raise serious problems for him. All he wants is to obtain money in order to purchase the machinery he needs. It is all very fine, but he will not think of all that.
As legislators, it is our duty to provide for the future.
I admit that if the minister truly wants to have this legislation passed-naturally the Farm Credit Corporation is subject to the civil code of the province of Quebec like anybody else-I understand it is not absolutely necessary to include a special provision in the bill, but if a company or partnership is to be set up, at least let there be an appropriate provision authorizing the parties concerned to dissolve their partnership, or company; in other words, let us make such a dissolution possible since there is no provision in this bill for such a contingency, except clause 9 which foresees the establishment of regulations concerning such a possibility. But this clause 9 will only constitute a way out for all the objections which can be made in this house. The minister might as well say that clause 9 will provide for a regulation stipulating that the corporation will not be allowed to make loans to those minors who are not protected by their tutor; again, he might say that clause 9 will provide for a regulation which will answer the objection raised a while ago by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau).
In all the bills submitted to the house, there is a clause corresponding to clause 9 in which internal regulations are dealt with. But we are now dealing with more than an internal regulation when, through a specific and explicit clause, the setting up of a so-called syndicate is provided for, which syndicate is compulsory and binding, and when the dissolution thereof is not even provided for.
I am asking the minister what he intends to do in such a case.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I think that the Minister of Agriculture will soon announce the projects of his department having regard to the provisions of the contract.
But I must simply say this: if we insist so much on keeping civil law in the province
Farm, Machinery
of Quebec and common law in other provinces, we must consider with composure the consequences of the administration of the legislation now under study.
In all cases where there is an agreement or a contract for the reimbursement of funds, the agreement or contract are entered into so as to protect the estate of the party to the contract, and this is quite normal. Then in case of death, the heirs are responsible for the indebtedness. There will always be a way for those who will decide not to go on with the farming business-and they might be the exception-to give up, as heirs, their share in the undertaking, and it is normal that the heirs who benefit from the legacy be still responsible for the debts, if any.
But what I feared a little earlier in this matter-and I thought the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) was talking about that-was the possibility that a loss be incurred through the obligation to reimburse as soon as the death occurs. That eventuality does not arise. In a little while the minister will explain how he intends to protect those who will take advantage of the provisions of the act.
I say it again; the situation, except for a few improvements that regulations might bring, is exactly the same as in the case of three persons who commit themselves in their own interest, as well as in the interest of those who some day will be their heirs.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on this I would like to take up the Minister of Justice and remind him that when three persons, in the normal course of business, make an agreement, form a syndicate, or incorporate, they are liable for the sums subscribed to the company, and that leaves out their personal possessions, which are inexistent in the present case.
At the present time there are people who will commit not only what they have invested in the syndicate that has been formed or in the company, they will even commit their personal belongings, their estate, in brief, what they will leave their children or their wife. This cannot be compared to the case of which the minister spoke, where three people formed a legally incorporated company. Moreover, the Minister of Justice is fully aware of the situation.
In the case we are considering there is no legally incorporated company. It is just an agreement.
I heard the minister state a moment ago that it is an agreement aimed at protecting the inheritance of those who enter into it.

Farm Machinery
That is true. But there is an existing convention and it is legal only between the government and three individuals, or four and even more if necessary, but while those three individuals have to pass jointly and severally a convention with the Farm Credit Corporation or with the loan company, between themselves, there is no convention and they have no protection between themselves or one against the other.
There is no section in this bill to protect the participants. The minister said a while ago that when a farmer dies, it is obvious that his heirs will keep paying. But if there are no young people in the family, or if the heirs are too young, and if the mother cannot go on operating the farm, then, the widow or the heirs can sell the farm and go to live in the city. However, they will still have to keep paying for the part of the machinery for which the father has assumed the responsibility, while the two other partners will profit from the estate. That mother, a widow, being no longer on the farm to take advantage of the machinery, will still have to pay under this bill.
I see the Minister of Justice discussing with the Minister of Agriculture. The latter must realize that there is a problem for which a solution must be found before we vote. I am not against the principle of this bill. I do not oppose the bill and I do not wish to talk it out. In proof of this, I voted this afternoon with the Liberals on the amendment.
For instance, I was thinking that while in committee, after having told the minister that we were supporting the bill, we could perhaps help him to improve it. I have always said that I was not a member of the opposition but a member of parliament and as such, I was ready to vote along with the government whenever a proposed measure was sound. This, I have shown in the past. Whenever there is room for improvement, I am willing to help.
I think there would be room for improvement there, for instance in providing for accidental cases. The Minister of Justice is well aware that the words "accidental cases" are to be found in the civil code, that is, fortuitous cases which arise unexpectedly and which alter the course of events.
Now in those fortuitous cases which may present themselves, as the bill does not in any way provide for the dissolution of such a syndicate, which exists neither legally nor in any other way, but only by the will of the Farm Credit Corporation-the minister

might perhaps add a clause to provide for the possible dissolution of such a syndicate. There may be some rules or regulations which could be set up, under which the Farm Credit Corporation would be committed to find a third individual to replace the one who died, if his heirs wanted to withdraw from the agreement. This is my suggestion. The minister could provide that in a case of demise or in cases like those I mentioned just now, or again if one of these three individuals would squander or misuse in bad faith what belongs to the three of them, the Farm Credit Corporation could undertake to find a third person to replace the deceased or the other who had dilapidated what belonged to all three. Thus, the three individuals would be protected.
But I think that before the legislation is adopted, the minister should provide for the case of an illegally existing corporation or syndicate that would have to be dissolved; such an accidental case may be due to chance. I should like to have the advice of the minister on this matter.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member has posed a very good question. Perhaps I should outline first how this is handled under the British system, although we think there are ways of improving on this method. Under the British syndicate system when one of the members is deceased six months is allowed for the remaining members to buy out his share, or find a new partner. If that is not possible the syndicate is dissolved. I think clause 9 of their act covers this situation.
We realize that there must be quite a bit of flexibility in this regard. We feel the 20 per cent down payment should be set out. We must bear in mind that such a share is in fact an asset of the estate, and that if there were originally more than two partners it would be in the interests of those remaining to find a buyer. When we were debating this matter before the hon. member for Cariboo raised the point that possibly these loans should be covered by insurance. We are investigating this matter and it may be that provision can be made for coverage by insurance. If this is not possible, then the matter will be covered in the regulations. The farmer would pay 20 per cent down, the machine would be properly depreciated and his estate would have an asset. It seems to us that the estate would be able to sell the asset at its properly depreciated value and that there would be no loss.

The hon. member is assuming that there are only three people involved. There are quite likely to be more, so the interest of one farmer might be 25 per cent or 20 per cent or as low as 15 per cent. I have explained how the matter is handled in the regulations in Great Britain and we think we can set up machinery to handle it in a better way than the British do. I might also say that the British syndicates are not government syndicates. They were formed by the farmers themselves under the auspices of the farmers' union, and in the last few years the number of syndicates there has been doubling. They were able to hurdle all of these problems. So far as this point is concerned we think we can improve on the method of handling it in the regulations.


Mr. Baldwin:: England has a unitary system. There is no division of powers there.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, several minutes ago I intended to ask for some clarification of what is meant by "an agreement in writing" in clause 2(c) (i). 1 should like some clarification of what the Farm Credit Corporation is going to accept as an agreement in writing. Perhaps I should read the clause to the minister so that what I am talking about will be completely clear.
(c) "farm machinery syndicate" means an association formed
(i) by an agreement in writing, approved by the corporation...
What I want to ask is, what kinds of agreements is the corporation going to approve? The Minister of Justice dealt with the matter partly when he said that any group of individual farmers who met the qualifications for being farmers under the act could in fact be recognized as a syndicate. However, in following his remarks I took him to mean, and I certainly hope I am wrong, that there would be no possibility of farmers organizing themselves either into co-operatives or into companies for the purpose of borrowing money from the corporation. It seems to me that this prohibits a very clear and tidy way of recognizing a legal entity so far as the government and the corporation are concerned.
To suggest that a co-operative as such, or a company formed by a number of farmers, cannot go to the corporation for a loan is severely limiting the function of the provisions of this legislation. In Alberta in the past few months, for example, the government there has made some progress in setting up what they call farm machinery pools or cooperatives. This legislation would be very use-
Farm Machinery
ful in providing the credit that these co-operatives or machinery pools would need. But now we are told by the Minister of Justice that the individual members of these co-operatives or machinery pools already set up in a formal way and supported and assisted by the provincial government will have to proceed to form themselves into a syndicate or, in other words, set up another kind of entity for the purpose of obtaining credit under the provisions of this legislation.
It seems to me that the government is doing itself a disservice by ruling out the possibility of having the Farm Credit Corporation recognize farm machinery co-operatives as a legal entity to which they can extend credit. I was really disappointed when I heard the Minister of Justice make that statement because I think that the provisions of the bill for setting up these entities have been made flexible enough that it would not be mandatory for groups of farmers who want to avail themselves of the legislation to set up a co-operative or establish a corporation formally. Therefore the interpretation of "syndicate" is useful, but then to rule out the possibility of extending credit to these formal legal entities, if I may call them that, is, it seems to me, doing a disservice to the government and to the corporation which will be administering the legislation.
I do not believe an amendment is required to clause 2, subclause (c), to give effect to what I am suggesting because it clearly refers to an agreement in writing approved by the corporation. Therefore the corporation ought to have the right to approve the kind of formal agreement that is necessary for a number of individuals to form themselves into a co-operative. If we could have an indication from the Minister of Agriculture or from the Minister of Justice that they are going to accept as a proper agreement for the purposes of this legislation the very formal arrangements that are necessary to set up a co-operative or a corporation it would be a considerable improvement, because all of the other requirements are provided for in clause 2(c) (i) (A) and clause 2(c) (i) (B). Clause 2(c) (i) (A) uses the words "who are engaged in farming independently of one another" and clause 2(c) (i) (B) uses the words "the principal occupation of a majority of whom is farming". Therefore there are plenty of provisions to make sure that the membership of the co-operative or corporation is made up of bona fide farmers.
I really am disappointed, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Justice will reconsider

Farm Machinery
their stand in ruling out making credit available to legal entities that have already been established.
May I call it ten o'clock?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, of course we would be pleased to consider all these things. The bill is set up for the purpose of lending money to individual farmers. Co-operatives can use the industrial development bank to obtain loans, but this legislation is designed so that farmers may form a partnership which will be known as a syndicate. It will be composed of three or more farmers and they will be able to purchase machinery as a group. We considered co-operatives and other groups but we felt that the bill should be designed along the lines of the British syndicates and should deal specifically with individual farmers. Any farmer who belongs to a co-operative or limited company can still participate individually under this legislation with other farmers. This was the way the bill was designed. We would hope that hon. members would let the bill operate on this basis, and after we have had a look at how it operates for a year there would be no reason why the legislation could not be sent then to the agriculture committee so that amendments might be made in the light of the experience gained in the operation of the legislation for a year.


Mr. Douglas:: Between now and the time the minister brings this bill back to the committee of the whole house, would he not consider sending it to the agriculture committee, as there are a great many defects in it which I am sure have not been fully considered by the department? I think we will spend a great deal more time than is necessary trying to discuss it in committee of the whole, and if in the interim the minister considered sending it to the agriculture committee he could probably save himself and the house a great deal of time.


Harry William Hays: I am sure the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam would like me to answer his question this evening. I was not a member of the house at the time the Farm Credit Corporation was formed. At that time my party was in opposition and thought that bill should go to a committee, but the then government did not feel so. The same thing happened with the farm stabilization act.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It went to a committee.


Mr.   Kays@: The then government also felt the ARDA program should not go to a com-
[Mr. Olson.)
mittee. All these very important pieces of legislation did not go to a committee.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is not so.


Harry William Hays: They did not go to a committee, and I feel if I had been a member at that time I certainly would have supported that feeling, because there are many things we can iron out. We have been working on this legislation for nearly nine months. We have looked carefully at similar bills in other countries and we feel we have taken the best from all of them and incorporated it in this legislation. We would like to see it operate for a year, and then we would be perfectly willing to send it to a committee. At this point to send it to a committee would mean we would be threshing old straw.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before you call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman, could the minister not persuade his colleagues to bring on this legislation again tomorrow, so that we can quickly finish with it?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not know what the mood of the committee is, Mr. Chairman, but I think we are in a good working mood now, and I wonder if it would be agreeable to hon. members to continue with this debate until 10.30?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we would not object to sitting after ten o'clock. On the other hand, I wonder if the Liberals are willing to continue until ten thirty o'clock. For some time the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) has been saying that he is anxious to leave. If the Liberals, and particularly the member for Levis are agreeable, we will be happy to remain. The member for Levis says that this is boring, but as far as we are concerned we are willing to carry on with our duty.


Mr. Guay:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to prolong the discussion. As usual, the member for Lapointe never gets things straight. I said that I was anxious to see this bill passed, and that this would be possible before ten o'clock if he would only cease talking.


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member for Levis knows very well what he was saying a while ago and he can surely repeat it without being embarrassed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If the committee is going to get anything done I think we should confine our remarks to the item before the house.


Gerald William Baldwin: Are we still on clause 2?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Yes.


Gerald William Baldwin: Then I want to-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Ten o'clock.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, how can you continue to proceed when it is obviously ten o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the house leader if the business for tomorrow will remain as announced last night?


Guy Favreau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It was at the request of a great number of hon. members that I agreed to open up the estimates of my department tomorrow, so as to allow them to state their views on the matter of the consitutional amendment, otherwise referred to as repatriation of the constitution. I think it would be proper for them to be given a chance to do so, and for that reason there will be no change in the business as announced.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:

Douglas Mason Fisher: The question I put to the Minister of Labour involves none of the normal partisan antagonism associated with questions asked on the orders of the day. But I am concerned by the fact that throughout Ontario the company I mentioned, the Federal Life and Casualty Company of 191 Eglinton avenue east, Toronto, Ontario, is circulating a business reply card which says:
Just fill in the particulars and drop in the nearest mail box for free information on the federal social security plan.
The main message, on the other side of the card, begins with a bit of "jingles". It says:
Free information. Do not delay. Fill out and mail today. Important! If you have received your social
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion insurance number you can qualify for the federal social security plan. Pays for food, pays for clothing, pays for shelter. When you are sick, when you are injured; even a guaranteed income to your family after death.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Everything but your farm machinery.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The real crux of this deception is the insertion of the words "If you have received your social insurance number". What relation there can be between the social insurance numbers which were touted so thoroughly by the Department of Labour and what appears to be a private plan is beyond me, but obviously an unwary person getting such a card as this is almost certain to assume that if he replies he will receive some information with regard to a federal security plan which exists. While, as we know, there is a social security framework made up of various statutes and various funds, there is no such thing, to my knowledge as an overall social security plan which covers anyone who has a social security number.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Playing with the word
"federal".


Douglas Mason Fisher: Of course; they are playing with the word "federal". If it were "dominion" then I suppose we would feel better.
But since our compatriots in the Liberal party moved us on to the federal wicket a few years ago we have assumed that anything described as a federal social security plan is something sponsored by the government.
This kind of deception, it seems to me, should be met as soon as it is pointed out. I think there may be grounds for a warning from the post office authorities and from the Department of Labour. It is my understanding that it is a criminal offence to send deceptive advertising through the mail. I think a special responsibility rests upon the Department of Labour, because the whole basis of the deception in this blurb is the use of the phrase "social insurance number". All I am asking from the department is an assurance that they will check into this at once and see whether something can be done to put an end to it. It is apparent that a great many people in Ontario could be deceived, and if this company is operating all over the country it is possible there will be much misunderstanding and a lot of work for members of parliament trying to straighten out people who discover that the "federal social security plan" will cost them a great deal more money than they believed.
8574	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. James A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) did not indicate earlier in the afternoon that this matter would be debated this evening. Therefore, it being almost six o'clock when I was informed that this question had been brought forward, there was very little time left for investigation. However, Mr. Speaker, I endeavoured to telephone the insurance company in Toronto in order to find out what the plan really is. I found they were not in the telephone book of last year, but they are listed this year. I was given a number at which to call the manager, and was informed at the house that they did not know anything about this person. I did ascertain that the Federal Life and Casualty Company is an old company, incorporated in 1906 in Battle Creek, Michigan. They have been operating in Canada since 1958.
There is no question that this is spurious advertising, when one examines the card. I have also been in touch with the superintendent of insurance, who informed me that up to the present time there have been no complaints in respect of this company. He would certainly like a copy of the card that is in the possession of the hon. member. If the hon. member would hand it to me I would be pleased to bring it immediately to the attention of the superintendent of insurance who would, I am sure, on examining the card advise the hon. member that this is not the proper type of advertising. They are taking particular advantage of their name "Federal insurance company" and are using our proposed federal social security measures in order to enhance their advertising capabilities. This matter will certainly be brought to the attention of the superintendent of insurance, and I thank the hon. member for bringing it to the attention of the Department of Labour.



AGRICULTURE-TURKEYS-REIMPOSITION OF QUOTAS ON IMPORTS FROM U.S.

Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that earlier in the day I raised a question in regard to turkey producers. I placed my question before the minister in this way: "Realizing that the minister has had recent consultations with the Canadian turkey producers in regard to their request for an embargo or curtailment of imports, would the minister say what his advice was to these people at that time?" I went on to say that this has been a contentious question and is of course very important to the


turkey producers across the country. I was also prompted to raise the question because it had been raised on September 22 this year, as is recorded at page 8332 of Hansard, by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp), at which time there was no reply from the parliamentary secretary. I believe the minister would have answered the question today had Mr. Speaker allowed him to proceed. It may be the minister has not yet seen fit to meet these people, but I understand he did meet them.
It is my understanding that the importation of turkeys into Canada up to the end of August amounted to something in the neighbourhood of eight million pounds, whereas prior to this time, under the protection afforded by the previous administration I believe the total amount allowed into the country was four million pounds in one year. It is also my understanding that cold storage plants and the like are filled with turkeys and other fowl now, ready for the traditional Thanksgiving market, and the same situation will naturally prevail not too many months hence. It was also brought to my attention upon inquiry that the price of turkeys has dropped something like a cent and a half or two cents a pound since these imports have been allowed into Canada. This is a downward trend. I would imagine this would obviously result in a downward trend in other categories of fowl in this particular market for Canadian producers.
It seems to me I recall that about one year ago the chain stores had a method of using these particular birds as loss leaders, and the pressure of competition certainly made the purchase of such birds at this time of year very easy for the housewife. The producers are very concerned that the area covered by the embargo protection was lifted by the government, after it took many years prior to the change of government in 1957 to convince the government that such was necessary. But in 1957 the producers did succeed in this and we are now asking what advice the minister gave these people when he met them.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, the situation as far as turkeys are concerned is this. I attended the annual meeting of the producers in Winnipeg and spoke to the executive there, and we went into the situation very carefully. I believe the original quota was put on in 1958. Eviscerated turkeys were coming in from the United States at a time when we did not have the know-how as far as evisceration

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
was concerned. A quota was established of four million pounds. In addition to that there is now a duty of 5 cents a pound with cents a pound for the discounted dollar and 1 cent for freight. It is true that something over seven to eight million pounds of turkeys have been imported into Canada in the last few weeks, but this has dried up, as we hoped it would, as the turkey market in the United States firmed up.
These imports are tied in with a very wide policy of exports to the United States. At the same time as these imported turkeys came into Canada, 30,000 head of cattle were imported into Canada due to lower prices in the United States. They were able to move this way with all of their other meat products. There is about 20 to 25 per cent protection so far as turkeys are concerned and 5 to 6 per cent protection so far as other meat products are concerned.
It was the feeling of the government of Canada that with this protection the situation was still not serious enough to call for quotas because we had to consider the general agreement on tariffs and trade and make sure we committed no contravention as far as agriculture in Canada is concerned. In discussing this question with the turkey people, they informed me they would send me the resolutions passed at their annual meeting and would submit what they thought we should do about the situation. I have received only one communication so far, although I have written to them again and suggested that their requests should also be backed up by the farm unions and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, with whom they could have a frank discussion in connection with meat imports into Canada. They have not yet indicated whether they will be able to do so; nevertheless they did suggest that if we were able to impose a tariff consistent with value for duty at 3$ cents a pound on live turkeys they would be able to live with the eviscerated turkeys which came into Canada.
That is the situation at the moment. I am still waiting to hear from them but I can assure the hon. member that the government will be pleased to consider any further suggestions they have to offer.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Wednesday, September 30, 1964