1968-10-01

INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the anxiety being expressed throughout the country by Indian organizations and other spokesmen for the Indian people, including the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras), about the failure of the government to consult the Indian people before proceeding with the reorganization of the department of Indian affairs will he undertake to reconsider these proposals in consultation with representatives of the Indian community in Canada?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, as this house knows there has been constant and intense communication with the Indian population since this government took office on all aspects concerning the Indian population. The reorganization of the department is something which had been initiated quite a while ago. It is just a matter of internal structure, and the obvious design is to make the services of the government to the Indian and Eskimo population more efficient. It is really a consequence of Indian Affairs being no longer just a branch but being a whole department; because it was a matter of internal reorganization we did not feel it was necessary to advise the Indians in advance of the day that it was going to take place.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a supplementary question, will the Prime Minister state whether, before proceeding with this reorganization, the government did or did not consult with the national and regional Indian advisory councils, which I understand were established by the government for precisely this purpose of consultation.


Mr. Trudeau:: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that both Mr. Chretien and Mr. Andras have been discussing this general idea amongst themselves and with the people concerned, but
they will have to answer for themselves when they are in the house. I have no specific information on that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister inclined to meet with representatives of the Indian Brotherhood of Canada, which organization has strongly protested this reorganization and demanded a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not considered that yet. I have not received this invitation. I do not know of it, but I am inclined to believe that the minister and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) are very expert and able at this, and that whatever they have decided is a good decision.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: As a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that representatives of the Indian people have made it clear that they consider this reorganization more than an internal housekeeping affair, would the Prime Minister give consideration, first of all, to tabling the details of the reorganization and, second, referring the matter to the appropriate standing committee so that representatives of the Indian people could make public their observations and their criticisms of this plan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Chretien tells me he had intended announcing this to the house on Friday-


An hon. Member:: You mean the minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but in view of the number of statements on motions he has postponed it to Wednesday of this week, and I think I can say with authority that Mr. Chretien plans to make a statement to the house tomorrow on this matter.


An hon. Member:: You mean the minister.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: As a
supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: It is
Mr. Trudeau now.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -the Prime Minister indicated that consultation had been going on between the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. October 1, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry Andras) and the advisory councils at the national and regional level. In view of that statement could the Prime Minister inform the house whether, as the Minister without Portfolio indicated, he, the Minister without Portfolio, had not been consulted until last Monday on this fundamental reorganization of the department?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would have to obtain this from the minister himself because my information, Mr. Speaker, is that there has been ample discussion between the minister and the Minister without Portfolio on this matter.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: As a supplementary question, can the Prime Minister say whether a two volume report on Indian poverty areas prepared by ARDA has been suppressed, and whether he will undertake to make this important report public?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, questions relating to ARDA come under the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, and I will have to ask him to consider this.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: I will take the question as notice.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement made by the Minister without Portfolio, who has been assigned by the Prime Minister to Indian Affairs, to the effect that he had not been informed of the reorganization until last Monday; in view of his statement that he would have been happy to see it postponed but that he has asked for a full report on its depth and the rationale, and in view of the obvious confusion relating to responsibilities, will the Prime Minister undertake to make a statement to the house on motions which will delineate clearly to the house, to the country and to the Indian people the authority and responsibilities of these respective ministers with regard to Indian Affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can do this now. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development obviously is the minister responsible for everything coming under his department. He is being assisted in one special aspect of his duties by the Minister without Portfolio. The line of responsibility, however, is clearly through the minister with

portfolio. I understand the problems of hon. members with regard to this matter, and I assure them that I share them.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Does the Prime Minister consider the remarks of the Minister without Portfolio to be a cabinet leak?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to make a statement to the house concerning his conversations a day or two ago with the Prime Minister of France?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I understand it is not customary to make a statement after such conversations, and I had not planned to do so.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister confirm whether Canada has asked for an extension until October 15 before announcing whether the government intends to participate in the European consortium for the design and development of a new general purpose fighter bomber, and will the minister say whether a decision has yet been reached by the cabinet on this subject?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, we have requested an extension to October 15. No decision has yet been reached.


John Angus MacLean: Can the minister say whether the decision on this matter is related to the review of defence and foreign policy, and will he confirm whether this review has been completed at the official level and is now before the government for consideration?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: There is a degree of relationship, but I think the decision can be taken even before the conclusion of the review of external affairs and defence. There is a certain relationship, but I do not
October 1, 19S8

believe we will have to have the conclusions of the review before we make up our mind whether we should participate.



NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Oza  Telrauli@Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the acute shortage of medical staff and hospital beds in Canada, especially in the Gaspe peninsula and in Abitibi, can the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare tell the house whether he intends to announce efficient measures in order to improve the situation?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I am not aware of a shortage in the particular area to which the hon. member referred. I shall look into it and report to the hon. member later.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-
Grace): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Yesterday before the royal commission on the status of women complaints were made regarding the Department of Labour and the bureau for women within that department. I should like to ask the minister whether his department has any plans to strengthen the staff of that bureau and make it more effective for women.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, I think both the question now asked by the hon. member and the question asked by the previous hon. member are rather general in scope. I fail to see the immediate urgency of the problem in the question asked by the hon. member. If there is urgency he can perhaps indicate his intention to debate it at the time of adjournment.


Mr. Allmand:: Ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I may say that it is in the
Inquiries of the Ministry same area as the one asked by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, but Your Honour will appreciate it is a different question. Will the minister, at an early date, be announcing the appointment of a new director of the women's bureau of his department?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: A new director was chosen a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, and allowing for the appeal period under the provisions of the Public Service Act I should be in a position to announce the new director on Monday or Tuesday of next week.


William Warren Allmand: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether a decision has been made to upgrade the position of the director in accordance with the brief submitted to the royal commission, and whether the director will receive more pay.


An hon. Member:: Put the question in caucus tomorrow.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Will the minister be prepared to table the correspondence with Mrs. Findlay, who occupied that position as chairman of this bureau, since the circumstances under which she resigned are set out therein? At the same time would the minister say whether the cause for which she resigned has been looked into with a view to ascertaining the true facts, and whether there will be an improvement in conditions for the new appointee?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, one of the recommendations Mrs. Findlay made was that we upgrade the position. I am pleased to announce to the house that we have upgraded the position so that the salary of the new director is beyond the recommendation of Mrs. Findlay.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister table the letter from Mrs. Findlay, so the house can judge whether she has been upgraded or downgraded?



REPORTED REDUCTION IN U.S. IMPORTS FROM CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is urgent and of national importance, and I direct it to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Did the United States make a unilateral decision to cut back the quotas on imports of crude
October 1, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry petroleum from Alberta, Canada, to the United States of America, or was this a result of negotiation between Canadian trade groups and the United States.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the national oil policy is a matter of continuing negotiation and arrangements between ourselves and the United States. The present arrangements are discussed fully with our United States counterparts and I think have been very much in the interests of the Canadian oil producers over the years.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps the minister did not quite understand my question. We all realize that the national oil policy is subject to negotiation, but did Canada negotiate this export loss in crude petroleum to the United States or was this done on a unilateral basis by the United States?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian market in the United States has been increasing every year. It has gone up from some 117,000 barrels five years ago to, I think, more than 300,000 barrels per day during the first three quarters of the current year. I believe it is very much in the interest of Canada that this policy has been so effective.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the report that appeared yesterday about the large cutback in receipts by the United States of Canadian oil, which indicates that the oil policy is not operating in the way it was intended to operate in 1961, will the minister make a statement on motions as early as possible outlining how it is operating?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did not answer the question I should like to give notice of my intention to debate this at ten o'clock.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In his absence and the absence of his parliamentary assistant perhaps it may be taken as notice. My question deals with automotive

safety. Will the minister check with that part of his department which deals with the establishment of automotive safety standards to determine whether complaints have been made to the department by car importers who claim they cannot sell seat belts because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Barry Mather: -they cannot get them
approved by the department?



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Will he use his good offices in an attempt to persuade the Minister of Transport to give an adequate and proper hearing to important briefs prepared by highly responsible and knowledgeable organizations such as the Toronto real estate board, which has attempted to present a brief to the task force on housing without apparent success?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. C. Scott (Vicloria-Haliburion):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to direct my question to the acting minister. In view of the increased circulation of the new Canadian coinage, which is not of such a nature as to work in vending machines, will the minister inform the house whether the owners of vending machines will be compensated for the mechanisms they will have to replace?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My recollection is that this question has been asked before. I must confess that I do not remember whether an answer was given at the time, but perhaps the hon. member might like to promote a discussion of the subject at the time of adjournment.



INQUIRY AS TO ACTION TO CONTROL INCREASED NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, in view of continuing reports about dangerous drugs such as LSD, STP and others falling
October 1, 1968

into the hands of teenagers and even children, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare what steps his department is taking to tighten controls in respect of distribution of these extremely dangerous drugs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the question the hon. member is asking is of a very general nature. Perhaps the minister would consider making a general statement on motions.


Jay Waldo Monteith: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister do this?


John Carr Munro: I would be pleased to consider that, Mr. Speaker.



NANAIMO-COWICHAN-THE ISLANDS-INQUIRY AS TO BY-ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in order to complete the complement of members of the house, has the Prime Minister yet come to a conclusion as to a by-election for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, so that all constituencies in Canada will have representation in this house?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: There is no conclusion yet, Mr. Speaker, but one will be forthcoming.


John George Diefenbaker: This year, next year?



CANADIAN YOUTH PARLIAMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that in June of 1966, a parliamentary committee adopted the idea of a Canadian youth parliament, and in view of the fact that three former prime ministers and all provincial governments also endorsed the idea, would the Prime Minister consider reconvening the ad hoc committee on the establishment of a youth parliament, to bring this project to reality?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I will discuss this matter with the house leader, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry DIVORCE



AMENDMENT OF PROVINCIAL RULES OF PROCEDURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister say whether the attorneys general of the provinces will be contacted with a view to amending the rules made pursuant to the new Divorce Act so the object of the act can be attained in cases of desertion?


Hon.   John. N. Turner@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, I gather the reason prompting the hon. member's question relates to the recent ruling by Mr. Justice Stewart on an order for substituted service. We are not yet sure whether that case will be appealed, so I will not go to the substance of it.
There is latitude under section 19 of the Divorce Act for the superior courts across the country to amend the rules of procedure within that act, and there is also scope for the governor in council to do the same thing. I said on another occasion that if over the next few months the provisions of the Divorce Act prove to be unworkable in certain respects, we will consider making in this house whatever amendments are necessary.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it the intention of the minister to discontinue the premiums now paid on high quality hog carcasses when the new regulations in respect of grading are introduced?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention to discontinue the premiums being paid on hog carcasses, but obviously when the new regulations come into effect on January 1 next some adjustments will have to be made to the programming because the grades in respect of which premiums are now being paid will no longer be in effect.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister refers to "some adjustments" does he mean that premiums will not be paid?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, the minister does not mean that.
October 1, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



REPLY OF FRENCH GOVERNMENT RESPECTING ACTIVITIES OF REPORTED AGENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that on September 11 the Prime Minister charged that the government of France had acted in an underhanded and surreptitious way in the Rossillon affair, I ask him whether Canada has received a satisfactory explanation or assurances from the government of France regarding the activities of Mr. Rossillon while in Canada.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I should confess that I did not think of asking about the Rossillon affair yesterday when I talked with the prime minister of France.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: You
said it was important.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we to assume from this answer that in the view of the Prime Minister this matter does not today seem to have the importance that it had on September 11?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative and is not in order at this time.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.

Could he tell us if the Rossillon affair is as important today as it was a fortnight ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when one deals with a problem and expresses one's point of view, I do not think that it is desirable to drag it with oneself all the time; I think that we must go on and deal with new issues, and that is what we did yesterday with the Prime Minister of France.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a 
question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement over the week by the United Church of Canada that it "lays the full blame for the housing shortage on the shoulders of the federal government" does the Prime Minister intend to give this important church body the same kind of lecture he meted out to the Roman Catholic bishops-


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I think there should not be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -for daring to criticize government policy? Can we have an answer? We could not hear it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Hellyer commission on housing has refused to hear some 20 briefs which were to be presented because they appeared to be critical of government policy, can the Prime Minister say whether this is to be the pattern followed across the country as this travelling circus moves throughout Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will go on to another subject. Hon. members cannot ask supplementary questions to questions which were clearly out of order.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my question should be more appropriately addressed to the Minister of Finance, but since he is absent I address it to the Prime Minister. In view of the 10,000 signature petition recently received by the Prime Minister's office from the Ontario association of retired women teachers emphasizing the distressed financial condition of many elderly Canadians, will the government consider raising the income tax exemption at an early date?


Mr. Speaker:: With reference to the question now asked and a number of questions asked previously, I should like to remind hon. members that questions are for the purpose of seeking information and not for the purpose of giving information to the house. Many questions start with the words "in view of". I am sure hon. members know it is not
October 1, 1968

according to the form recognized by the house to ask a question based on a statement of fact. I suggest to hon. members that as much as possible direct questions should be posed. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase the question.


Mark Willson Rose: Is it the government's intention at an early date to consider raising the income tax exemption for Canadians?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, at an early date we will be making a statement on the budget; at that time we can take it that the minister will have given consideration to all kinds of problems such as these mentioned by the hon. member.



PROHIBITION ON SALE OF CANADIAN TURBOT IN U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Yesterday the hon. member for St. John's East directed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs relative to the sale of Greenland halibut. At that time the minister stated that a reply would be given today on motions by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. However, that reply was not given, so I should like to put the following question to the minister. In view of the fact-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: -that the United States food and drug administration will hear an appeal tomorrow against the banning of the sale of Greenland halibut in the United States after November 21, and in view-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the humour in my question. May I point out, for the benefit of those hon. members who do not know it, that last year this industry was worth some $4 million to Newfoundland.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly ask his question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Will or can the minister indicate what support his department is giving the fishing industry in this important matter?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, several members of the department will be attending the hearings in Washington on Wednesday as observers.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. James McGrath (St. John's East):: have a supplementary question. Will the minister state whether the government of Canada will support the fishing industry in this appeal?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister without Portfolio who has some responsibility in this area will be making a statement today.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: I should like to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for St. John's East, to which reference was made earlier. The government was asked for an explanation to be given in connection with the marketing of Greenland halibut. The government has asked that an extension of time be given in this matter. The government took this action because of a lack of consultation with the people concerned before the United States action was taken. The government will not be involved directly in a matter involving an agency of another government. Of course we have no opinion to express on the appropriate name to be chosen.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carlelon-Char-loite):: My question is for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Has the minister received representations relative to the serious condition of the forests of New Brunswick and the alarming deterioration in quality which many knowledgeable persons consider has been caused by a recurrence of the bud worm infestation?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member would not think this question should be placed on the order paper.


Hugh John Flemming: May I with great respect, sir, suggest it is a very alarming situation.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question for the Minister of Energy,
October 1, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry Mines and Resources. In the light of the report of the Science Council of Canada, which was just released, has the minister accelerated his review of our water resources and pollution problems in order to develop a policy?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there are many facets, of course, to water policy in so far as the federal government is concerned. There will be a meeting in Halifax next week at which many areas of this problem will be discussed with provincial ministers. Certainly the report of the science council is one item which will be given consideration in formulating any new policy.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. I was going to preface it by a statement that, in view of the fact that the Vice President of the United States made a statement with regard to the question of bombing, and so on. However, since Mr. Speaker has pointed out that we should not do so I will be more direct and ask the Prime Minister if it is government policy that the United States should cease bombing North Viet Nam.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: have a question for the Postmaster General in his role as minister designate of communications, and I have pruned it both of news and views. My question relates to telecommunication satellites, to which he made reference in the press the other day, and in particular has reference to French banking interests obtaining an interest in Canadian Marconi. Can the minister advise the house whether he has now investigated these reports, and whether he can acquaint the house with his findings with relation to this very important matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the information should be given to the house, if it is going to be given, by way of a statement on motions.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General or the minister in charge of communications. After sober second thoughts since yesterday, has the minister changed his decision about cancelling rural route deliveries on Saturdays, so the people who live on these routes may continue to receive this very important service?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is submitting an argument in favour of a point of view. That is not a question.


George Harris Hees: The question may be argumentative, but I am just asking if those people who live on rural routes in Canada and who need this service may continue to have it. I know the minister wants to answer.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: I always have sober thoughts. My second thoughts are the same as the first. We will move to a five day week for very good economic reasons.


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Kenl):: have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. If the five day week comes into effect will new contracts be issued to rural mail carriers, or will they just be paid five sixths of the payments under their present contracts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. My understanding is that the new policy will not come into force for some months. Under the circumstances I suggest the question should be put on the order paper.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: There is a lot of concern amongst these poor people throughout the country, Mr. Speaker. They would like to know what the future holds, and if the Postmaster General could give me an answer it would certainly be appreciated.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, at the present time the contracts cover payment for six days work and six days use of gas and oil. When we move to the five day week I would think hon. members of the opposition would feel I was very loose with public funds if I were to continue to make payments on the basis of six days pay for five days work, and six days use of gas and oil rather than five. Obviously the contracts are going to be renegotiated.

October 1, 1968


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My supplementary question is to the Postmaster General. Would he consider the capital cost of a man's investment in a car over a seven day period as compared to a five day period?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think we are getting into debate. I realize that the matter is very important, but I suggest to hon. members that the importance of a matter is not decreased by putting the question on the order paper. If there is urgency I would think we should have the matter debated at the time of adjournment.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, with respect, in view of the circumstances in which the answers have been given I think the Postmaster General's answer is incomplete. If he were to settle the matter now very briefly it could save us ten minutes at ten o'clock.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, you will note that I spoke of direct, out of pocket expenses, the cost of gas, oil and so on. Obviously in the renegotiation of contracts one takes account of the fact that depreciation is an annual, non-cash cost. I think what bothers most members of this house, and certainly myself, is the basic fact that a great many contracts are given to people at levels which do not allow them to earn a satisfactory living. I think we are quite aware of this. The same situation obtained during the regime of the Conservative party. I think the difference between the present Prime Minister and the former prime minister is that the present Prime Minister has a Postmaster General who is going to investigate these matters.


Robert Jardine McCleave: If that is the attitude we will debate the matter at ten o'clock.



STATEMENT ON RATIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions of which notice was taken and to which I should like to give a reply. The first question, asked by the Leader of the Opposition, had to do with the ratification of the international

Inquiries of the Ministry grains agreement. All but five countries signatory to this agreement have now ratified it or deposited declarations of provisional ratification. The five which have not done so are Greece, India, Lebanon, Spain and the Vatican City state.



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
With regard to northwestern Quebec, is the department thinking of helping with the construction of an access road to James bay?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the new department which has not been set up but which has none the less started to study the problem of regional development, is considering the problems facing every part of this country, including Abitibi.



AIR CANADA

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENT On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the right hon. gentleman in a position to tell the house how soon we may expect an appointment to the position of head of Air Canada?


An hon. Member:: As soon as they find a Liberal.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: We have a lot of those. I can only tell the house that this is the subject of very active consideration between some ministers and myself.


Robert Muir: What
about Judy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We do have some candidates, but they do not include the one the hon. member mentions. I will have an announcement for the house soon.
October 1, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I could give an answer to the question put a few days ago by the member for Lotbiniere.
I may say that an additional payment of 7 per cent of the salary was established about two years ago for secretaries, stenographers and typists holding a position in a department where bilingualism is required and who make use of their knowledge to a large degree. The Public Service Commission has been endeavouring for some time to set up proficiency standards and means to appraise the competence one should possess, before considering an extension of the bonus principle to other classes of employees. We are expecting a report on that subject. It is easy to understand that the clerical classes are much more complex and varied than the stenographer classes.
Mr. Speaker, as for the part of the question dealing with the staff of the House of Commons, I must point out that those employees come under your authority.
fEnglish]



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: A question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the indication that the expenditures in the current year will exceed the original estimates by some $400 million, and in view of the estimate of a respectable financial house that the revenue of the government might be some $250 million less than the estimates, will the Prime Minister indicate to the house whether the estimates of revenue for the current year will in fact be as projected, or above or below the projection?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Leader of the Opposition will expect me to answer speculations of financial houses, reputable or not, about the budget, which will be discussed very soon in this house.
[Mr. Trudeau.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I was not asking my right hon. friend to answer a question asked by a respectable financial house, but to answer a question asked by myself.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries which is urgent inasmuch as fishermen must know immediately where they stand in this respect. My question is whether the minister is contemplating any changes in the method of lobster fishing licensing for the coming season and, if so, will the minister announce these changes?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we do not contemplate any changes as of this moment, but future changes will be announced in due course.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As a conservation measure, has the minister given any thought to amending the lobster fishing regulations so that fishermen would be required to immediately return to the ocean all female lobsters when caught, whether carrying seed or not; and has he received any representations along these lines from the Atlantic provinces fisheries ministers?


John (Jack) Davis: Some representations have been made, Mr. Speaker, and the matter is under study.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of consumer affairs. In view of the mounting allegations that the auto industry is overpricing its safety devices, repair parts and its products generally, can the minister indicate whether the government intends to commission an investigation or hearing into these complaints?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minisier of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: As I said previously, Mr. Speaker, I am considering whether there should be a standing committee on consumer affairs appointed by the house. I have also said that the whole question of costs is under review by the government, and particularly
October 1, 1968

by the Prime Minister who will be making a statement on the matter in due course.


James Aloysius McGrath: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell the house when he expects to appoint the members of the consumer council, the chairman of which was appointed as early as July 16?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Very shortly, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLICATION OF STATUTES ACT


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-2, to amend the Publication of Statutes Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, to begin with I should like to review for the house the history of this bill in the previous session of parliament. It was first introduced in the other place in 1967 during the course of the last parliament. It had been given second reading in the other chamber, considered there by the standing committee on banking and commerce, given third reading and passed, whereupon it reached this house in the spring of this year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether copies of the bill could be distributed to our desks before we proceed with it. I know we have copies upstairs but we do not have them here.


John Napier Turner: I think it is being distributed now, Mr. Speaker; the bill is at the table.
I was saying that last spring, just before parliament dissolved, the bill was introduced into this chamber. It was given first reading but debate on second reading had not been concluded at the time the house was dissolved.
A week or so ago the bill was introduced once more in the other place; it was given second reading and sent to the standing committee on banking and commerce. Certain technical amendments were made to it in the other place and the bill was given third reading. The text that hon. members now have before them incorporates the amendments made to the original bill by the Senate. I might say that those amendments are accepted by the government and the bill is now before this house for second reading.
The purpose of the bill is to give the governor in council authority to publish the statutes in a certain form. At the present time, as
Publication of Statutes Act members know, under the existing Publication of Statutes Act, the statutes must be published in separate volumes, in English and in French. The purpose of this bill is to enable the government to publish the statutes in another form, having the English and French texts in adjacent columns on the same page, thereby putting both versions of the statutes in the same volume. By courtesy of the house leaders of all parties, Mr. Speaker, bills have until today been submitted to this chamber in that form. Therefore Bill S-2 itself, which we are now discussing, appears in a form similar to that which would be provided for under the regulations by the governor in council should the house adopt this bill.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The Revised Statutes of Canada to be published in the course of the coming year will be printed in the form recommended by the commission on the revision of statutes and it is the intention that the revised statutes be in both languages, printed on the same page in parallel columns, thereby including both languages in the same volume. Since the revised statutes will be in this form the government feels it would be appropriate to publish the annual statutes in the same form.
For the information of all members the Clerk has at his table specimen copies of the revised statutes as they will appear when published, and hon. members who wish to see them could perhaps call at the table, or possibly the pages can distribute copies to those who are interested.
The reason for the introduction of this bill is that while section 133 of the British North America Act provides that the laws of Canada shall be published in both languages it does not provide that they should be published side by side. As a matter of fact, they have been published until now in separate volumes, one in English and the other in French. The intention now is to publish the two versions in the same volume. I believe this will prove to be a convenience in a number of ways. I believe the legal profession itself will derive benefit from the change.
I should like to recall to hon. members of this house learned in the law that the rules adopted by the courts in the interpretation of statutes provide that a statute in one language, if of doubtful interpretation, may be compared with the same statute in the other official language. In 1935, in the case of The King v. Dubois, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the two versions of a statute
October 1, 1968

Publication of Statutes Act must be read together and that the meaning in one case might be limited or extended by the corresponding words in the other version. In the province of Quebec the statutes are already printed in parallel columns, first in French and then in English. In 1937 the Quebec Superior Court in the case of Robitaille v. Beaupre upheld the proposition that where one version of a statute is susceptible to a meaning different from the other version, the version most consistent with the intention of the legislation should prevail.
I am suggesting it will be a great convenience to the bench, to members of the bar and to people generally to find both versions of a statute printed on the same page in the same volume, each casting light, meaning and interpretation one upon the other. I think I would be remiss if I failed to mention the feeling of the government and, I hope, of this house, that if we are to talk in terms of the equality of both official languages in Canada we should not limit ourselves to section 133 of the British North America Act. If we are to mean what we say, French speaking Canadians should be made to feel at home not only in Quebec but in other parts of the country, and have equal access to the law in their own language. The act of placing each version in parallel columns grants equality to the languages used. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said before the Senate committee last year when he was Minister of Justice, having two versions separate but equal, that is to say, in separate volumes, is not the same as having them equal and in the same volume. There should be equal access to each version in the same volume.
I was present during the last debate on this subject and listened with great interest to what was said by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


Mr. Horner:: Do you want to hear it again?


John Napier Turner: No, thank you. But the hon. member did express a point of view which deserves a hearing in this house and I do not contest his right to have made that speech one bit. Having heard that speech, as well as the speech made on that occasion by the former hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, Mr. Churchill, I realize that some concern is felt about the additional cost of the new volumes and the size it is anticipated they may reach. When we reach the committee stage, if the house allows us to proceed, I believe I should be able to demonstrate that the cost will not be appreciably


greater than the current cost of producing these volumes, that the price paid by purchasers will not be appreciably more, and that the size of the volumes will not be appreciably increased. In other words, we intend that the volumes should be of a convenient size to carry into a court. We do not contemplate a cumbersome type of binding or printing.
I do not intend to deal with the amendments made in the Senate unless this matter is brought up during the committee stage. I shall simply add a few remarks having to do with the publication of statutes generally and the possibility of accelerating the speed with which these statutes can be published and revised. I think this is related to the larger area of legal reform, of bringing the law up to date with technology and the introduction of a greater degree of computerization in connection with the publication of the statutes in permanent form. I would think that the availability of the statutes in the two languages would enhance this possibility. Since 1960 much has been said and written in this area and today studies on these lines rank as a highly specialized discipline called jurimet-rics. I have had something to say about this outside the house but so far I have had no opportunity to mention it here.
I have only a few more things to say, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure the hon. member who is representing the minister of justice in the shadow cabinet, which is rather an illusory concept at best-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When they have a case won, good counsel do not talk too long.


Mr. Baldwin:: Don't talk your client into gaol.


John Napier Turner: If that is the understanding, I will sit down.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister sat down because I think there was an understanding- indeed, he knew there was an understanding-that we would try to get this bill through today. It is, after all, a procedural matter. I appreciate the minister's wish to explain the bill and the advantages attaching to it, but when he got into the political realm to try to wrap up a few votes I thought he lost his purpose. We on this side agree with what he proposes. Let us get on with the job and approve the bill without delay.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
October 1, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	635


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the applause one gets when his speech is brief I shall also be brief.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
think that this proposal is a sensible one and we are happy to support the bill that is now before the house. The only serious objection that anyone has made to me has been to express the fear that if we do this with the statutes we might start doing it with Hansard and other documents, and Hansard would become very thick if it had to contain a days' work in both languages in one volume.
However, I think that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has dealt with that point by making it clear that section 133 of the British North America Act does make a difference between debates in the House of Commons and acts which parliament passes. It is quite clear that the acts which parliament passes must be printed and published in both languages, and it seems to us it is a matter of common sense that both language versions should appear in the same document.
We have already had a bit of experience with this in that our bills introduced thus far this session have been printed this way. We have had a sort of companionate marriage of the two languages and it has worked. This idea might well be proceeded with, and we are happy to support this bill on second reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carle-ton, seconded by Mr. Mcllraith, moves that the said bill-


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, perhaps there is some disposition in the house to go on with the other stages today.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. S-2, to amend the Publication of Statutes Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bechard in the chair.
On clause 1-Distribution.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, before clause 2 carries I would like to say one or two words. It seems to me there is nothing wrong with
Publication of Statutes Act the bill and it is very hard to oppose this type of legislation. I had the opportunity of participating in the move to get rid of one section of the statutes that most members of parliament never saw. There used to be another section attached to the statutes that one could order privately each year if one wished. With the deletion of that section I suppose we now have a little more money for printing statutes, but I wonder whether this is not really looking ahead to something else.
The idea of printing both language versions side by side may be all right but it is something that does not apply to very many people. I am sure that those who wish to conduct their business in the French language probably do so in toto and those who wish to conduct their business in English do so in toto.
Except in the rarified field of appeals there does not seem to be much use for this step. In instances of appeals lawyers may discuss the interpretation of a particular phrase in both languages. They may even go further than that and look into the interpretation given by the legislature when passing the bill, but in the main both versions are not going to be used. It seems to me that this step is a sop, more than anything else, to an expression of opinion widely prevalent in Canada today to this effect: Let us do something that is not really going to do anything, but nobody is really opposed to it.
If this bill really means what is says, providing for universality of both official languages in our statutes, then it seems to me that the courts will have to give some consideration to this matter. When I go over to Hull in the province of Quebec to pay a parking ticket or a fine for going through a light, since the law there is different from what it is in Ontario the court proceedings are conducted entirely in French and I do not know what is going on. I have had this experience personally. I have stood in the prisoners' dock, or whatever it may be, but I have not required the statute covering the offence. In any case it was probably a provincial statute. Therefore the usefulness of this proposal to the individual is going to be limited.
This may apply only to courts but it raises the whole problem of bilingualism. If the statutes in future must be in both languages I will need a knowledge of both languages, and it is time the federal government gave consideration to moving forward with a national education program that would make it possible for the average person to read the statutes in both languages. This is not possible for the average person now; yet we do not
October 1, 1968

Publication of Statutes Act seem to be moving in that direction. I know the minister may say that this is not a federal matter at the present time, but if we do not make it a federal matter printing the statutes in both languages will not mean much.
I am sure many people will be able to understand the French and English versions simultaneously, but I am doubtful that many will be able to understand them well enough to arrive at a fine point of interpretation in making an argument. High school education in Ontario will not give a person that understanding of the other language, and so I suggest that we are in a way putting the horse behind the cart rather than in front of it.
If Canada is to become a bilingual nation, and if it is the intention of the government that it become so, then I hope this is only a beginning and that we will set about making it possible for this form of printing the statutes to be of some use to at least 75 per cent of Canadians who have no use for it now.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Printing of Statutes. [Translation]
Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments on this bill and say that I am quite pleased with its amendments.
I do not agree with the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) when he speaks of the cost which could be increased. I have been led to understand in any case that there could be a cost increase for those who wish to obtain the Revised Statutes of Canada. Personally, I must say that I have been practising law and that I am still doing so, and I believe that the members of the bar in Canada are generally pleased with this measure, because instead of having to purchase both editions, they will certainly benefit by having the bills included in a single volume.
There is no doubt that a single edition, even if it is more bulky, will normally cost less than two editions and when lawyers, at least in Quebec, have a bill or a legal problem to study, they will be able to read both versions, English and French, in the same volume. I know personally a number of lawyers throughout Canada who do exactly the same, whether they are English-speaking or Frenchspeaking.
I believe this is an extraordinary initiative, Mr. Chairman, and that is the reason why I wanted to emphasize it.


Mr. Gilberi:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about this bill. I recall all the fire and thunder in the house back in November, and I must say that this debate seems like an afternoon tea party. However, I am sure most members are very happy to have this bill brought before the house at this time.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The argument of the past, especially with regard to French, is that there has been difficulty in respect of the printing of statutes in separate volumes. This bill is a welcome reciprocation to the province of Quebec which has for years published its statutes in English and French side by side. This has given a feeling of equality not only to the English speaking people in the province of Quebec but also to the French speaking people. Other provinces in Canada should follow suit with regard to the step taken by the federal government. The question of bilingualism is a very important one. As time goes on lawyers who become accomplished in both languages will be able to understand the niceties of the differences in the definitions of words.
I was quite impressed with what the minister said this afternoon concerning the rulings of the Supreme Court with regard to the different versions when read together rather than separately. This is a good trend and one which should be developed. The government is to be commended for its initiative in this regard. I can recall the difficulties I had when studying French in high school and during the immersion course here. I look forward to my children being able to speak French with a facility equal to that with which they speak English. This is the feeling which should prevail among the youth of today. If this is to be one nation we must understand one another's language. We must be able to show patience and understanding while this development takes place. If there is a psychological separation and a language separation it follows that there is a political separation. This is the very thing I should not like to see happen.
This is an appropriate bill to be introduced at this time. When one thinks of some of the lesser arguments which have been put forward concerning the doubling of the size of the statutes, the fine print and the doubling of the cost it would appear that these arguments are negligible and nonsensical in relation to the larger problem with which we are
October 1, 19S8
faced today. Therefore we in the New Democratic party welcome the introduction of this bill at this time. It will establish the tone and setting for all other bills which will be introduced in this house from today forward.


William Arnold Peters: As a further argument in support of the passage of this legislation, I notice that chapter 252 of the Revised Statutes, which was referred to by the minister, is already printed in this form. We would not want not to make an honest woman of the government.


John Napier Turner: I accept that comment in respect of my virtue and that of the government. This was put in exemplary form so that members would have it before them. It in no way anticipates the decision of this house.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, no one appears to be opposing this bill. I was interested to hear the remarks of my friends to the left, because I believe if we became involved in a debate on the pluses and minuses of this bill the whole thing might begin to get off the rails. However, I have a question in respect of clause 2. I cannot understand why, as was the case in respect of the old statutes, this legislation does not set out the form for these new statutes but rather leaves it to the governor in council and the cabinet. Certainly I believe this form is suitable to all members on this side of the house, but what assurance have we that in five, ten or 15 years hence the form may not be changed? Can the minister explain the reason the form is left up to the cabinet. In the old act it was specified and set out.


John Napier Turner: That is a very good question indeed. As a matter of fact, it provided the substance of a debate in the other place. Members in the other place took the position that the governor in council should have more leeway than was originally contemplated. The reason is that the science and art of printing, electronic data processing and so on are so fluid and so revolutionary that if we were to set out all these specifications for the printing of the statute itself they would probably be outmoded within the next year or two. The form was set out in the original statute and made more flexible in an amendment, but now with the tremendous revolution in respect of data processing and computers we must have considerable flexibility. It will be done by order in council and the regulations will be published. We give our 29180-41
Publication of Statutes Act undertaking that the volumes will be published in the form already presented to the house.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Chairman, with regard to clause 2, I am very happy with the changes made by this bill. I must say there is still a delegation of parliamentary authority to the governor in council.
I realize that the rapid evolution of modern technology may necessitate immediate changes, but I am a little sorry to see that parliament is now delegating its authority, when specific provisions were made concerning the way in which this was to be done.
Of course, it is provided that, in future, statutes will be printed in both English and French, on the same page, and bound in one volume. However, in the final analysis, everything is left to the discretion of the governor in council. I rather deplore this situation.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I am at a loss to understand why the minister wishes that the bill set out that the statutes should be printed by the Queen's Printer. We might find that the Queen's Printer was too busy or it might be decided to call for tenders in order to obtain a better price for the printing of these statutes.


John Napier Turner: We did not
contemplate that we would ever have to let out a contract for the printing of the statutes beyond the Queen's Printer. I do not see any reason for this. I believe the Queen's Printer is eminently capable and the most convenient resource for printing the statutes.


Mr. McKinley:: When the new Revised Statutes are made up I presume they will be of some considerable thickness. It seems to me that if the volume is a large one with marginal notes on both sides one might have difficulty in reading the marginal notes on the right hand side. Can the minister assure us that the marginal notes on both sides will be readily accessible?


John Napier Turner: It may be
that these volumes will be slightly wider because of the marginal notes. In the example of the Revised Statutes which has been circulated you will notice that we are contemplating having the marginal notes in alphabetical order in each language. You will see that they do not appear in the same order in both languages but that there are cross-references. I can assure the hon.

638	COMMONS
Canadian National Railways member that the marginal notes will be easily readable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely the minister does not mean that the marginal notes, on their own, are in alphabetical order but rather that the paragraphs, for example, the interpretation paragraphs of chapter 252, are rearranged so as to be in alphabetical order and the marginal notes therefore follow in that same order, is being cut-back to 100,000 barrels per day.


John Napier Turner: That is
right.	'
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


The Chairman:: Shall clause 2 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
James Hugh Faulkner: Shall the title carry?


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
James Hugh Faulkner: Shall I report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


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


An hon. Member:: By leave, now.


John Napier Turner: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. James Richardson (for ihe Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize and provide for the construction of a line of railway in the province of Alberta by Canadian National Railway Company from the vicinity of Windfall on the Windfall extension to the Sangudo subdivision on the Canadian National Railway in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 51 miles to the Bigstone property of Pan American Petroleum Corporation and of a connecting spur extending in a northerly direction for a distance of approximately 9 miles to the South Kaybob property of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited and its associates at a total expenditure of $10,435,000, not to be exceeded by more than 15 per cent.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, this is a resolution preceding a bill to enable the
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) .1
DEBATES	October 1, 1968
Canadian National Railway Company to complete approximately 60 miles of new branch line trackage to serve the requirements of two new sulphur recovery plants, one of which has been completed and the other of which is being built. They are both in the Alberta gas fields west of Windfall.
This trackage will consist of a branch line about 51 miles in length extending westerly from a point on the existing Canadian National line near Windfall to the Bigstone property of Pan American Petroleum Corporation, and also a spur about 9 miles long extending northerly from that line to the South Kaybob property of a syndicate headed by the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited. These properties represent important new industrial developments and new sources of sulphur and liquid petroleum gas and can be looked to for a substantial contribution to the economic activity of the region where they are located as well as to Canada's export trade.
The plant a Bigstone is already in production and the one at South Kaybob is well advanced with completion scheduled for November, 1968. The need for the service which the new rail facilities will provide is therefore pressing.
The estimated cost of the railway trackage including a crossing of the Athabasca river is $10,435,000, averaging approximately $174,000 per mile. In accordance with the usual practice the resolution authorizes the expenditure of that sum and allows for an additional 15 per cent if required to cover contingencies. The usual borrowing powers are also included.
The management of the C.N.R. has informed me that by means of traffic guarantee contracts made with the two companies whose names I have mentioned, the C.N.R. is assured that the products of these plants will be shipped over the new lines and over other lines of the C.N.R. in such volumes that the revenue therefrom will support all the costs of the lines and the movement of the traffic including amortization of the contemplated new capital investment and will also make a satisfactory contribution to the overhead of these railways, or that failing the shipment of such quantities of traffic compensatory payments will be made to the C.N.R. instead.
The new trackage will also stimulate industrial activity and the development of other resources in the area, including similar mineral prospects and the extensive timber resources in the Whitecourt forest district
October 1, 1968

through which the new lines will pass. Indeed, I can now state that a second sulphur plant at South Kaybob is already under construction and planned for completion late next year. There is also a strong likelihood that another such plant will shortly be developed along the route traversed by the new trackage.
Needless to say, any such activity so stimulated will not only benefit the business community generally but will also improve the contribution made to Canadian National's net return from these lines. I am, accordingly, satisfied that the economics and other justifications for the project contemplated by this resolution are sound, and I recommend this measure to the house.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, this party joins in the hope that this measure will be rapidly approved. We think it will indeed add considerably to the economic potential and the further development of the north. I should like to point out to the minister, however, that he is getting dangerously close to the areas where igloos exist. Those of us who were in this house some years ago will remember that we contemplated at the time we formed the government the construction of railways and other forms of development in the north. We were met by the rather curt suggestion that we were building railways and developments from igloo to igloo.
This railway will be approximately 75 miles, as I understand it, from where the Pine Point railway starts. I am glad to note the measure of education that this government and hon. members on that side have been exposed to. I hope they will continue to be exposed to the educational opportunities available as a result of listening to members on this side. I should like to think this is the beginning of a regeneration. Some years ago when we attempted to get approval in this house for the construction of the Pine Point Railway we were met by obstruction and obstinacy from the then opposition.
I remember that for several years I carried newspaper clipping which indicated that the then leader of the opposition, now a former prime minister, Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, felt that the only man who believes the Pine Point railway was going to be built was the hon. member for Peace River. The hon. members who comprised the government at that time believed the north had great value to Canada. We were determined and insistent, and we achieved this construction which has added so greatly to the development of the
29180-41}
Canadian National Railways area and the economic possibilities for Canada. I hope now that this is an indication that the government will listen to the suggestions and advice which so often come from this side of the house.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, as far as I know we support this resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: I have not consulted anyone else. We are very pleased that the government has taken this direct method of providing a railroad in an area where development is at the moment taking place. We have opposed the development of certain railways in other parts of Canada, particularly where they have been under private ownership and the building of the railway restricted developments other than those of the private enterprise.
The minister stated his hope that the Canadian National branch to be built in this area will haul not only the products for which the railway has negotiated with the entrepreneurs in the specific field but the products of other enterprises. I understood him to say that other enterprises in exactly the same field would be able to open up and develop by reason of the assistance provided by this railway.
Our objection in the past to privately owned railways-I am thinking particularly of the one that concerned Hollinger and another large mining company-was that they refused to haul a competitor's product. In this way, although they were a common carrier they dominated the area a few years ago and have therefore restricted for many years its growth and development.
I therefore wholeheartedly support the development by Canadian National in this field, because no one can doubt their ability as a common carrier. I agree with the minister that in providing the carrier for this resource they will be opening up a new area that may produce many other commodities and types of development because the railway is there. I believe, therefore, that the government has adopted a proper approach in authorizing through this resolution the building by Canadian National of this large extension of line. There will be considerable difficulty in crossing the Athabasca river, but the line will open up the whole of the vast area alongside and at the head of the railway.
640	COMMONS
Canadian National Railways
Therefore, for a change, I wish Canadian National well in this venture. Coming from a northern area, I know that communications of a broad nature can be the greatest asset to a newly developing area and that progress will flow from the presence of a carrier willing to co-operate in the development of the area. In years to come I shall certainly insist that Canadian National does so.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to support this resolution. We need this kind of transportation in order to get our crude petroleum and by-products to the markets. This brings me to something that happened in the question period today which is pertinent to the matter under discussion. When I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about the markets to which these products will be carried, he gave the most slippery answer that has been given in the house for some time. That answer was that the Conservative party supported and created the national oil policy.
Since the national oil policy came into being in 1961 there have been more exports of Canadian crude petroleum than ever before. We were able to fill the vacuum left after the Suez crisis. The former minister of trade and commerce asked a supplementary question. In fact, it was he who created the national oil policy which enabled us to reach the target, in domestic consumption and export markets, of about 800,000 barrels of crude petroleum a day. Alberta and western Canada were able to move this much crude petroleum. At the time the Conservatives were defeated we had reached that target.
I now wish to pay a compliment to the Liberals. For a number of years that target was maintained under the Liberal administration, but people who are familiar with the petroleum industry have told me-I cannot divulge their names because it would involve a breach of confidence-that there has been a cut-back of 25 per cent in our exports to the United States. When I put the question to the minister, he denied this fact.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am dealing with markets and what I am saying is relevant to the issue under discussion. Don't try to cloud the issue. The fact is that this is the situation. The answer given by the minister was a slippery one in order to hide the fact that he has lost petroleum markets. I have been interrupted by the Minister without Portfolio who comes from Saskatchewan. I say to him-and this is
JMr. Peters.]
DEBATES	October 1, 1968
on all fours with the subject we are discussing-that we have lost a great part of our grain markets. Richardson and Sons of Winnipeg have said this is the saddest thing that has happened in years. That should hit the Minister without Portfolio right between the ribs.
Therefore we are wholeheartedly behind this resolution. It is a wonderful thing to get petroleum and its by-products from the wellhead to the market. But the government cannot be allowed to continually lose markets. Also, they cannot be allowed to give this kind of slippery answer to the house when the country knows what is happening.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Chairman, just one word to say that we support the bill unreservedly and we are happy that a railway line about 60 miles long will be constructed in order to promote the transportation of oil. We are all aware that change seems to be the salient feature of our modem society and, therefore, we must continually adjust ourselves to the needs of our economy.
Mr. Chairman, oil is becoming increasingly important. It has become a means, an essential tool for our modern society and we must unite and do all we can to allow the Canadian people to profit by these changes. To react to changes by denying them, and by burying one's head in the sand would be stupid.
That is why we must support the bill and we like to congratulate the minister, for introducing it.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, in rising to support this resolution I should like to compliment the minister for his interest in the expansion of Canadian National Railways in order to service this area. I am very interested in the kind of development this will bring to the Canadian north. I think the government is to be complimented for taking this kind of interest in northern development.
I know that the federal government has taken an extreme interest in this facet of our development but I cannot help feeling a little jealous and perhaps a little critical of the preference afforded this area. The riding of Fraser Valley West from which I come is also in the throes of railway development. I speak of the railway development by the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority which will in effect build a new line to carry unit cars of coal to the new, federally financed
October 1, 1968

Canadian National Railways
port of Robert's Bank in southwestern British Columbia.
This new railway line will connect two federal facilities, the federally financed port of Robert's Bank and the C.P.R., which I believe comes under the jurisdiction of the Railway Act. The hon. member for Surrey, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and myself have been attempting for some time to get the Department of Transport and the Minister of Transport to take some responsibility in this matter. As you know, the government has now-
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member in view of the certain degree of latitude granted the hon. member for Calgary North, but he must try and restrict his remarks to the subject matter of the resolution.


Mark Willson Rose: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize we are speaking about a new railroad, but in supporting the resolution before us I should like, with respect, to request that the Department of Transport consider the points I have put forward concerning my own riding.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the minister. Is it the intention of the government to refer this matter to the standing committee on transportation as has been the rule in the past?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that that was thought to be desirable in this case. This legislation follows the pattern of all similar legislation for C.N.R. branch lines.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is the very point I was speaking to. In the past it has been the practice for legislation concerning the extension or the building of a branch line to be referred to a standing committee so it could consider in fuller detail the financing and contract arrangements with regard to the tonnage to be hauled. In view of the remarks made by the government house leader concerning the greater use of standing committees I doubt that the government would wish to break an established pattern with regard to railway legislation and not refer this matter to the committee.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: May I speak to this point, Mr. Chairman? If the hon. member or anyone in the official opposition wished this matter to be referred to the standing
committee, certainly we would be prepared to do so. However, there is one point I might mention which I think the hon. member for Peace River might recognize, namely, that there is an element of urgency in the bill from the standpoint of getting the operations under way before snowfall. Nevertheless, I concede the justice of the remarks of the hon. member for Crowfoot in that it has been customary to refer such matters to the committee. When we reach the second reading stage of the bill we can certainly make the reference if it is specifically requested. Perhaps I can put it the other way round and say that unless there is a disposition to put the legislation through the house at an early stage we would make that reference.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, may I speak on that matter? When we get to second reading the house might be disposed to show a little longitude as well as latitude and we may be able at that time to ask some questions which may determine our position with regard to sending this bill to the committee. Perhaps members on this side may be satisfied after putting some questions on second reading. It may be that we may then decide there is no necessity to send the bill to the standing committee.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That would be quite agreeable, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a brief point with regard to the resolution before us. First, I wish to congratulate the minister on his introduction of this measure. I presume it is the first one he has introduced in the house and therefore I congratulate him in that regard.
My point is one which I mentioned in the house two years ago regarding railway crossing safety signal devices. I realize from the description of this railway in the resolution that it is probably located in an area remote from that part of Canada which I represent in this house and perhaps there will be no motor roads crossing the railway. Even so, however, I think the validity of my point will be recognized by the government, namely, that it should be the responsibility of all railways, in this case the C.N.R., that all railway crossing safety signal devices be included in the capital cost of such projects. I point out to the minister and the government that municipalities should not be held responsible for any part of the cost of the installation of new railway crossing signal devices.
642	COMMONS
Canadian National Railways
In the past we have been too prone in this country to grant charters to railways without ensuring that the responsibility for the installation of railway crossing signals lies with the railway. That is why we have so few railway crossing signals in Canada today in proportion to the number of dangerous unprotected level or grade crossings.
May I therefore bring this point to the attention of the house for the second time in about two years. The last time I brought it before the house we were considering a railway in Labrador. This time I want to emphasize again that it should be the responsibility of the railways-and from now on this should be so in all new railway construction-to ensure that safety devices are built in and that their cost be provided for at the time of construction so that municipalities will not be required to ask the railway commissioners that this be done.
I have had experience in this regard in the municipality of Napanee which several years ago had to apply to the railway commissioners for railway crossing signal devices to be installed at a crossing in the town. I believe that at that time it cost the town over $3,000 for its share. No municipality in Canada should have to bear such expenses. They should always be borne by the railway. Last year I was a member of the northern affairs committee which visited the Northwest Territories and I noticed at least one crossing in Hay River which did not have safety signal devices installed.
I hope the government will give heed to the point I have made today and will ensure that this safety recommendation is implemented.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Richardson (for Mr. Hellyer) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-109, respecting the construction of a line of railway in the province of Alberta by Canadian National Railway Company from the vicinity of Windfall on the Windfall extension to the Sangudo subdivision of the Canadian National Railway in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 51 miles to the Bigstone property of Pan American Petroleum Corporation and of a connecting spur extending in a northerly direction for a distance of approximately nine miles to the South Kay-bob property of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited and its associates.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

DEBATES	October 1, 1968


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarks which have just been made and notwithstanding the provisions of the standing orders I wonder whether the house would be agreeable to going on with second reading of this bill at this time rather than putting it off until another day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to this proposal?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There seems to be a lack of unanimity on the proposal. When shall the said bill be read a second time, at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)



FARM CREDIT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, September 30, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Olson-Mr. Faulkner in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Credit Act to broaden the classes of persons eligible for loans under the act; to increase the amount of the capital of the Farm Credit Corporation; to substitute for the present rates of interest on loans made under the act (except any such loans made pursuant to applications received by the corporation before September 13, 1968) such rate or rates of interest on any loans made after the coming into force of the said measure as may be prescribed by the governor in council; to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act and for other matters related or incidental thereto.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, when this resolution was last under discussion I was pointing out that there were really three forms of credit involved, only two of which are covered by the resolutions before us. The Farm Credit Corporation, of course, covers long term lending under a supervisory staff. The farmer puts a mortgage on his land and holdings as a guarantee for the loan.
The second type of credit available to the farmer is through the Farm Improvement Loans Act. This type of credit has been used principally, according to the reports made under that act, for the construction of buildings, the purchase of machinery and other basic improvements to the farm. This type of loan is generally secured, at least to some extent, by a chattel mortgage and is guaranteed by the government.
October 1, 1968

The third type of credit a farmer must use is similar to a business loan. This money is used to cover his operations, to purchase fertilizer, seed grain, gasoline for his tractor and other operating expenses, perhaps including food and the maintenance of his household. Such loans are granted on the basis of the credit rating the farmer has established with his entrepreneurs.
It is in this latter area, of course, that many farmers find the greatest difficulty and in which our legislation has not really been that all-embracing. However, it is in the first type of financing that I am most interested, that under the Farm Credit Corporation. This credit is the mainstay of the agricultural industry in Canada and it is in this area that the farmers' ability to make regular payments will be influenced by weather, crop conditions and so on.
In this field, Mr. Chairman, we learned a great deal from one particular man. I refer to the chairman under the Veterans Land Act, Mr. Rutherford, who passed away several years ago. Almost singlehanded, Mr. Rutherford looked at agricultural problems as they affected the war veterans who wished to go into agriculture. He was able to build the Veterans Land Act into an agency that covered the three types of financial requirements of the veterans going into agriculture. Most of these veterans were willing to accept supervision from the officials of that department who were highly qualified and always very sympathetic. Over the many years the Veterans Land Act was in operation, because of the co-operation of the department the losses amounted to less than 1 per cent. I feel that everyone would say, therefore, that it was a highly successful operation in the agricultural field and one which the Farm Credit Corporation tried to copy but without too much success.
First, in my opinion, the corporation failed to provide the type of supervisory staff necessary in this long term lending field. I know the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation, and I know him to be a sincere, energetic civil servant working on behalf of the farmers of this country. However, the corporation has failed to convince the government that one of the ways a farmer has to be subsidized is in the obtaining of long range credit. The annual report of the Farm Credit Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1968 indicated that it had made loans to the tune of $263,236,500 and had lost $40,239. The total loss of the Farm Credit Corporation, including the
Farm Credit Act
operating loss, amounted to something like $3 million. I believe the minister will agree, because he has been on this side of the house and has certainly thought about the problem, that a $3 million loss covering the operating expenses is a very small price to pay for the support and expansion of agriculture in Canada. We are certainly subsidizing many other organizations that would not produce anywhere near the funds the Farm Credit Corporation has produced.
It is true that loans have been difficult to obtain. The report indicates that this year we are paying something over 6 per cent for money. I think the minister will agree, as a previous speaker pointed out, that the cost of borrowing money has fluctuated over the last 25 or 30 years from 3 per cent to 6 per cent. I am sure that if the minister reviews the 25-year period he will find great fluctuations in the prices farmers have received for their products. In general, however, those prices have not increased to an extent that would permit the farmer to pay double the interest rate he was paying. It seems to me, therefore, that either the farmer has to receive subsidies or the consumer will have to pay more for agricultural products. You can solve the problem one way or the other.
I am of the opinion that people in Canada are getting off very cheaply in so far as agricultural products are concerned. Let us use, as an example, the figures cited by the hon. member of the Ralliement Creditiste party who spoke yesterday. He mentioned that potatoes were selling at $1.50 per hundred pounds or 1J cents per pound. Anyone who knows anything about the production of potatoes will be aware that this price is well below the normal cost of production. A farmer would have to be in love with producing potatoes to produce them at that price. However, the consumer gets the benefit of low cost agricultural products in this field as well as others, including wheat products, dairy products and so on.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I am of the opinion that any increase in the mortgage rate is intolerable, and I would vote against any increase in the interest charged on Farm Credit Corporation loans. I would do so for a very simple reason. I would rather people did not enter the agricultural field today than see them spend the next ten years breaking their necks to repay a loan, probably ending up in the slum of some city because the corporation had taken over the farm. This sort of thing will happen as sure

October 1, 1968
Farm Credit Act
as I stand here. The farmer has no control over the marketing of his commodity or over the financing of his loan.
If governments in the past had not believed in subsidizing the farmers by fixing the interest rate over a 20 or 25-year period, then we would have left the matter to banks and other lending institutions in the mortgage field. If a farmer goes to his local credit union, caisse populaire or trust company and borrows money to buy gas for his truck or for his year's crop at 10 or 12 per cent and then goes bankrupt, the lending company, having charged him a high enough rate of interest in the first place, can afford to take its share of the loss. But when mortgages are granted to farmers I think the government has the responsibility of maintaining a reasonable rate of interest, and I consider 5 per cent to be reasonable.
I do not like wheat pools, Mr. Chairman, because although they are co-operatives they have tended to become so large that the membership has no say in their day to day operation, and in my opinion has not had too much say in some of the decisions that have been taken. However, in the publication, the Western Producer, the following appeared on the subject of farm credit:
Low returns to agriculture production often make interest rates higher than 5 per cent an excessive burden which hinders progress in agriculture in both the farmers' interests and the public's interest. It is therefore essential that through the Farm Credit Corporation or through an expanded and restructed federal agricultural credit service, a supervised "package" credit service be developed that can meet the short, intermediate and long term credit needs of farmers on a planned basis and at a moderate (i.e. 5 per cent) rate of interest. Such a service should very soon be made available.
I agree entirely with that comment. I believe that if the governor in council is allowed to set the rate of interest it will reach a similar level to that charged by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It will probably toe 1 percentage point higher than the current government rate at the time, and the rate for farmers will be in the range of 7 to 7J per cent on a long term mortgage. I ask, Mr. Chairman, what happens in the case of a calamity occurring, such as a crop failure? How long can you compound 6, 7 or 8 per cent interest? Any farmer will be able to provide the answer.
Therefore, it falls upon the minister to decide whether or not he should maintain the rate of interest on such loans at 5 per cent, this figure having been fairly representative of interest requirements in the market for the

last 30 years. If he does so, then the rate will have to be subsidized, but a $3 million subsidy on the part of the government on borrowings of $263 million does not seem to me unreasonable. Are we to charge an interest rate that will bankrupt the farmer, or oppose a bill that will give the farmer an inadequate money supply for expansion in the agricultural community? Personally, I would rather small farmers were not able to borrow money than see them charged a rate of interest at which they cannot repay their loans.
We have all seen those advertisements on television

I have taken part in some myself-where a man goes down to his local credit union, or whatever it is, and borrows money wisely, and all that sort of thing. However, I also know that this money has to be paid back. A worker who loses his job or gets sick for two or three weeks finds Household Finance sitting on his doorstep. I remember once working in an industry that went on strike, and I not only found the finance company on my doorstep but during the course of travelling around the country I found their agents in the lobby of every hotel at which I stayed. Certainly I would not want this sort of thing to happen to our farmers.
So far as the Farm Improvement Loans Act is concerned, I think that here the government is paying off an election debt. The government received a great deal of assistance during the last election campaign from finance and insurance companies. In my area some insurance companies had two or three people working in the election campaign, presumably because of some of the things I have said over a period of time about certain insurance companies. However, I am sure this sort of thing was general; I have heard it took place in a number of ridings.
If this legislation passes, certain finance, trust and insurance companies are going to set up an advisory body which will tell the farmers how to handle the money they lend them and help them in general. These companies do not need to help the farmers. The government is going to guarantee these loans. These loans will not be subject to an interest rate of 5 per cent; this has already been decided. Once the ceiling on interest rates has been lifted, these companies will be hungry for the market. And why not? This is a market in which the loans are guaranteed by the government, and so these companies cannot possibly lose.
I am aware of the fact that during the last 11 years many farmers have had difficulty borrowing money from banks and obtaining
October 1, 1968

credit. I am sure the minister also is well aware of this. Both of us have been here long enough to have participated many times in debates on the problems of the old legislation which set up the Canadian farm loans board. There was a total lack of respect in the agricultural community for that agency.
The minister and I also participated in the setting up of the Farm Credit Corporation, and I think that he will be the first to agree that this legislation, so far as the opposition was concerned, was patterned on the Veterans Land Act. We wrote into the legislation the supervised credit provisions contained in that act. As Canadians, I think we were proud of what we did under the Veterans Land Act, and to my mind one of our greatest accomplishments was the stabilization of the interest rate veterans had to pay over the years.
Similar provisions were put into the farming legislation because there was no one on either side of the house who did not agree that the agricultural community was experiencing difficulties in most of its operations. Farmers could not be saddled with a high interest rate when their returns produced an annual net income of something less than $3,000. Therefore, I hope that the minister will at least consider the provision of long term mortgages, as is the case under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and subsidize those loans so as to maintain the interest rate at 5 per cent. This is a field where we have to rely on private enterprise to put up the money, though, of course, we are furnishing guarantees.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I trust the minister will give serious consideration to retaining the present interest rate. Apart from anything else, this would serve as a yardstick by which the minister could measure the extent of treasury commitments by way of guarantee. I am sure the minister will bear this in mind, because he is as interested in the welfare of the agricultural community as I am, and no one believes he wants to return to the old days when people could lose their homes and property as a result of inability to pay excessive interest rates. I believe that the government, through subsidization, should over the long term bring about equality in interest rates levied on the mortgage type loans which are the backbone of financing in the agricultural community today.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on these three resolutions my opening remarks must be directed to the question of urgency to which the minister has referred. I
Farm Credit Act
wish to make it clear to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the country at large that it is parliament's duty to examine legislative proposals and the government's duty to regulate the order of business.
We were told that the measure which came up for discussion earlier today was urgently needed and that action should be taken in a hurry. We have been told that the farm improvement legislation has expired and that all the money available has been lent. It was the duty of the government to have called parliament one month earlier than it did so that all these matters could have been dealt with. If hon. gentlemen opposite continue to follow their present course they will wait until everything becomes urgent. Then we, as law-abiding members of the opposition, would be asked to forgo any opportunity to speak or to call attention to defects in the legislation, in favour of passing everything in a hurry. I wish to make it vividly clear why the government did not get unanimous consent to proceed to second reading of the previous bill.
The purpose of the farm improvement legislation a few years ago was to guarantee loans made by the banks so they could lend money to farmers. This act died on June 3, 1968 and it is now being reinstated to 1971. Three changes are proposed by the minister- a new interest rate, loans on land and an increase in the total amount of the permitted loans.
It is interesting to note that the minister's first piece of work for the Liberal government in parliament is to introduce three bills each of which contains provisions for increased interest rates. Consider this in the light of the minister's background. For years and years he campaigned in Alberta in favour of lower interest rates, particularly for the agricultural industry. Yet the first stroke of business he does after crossing the fence is to present parliament with three bills each of which increases interest rates. I wonder what his friends back home will think of this stroke of business. I am certain that the farmers do not consider higher interest rates a necessity today though it may well be that the government does. Remember, it was a Liberal government which two years ago took the ceiling off interest rates, and we all saw what happened last year. They shot skyward. Fortunately, they are now receding somewhat, but this government is still not happy. They want carte blanche to allow them to increase interest rates at any time in connection with this piece of farm legislation.

October 1, 1968
Farm Credit Act
In this context it is interesting to recall what the minister himself said about farm income, upon which rests the ability to repay these loans. It is all very well for the hon. gentleman to say that this bill will increase the amount available to farmers from $15,000 to $25,000. It is not the government which will lend this money. The banks will be asked to lend it and the banks will not lend it unless the borrowers can repay these amounts. That is the sole criterion.
In an article on agricultural policy which appeared in the Leader-Post on July 27, 1968, the minister is quoted as saying:
The mechanics of the solutions may be different, but getting costs and receipts far enough apart so there is a reasonable income left is what is needed.
I ask the minister my first question. Are these proposals likely to get costs and receipts far enough apart so there is a reasonable income left? The answer is obvious. They are not. How can they when the hon. gentleman has increased one of the farmer's basic costs?
We on this side of the house recall some of the remarks made by the minister in the course of a previous debate on this subject in April, 1966, as reported in Hansard at page 4325. This is what he told us with regard to increasing the money available to farmers:
Finally, I want to say that there has been an alarming increase in the price of farm machinery. We had a manifestation of the concern in this regard yesterday in the house. I am wondering whether there has not been an increase in the price of farm machinery because the maximum amount available to an individual farmer was raised from $7,500 to $15,000 only a short time ago.
While I do not accept his premise, I ask the minister a second question: Is it logical, then, to expect that if the permitted amount of loan is increased from $15,000 to $25,000 the price of farm machinery will go up? When we sat on the agricultural committee and studied this question the machine manufacturers bare facedly admitted that they charged what the market would bear. It was as clear as that. Now the minister proposes giving the farmers more money. Is it logical to suppose that the machine companies, for a time at any rate, will try to capitalize on the situation, at least until they realize that in a few years the farmers will be broke?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Has the hon. member read the statement that I made last night?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I read the whole speech and I found it most unenlightening. It contained a number of hidden suggestions and I propose

to deal with them quickly. The minister talked about bigger guaranteed loans to farmers and said the size of the average loan to farmers had increased. I am concerned about the ability of the industry to pay back these loans.
What do we see happening? One of the three agencies of the wheat board, James Richardson and Sons, states that it has never seen the wheat marketing position look so poor as it does today. What does the government say? I saw the minister of industry on television the other day and he said: "Well, we cannot say; we have big hopes; we shall make a statement in a day or two." Mr. Chairman, all of western Canada is in a state of uncertainty.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We have had a difficult fall. I believe the farmers will get their crops off the land, but they want to know whether the government is making a firm attempt to market their wheat. Here is an article I clipped from the Manitoba Co-Operator. The heading reads, "Canadian Action Hurts Wheat Sales." Is that a very encouraging heading? The article dealt with the Canberra meeting and said in part that of the five major exporting nations that met at Canberra the United States was the only one complaining. It complained about Australia's pricing policies and about France's pricing policies. Canada, the article said, was not complaining. Canada was in a conciliatory mood and was prepared to work things out.
Does this give encouragement to our farmers and help them to put up with the troubles that nature has provided them with this fall? It does not. It signifies to the farmers that the government does not care. The United States is fighting the battles of the Canadian wheat farmer. The United States set a target for its wheat exports of 750 million bushels last year, and this year it has announced the same target figure. What target have we had from our government?
As I said, the minister went on television and shrugged his shoulders. This shrugging of shoulders is becoming a very popular habit on television today. The minister said, "We cannot really say, but we have got a couple of good announcements to come." If there were good announcements to come a grain marketing firm like James Richardson would not have said that it never saw the market prospects look gloomier.
The minister's basic responsibility is to assure that the agricultural industry will be
October 1, 1968

able to pay back the loans that he is advocating through this and the other two resolutions. What about farm machinery sales during the past year? It is a well known fact that bankers will lend only that amount of money that a person is able to pay back. A person can increase his farm machinery requirements from $25,000 to $45,000 but the banks will not advance him the difference.
While I am dealing with the subject of bankers lending money I would point out that many hon. members have stood in this house and said that the agricultural industry is a good credit industry, and that only one-tenth of one per cent of the amount of loans made by the Farm Credit Corporation were not repaid. However, banks do not have a good reputation with regard to taking risks. This farm improvement loans legislation guarantees up to 10 per cent of an individual bank's losses. Why have the banks not taken a greater risk? Why have they not been prepared to take a greater risk? I suppose the reason is that they would say: We are not too confident of the agricultural industry in Canada.
We have not seen the government nail down an agricultural policy. When the former minister of agriculture was asked a question about agricultural policy he replied "I have set up an advisory policy group in that regard and they are going to bring down a policy pretty soon." The present minister said the same thing last night-"Wait until I hear from my policy advisers." They are four university professors. If they ever got into a barnyard they would not know their way out of it. What kind of policy will they produce?
Machinery manufacturers charge all the market will bear. I point out that machine sales this year are down drastically-34 per cent in the province of Saskatchewan, 22 per cent in Manitoba, and 26.6 per cent in the province of Alberta. According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, these three provinces purchase over 60 per cent of all the farm machinery bought in Canada. This gives some idea of the present state of confidence in the agricultural industry. Farm machinery sales would not be down if farmers and bankers had confidence in the industry. Yet the government is reluctant to make a forecast of market prospects for wheat this year.
It is a well known fact, based on Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures, that farm net income corresponds directly to the amount of wheat sales. I would like to quote from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics annual report on farm net income, in the hope of showing 29180-421
Farm Credit Act
the great need for the minister to come out and state emphatically what his policies and objectives are. The report states:
Total farm net income... which takes into account changes in farm inventories of field crops and livestock, amounted to $1,529.1 million in 1967, 21.2 per cent below the 1966 record-
This gives some idea of the problem confronting the industry today. What are the prospects with regard to 1968 farm net income? I was going to say that wheat sales are down something like 50 per cent but the figure is not quite that. They are down a good 33 per cent. Total wheat sales, including flour, for the crop year ended 1968 were down $330 million. Yet we hear the Minister of Agriculture say, "You cannot have a subsidized interest rate because it gets things out of whack in the economy and the economists advise against it."
But the government has no trouble guaranteeing the automobile manufacturers a subsidy of $50 million a year. It has no trouble guaranteeing subsidies to other sectors of the economy. However, when the agricultural industry asks that its interest rate not be increased the minister suggests that he cannot do anything about it. He was the one who cried for years in the province of Alberta that interest rates were too high. We now find him advocating that they should be higher.
I should now like to direct my remarks to the Farm Credit Corporation. The Farm Credit Corporation was devised out of the old farm loan board. It was specifically designed to help farmers who could not definitely be stated to have efficient units. But in the past few years we have seen a drift in the direction of the Farm Credit Corporation helping farmers who are on what might be called efficient and economic units.
It is high time that the whole question of the Farm Credit Corporation and its policies be referred to the standing committee on agriculture. As I read the minister's remarks last night he talked about the advisability of making Farm Credit Corporation loans available to Indians and other people. The resolution is very specific in that regard. It speaks of:
-a measure to amend the Farm Credit Act to broaden the classes of persons eligible for loans under the act;
That is a broad statement. I believe that the whole question of the Farm Credit Corporation's policies should be referred to the standing committee on agriculture which could deal with all aspects.

October 1, 1968
Farm Credit Act
As recorded on page 4324 of Hansard for April 26, 1966, the Minister of Agriculture said:
If we refer to the records of the Farm Credit Corporation we find that the regulations applicable to young people have perhaps been a little too rigid.
Last night he said that he agreed that regulations have to be made under which a father and son can carry on a business in co-operation with one another. Has this not been the policy? If it has been, why is it not working? Certainly it was our understanding of the Farm Credit Corporation legislation that farms could be passed from father to son without too much difficulty.
I think everyone on this side of the chamber, including members to my left and right if they come from agricultural areas, is well aware of the fact that the Farm Credit Corporation has done a tremendous job. But I know that the minister, if he were not occupying a seat in the cabinet, would be the first to agree with me that during the last few years there has been a tendency for the Farm Credit Corporation to slip away from its original purposes and intent.
I am quite prepared to let the farm improvement loans legislation go through as rapidly as possible, but I say without any hesitation that the Farm Credit Corporation legislation and the policies of the corporation should be referred to the standing committee on agriculture. Not since its inception in 1959 has the Farm Credit Corporation been examined by the agricultural committee in any real sense.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I remember well when the farm machinery syndicate bill was before parliament. At that tune the minister said that this matter could be taken back to the agricultural committee every year if we did not like it. He said that it could be referred to the committee and reviewed by the members of the committee every year. Since it was passed I have noticed that the regulations have been changed and that loans are now being made on buildings. Under the original bill each farmer had to sign a guarantee covering the total amount of his loan. In the proposed resolution we see that the corporations, co-operatives and so on will all be eligible and that individual members will not be broken down. I take it that if a corporation is formed in such a manner that each farmer is responsible only for his share of the net borrowings of the corporation the

corporation still will qualify for a farm syndicate loan.
Under the old bill, if seven farmers could join together to borrow $100,000 I did not see any sense in each one of those seven farmers having to guarantee the $100,000. This is the way the original bill was drawn up. I believe that each farmer should guarantee only that portion for which he is responsible and not the total amount. I certainly would like to think that this could be dealt with having in mind the reason the farm syndicate legislation has not been the success the minister concerned thought it would be. I believe the number of loans has been approximately 444. The minister can correct me if I am wrong. Therefore it has not been the success the minister thought it would be. Why has it not been a success? It has done a good job with regard to the lending of money to families but it really has not broadened its scope. Loans to farmers for building purposes would aid the farmers generally.
We on this side of the house believe the interest rate on Farm Credit Corporation loans should not be allowed to increase. There is nothing wrong with the subsidization of loans for a period in respect of the agricultural industry when that industry is in difficulty as it certainly is today. When I first became a member of parliament many years ago the Farm Loan Board was making a profit and paying income tax on that profit. If the minister doubts my words he can look at the records for the year 1956-57. This is an indication that interest rates can fluctuate over the years. The corporation can make loans for a period of up to 30 years. In that period, 5 per cent might balance out to be exactly the right rate or perhaps even too much. Certainly it is not necessary to have a fluctuating rate. This would mean, for instance, that when the agricultural industry is in difficulty the interest rate would be high and when the agricultural industry is operating on a sound basis the interest rate would be lower. The opposite should be true. When the industry is in trouble the government should lower the interest rate and when the industry is buoyant perhaps it no longer requires subsidization.
I doubt that the minister would say that he is increasing the interest rate today because the agricultural industry is backward. Perhaps we should take a look at the situation round the world today. In the United States the question being asked is whether they should pay the farmer more than $10,000 a year not to farm. The dairy industry in the
October 1, 1968

United States is subsidized to the hilt. One might look at the situation in respect of the European common market. Wheat and almost every other agricultural product are subsidized. Pork is subsidized to the amount of approximately $14 a hundredweight. In the Netherlands, for example, a pound of Cheddar cheese worth 55 cents is selling for 17 cents a pound. In other words, they are subsidizing their dairy industry.
There is no question in my mind about the fact that the agricultural industry is today one of the basic industries of this country. It is one of the main employers of this country, perhaps even a greater employer than the federal government and all other governments combined. To the surprise of many people in the province of Alberta the agricultural industry there is still the main employer. What is this government doing? It is not allowing the net income of the farmer to increase. Rather, it is allowing his costs to increase and thereby accentuating the cost-prize squeeze. The government very recently increased the farmer's costs by allowing the St. Lawrence seaway charges to increase another percentage point.
We are told that the government does not know what the wheat sales will be this year. We are told that there are great expectations for the next three years averaged together, but we do not know about this year. Sales are necessary now when the agricultural industry finds itself in a state of flux. Grain sales are off, farm net income is low and more people are leaving the farms. They are not necessarily leaving because they want to but because their income is not comparable with that of those in other parts of our society.
It is the duty of the minister to ensure that all those who are engaged in the farming industry today earn an income comparable with that earned in other sectors of our society so that they will be in a position to pay back the amount of money he is prepared to lend them.


Mr. Thomson (Balileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Chairman, several hon. members have indicated already that the Minister of Agriculture, in effect, is guaranteeing a sound and sure thing to the financial institutions. As a farmer, a backbencher and a new member I had the impression that the Minister of Agriculture had the responsibility of looking after the interests of the farmers. Perhaps I am mistaken. In view of some of the speeches which have been made some doubt has been
Farm Credit Act
raised in my mind. As a farmer and a member representing an agricultural district I feel a certain measure of insecurity and doubt about the position of the agricultural industry in western Canada. This is the only industry about which I can speak with any authority.
There has been considerable doubt in my mind about the policies of the present Minister of Agriculture and the desire of the government to do something about solving the farmers' problems. One thing I am sure of; I am aware of how much money I am not making. We have had this experience before in the field of agriculture. If the Minister of Agriculture is a farmer he must have had a certain amount of experience of this kind. We are guaranteeing to the financial institutions a sure thing in the lending of this money to farmers. Are the farmers to be the ones to take the risk and to become the entrepreneurs of the new society? Are they to take the risk while the financial institutions are given a higher rate of interest? I understand the interest rate has gone up because the risk has increased. I assume that the Minister of Agriculture is a farmer and that he is interested in the problems of the farmer. I assume also that he is determined to proceed with the legislation which is on the order paper. Therefore I wish to make some suggestions to him in respect of some items which I think might improve the legislation.
First, I should like to suggest that any lending institution that is not familiar with the farming industry should not be allowed to lend money under this legislation. Farmers can get into enough trouble without advice from those who have no particular interest in the industry except to make money.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that interest payments should not have to be made more than once a year. Frequently when you borrow money from a bank you are required to pay interest once a month or at least once every six months. This is a compounding of interest rates and in direct conflict with the Farm Improvement Loans Act as it has been. Under that act interest payment has only been required once a year.
It is my belief that the interest rate should be set by parliament. If we cannot set an absolute rate here, we should have a formula whereby it is tied to the bank rate and it should not be higher than 1 per cent above that bank rate. I have the uneasy feeling that if we allow rates to be set by order in council they will be higher than we are now paying.

October 1, 1968
Farm Credit Act
If a bank or lending institution is to receive a guarantee from the government the interest rate should not be too high.
Let me turn for a moment to the Farm Credit Act. I asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture last evening about broadening the classes of individuals under the act. As yet I have received no reply. It is my suggestion that under this act only practising farmers should receive loans. I am not opposed to government boards or agencies lending money to anyone else, but that should be done under some other act or authority. Let us restrict eligibility under this act to practising farmers.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I ask the hon. member whether he is referring to the F.C.C. when he makes that statement?


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: I was
referring to the Farm Credit Corporation, yes. Eligibility should only pertain to practising farmers. I want to refer particularly to those people I feel the Farm Credit Corporation should be considering. If there is to be a broadening of the classes of individuals eligible for loans, I suggest the loans should be made to those who need them most. The terms under which those who wish to borrow money can qualify should be broadened.
It may be that loans should only be made on the basis of an individual's ability to farm, but that is not the case at this time. One has to have a certain equity, and if you do not have a rich family or a well known friend you will never get a loan. It does not matter how efficient a farmer you may be or how shrewd a businessman you are, you require a certain amount of money. I hope the minister will consider broadening the aspects of the act in this regard.
Let me tell you about a young farmer with whom I was discussing the problem of getting started in farming. I asked why the Farm Credit Corporation could not buy economic units as such and lease them to young farmers with suitable qualifications for a period of five or ten years. At a later date they could have an option to purchase the farm. This young farmer, who was not of the same political persuasion as myself, agreed with me and suggested that if the Farm Credit Corporation purchased economic units they should be leased only to young farmers who wished to start farming.
In my district many farmers are reaching the age when they will wish to dispose of their farm units. Many of them have built up

reasonably successful and fairly large units. There is a shortage of young farmers who are in a position to get started, and I think it only reasonable that we provide a more effective way of acquiring farm units for those who wish to farm and do not have adequate backing. Very often a father who is able to start his son in farming finds that his son does not wish to stay at home. Often it is necessary for a farmer with four or five sons to obtain assistance to get them established.
I repeat that we in parliament should set the interest rate. This is government money we are discussing and we should have some control in this regard. If the Minister of Agriculture becomes ashamed of what the interest rate is I think he should let us know. If he is not prepared to allow parliament to set the interest rate I feel the bill should be referred to the committee on agriculture where it can be thoroughly discussed.
Under the provisions of these two acts I think it will be possible for farmers to borrow enough money to get started, purchase machinery and operate efficient economic units, as we understand them in west central Saskatchewan where there are many such units. With higher interest rates costs will increase and it will be very difficult even for those who have large economic units to make any money. I discussed this matter with a farm loans manager who said it was becoming more difficult for the individual farmer to obtain an adequate net return, in spite of the fact he may have $100,000 or $150,000 tied up in his particular enterprise. This is the opinion of a man who should know, and he had no axe to grind with me. We were just discussing this matter in a practical way.
What will happen to those farmers or operators who for reasons beyond their control find themselves without enough money to continue operations? Obviously the minister has recognized agriculture as a commercial industry rather than as a subsistence activity. I suggest to him that it is not enough to settle for adequate capital and encouragement to individual farmers to take courses in farm management. We must also have volume of production at adequate prices. I am sure that the minister, who is the operator of a fairly large farm, I understand, realizes the importance of volume and what happens when volume decreases. If we do not sell a great deal of our farm production we will soon see a lot of individual farmers in trouble. This is not only true of farmers but also of those who service their industry such as farm dealers and others. They too depend on large volume
October 1. 1968

businesses, and a very small margin off the top can put them in trouble.
The situation in respect of the sale of grain has been discussed in this house during the debate on the throne speech and at other times. Apparently the Minister of Agriculture cannot or will not do anything about grain sales. He refers the matter to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He does not know what to do about the situation so he refers it to the Prime Minister. Obviously the Prime Minister, with no farming background, does not know what to do about it so he discusses it with the flower children. Where does this leave the farmer? It is high time something was done.
With all due respect to the Minister of Agriculture, let us not separate capital requirements and farm management from the marketplace and prices that are adequate if the farmer is to make a going thing of his particular economic enterprise.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Dumont:: Mr. Chairman, as the
representative of a riding where 35 per cent of the people are farmers, I would like to say a few words about the resolution of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to extend the definition of the categories of people who can get loans, to increase the capital of the Farm Credit Corporation, etc.
I am a little worried about that possibility of allowing people other than bona fide farmers to secure those loans, because the day might come when someone will buy so much land that he will be able to control what we call a parish in Quebec. That worries me in the sense that there would then be a controller of farm life who would not be interested in keeping up the operation of that family farm in Quebec which, although larger today, must not be abandoned.
I have often heard-and I was able to check that information-that, in Quebec and even throughout Canada, for every 30 farms whose operation is abandoned a hospital must be built. Many hospitals are now built because seeds do not contain, through good family farming-the vitamins or fertilizers necessary to their growth. Those products are not wholesome for Canadians as they used to be.
Farming has been commercialized and I see in this resolution the possibility that some businessmen may take advantage of the borrowing right and end up by controlling
Farm Credit Act
unduly large farms. If there is unemployment now in Canada, why should we stop operating family farms which enabled father, mother and children to work together, especially if we consider the farming vocation of the province of Quebec, and let one single man control a whole parish, as I was saying earlier.
I am in favour of the family farm so that farm products which used to be healthful for our people may continue to be so. Indeed, our farmers of the province of Quebec, thanks to the family farm which they had operated well, had succeeded in maintaining the health of our Canadian citizens.
A review of the figures quoted by the Minister of Agriculture shows a number of astronomical loans, that is 72,000 loans for a total of $1,100 million.
Taking those figures into account, I would like to know how many Quebecers have taken advantage of this legislation? It is probably one of the reasons which explains the massive desertion of farms in Quebec, because the loans were never granted in that province in the same way as in the rest of Canada.
I do not object to the prosperity of agriculture in the west or in other parts of Canada. But I also wish that agriculture in Quebec would be profitable, because at the present time, a considerable number of farmers apply for social welfare, because the family farm does not provide them with a living.
In 1962, when the minister sat on this side of the house, I had asked-he is aware of it, and this could be done this year also, since we can now buy feed grains at a low cost and without delay-that grain elevators be built which would allow the eastern farmers to purchase feed grains at a lower cost.
I am not sure, but it seems to me there should be limits to borrowing, to giving more rope for anyone to strangle himself even more. Let us permit the farmer to manage his farm and earn sufficient income to live decently.
If we allow the farmers to borrow even more money at higher interest rates, this will certainly play us a nasty trick, as was the case when banks were allowed to lend money at higher interest rates; we see today that the financial sharks, the bankers are eating each other up. Tomorrow, farmers will be chased after in an effort to lend them money, and little by little they will be strangled, because agriculture does not pay.
A while ago someone said, and I read it in the papers, that an additional subsidy of two

October 1, 1968
Farm Credit Act
cents per pound would be paid tor butter. But, and this came right after, that subsidy would be used to pay for its storage. The farmer then will not feel any of its effects. We would need immediate measures.
The other day I heard the hon. Minister of Trade, Commerce and Industry (Mr. Pepin) say in the house that the western wheat posed problems. I know, even now, a company in Quebec, which is ready to supply us with a barge to go and get the grain out west, to transport it down the St. Lawrence seaway, unload it at a seaport, so that the farmers can go and get it. They would then have some income to enable the family farm to keep on progressing.
Grains keep much longer in elevators, but even during the fall, with the nice weather we are having in Quebec, if the barge were loaded over there and came to the eastern ports the farmers could organize a bee and purchase wheat at $1 or $1.50 less per hundredweight. Then the undertaking would be profitable. We do not ask for permission to choke the farmer a little more. What we ask, is the right for him to a better income. This would be much better than making loans of $50,000 or $60,000 available. One always says, and there is a truth therein: "Tell me who is helping you financially and I will tell you who is taking advantage of you."
You want to broaden the provisions of the Farm Credit Act. This is only logical and I do not see any objection to it. What I object to is that we would do this to the prejudice of the family farm in Quebec. Why do we not take example on the Quebec agricultural legislation which provides for the repayment of the interest rate on loans. It seems to me we could provide for a rebate of this kind on federal farm loans. This would help directly the farmer who is even now leaving the farm to join the crowd of people depending on social security cheques for their living.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Social welfare for these people now amounts to $248 millions. Whether we want to or not, we have to grant social welfare and build hospitals. That money is spent nevertheless although there is no help for the farmers.
Therefore, as representatives of the province of Quebec and in the case of my constituency where 35 per cent of the population are farmers, we ask for the immediate adoption of legislation that will contribute towards

the true restoration of the family farm. Considering the figures I have just given, I maintain that, at the present time, Quebec is not benefitting from loans as its agriculture is not profitable anymore. Produce is being imported from the United States through commercially organized farms where the land is over-cultivated. It must be remembered that over-cultivated land will, in the end, not yield what the country needs as a minimum for feeding its people.
I would myself ask another question. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Cote) has a word to say about the farmers, why does he not contribute something that would be really helpful to the province of Quebec? Perhaps the parliamentary secretary has forgotten that his party had promised the appointment of a Minister of Agriculture for Eastern Canada. That promise never materialized and it melted with the spring snow. That had been promised in January and its realization would have assisted the eastern farmers as distinctions could have been made between problems of western and eastern Canada so that solutions could have been found.
These problems, however, are not yet settled. Feed grain is sold at prices which simply exploit the farmer, for government subsidies for transportation by rail are given to the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. instead of being given to the farmers. In my riding, the feed grain could be moved by truck and delivered to the farmers, which would allow them to make more money. I would like to see credit given for initiatives like these, instead of the money going to people who will commercialize the farms, for there has been too much of that in the past. We must go back to what we have known in Quebec, and that is why we ask the Minister of Agriculture to take concrete steps.
Since I came to this house, on September 12, or since my election on June 25, I have concerned myself with this problem of feed grain in the hope of increasing the farmer's income and of stopping the commercialization of family farms. A company agreed to provide a barge which would fetch feed grain free of charge; that would mean a higher income for the farmer. We would then see fewer of these $25,000 or $30,000 loans at interest rates which are too high and which prevent our farmers from having an income which would allow them to live decently.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister not to make it too easy to borrow at any
October 1, 1968

price, for we have had one bad experience of this sort with the banks when we allowed them to lend money at uncontrolled interest rates. Everyone regrets this step which was taken, but it is too late, for the legislation has been passed. I therefore ask the minister to consider all aspects of the situation, so that we will not have to go back on our decision later.


Mr. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Chairman, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on the three resolutions before us because I was a member of the agricultural committee at the time the Farm Credit Act was first brought in and I recall much of the action that took place. There was a great need for such a bill. However, I am certainly in wholehearted agreement with what was said by the hon. member for Crowfoot this afternoon when he proposed that this resolution be placed before the standing committee on agriculture because it is my view that it is necessary to amend and review this legislation from time to time.
As will be recalled, when the Farm Credit Act was first brought in its primary purpose was to help young farmers to get a start because we found in western Canada that young people were increasingly being forced away from farms and consequently farms were being deserted and left to elderly people who had to try to carry on by themselves. The introduction of the act brought a ray of hope to farmers in western Canada because it gave an opportunity to young people to obtain capital to work on farms and enabled the senior citizens to retire.
I found that as time went on we drifted away from the goals which we set for ourselves under this legislation, and it is now helping to a larger extent the big farmers. I have noticed that in recent years many young people must be subsidized in order to stay on their farms but their applications for loans have been turned down and they have had to take on other employment so as to enable them to continue farming. The farming situation in Canada has worsened to the point where farmers must be subsidized in this day and age. Farming is the life of these people and what they want to do, but in many cases they can only be part time farmers and must take other employment in order to meet their obligations and to put their farms on a sound economic footing.
I therefore support the proposal made by the hon. member for Crowfoot that before
Farm Credit Act
this resolution is passed by the house it should be considered in the agricultural committee. I strongly urge the government to refer this resolution to the committee before it makes any changes in the Farm Credit Corporation.
We realize the value of farm improvement loans. Farmers must have this credit in order to carry on. There is no point in having farm improvement loan legislation if there is no money available because the rate of interest is too low and banks do not want to lend money. This is what we have experienced in the past years. I do not think there would be any harm in having this matter discussed in the agricultural committee.
I think consideration must be given to increasing the amount of capital of the Farm Credit Corporation because farmers have had to increase the size of their farms. At present this is an economic necessity. Farmers must have sufficient capital to purchase the necessary machinery and farms must be large enough to be economic. This amendment to the act is very necessary.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I should like to point out that there are many farmers on smaller units. These people must crawl before they can walk. I have known qualified farmers, men who have been raised on the farm and decided to make farming their life work, who have been turned down when they applied for loans. As I pointed out, I for one feel that I would not like to see the interest rate on Farm Credit Corporation loans allowed to fluctuate at will because I feel this would be very detrimental.
I feel differently about the other resolution covering farm improvement loans. As I pointed out, we saw what happened last summer when there was no money available to make farm improvement loans. We saw what happened to business throughout western Canada. The lack of business was noticeable because people were unable to purchase much needed machinery when farm improvement loans were not available.
I do not intend to dwell very long on the third resolution concerning the co-operative purchase of farm machinery. I have been unable to find that this idea has worked to the advantage of the farmers. There are certain types of machinery that farmers can own jointly. In my part of the country, however, farmers have to do their work in seasonable weather, so it is not too long until

October 1, 1968
Farm Credit Act
they want to own their machinery. I do not believe this act has been used to any extent in my district. Years ago there were machinery syndicates, but I have been unable to find any such syndicates in my district today except where a family is concerned.
I urge upon the minister that before any great changes are made in the Farm Credit Corporation the matter should be brought before the committee on agriculture. In so far as farm improvement loans are concerned, as I have said there is no point in having the legislation on the books if the interest rate is such that there is no money to borrow.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in the debate on this resolution, I first of all want to comment upon the minister's reference to the urgency of expediting the passage of this measure. I can certainly sympathize with this attitude, and I do not want to see the mounting pile of letters on his desk get any higher before some action is taken. Nevertheless, I trust he will try to forgive me if I suggest that there is a very heavy responsibility on the Liberal party for the delay in introducing legislation on this subject. I trust the minister is not suggesting the corollary of this particular statement because I feel that proper discussion of this legislation is required. I suggest that adequate discussion of this measure should in no way be considered as delaying its passage or implementation. It seems to me there are some fundamental points we do need to consider in dealing with this resolution.
First of all, I think that farm credit cannot be considered in isolation from general farm policies and programs. I think that credit can be a trap if it is not tied in with other farm programs to ensure that every farmer will have adequate returns for his produce. In this regard I noted this statement the minister made as recorded in Hansard for yesterday, page 599:
The objectives of the program are to provide the capital to facilitate the organization of Canadian agriculture into viable farm units in the hands of our competent farmers so that agriculture may make the greatest possible contribution to the Canadian economy and provide farmers with equitable returns for their investment of capital, work and skills.
I agree that in so far as the provision of capital does assist in bringing about an efficient farm enterprise it does contribute to the farmer's well-being. Nevertheless, this is no substitute for adequate legislation to ensure that the farmer does have adequate

returns for the produce he takes to the market as a result of the capital investment he has made.
The second fundamental point that I think needs to be commented upon has already been dealt with by a number of hon. members. I do not intend to deal with it at any great length. Nevertheless, I have to refer to it. I refer to the lack of a comprehensive approach to the credit problem. I feel that we have in the proposals before us at the present time a patch-work program rather than an adequate, comprehensive approach to credit problems.
The third fundamental point, I think, is illustrated in the government proposal to allow interest rates to be set by market forces. I suggest that in fact this means throwing the farmers to the wolves because the farmer has to operate in an economy where he does not have adequate bargaining power, where he does not have economic power of the same degree and nature as that possessed by many other people in other sectors of the Canadian economy. At the present time in this country we have high interest rates. This is a fact in every sector of the economy. One example that has been referred to in this house in recent weeks has been the housing situation and the high interest rates connected with housing. The farmer is also going to have to accept his share of the bill to pay for the mess that has been created by this government.
I believe that the government has to take the responsibility for the skyrocketing interest rates in Canada today. This came about following the revision of some of our monetary legislation at the time the Bank Act was revised and some other measures were before the house. I was not here but it has been confirmed by other members that the present Minister of Agriculture voted against some of the revisions of the Bank Act and the change in the interest rate structure. The fact is that the problems of the farmers were known before 1963 and result, as I pointed out, from the low degree of bargaining power the agricultural industry has in our present economic structure. Given that situation, we may have to recognize that even though it may be wrong we are going to have to levy high interest rates. What dc we do, then, with regard to the agricultural industry, an industry that is in a very poor economic position within the total framework of the Canadian economy? There are several alternatives, and I think the government should consider some of them.
October 1, 1968

The first alternative is for the government to ensure that the farmer has adequate bargaining power through orderly marketing machinery and also, where necessary, guarantee a proper price for his produce. The second alternative is to hold down interest rates and, if necessary to accomplish this, provide the capital for our farm credit program. The third alternative is to subsidize interest rates where necessary. I suggest that these alternatives should be looked at by the government before this legislation is put in final form.
In taking a look at the proposed amendments to this act I note, of course, its extension to credit unions and caisse populaires. They can also lend money under the provisions of the Farm Credit Act. Yesterday the minister made a reference to the extension of the Farm Credit Corporation legislation to Indian reserves. All hon. members in the house applauded this proposal when the minister brought it before us. Certainly I feel that the idea is good, but when one takes a closer look at this provision I believe there are some serious questions that should be asked and answered. The minister stated yesterday, as recorded on page 600 of Hansard:
It would seem appropriate that the corporation be given authority to enter into appropriate agreements with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development so that appropriate arrangements can be made to provide credit for the development of viable farm businesses on Indian reserves.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
This is fine in terms of fulfilling the objective of enabling the Indian people to develop farm enterprises on Indian reserve lands. However, I should also like to suggest that there are some fundamental questions here. The first of these is the fact that these agreements will have to be made with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I quite recognize, of course, that in framing any particular act the minister will have to live within the confines of the legislation now existing. However, I suggest for the consideration of all members that once again we are tying in here programs that are designed to help the Indian people with our present framework within which Indian people are completely dependent upon the benevolence of the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I think, we need to take a look at the principle involved. Certainly I should like to inquire of the minister whether in fact there were consultations with the Indian people
Farm Credit Act
prior to bringing this proposal forward. I hope this was the case. I also hope that as a result of any agreements arrived at the Indian people will be able to deal directly with the Farm Credit Corporation instead of having to go through the administrative framework of the Indian affairs branch. I am sure that the minister and many hon. members are aware of the serious delays that have been encountered by many Indian people who have attempted to do something to advance their own economic position.
I have one example before me, Mr. Chairman, of the type of intolerable delays that exist so far as the Indian people are concerned. I have before me a letter addressed to the director of Indian affairs in Ottawa. It is from Mr. Harry Buffalo who lives on the Moose Wood reserve which is south of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Copies of the letter were sent to the hon. member for Moose Jaw and to a number of others as well. I should like to quote some parts of the letter in order to indicate the type of difficulty many Indian people experience in their relations with the Indian affairs branch. While I am not in a position specifically to confirm the contents of this letter, I can say from my own personal experience that I have run into similar cases of frustrating delay encountered by the Indian people. Mr. Harry Buffalo states:
During the last few years I have been trying to build up a cattle herd to become self-sufficient.
I now have 51 head of Hereford cattle, 10 of which I bought by a loan from the department of Indian affairs.
The problem is the lack of haying equipment. The Band obtained (this spring) new haying equipment complete with baler. This haying equipment has been used exclusively by the overseer and his family, these people have no more than ten head of cattle among them and the hay has been put up and sold privately, with the result I have no hay to winter my stock.
On August 2nd, 1968, I went to Regina and saw Mr. Reid. He suggested I see Mr. Hanson at the Duck Lake agency. Mr. Hanson was to send a man to Moose Wood reserve but he never came. (If he did he didn't come to see me.)
Mr. Reid said that I would need $450 as a down payment to buy equipment through the revolving fund. This presents no problem as I could sell two head of cattle to raise this amount or I could borrow this amount from the credit union if I had a statement from the Indian department that I am eligible for he revolving fund loan. (If and when I can get any action from the department of Indian affairs).
I have been to Duck Lake numerous times to see where I stand with getting the use of the hay equipment now on the reserve. My last effort was three weeks ago when I had a lawyer contact Mr. Ivan Ahenkew at Duck Lake. Mr. Ahenkew said he would be down to see me the following Monday, but never came. (He came to the reserve

October 1, 1968
Farm Credit Act
about a week ago and came to the house, but did not bother to come where I work or wait for me.)
I hope you can picture the position I am in:
1.	The haying equipment which is now on the reserve has not been made available to me and I want to know why this equipment has been used only by the overseer Mr. Wm. Eagle and his family.
2.	The delays in Regina for not going ahead as promised so I could buy my own equipment.
3.	The promises from Mr. Ivan Ahenkew and others at Duck Lake to get in touch with me and straighten these matters out. Promises that were never kept.
We have heard a lot recently about making the Indian self-sufficient. My family are all getting good educations and I am trying to bring them up as good Canadians but how can anyone get ahead getting the run around from supervisors, regional director's office in Regina, Indian agents and other buck passers whose word and promises are no good ...
It is too late now to save all of my breeding stock, some will have to be sold to winter the rest.
Please see that I am not in this same position next year, anything your department can do at your level would certainly be appreciated.
Yours very truly,
Harry Buffalo
This, Mr. Chairman, is the type of situation that I know has been experienced time and time again by Indian people in dealing with the Indian affairs branch.
One of the resolutions before us amends the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act, and some references have already been made to this act. I think there is no question that if we are going to amend the Farm Credit Act, this act should also be amended so as to maintain consistency in the legislation. I certainly approve and go along with the proposed extension to co-operative associations.
A question has been asked by some people that I should like to hear the minister answer. Who is using the act? It has been suggested that it is mainly the large farmers who are already quite secure in their farming operations, that the act is really not for those farmers who could really obtain some value from it.
I want to make a few more remarks on this resolution, Mr. Chairman, so I would ask whether we might call it six o'clock.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. So that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business I will now leave the chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment this evening are the following: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand)- Public Service, labour department, status of women's bureau; the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams)-Oil, reported reduction in U.S. imports from Canada; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Post Office Department, reconsideration of policy respecting rural mail contracts.
It being six o'clock p.m. the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, public bills.



PRIVATE BILL


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-103, an Act respecting Atlantic Peat Moss Co. Ltd.-Mousse de Tourbe Atlantic Cie Ltee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I move this bill because it is extremely important for my area, and more particularly for a small village that depends upon the operations of a company. The Atlantic Peat Moss Co. Ltd. has been operating in the Lameque area, in the constituency of Gloucester, for about 15 years and employs an average of 70 people. In 1968, the total amount of the salaries paid was $199,930.
In June last, the Department of Consumers and Corporate Affairs notified the Atlantic Peat Moss Co. Ltd. that it had not filed its annual report. As the head office of the company is in Montreal and the operations were taking place in New Brunswick, the notices could not reach the directors of that company nor the people responsible for that report. The company was dissolved under an act passed by this house.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)

I do not want to give the impression that I am among those who believe that laws are made to be broken. But this company has

October 1, 1968

Atlantic Peat Moss Co. Ltdbeen dissolved and because of the financial implications it is important that it should secure new letters patent. As hon. members know, in the peat moss industry depletion has to be accounted for every year and in this case depletion has gone on for so long that if the company were to apply for a new charter there would need to be a new balance sheet altogether showing an entirely different picture. The working has been depleted for 15 years, so there would only be about 10 per cent of the net value left at this time. For these reasons I ask the house to pass this bill so that the company can continue to operate. It is located in a designated area and if it were to cease its operations the consequence would only be increased welfare payments for this country and higher unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, I beg this house to pass this bill because it is of tremendous importance for about 70 employees. Moreover, if this bill were not passed, the company would have to stop its operations and the government would have to pay unemployment insurance benefis or welfare allowances to those workers on top of those which they already receive, because this is a designated area.


William Arnold Peters: I have looked at this bill and I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member with regard to it. It is certainly not in the form of any bill I have previously seen in the years I have spent here. Perhaps because I am not a lawyer the intent of the bill is not very clear to me. I gather either that the company has gone bankrupt or that something else has happened to it leading to a situation which we are asked to correct.
The explanation given by the hon. member also raises a couple of questions. It is not a sponsored measure of the ordinary kind; the hon. member has a healthy interest in it because of the employment aspect. But I am surprised consideration has not been given to some other way of handling what is neither an incorporation nor a renewal of the letters patent. I fail to gather whether the original letters patent were federal or provincial. It would seem to me there are several reasons for handling this matter in another way. We now propose establishing under federal law a company which has to meet several criteria. What we are really doing is this: we are endorsing criteria which were applicable 15 years ago under the letters patent.
I do not necessarily disagree, but I am concerned about the form of redress available to petitioners in cases which must obviously be outside the prerogative of the letters patent office. However, I presume this bill will go to the committee where the question can be discussed further. While I have no objection to this particular case I would certainly not like to see this format used more generally. Widespread use of it would undoubtedly detract from the value of the provisions we have made for letters patent and the right to make decisions with regard to them.
Recently there has been a tendency for more companies to be established by letters patent and fewer by private bills. The trend seems to be reversing in the present instance. No doubt it is worth while to do so since this company is operating in a designated area where 70 employees are dependent upon it. I only hope some consideration will be given to the propriety of this method of relief when relief is not obtainable in any other way. I hope the bill can be sent to the committee for further study at which time those responsible for the administration of letters patent will be in a position to tell us why their legislation was not sufficient to permit what seems to be a simple continuation after default by misunderstanding.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, looking at the contents of the bill, I can talk with factual knowledge, because I know that at the present time there are companies of that kind in the Riviere-du-Loup and Trois-Pistoles area. Unfortunately, these companies are controlled by American people and this is another one of our resources where the profits at least are going to the United States. Here again we are but hewers of wood and drawers of water, or drawers of moss, in this case.
I should like to know from the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) who introduced this bill, first-he tells us that the head office is in Montreal-who are the shareholders and is this a Canadian company. I should like to see an end to the exploitation of our resources by foreigners, and such information would be very useful to the whole house.
I am well aware that 70 employees have earned $199,930. But again, they are only water bearers. We would prefer the directors to be some of our own people. This is the information that I want. Further, they are Americans operating this company in New Brunswick. I would prefer it if we passed a
October 1, 1968

Public Service Staff Relations Act law in order to keep in Canada 51 per cent of the shares.
I am asking for this information in order that the debate may continue its normal course. I do not have any objection if this can be useful to our people, but personally, I want an answer to my questions.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Frontenac. The shareholders-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. Does the hon. member for Gloucester merely want to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Frontenac? Otherwise, if he speaks now, he will close the debate.


Herb Breau: I will answer that question, Mr. Speaker.
The shareholders are all Canadians and the capital stock of this company is entirely Canadian-owned.

[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


William Warren Allmand: the second reading of Bill No. C-4, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when I prepared this bill I did not realize it would come up so quickly. As a matter of fact, I was speaking with the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill before mine on the order paper and I thought he was ready to proceed. I would have liked to have more time but in the circumstances I will proceed anyway.
I might also say that when I filed this bill I did not know I would have the luck to have it drawn so near to the top of the list. I thought it might come up for debate after the Woods commission had reported, but it came up near the top of the draw and the Woods commission is not expected to report until later in the year.
This bill, which proposes changes in the Public Service Staff Relations Act, aims to prevent strikes in the public service where certain public services are essential to the


national economy. Section 79 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act sets out the way in which designated employees are determined. At present that act prohibits the right to strike to designated employees, and designated employees are those:
-whose duties consist in whole or in part of duties the performance of which at any particular time or after any specified period of time is or will be necessary in the interest of the safety or security of the public.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, when parliament passed that act in 1966 it agreed that the right to strike should be limited. It agreed that the right to strike, although it is an important right in a democratic society, was not unlimited and could come into conflict with the public interest. At that time it decided to draw the line at those employees whose duties consisted in protecting the public safety or security.
My proposed amendment would enlarge the area of designated employees. If adopted, designated employees would include not only those whose services are necessary in the interest of the safety or security of the public but also public service employees whose duties consist of services essential to the functioning of the national economy and without which Canada's national and international trade would be seriously impaired. These employees are not defined specifically in my bill, nor are those whose services are considered essential for safety and security.
Under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, when a union asks for certification the public service board first determines whether the employees involved fall within the category of those whose services are necessary for safety and security. Under my amendment it would also have to determine whether the employees concerned fulfil services which are essential to the functioning of the national economy.
What I am doing is not proposing that we take away the right to strike from public servants generally but that we extend the area of designated employees that already exists in the act so that those employees whose services are necessary for the national economy would be considered designated employees, something which would be determined by the board in the same way as the board now makes its determination with respect to other designated employees.
It is my opinion, and the opinion of many other people in this country, that although the right to strike is an essential right in a democratic society it, like all other rights, is
October 1, 1968

not unlimited. All rights can be abused. In civil law we have the theory of "abuse of rights". We also have a principle of democratic society that no private interest should prevail over public interest, over what is good for the public as a whole. When we passed the act in 1966 we accepted that principle and we decided we should have a category of designated employees. Therefore when I voted for the act in 1966 I was convinced at that time that the definition of designated employees in it would be sufficient to protect the public interest.
I was not a member of the committee which studied that matter, although I was very interested in it. As all hon. members know, it is not possible for one to participate in all the committees of the house. At that time I was a member of the consumer affairs committee. It was very active and I could not attend the hearings of both committees. I had to rely on the report that was brought down by the committee dealing with the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which included the present definition of designated employees. Although there was doubt in my mind at that time I voted for the act because I felt that the definition of designated employees would cover all situations necessary to protect the public interest.
All hon. members know that there are many instances where we have to restrict rights, not because it is good but because it is the lesser of two evils. I think this is such a situation right here. I am not dogmatic about this solution, but I say it is in the interest of the public to provide protection against crippling strikes when the public has no means of bargaining and where the employer and the employee, because they cannot reach an agreement, not only hurt themselves in their bargaining process but also to a greater extent hurt the public and may damage the public interest on a long term basis. That interest of the public is paramount, and although the right to strike is a good, desirable right it has to be restricted in certain instances where it produces one of those situations in which you have to chose between the lesser of two evils, the two evils being the abuse of the public interest and the curtailment of the right to strike. As between those two evils, curtailment of the right to strike and abuse of the public interest, we have to draw the line in certain cases, and I propose that we move the line a little farther over than it is at present.

Public Service Staff Relations Act


William Arnold Peters: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Warren Allmand: Yes.


William Arnold Peters: Just for my edification, would he indicate what event has happened since the act was passed that has brought about this change of mind?
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


William Warren Allmand: There has been a considerable increase in the number of strikes in the public area. There was the postal strike this summer in respect of which I believe this type of provision might apply. As I say, however, the decision on this would be one for the public service board. Later I shall quote figures to show that the number of strikes in the public area has increased considerably.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member mentioned the postal strike. Would this apply to all the people who were involved in that strike?


William Warren Allmand: No, I do not think it would. There might be employees in any department, for instance, who might be involved in providing safety and security, but not all the employees in the department would be so involved. In other words, it would be a matter for the public service board to determine just as it is now a matter for it to determine. As I have mentioned, in making this proposal I am not suggesting a new principle. The principle already exists in the law. It is just a matter of carrying the principle a little farther because I believe that the present definition in the act is not satisfactory.
During the summer months when we had several strikes in the public area some people called me stating that all strikes in the public service should be outlawed. I cannot agree with that. I feel there are many areas in the public service where a strike would not hurt the public interest. For example, if the employees of the National Film Board, the C.B.C. or many of the civil servants working in more traditional departments went on strike this might not affect the national economy and therefore would not be against the public interest. However, there are areas in respect of which the public service board must be able to determine whether or not the employees should be allowed to strike.
I have mentioned a few areas in the public service where I did not think a strike would be contrary to the public interest and would not harm anyone. Even though the liquor
October 1, 1968

Public Service Staff Relations Act strike in Quebec at the present time is serious and many people are hurt by it, I would not consider this strike to be contrary to the national economic interest of Quebec or the society in which the Quebec liquor board operates, although it has caused a good deal of harm.
On the other hand, however, there are areas in which no one would question that the right to strike should not be allowed. I have in mind police departments, fire departments, the army, and so on. In the middle there are many types of public employee who might be considered to be in a grey area, such as the postal workers, transportation employees, hospital employees, teachers and others. These are areas in which there is a complex question as to whether or not the right to strike should be allowed.
I would hesitate to suggest that we should name in the statutes certain classes of employees. I believe all we can do is set out the principle of the designated employee approach. I think this is the correct approach. The matter is left to the public service board to determine one way or another whether any class of employee falls under the definition. The solution of arbitration as under the present act, of course, is not a perfect one. But in a situation where a strike is very harmful I believe it is the lesser of two evils.
In arbitration a good judgment may be produced, one in respect of which both parties may agree, or there may be a judgment in respect of which one party is satisfied and not the other. On the other hand, I think more is served in the long run by having good arbitration procedures than is served by allowing a strike to continue for a long period with no arbitration procedures or other solution. I have here an editorial from the Montreal Star in which the question of arbitration is discussed. It deals with the recommendations of the Rand report in the province of Ontario. I must say that although I support some of the recommendations in that report I do not support all of them. In commenting on the Rand report the editorial in the Montreal Star of September 7, 1968 states:
A major argument against the creation of the industrial tribunal is that it would be impossible to find the kind of super-geniuses the commissioner envisages for this role. He speaks of tribunal members who would have training and education in political science, economics, sociology, psychology, labour relations, philosophy and history, as well as experience in labour law. This demanding list of qualifications is a correct evaluation of


the complexities involved in industrial relations. But there is a shortage of Messiahs who could fulfil such a role.
The Star editorial is suggesting, in other words, that the type of man necessary to bring about just decisions under compulsory arbitration is not available and because he is not available, therefore we should not have this type of thing. Again I return to the argument I put forward before. In no forum in which we settle disputes are there perfect arbitrators. Even the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are not perfect men; they are not Messiahs. The men who settle arbitration matters are not Messiahs.
There are situations where a man owns property and the state decides that that property is necessary in the public interest. In this situation the state offers a certain sum of money to the person who owns the property and if that person refuses that sum of money the bargaining is not continued until a price is arrived at. In this type of situation the feeling is that the public interest is paramount and boards are set up to decide what the price should be. A decision is arrived at by the board. The decision may not always be a perfect one. Sometimes the state may not be satisfied. It may feel that the board has granted too great an award for this property. On the other hand, the citizen may feel aggrieved. This situation is felt to be the lesser evil compared with allowing the bargaining process to continue, especially when the public interest is involved.
In answer to the editorial in the Star we say, of course, that there are no perfect judges or arbitrators and there are no perfect members in this parliament. Although we have passed and shall pass laws in this parliament which are not perfect they are the best attempt to deal with certain problems. In areas in which the public interest is involved we must have a system for stopping strikes which are against the public interest. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), as reported at page 365 of Hansard, delivered a very good speech during the throne speech debate in which he referred to this very subject. He quoted part of a statement made by Walter Reuther, the prominent United States labour leader. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres quoted Mr. Reuther as having said:
It is high time the unions stopped settling their problems at the expense of the community. It is time also for governments to give them such means of settling their problems which will allow them not to depend on strikes alone.
October 1, 1968

Later in his speech the hon. member quoted figures in respect of strikes in Canada over the last few years. He stated that in 1962 Canada had 290 strikes, that in 1963 we had 318 strikes and in 1964 we had 327 strikes.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member to bring to the attention of the house that his time has expired, and determine whether it is the wish of the house that he be allowed to continue beyond his allocation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Give him another five minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker and members of the house, I have been looking at the clock but I was a bit confused. There was a private bill before public bills and I was under the impression that my time ended at 25 minutes to 7.
Let me conclude by stating that such a system will not only relieve hardships to the public, but also certain hardships to the workers. A survey was made among the liquor workers of Quebec during the present liquor strike which revealed that 80 per cent of them want to return to work, and a quick settlement to the dispute.
Let me say also that compulsory arbitration does not necessarily mean an unjust settlement. If we have properly trained arbitrators, although they may never be perfect, I suggest that, in comparison, we can have settlements that in the long run will be much more fair and just than the settlements following most of our strikes.
It is not my belief that the solution I put forward in this bill is a perfect one, and I am not dogmatic about it. I understand the Woods report will be presented later this year. I hope it will bring forward solutions to strikes in the public interest which will protect the public but still maintain that right to strike. I hope this can be done in such a way that, although we accept the right to strike as a general principle, the paramount interest will still be that of the public.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the second reading of this bill. I must say, in fact, I am a bit surprised that such a bill is being introduced by a member of the Liberal party, a member who was here during the

Public Service Staff Relations Act last parliament when the government which he supports brought in the legislation which is now known as the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
In taking this position I do not stand here to say that I like strikes or want strikes to take place, either in the public or the private sector. I do suggest there are worse things than strikes and I would hate to see in Canada that kind of society in which workers were denied the right to withdraw their labour if they are not satisfied with the conditions that obtain. In other words, I would hate to see an arbitrary-I might as well use the word-slave state situation, which our society would become if the workers could be told arbitrarily that they must work, regardless of the conditions under which they are employed.


William Warren Allmand: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he approve of the present areas of the act which apply to designated employees?


Stanley Howard Knowles: was coming to that point. I appreciate what the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) has in mind. Although he was a member of the last parliament he was not a member of the committee which went over this bill very thoroughly. I happened to have that privilege, and I am fairly familiar with its terms and the kind of discussion that went into the final decision as to what its terms would be.
As the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) will recognize, the final draft in respect of this area was not precisely what was proposed in the first place. Let me go back behind what the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace was saying, and point out that initially the government said that it was bringing in a bill which would give civil servants the right to strike. When we got the bill we discovered that it was not quite that blank a cheque. On the contrary the right was circumscribed even before we reached the point the hon. member has mentioned. We amended the original provisions so I need not go into all the details, but the way the legislation now reads it provides that a bargaining unit has initially the right to choose between following a course which leads eventually to the right to strike, or to choose to follow a course which leads to arbitration without any right to strike.
I think one of the advantages of a committee was demonstrated in that we got that
October 1. 1968

Public Service Staff Relations Act part of it improved. The original government draft made it necessary for the bargaining unit to make its decision very early in the process, and the decision was binding for quite a long period of time. I forget the exact period but it was binding for longer then we thought necessary.
The government agreed with arguments put forward that this needed to be modified. Thus as it now stands the bargaining unit does not have to make its choice until it gives notice to bargain, and, having made a choice, it applies only for the life of that particular agreement. We think this is an improvement, and I am glad to see the Minister of Labour nodding his head to confirm that the position is as I have stated it.
Thus a bargaining unit of the civil servants has a free choice. It can choose a course that leads to the right to strike or it can choose a course that leads to arbitration. If it chooses the second, it rules itself out of the right to strike at least for that round of collective bargaining.
We went a bit further. We provided that even in the case of those civil servants who elected at the proper time to follow a course that would include the right to strike, that right is limited by a section which says that the unit or the employees in the unit still cannot have that right to strike if their services are such that this would endanger the safety or security of the public.
Let me tell my hon. friend that there were those on the committee who wanted that section worded more broadly or more narrowly, depending on one's point of view. They wanted to put in the general phrase "in the public interest". We in the committee were able to make the point that if you talked about the public interest, the expression is so wide you would remove from everybody the right to strike. So we narrowed it to the terms that are now there. The only people who are denied the right to strike are those whose services are important to the safety or security of the public.
I suggest that Canada is still carrying on, in spite of the strikes we had this past summer. It is good to know, however, that freedom of collective bargaining in labour relations in Canada remains unimpaired. Some of my labour friends might not agree that it has not been impaired to some extent. Generally speaking, however, we still have what we had, and I think this is worth the price we pay in having a few strikes, such as those of the past summer.


The hon. member mentioned strikes in the public area, and I know he is quite interested in the strike that affected the seaway. It is my understanding that the tonnage on the seaway this season will be greater than it was last season, in spite of the strike that took place this year. Statements have been made regarding the grain handlers strike, to the effect that no commitments were lost and that our trade was not really jeopardized. I suggest that the frightening things said about strikes do not always materialize, and that we do have to set over against the harm caused by strikes, the gains that we achieve by maintaining a free society, a free economy, and the right to free collective bargaining.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace said he is not against the right to strike but that he wants to balance things. He said further that he is not introducing any new principle in this bill. Let me say to him as strongly as I can that I think this is a dishonest bill. I think this bill actually takes away from our civil servants, once and for all, the right to strike which, within certain limitations, the act has given to them. I have indicated that it is limited already.


Mr. Francis:: May I ask the hon. member a question in respect of that remark?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Surely the bill would not take away permanently the right to strike, but it would be purely for the life of an agreement as such, as related to the other sections?


Stanley Howard Knowles: suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) read the bill a little more carefully. Remember that already, because civil servants have to make the choice, some deny themselves the right to strike. Remember that for the others this right is, of course, during the term of the collective agreement; but it is provided in the legislation that there cannot be a strike of the unit as a whole, or employees in that unit, if they are involved in work that concerns the safety and security of the public.
If the public service staff relations board had the instruction proposed in this bill, they would say, "There can be no strike because the employees concerned are engaged in work that concerns the safety or security of
October 1, 1968	COMMONS
the public." But they would also have to say this if the employees' duties consisted of performing services essential to the functioning of the national economy and without which Canada's national or international trade would be seriously impaired. If our public servants are not engaged in work that is essential to the functioning of the national economy, what are we paying them for? All our public servants are engaged in performing services that are essential to our national economy directly or indirectly, and many of them are engaged in performing services that affect Canada's national or international trade.
That is why I say that if you gave the public service staff relations board that kind of instruction, you would be saying to the board, "Take away from all our public servants the right to strike", which was given by the legislation itself. That is why I use a word that is perhaps a little stronger than those I sometimes use with regard to private members bills: I think this bill is dishonest. I think that if the hon. member wants to take away from public servants the right to strike, the bill should be amended in such a way that this is done categorically, and not in this indirect way which has the same effect.
Therefore I think this bill should not be given second reading by the house. I hope we will hear members on the government side speak on this question. I am interested in the attention the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mack-asey) has been paying to the previous speaker and to me. I suppose it is too much to hope that we will hear from him on this subject, but I hope we will. He said some pretty good things about this right when he was handling a couple of strikes with which he had to deal during the first few weeks he was Minister of Labour. But I hope he will agree with me in particular that this legislation has not yet had enough of a trial for us to make this kind of change.
As a matter of fact, this is one of the things some of us were complaining about last summer when the postal workers were on strike. A great many people, including many members on the government side, said this was a right they should have. Then they said we must take it away from them. The same people who a year before were boasting of the fact that we were giving them the right to strike, the first time these people exercised that right said it must be taken away.
DEBATES	663
Public Service Staff Relations Act


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member said my amendment was dishonest because it in fact tried to take away the right to strike. But does he not think the words in the bill would not have this effect? I refer to the words "national or international trade would be seriously impaired". Does the hon. member not think that these words contradict what he says? In other words, this provision would apply to those civil servants whose duties were necessary to the economy, and when you add the words "Canada's national or international trade would be seriously impaired", does the hon. member not think this contradicts what he has said?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No,
Mr. Speaker, I do not. I am glad the hon. member has quoted me correctly in saying that I think his bill is dishonest, not the author of the bill. You do not modify it by putting in the words "seriously impaired". Remember, of course, that the only people who strike are those who can cause some inconvenience, some dislocation; otherwise there is no point in striking. The strike is part of the process of employees trying to get better wages or working conditions. I suggest in practical terms that any group of public servants who tried to strike under the provisions of the law as it now stands would, if this phrase were included in the law, be met by a board that would have to say, "The work you are doing affects the national economy".
You can say that about any group. This provision would apply to all those whose work affects the national economy or Canada's national or international trade. It does not have to be both; it is "national or international". I do not know how you would define "national trade", but I suppose it means the general trade and commerce that goes on in the country. Certainly the postal workers would have been affected by this provision, as would the grain handlers and the seaway workers. This would also apply to all those classes of public servants who are likely to exercise the right to strike. I am not implying that all these people I have talked about are public servants, but any of them likely to strike would come up against the provisions of this prohibition that the hon. member would seek to write into the legislation.
October 1, 1968

Public Service Staff Relations Act
I agree with the hon. member and all those who say we should find a better way than the strike as a means of solving labour difficulties. But I think those who say we should come up with a better way have an obligation to produce that better way before they take away the one we now have. Arbitration boards have not yet proven to me that theirs is a better way. Perhaps in a few years we will have had some experience in the public service-and mainly that is what we are dealing with here-both ways, because some bargaining units have elected the right to strike and some have elected arbitration. Perhaps we will have some experience and can obtain some advice as to which way to move. But at the moment, until some better way is produced-not just called for, argued for, not just statements that there should be a better way-I do not think it does any service to labour relations in this country generally, and I certainly do not think it does a service to labour relations in the public service, for this kind of legislation to be brought before this house.
It took a long, long time for us to get a government of this country to bring in the kind of legislation that was put into effect during the last parliament. We gave it our endorsation. We should like to have made further changes in it, we would like it to have been even better. But I make no qualification now; it was good legislation. Our public servants are trying to live with that legislation and work it out. They are finding some difficulties with it. But I suggest that at this stage, to say that clamps should be put on it and that certain rights given to our public servants should be taken away is a disservice to the cause of good relations between our public servants and their employees, the government and people of Canada.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the speeches that have preceded mine in this debate. I had the privilege of serving in this house in a previous parliament when the first steps were taken toward collective bargaining in the public service. The report of the preparatory committee, to which reference has been made, was certainly one of the basic documents upon which the legislation which is now enacted was eventually constructed.
I know that the joint committee, which held extensive hearings, weighed long and carefully these sections of the act before the

decision was made to incorporate them in the form which has been described. The government of Canada-and I have listened with interest to my hon. friend on the other side- and many members on this side of the house took an active and conscientious interest in promoting what he himself described as a good piece of legislation.
Many members on this side of the house were very much concerned that the government of Canada should act as a good employer. They decided after very careful review that the right to strike should be generally permitted and an exception should be made where very definite reference was made to the safety or security of the people of Canada.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
May I say with the greatest respect to my colleague who introduced this piece of legislation that I do not share his views. I do feel it is important that the legislation which has been introduced should be given a fair period of trial. This it has not had. We are in a formative stage. The very preliminary phases of certification are not completed. There is no question that the process of conclusion of collective bargaining agreements will be a time-consuming one which, I am confident, will bring an entirely different spirit and atmosphere in the public service of this country. I am very reluctant to see anything done at this stage which would disturb what is now being undertaken.
Like other members of this house, this summer I received a number of representations from my constituents. There are those who believe that the postal workers should not have had the right to strike. They argued-and I received a volume of correspondence in this vein-that the right should be proscribed by legislation, and that amendments should be introduced immediately in the house which would have that effect.
There are things that are worse than strikes on occasion. There is no assurance that laws which will prohibit the right to strike will be observed simply because they are laws. During the war when there was a grave danger to national survival we had strikes. Even the severest penalties did not deter men and women under certain conditions from withholding their services on the labour market. Strikes are not always economic strikes, and in general only in economic strikes is the legislation fully protective.
October 1, 1968

There are many other factors behind a strike, and if I may be so bold as to suggest, the strike of postal workers which took place this summer had more to it than met the eye. Behind it was a struggle of groups for leadership of the union, and the rise to the top of one section of the union whose conduct in a previous strike in 1965 had had a singular impact on certain members of the union. There was the question of the relationship of different groups whose prestige was at stake.
I do not believe that a simple prohibition of the right to strike would have assured Canadians that there would have been no strike. But I was very proud of the record of the government of the day, and I am sure hon. members on the other side, and particularly the hon. member who preceded me in this debate, would agree that the conduct of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) in this strike was one of which all Liberal members are proud.
The right to strike was not impaired by precipitous or ill considered action. We regretted the strike very much and it cost many Canadians a price which they could ill afford. However, the strike was eventually resolved within the framework of collective bargaining.
I am one of those who believe that collective bargaining is the best way to resolve these matters. It is sometimes rough, and sometimes irresponsible parties abuse it by resorting to strikes that are ill advised. But the best discipline against it is the discipline of the members of the organization when they realize that they do a disservice to everyone concerned when they resort to a strike which cannot be justified.
Nor do I have that much confidence in the conduct of arbitration boards. The government of this country has had a grave responsibility in setting some kind of pattern which would halt the progress of inflation. A pattern as close as possible to 15 or 16 per cent was indicated as highly desirable. I am not certain that the use of arbitration would have been consistent with the patterns of stability which the government was seeking. There are instances of awards of arbitration boards which have been in excess of the guide lines the government was trying to develop on a voluntary basis. Nor do I have confidence-and the mover of the bill indicated he also had some reservations-that the sort of persons who are chosen to do this farsighted job of applying arbitration and

Public Service Staff Relations Act mediation services have those great talents to judge all the facts which are involved in the circumstances. This calls for skills which very few people possess, and I do not believe that arbitration itself is any guarantee that the other objectives which the government of the day must pursue can be found.
I hope that this bill will receive a long and careful examination by members of this house before it is enacted into legislation.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on Bill No. C-4, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
One could consider, as an example, a situation where an individual comes to us. Two things can happen to him. Most probably he will be taken ill once in his lifetime. Do we have to wait until then to cure him by using a lancet or should we try preventive treatment? If one applies this example to Bill No. C-4, this measure seems to be the lancet solution rather than preventive treatment of our labour problems. I do not think that giving or withdrawing the right to strike will solve a problem. That would be taking one step forward and one step backward, but it would be better and more responsible to introduce positive measures.
Preventive medicine, Mr. Speaker, applied to labour relations, is a good solution to which we should turn as soon as possible, in the public service as in industry.
Preventive medicine maintains the human machine in good condition, just as regular maintenance does for equipment. What has been provided for to minimize the effects, for instance, of labour conflicts, or disputes in the public service? Almost nothing. That is why preventive clinics should be set up or, if you wish, advisory groups to establish contacts between the various parties, in order to know what grievances have been submitted, and compulsory arbitration resorted to, but not just any arbitration. Then it would not be necessary to go on strike; the security of the state would be protected, and workers, public servants and employees could still be heard.
Mr. Speaker, if we refer to one of the briefs of the Labour Congress-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry but I must advise the member that the hour appointed

October 1, 1968
Farm Credit Act
for the consideration of private members business has now expired.

At seven o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Olson-Mr. Faulkner in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Credit Act to broaden the classes of persons eligible for loans under the act; to increase the amount of the capital of the Farm Credit Corporation; to substitute for the present rates of interest on loans made under the act (except any such loans made pursuant to applications received by the corporation before September 13, 1968) such rate or rates of interest on any loans made after the coming into force of the said measure as may be prescribed by the governor in council; to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act and for other matters related or incidental thereto.
John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman, if I may continue the remarks I was making before the private members hour, there are some broader questions involving credit that I should like to discuss briefly. One of these, which has already been raised in this debate is, what is the effect of credit? No one will argue that the legislation we have had in Canada over the past number of years has not done a lot of good. This legislation has certainly filled some of the yawning gaps that existed in the credit field some years ago. To the extent this has facilitated land transfers, it is really a case of more money chasing the same amount of resources. In so far as this brings about the consolidation of uneconomic farm units, it has produced more efficient farms and has improved over-all productivity. It certainly has helped individual farmers, but it has also contributed to the inflation of land prices. In fact, land prices are skyrocketing in many parts of Canada, and they continue to go up.
I feel I have to take issue with one statement the minister made last night. He is recorded in Hansard at page 600 as stating:
-unrealistic interest rates tend to cause mis-allocation of resources, and in particular terms any savings as a result of a subsidized interest rate on capital borrowed for the purpose of land could make the cost of the land excessively inflationary.

This is, to some extent I suppose, a textbook discussion of the subject. I should like to suggest to the minister that the fact an individual had reasonable interest rates for farm credit over the last number of years has not really contributed to the inflationary spiral of land prices. I should like to suggest that farm needs, technological changes and the availability of credit rather than the cost of credit have, in fact, influenced the initial decisions made by farmers to take advantage of the credit available. Of course we, in our group, are arguing that this does have very significant effects on future costs for farmers. However, I feel it is still true to say that, in many respects, our farmers have no choice but to take advantage of much of the credit that has been available. There is still a good deal of the "next year" philosophy present in farm circles.
The Farm Improvement Loans Act has helped the farmer in the purchase of farm machinery-that is as long as the banks would lend money. The purchase of machinery and equipment generally does improve productivity; but in a situation where machine companies are allowed to set prices on the basis of market forces-and I think it has to be acknowledged that they have had, in some respect at least, something of a monopoly situation-the prices of machinery are bound to go up. The farmer has no choice, really, but to pay the shot if he is going to stay in business. The result has been that the farmer has been caught in this vicious cost-price squeeze. We have had static prices and rising costs. Thus, in spite of higher productivity, farmers have been at a disadvantage. We have had higher costs and lower returns which, in turn, have forced many of our farmers to expand. The only way out of the situation in which they found themselves was the use of larger machinery to carry on their operation. In some cases, after such machinery has been obtained it has been found, as a result of the cost-price spiral, that more land was needed in order to make use of the machinery economic. So, the vicious spiral continues.
Many farmers today are asking if it is necessary for each generation to buy out and repurchase the land they require for their farming operations. It seems to me that some of these problems need to be examined. The government established the Barber commission to investigate farm machinery prices. According to latest information, this report will not be available for some time. In the
October 1, 1968

meantime farmers need machinery. At the moment, they are at the mercy of the machinery companies. If the government is really going to help farmers, they should take action to halt rising machine prices until longer run measures can be developed.
Last winter, Mr. Chairman, in western Canada we heard rumblings from Ottawa that farm credit legislation was receiving a long hard look. This raised the hopes of many people in the west that some new answers would be forthcoming. What happened? On the basis of what we see on the order paper, there are some housekeeping amendments; there is more of what we have had. We are throwing the farmer to the tender mercies of the market, as evidenced by the proposal in respect of interest rates. We do not have a comprehensive approach with regard to credit.
In this regard, it is disappointing to find that we have not tied in the total situation facing agriculture, involving both commercial farms and what might be defined as noncommercial farms. The approach of some people is, of course, that we have to get rid of non-commercial farms. I feel this is a false approach because there are many of these farms that could be helped to achieve an efficient and worthwhile economic status. Essentially, what we need is a different kind of credit for commercial and non-commercial operations. The present program is essentially helping commercial farmers. I feel we do need to have a look at other types of credit that will help what we might define as noncommercial farms.
In addition, we also have the situation facing young farmers which has been dealt with by some of the preceding speakers in this debate. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar has said we must consider the social consequences of what kind of rural community we are building and helping to encourage by the legislation before us. It is for this reason we need a comprehensive approach toward all aspects of credit needs. I think this makes good economic sense. It makes good social sense.
If this government is really dedicated to priorities, then it must come up with more than what is now on the order paper. No one will quarrel with the claim that the immediate needs have been brought to a crisis point by the dilly-dallying of the Liberal government. However, there is no indication in the legislation, except for one small reference in the minister's remarks, that the government
Farm. Credit Act
is looking beyond the immediate, usual, typical, crisis needs. I hope that this attitude will be forthcoming and that we will have a more comprehensive look at the situation. I urge that the agriculture committee should hold hearings, both in respect of the present legislation and the longer run aspects of farm credit programs, in order that we can better establish the type of credit that is needed and also establish the relationship of credit programs to other farm policies and programs. In this committee, we would bring together specialists and experts, information and experience available in Canada and elsewhere and undertake a thorough study of farmer's needs, in order to arrive at an adequate, sound and far reaching credit program.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I want to
thank hon. members for their advice-I may say some very constructive advice-in relation to the three resolutions that are before this committee by agreement. I think I should try to answer briefly some of the comments that have been made. I know hon. members cannot discuss the provisions of the bill in detail because they have not yet seen them. However, the bills are ready, and as soon as the resolutions are passed obviously they will be brought on. At that time perhaps a much more specific and intelligent discussion of the provisions of the bills can take place. I tried in my opening remarks to deal briefly and yet fairly comprehensively with the general idea behind the amendments; but, of course, the actual bills themselves will be more helpful to hon. members.
May I now reply briefly to some of the comments that have been made. The hon. member for Regina East who has just taken his seat took a very constructive approach to the whole question of farm credit. He complained that it was not tied to three particular aspects of farm policy-orderly marketing machinery, subsidized interest rates, and that sort of thing. May I remind him that these bills contain amendments to our farm credit acts. It is not the government's intention that these three bills be a complete revision of all our agricultural policies within the ambit of the three suggestions the hon. member made.
The hon. member also said, as a positive statement, that land prices were skyrocketing, that the interest rate was not causing this but that the availability of credit was

Oclober 1, 1968
Farm Credit Act
the major factor. With that I agree, Mr. Chairman. One of the reasons the interest rate charged by the Farm Credit Corporation ought to move with the market is that in fact there is a distortion or artificial dislocation of the use of these funds if the rate is substantially lower than the market rate. This has the effect of inflating land prices, depending on the amount available. This is a simple economic fact with which I am sure all hon. members agree.
The hon. member also suggested that the agriculture committee-I presume he means the standing committee of this house-ought to take a look at the whole farm credit picture, its programs and policies. I have no objection at all to this, Mr. Chairman. As soon as the agriculture committee is constituted it may take up this task. The report of the Farm Credit Corporation, or any of the others could be referred to the standing committee so that that committee can go into the matter.
Several hon. members mentioned that they would like to see one or more of these bills referred to the standing committee. I thought I explained rather clearly at the outset that there just is not time. The Farm Improvement Loans Act amendments are needed now. The farmers have been denied facilities provided under this act. First of all, the act expired on June 30; but even more important, the effective operation of it expired long before that, owing to the fact that the interest rate was fixed at a statutory limit which was insufficiently attractive to the banks. Consequently they would make no loans.
What the government is now asking is to amend the act so that it will again become operative at a rate of interest that will attract the co-operation of the lenders, in this case the banks. We have also said we would be prepared to guarantee loans by other financial institutions, provided they met the conditions.
The hon. member for Meadow Lake also suggested that the F.C.C. amendments should go to committee. Another problem here, Mr. Chairman, is this: The capitalization of the Farm Credit Corporation is presently $40 million. As I explained, this allows us to lend up to $1 billion. Almost all of that amount of money has now been lent by the corporation. This capitalization needs to be expanded so as to accommodate applications after the date this $1,040 million has been used up.
The hon. member also said that he would not accept the suggestion that the interest

rate be turned over to a board. In other words, he would not agree to a board setting the interest rate. The resolution makes very clear that the interest rate is not going to be set by a board, but will be set from time to time by the governor in council.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That will be worse.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, it may be worse in some opinions, but I must remind hon. gentlemen of the opposition that on June 25 the people of Canada decided who was going to make the laws of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Hon. gentlemen opposite, who have been reduced in number from 96 to 72, I think it is, ought to have got the message by this time.


Mr. Harkness:: You might remember that you still represent a minority.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If the hon. gentleman for Calgary Centre does not like the terms of the elections act, then I suggest he make representations to the appropriate committee and see whether he can get the act changed. I think the ballots were added up in the proper way, Mr. Chairman, and you know what was the result.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are just bringing in a red herring. I merely reminded you that you represent a minority of the people of Canada.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that any party that gets more members in this house than any other party has the right under the traditions of this country to form the government.
The hon. member for Frontenac wondered whether or not broadening the classes of people who would be eligible to borrow under the F.C.C. act would result in corporations controlling what he referred to as full parishes, as far as agriculture is concerned. I should like him to know that we are broadening the base so that family corporations, of which there is an increasing number in farming, as well as co-operatives would be eligible to make application. However, this particular aspect of the legislation will be confined to farmers who are actually farming.
The hon. member for Battleford-Kinders-ley made a number of suggestions. He wanted to be assured that no loan company would be included under the F.I.L. act unless it was
October 1, 1968

familiar with agricultural operations. I do not know exactly what the hon. member means by this. If he is suggesting that there should be some restrictions so that these companies could not over-extend the amount of a loan to the point where the farmer could not pay it back, then I do not think this is really a big problem. The problem we are now having is to find financial institutions, be they banks or any other, which will lend farmers as much money as they want to borrow. Certain regulations, of course, in relation to government guaranteed loans will be laid down, and also I hope there will be an interest rate that is substantially lower than what might be called the competitive or commercial rate now in effect for this type of loan.
The hon. member also wanted some kind of means test incorporated into the F.C.C. legislation. According to my notes, he said that loans should be made only to those who need them the most. I am not entirely sure, Mr. Chairman, how this can be applied. The purpose of the Farm Credit Corporation was to finance the creation of economic farm units which would be able to pay their way, as well as return to the farmer a reasonable living.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
If we were to prescribe a regulation of this kind in trying to set up economic farm units, no matter how good or how humanitarian the idea might be I am not sure it would be compatible with the economic considerations which we hope are not lost sight of in this act. The hon. member also suggested that the interest rate should be set by parliament and that the question should go before the standing committee. Well, I explained a few minutes ago that we needed to increase the capital of this corporation without delay, so that it could carry on its services to farmers.
The hon. member for Crowfoot complained that machinery sales, in western Canada particularly, had declined anywhere from 26 per cent to 34 per cent in Saskatchewan, and I agree that this is so. But it is well known that a large percentage of all farm machinery purchased prior to ten months ago was financed through the provisions of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, until interest rates elsewhere rose sharply and the banks stopped lending under this legislation. That is why we are here asking that the rate be changed so that it will again become attractive to the banks to make these loans.
Farm Credit Act
My information is that machinery sales will increase as soon as this legislation is reactivated. Dozens of farmers have written to me asking when the new provisions might be expected, and they are delaying the purchase of machinery until that date because the rates offered them now by the banks and other institutions are as high as 10 or 12 per cent. We think there will be a marked reduction in the cost of these loans to farmers if the government guarantees are reinstated, resulting in rates substantially lower than those now being asked. The hon. member also urged that the subject of the Farm Credit Corporation be referred to the standing committee but, as I explained a few minutes ago, we need this increase in capital quickly.
The hon. member for Timiskaming claimed that the farm machinery syndicates were of little interest to the small farmer, but only to what he referred to as the Cadillac trade. I suggest to him that exactly the opposite is true, and this is borne out by our limited experience of the legislation. It has allowed groups of farmers to finance a Cadillac type of farm equipment which they could not otherwise afford to buy; a machine might be too big or too expensive for one individual to purchase but it could be bought through a syndicate in co-operation with other farmers.
Through this legislation credit facilities have been provided enabling small farmers to buy the type of machinery which "Cadillac farmers'' could probably buy themselves as individuals. So I think the hon. member's argument is completely contrary to the spirit and purpose of the act. He also expressed his concern about the interest rate, and this is a theme which ran through most of the speeches made by hon. gentlemen opposite. I did not follow the gist of all he had to say, but it leads to the same argument again: The interest rate has to be set high enough to induce the banks and other lending institutions to support the act. At the same time, with a government guarantee they can lend at substantially lower rates than those now being charged for this kind of credit.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister permit a question? While he is dealing with farm syndicates would he mind outlining in detail the responsibility which each shareholder must accept under the new policy?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sure the hon. member is familiar with the provisions contained in the act at the present time. I hope he can be patient for a little while because I am ready

October 1, 1968
Farm Credit Act
to bring on all these measures, now, and he can read the provisions in detail. He could then be given a complete explanation as to what those words mean. Even if he and I do not understand them completely, I shall have experts present at that stage who will.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I gather from that remark that the minister himself is not quite sure about them and wants the experts help him explain.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wish to thank the hon. member for Lambton-Kent for his kindly opening remarks. He may disagree with parts of the several resolutions. However, I think he is in fundamental disagreement with the principles set forth by the hon. member for Kent-Essex, who seemed to think the government had the responsibility to move in and take over in connection with almost every farming activity-marketing, rates of interest and so on. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent thought we should let the banks carry on their traditional role in farm credit. He was wondering about the publication of the interest rates and the formula which should be used to calculate the interest rate from time to time. I am not sure I know just how often interest rates would be changed. The proposal is that they should be changed "from time to time" and that is the phrase used. But applicants would certainly know at the time they made their applications what the interest rate was to be, and there is no intention of changing the interest rates in connection with a signed contract.
Then the hon. member was worried lest some time in the future there should be a weak cabinet responsible for setting these interest rates. All I can say in response to that is that we must proceed on the assumption that all governments will be as strong and as resolute as the one we have today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Lotbiniere had something to say about potatoes and the fact that potatoes had to be destroyed before qualifying for payment at the rate of 1 cent a pound. I believe his criticism was directed toward the federal government as being responsible for these rules and regulations; but according to my inquiries this is a matter for the provincial government, and the hon. member will have to take this question up with the provincial authorities.
The hon. member went on to say there were many political and financial problems in the international arena. I do not disagree

with this. We have to try to resolve these difficulties while facing the realities of the world situation as it is; we must do our best for the agricultural community while living with the policies set in the international market, s (8:30 p.m.)
I was very happy to hear that he agrees with many of the amendments that have been suggested. I am also happy to note that he agrees that hon. members of this house ought to be co-operating to bring about as quickly as possible the improvements that have been proposed. I can assure him that it is our hope that the rate will be lower than 9 per cent or 10 per cent. If I understood him correctly he was apprehensive that the rate might go up to 9 per cent or 10 per cent. It is certainly my hope it will not be that high.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar claimed that all of the federal government farm credit acts and farm credit programs were not in a package. Indeed this series of resolutions and bills does not put all of the credit into one package, but I have to say to him that presenting these measures to the house in a package was a step in the right direction. We wanted to have a full debate without complaining about the rules of relevancy, dividing the debate into the various fields of farm improvement loans, the credit corporation and so on.
We believe that the Farm Improvement Loans Act is one of the easiest ways to provide credit for the purchase of machinery, and even of small portions of land, and the latter is contained in the resolution. Where there are larger amounts and longer terms involved we believe they are better handled under the Farm Credit Corporation and by the very competent field staff it has all over the country to supervise this lending.
I think the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar knows very well why the private lenders are not in this field. It is simply because of certain experiences they had 20 or 30 years ago, and that the service and the interest rates charged by the F.C.C. have been such that any private financial institution would not want to compete with them. I agree with him that there probably is room for some additional co-ordination, but we have to balance that with the fact that we need to get the F.I.L.A. under way as quickly as possible, together with the increase in the capital for the Farm Credit Corporation.
October 1, 1968

The hon. member was also worried about the problems of the banks and other institutions in having to set up field services and acquire a lot of additional supporting staff to make loans for land under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. At this point we do not have all the detail worked out, but I would like to advise him and other hon. members that we hope some kind of arrangement can be made so that the field services, the competent personnel of the F.C.C., could be made available in an advisory capacity to the banks and other financial institutions making loans for land under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and which do not at this time have the assessors to give them advice on that point.
Turning now to the remarks of the hon. member for Kent-Essex, who was first and certainly shall not be last, he wanted the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act sent to the standing committee on agriculture.


Mr. Danforih:: The Farm Credit Corporation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, I have to give him exactly the same answer I have given previously, that we need the amendments now and we do not have enough time to send it to the committee.


Mr. Korchinski:: May I ask the minister a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I shall be finished in just a few minutes. There are other ways of having the committee undertake an investigation or study of farm credit. One is by referring the report of the Farm Credit Corporation to the committee. It would achieve essentially the same thing, and would not hold up the passage of the amending bill so that we can make the necessary changes.
The hon. member for Kent-Essex also said that we should not keep putting off decisions pending receipt of findings and recommendations from the task force. I want to say to him that we are not putting off decisions. We are moving ahead with a group of amendments that we think are useful and beneficial at this time, but we are not ruling out accepting some of the recommendations of the task force when it has had enough time to gather together the research projects it has initiated. We are moving now, and we will be prepared to move again on further amendments when the task force comes forth with its recommendations.
29180-43*
Farm Credit Act
The hon. member also complained that there should be a fixed formula rather than a prescribed interest rate for the Farm Credit Corporation. If we set down a fixed rate such as the economic rate, I would remind him that the definition of an economic rate used to be 1 per cent above the amount that money costs the government, or the Farm Credit Corporation. I further suggest to him that a prescribed rate would be better than providing an economic rate in the act, because a prescribed rate provides the opportunity to change the rate from time to time, and it does not necessarily have to be 1 per cent above the cost of funds to the corporation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What about one half of one per
cent?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A prescribed rate could be that. It could be less than the Minister of Finance charges the corporation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Are you prepared to argue that it should be less?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I suggest to the hon. member that it could be. A prescribed rate is a decision that is reached by the governor in council from time to time, and I think we need the kind of flexibility that would be embodied in a prescribed rate, rather than some fixed formula. Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to answer some of the questions raised by hon. members in their speeches since I introduced these three resolutions. Again, in closing, I want to thank hon. members on both sides for being helpful in bringing their views to me with respect to farm credit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley James Korchinski: Since the minister has indicated there is no time to take the Farm Credit Corporation before a committee I wish to ask him, according to the amount that is being lent at the present rate, how much time it will take to deplete the corporation's reserves?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: My information is that under present capitalization we cannot extend more than $1,040 million, and that we are right about there now.


Stanley James Korchinski: How long will it take before this is depleted? Will it be a month or two? Maybe three weeks would be all that would be necessary for the standing committee to finish its work.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I have been around here for eight or nine years now and

October 1, 1968
Farm Credit Act
I doubt if we could complete the study, in a standing committee, of a bill of such magnitude in a matter of three weeks. I would not like to risk the Farm Credit Corporation being placed in a position of having to turn away all applicants simply because the act was going through some process and we could not get it back into the house, amend it, and have it passed. I cannot tell the hon. member the exact date that the F.C.C. is going to run out of funds. All I know_ is that its commitments to date and the applications it has in now, even though all the applications have not been approved, exceeds the amount of the capitalization.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister suggested that after he was finished he would be glad to answer questions. In view of the necessity that the Farm Credit Corporation be granted more money, after having granted more money to the corporation would the minister refer the last annual report of the corporation, which would include of course the farm machinery syndicates credit bill, to the agriculture	committee for	study and
advisement.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not know whether such a committee even exists at the moment. I do not know whether I would like to refer a report to a non-existent body. Because I have not been here all that long, I am not quite sure whether we can in fact refer such a report. I think perhaps the committee, to some extent, is its own master in that regard.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister did not understand my question. All I want from him is his assurance that he and the government are fully prepared to offer to the agriculture committee the annual report of the Farm Credit Corporation for a detailed study. If the committee should reject that offer, then that would be fine.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: All the estimates are to go to the committees. I expect there is an item in the estimates which would cover the subject the hon. gentleman has in mind, and the exhaustive study the hon. gentleman wishes could be made at that time. It is obvious that the committees will be extremely busy, and therefore it would be difficult to give the undertaking the hon. gentleman desires because we do not wish to load up the committees with more work than perhaps they can do.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The committee members, who are farmers, are very industrious.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We will take the suggestion into consideration.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Last evening I thought I had made a reasonable suggestion concerning a formula to arrive at interest rates. Would the minister tell me why this government appears to be unwilling or afraid to allow the light of day to enter into the procedure of establishing rates.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, this government does not take a position of preventing the light of day into anything. As soon as this resolution passes we will bring on the bill, and then hon. members will be in a position to see in considerably more detail what is contained in it. If the hon. member for Lambton-Kent has stated a precise formula for establishing rates, I must have missed it because I do not have a reference to it in my notes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We will move the amendment.


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Chairman, now that I have the floor, I would like to express some views about such an important and controversial matter.
I am very happy to have heard the comments of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) beforehand. I must say that I am not convinced of the value of the bill presented by the minister, and instead of trying to establish what priority must be given to finding institutions which will agree to lend money at an unknown interest rate, I feel that it is more important to examine the situation of the farming people and to find other ways to help them.
I would be in favour of looking for ways and means first to guarantee acceptable prices to all farmers and then to determine the possibilities of consumption of our production before thinking of imports.
I wonder whether the most important thing at the present time is to find lending means. Surely it is a worthy undertaking, but it is not a very brilliant measure in the present circumstances.
The bill broadens the classes of persons eligible for loans, and also broadens the purposes for which loans can be made. Those are things which I endorse in principle. However, when it comes to increasing loans from $15,000 to $25,000, when we consider that the rate
October 1, 1968

of 5 per cent was the maximum rate of interest payable by farmers and that we cannot guarantee a fixed rate for that extension of loans, I wonder how we, who committed ourselves to defending the farming class, who honestly undertook to find solutions to help them, could vote in favour of such a measure without denying our commitments.
Besides, I wonder what would be the situation of those members who agreed with such a proposal. How can anybody honestly vote in favour of such legislation, as I am convinced that all those members representing constituencies with agricultural areas have, like all the others, pledged themselves to fight this interest rate, to help the farmers and to find solutions.
The solution proposed by the Minister of Agriculture does not, under the present circumstances, appear very brilliant or acceptable.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the loans are a matter for concern. It is certainly possible to help our farmers through the granting of loans, but increasing them will not solve the problem. Loans would simply prolong the present agony of our farmers.
I feel the need is more pressing for means to ensure first of all, decent prices to our farmers. Subsidies are, to my mind, mere band-aids. What our farmers need urgently is for the government to find the means of enabling them to farm their land more profitably.
For instance, I imagine the Department of Agriculture is aware of the April commission report which was submitted to the province of Quebec and which indicated that underground drainage was a priority in that province.
I fail to understand why no one has ever mentioned that the government could put a certain amount of money at the disposal of Quebec; and I imagine that the same problem exists in Ontario where many farmers must have paid the cost of that drainage themselves. I should think that it would be advantageous to allocate certain amounts of money for that underground drainage in the various provinces of Canada which need it, thus enabling our farmers to work on their land earlier in the spring, and later in the fall.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I think this would help our farmers. We might have to come to grants which are only poultices. They are instruments to guarantee prices, and it will only be through co-ordination and planning that we will be able to help
Farm Credit Act
our farmers. I think that is what they hope and want. I also believe it is our duty to try and find a plan adjusted to the various kinds of farming that exist in the various areas of this country.
It is certain that, in Quebec particularly, we have diversified farming. This is no reason, I think, not to give each kind of farming the attention it deserves. This diversified farming could even allow the farmers to have a better life if we had some planning and this is the responsibility of the government.
With regard to the research station established in Quebec under federal jurisdiction and according to a certain plan, I think it would be profitable to find markets to meet the demands of the population and to direct the farmers to those markets where the demand is increasing. They could be helped to practise land selection, for example, which would allow them to make better use of their land, since production would be geared to the quality of their land.
In my opinion, these measures would be much more beneficial than trying to find more credit.
I realize that the farmer needs a certain amount of credit, but I do not think we can solve his problems or help him to a better life by lending him more money or by passing a law which would force him to pay a higher rate of interest. As the hon. minister said a while ago, the interest rate af 5 per cent seems unacceptable to him. As for me, I do not honestly think that the farmer is inclined and able to pay more. Of course, the government will have to agree to pay the difference in rate if it is really necessary to increase the interest to over 5 per cent to find that money. But I do not see the possibility of supporting the motion when I cannot get the assurance that the farmers will continue to pay a rate of 5 per cent on their loans.
When considering the situation of the farmers in Canada, I feel sure that we all honestly want to improve the condition of that class of citizens. May I make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman? In my opinion, we could find cheaper labour for those farmers. How? This time, I will disprove the argument that the government could put forward, namely, that we do not have the necessary funds. In fact, I think that such a suggestion would not call for supplementary estimates on the part of the government, in view of the fact the farmer could go and get that manpower at the employment office as he does at the present time. During the harvesting season, when there is a great

October 1, 1968
Farm Credit Act
demand for labour, I wonder if the government could not accept that the individual who actually receives unemployment insurance benefits would go and work on the farms.
The Unemployment Insurance Commission then would not make him lose his benefits, and the farmer could undertake to pay him the same amount that he receives from the Unemployment Insurance Office. This way, the farmers could get cheaper labour than they do at the present time and the worker then would have to work on the farm and get twice the amount of the benefits he receives at the present time.
Let us suppose a weekly average of $45. Whether he is earning $45 a week or receiving unemployment benefits of $45 a week does not bother the government. Besides assisting the worker, the adoption of such legislation would be a tremendous asset to the farmer who could, at the same time, obtain more farm labour and avoid the loss of his crops. His crops could be stored more quickly, thus avoiding losses because of frost or rain. Such an undertaking would be the solution we are looking for that would help the farmer to market his produce at a reduced cost price. Furthermore, improvements in prices to consumers could be envisaged and they would consist in better prices for the consumers of agricultural products. I think this measure would be applicable in this case. This is one method for our farmers to obtain labour at a cheaper price. There are a thousand ways to help them. I hope the government will give this matter serious consideration. At any rate, I hope that, in the course of discussions in this house concerning the agricultural class, it will be granted the respect and consideration it deserves. Granting the farmers the consideration they deserve and sharing their concern through workable and clear legislation will surely help them.
Mr. Chairman, those were the comments I wanted to express. I had to make them and I assure the present government that it is impossible to limit our discussion to granting additional credit, for this is not the priority we should give the agricultural class of this country, and especially those I represent in my province.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Those of us who knew the Minister of Agriculture when he sat on this side of the house know that at one time at least he had some very definite ideas and convictions about agricultural policy. On

numerous occasions we used to discuss things over here behind the curtain, including our ideas relating to the case that could be made for price supports of farm products in this country. We talked, too, about the maximum extent of price supports possible. We know also that the minister had some views about agricultural credit.
When I listened to his speech in introducing this legislation to the house and recommending it to hon. members I found it a bit painful. He has learned the language of the establishment pretty quickly. When he succumbed to the Liberal party they took him to their bosom and whispered code words into his ears, because he came across with a pretty good imitation. Perhaps he was convincing to hon. members opposite, but he was really not very convincing to hon. members in this part of the chamber. Surely the minister must have some grave misgivings about the course of action he has recommended to this house.
The Minister of Agriculture recommended a course of action which will have the effect of increasing interest rates to the farmers of this country. Perhaps he more than anyone else here should know that increased interest rates will increase the cost of production. The government should be prepared to follow this credit legislation with a measure respecting farm income and price supports. We are being invited at this time to agree to the suggestion that we squeeze the farmers a little bit harder, as though they have not been squeezed hard enough in the past decade and a half. I am sure the former hon. member for Assiniboia, who now sits in the other place, will have some explaining to do.
Does the minister realize that according to the fifth chapter of the report from the Economic Council of Canada our agricultural industry has greater problems than the industry in the United States? The council has shown in its report tabled a few weeks ago that the rate of growth in agricultural productivity is lagging behind that of the United States. At this point I might say that I am not sure this is the case. I came across a recent publication from Toronto in which two learned economists take a rather different view about the relative growth rates in the two countries. I have not heard the minister take issue with the contents of the fifth chapter of the Economic Council. If he has not taken issue, one must presume he agrees in large part that the growth of agricultural productivity in Canada has not been keeping pace with that of the United States. If that is
October 1, 1968

the fact we should be doing something about it. One of the things we should not be doing is increasing the cost of capital to our farmers.
The cost of farm credit in the country to the south of us is being maintained at a rate considerably lower than it is here. Does the minister have any information to give this house as to the present United States rate applying to farm credit loans being granted now by the farmers home administration in the United States, which is the credit granting agency there?
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
It is my understanding that all classes of loans being granted by the farmers home administration in the U.S.A. are being granted at an interest rate of 5 per cent, except for emergency loans which are granted at an interest rate of 3 per cent. In connection with the farmers home administration across the border, since I am on the subject, here one has a concrete example of the kind of thing that my colleague the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar referred to the other night, namely that there should be more scope and variety in the kinds of farm credit available to farmers in this country. There should be operating capital loans, and these should be of a short, intermediate and long term nature. They should be available more as a package, and there should be much more credit supervision in respect of farmers taking out such loans. This is not the case at the present time.
I do not want to deal with this matter at any greater length because it has been adequately covered by other hon. members. But I again stress that the minister is not only disappointing us but is displaying a certain amount of gall in asking us on this side of the house to approve a measure that will have the effect of increasing interest rates, and therefore the costs of production which, according to my very rapid and rough calculation, will mean an additional $10 million a year in production costs in this country. If interest rates were to increase by one or two percentage points, amortizing this over 25 or 30 years it will amount to an additional cost of many thousands of dollars to a young farmer taking on an operation in a transfer between father and son.
All of this can hardly be justified. The minister has one argument. He wants us to agree to amend the existing farm credit statutes because he says the present rates are unrealistic. I believe he used the word "unrealistic". I ask, unrealistic to whom?
Farm Credit Act


Mr, Woolliams:: To the banks.


Edward Richard Schreyer: To the bankers, no doubt, and the bankers association. But to farmers who have been struggling under low profit margins and low income levels for many years, any increase in interest rates is unrealistic. It all depends whose ox is being gored. One can see that the minister's approach is not far removed from that of the bankers association, otherwise he would not say the present interest rates are unrealistic.
I should like to quote just three sentences from the fifth chapter of the fifth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada:
Prices of farm products have increased much less than prices of other goods and services over the past two decades. This has meant that the prices of the goods sold by farmers have, on average, increased less rapidly than the prices of goods purchased by farmers. And this has meant, in turn, that part of the income-generating benefits arising from the rapid rate of growth of agricultural productivity have been shifted from the farm sector to other sectors of the economy.
There is an admission by the Economic Council of Canada that there has been an impressive increase in agricultural productivity and efficiency, that there have been impressive benefits accruing therefrom, but that the benefits which have been realized from this increased efficiency and productivity on our farms have not been retained by Canadian farmers but have been passed on to other sectors of the economy. That being so, it is not difficult to justify making a plea to the minister that agricultural credit, and in particular the operations of the Farm Credit Corporation and long term credit, be maintained as instruments of national policy. One may be prepared to concede grudgingly that capital that is lent under the aegis of the Farm Improvement Loans Act is, after all, money that is being lent from private sources and through private channels, and there is probably not much that can be done to contain these interest rates in the light of the action taken by this government two years ago when it revised the Bank Act.
At that time the government took the ceiling off interest rates. Now Canadian farmers are paying the consequences of this ill-conceived action which the Minister of Labour, I must say to his credit, did not vote for at that time. The Farm Credit Corporation is quite another matter. It is a crown corporation, a public corporation. It can acquire the necessary moneys through the government of Canada from the sale of government securities.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I understand there are three resolutions now before the house, one of which will be voted upon in a very few minutes. I shall therefore confine my remarks to the subject matter of this resolution prior to the vote, and continue on with the other two following it.
When the subject of agriculture in any of its forms comes before the house we have to remember two things in looking at the proposed legislation concerning agriculture. One is that agriculture is still by far the largest industry in Canada, and the second is that agriculture is a particularly unique industry for two reasons: One, that it is affected very much by the weather, which is a very important factor because in this country, as we all know, the vagaries of our climate can have a tremendous influence on the crops produced, and the second is that agriculture, because of its very nature, is very much affected by the actions of other governments. I think that while other industries are affected to some degree by the actions of other governments, no industry is affected to the same degree as agriculture, and I will come to this a little later on in my remarks.
I think these two facts are very important and should be borne in mind, because much of the legislation affecting agriculture is regularly misinterpreted by many sections of the public. There is no other industry that is
October 1, 1968

affected by the weather, and that is as uncertain as is agriculture.
There is perhaps a third factor which must be remembered, namely that it is certainly the responsibility of any government to ensure that the food supply of this country and of certain other countries which rely on Canada is protected.
It is for these reasons among others that very often agriculture has received special consideration in the days gone by. I am referring of course to subsidies, subsidized interest rates and the like. This is very important because of the three rather special factors which do not affect other industries to the same extent. I have heard it said, particularly by those who do not come from farm communities, that farmers are always complaining, and that they always get special attention. But I repeat that there are no industries in this country, and so far as I know anywhere else, which have these special qualities and which need special concern.
The first resolution before us concerns the farm credit corporation. The minister has attempted to answer some of the questions that have been put by members of this house, but I am afraid I cannot agree with his answers. It is certainly interesting to see how things change. I can remember the time when the minister sat in another quarter of the house and when he used to think that any interest rates were the handmaiden of the cities of the Plain. But now that he is on the opposite side of the house he no longer has any worries about Sodom and Gomorrah, and thinks in fact that higher interest rates are appropriate. It certainly seems very strange how things change over the years in this house. So far as the Farm Credit Corporation is concerned, I certainly hope that the minister and his colleagues will not insist on any change in the 5 per cent interest rates. Loans made through the Farm Credit Corporation are very long term in nature and we know that at the moment interest rates are high- but they tend to average at 5 per cent over the years. In any event, for the three reasons I mentioned earlier, agriculture deserves special consideration, and I think that 5 per cent is a reasonable rate of interest to be charged; certainly no more.
I also agree with other hon. members who have suggested that the bill on the Farm Credit Act should be referred to the standing committee on agriculture. The minister tried to explain this away rather vaguely by saying it should be passed in a hurry because the 29180-44
Farm Credit Act
need of the farmers is urgent. This explanation might apply to the farm improvement loan bill, but I do not think it applies in this case. It is true there may be some farmers waiting to make applications after the act has been amended, but I think more farmers are interested in finding out how some of the policies on loans are evolved. If I recall correctly, it has been about 10 years since the Farm Credit Corporation or any of its officials have been before the committee on agriculture. Only the other day this government suggested that we look into the matter of delegated legislation. I think it would be a very good start if the committee on agriculture started looking into some of the activities of the Farm Credit Corporation, how their policies are made, who gets loans, etc.
I am sure these things would be of great interest to farmers, and most farmers applying for loans would not mind waiting a few days longer if they could get some of the other matters ironed out. When in a cavalier fashion the minister brushed this suggestion off, I think he made a big mistake.
I hope that when the standing committee on agriculture is set up, the minister will recommend to his colleagues in the government that sooner or later the activities of the Farm Credit Corporation be referred to the committee for study, because many of the things I mentioned are of great concern to the farmers. I hope that if he will not do it by means of this bill, when it appears, he will do it in some other way.
So far as the farm improvement loans resolution is concerned, we still do not know exactly what the government will do with respect to the interest rates, except that we know it will increase them. I think everyone knows that one of the difficulties people have in obtaining loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act is that the interest rate has been set at 5 per cent.
I raised this matter a good many times in the last parliament, and I am glad to see the government will do something about it. If the interest rate is only raised to a small degree and some sort of sliding scale is evolved by the cabinet, I do not think it will help very much, because at the present time banks lend all the money they have available for loans at 10 per cent and more, and they do not worry too much about guarantees. The fact that these loans are guaranteed by the government will not be a great incentive. There will be some improvement, no doubt, if the interest rate is raised, but that is not the answer. I do
678	COMMONS
Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act not believe this is going to answer the demand for loans. I should like to suggest to the minister-
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: -that rather than have an uncertain interest rate-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. Pursuant to standing order 61A, it is my duty to now put the question. Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


James Hugh Faulkner: The hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar on a point of order?


Mr. Gleave:: No; am I not permitted to make a speech?


James Hugh Faulkner: No, according to standing order 61A the time for the discussion of this resolution has now expired, and it is my duty to put the question. All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


James Hugh Faulkner: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


James Hugh Faulkner: In my opinion, the yeas have it. Shall I report the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Olson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-110, to amend the Farm Credit Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FARM MACHINERY SYNDICATES CREDIT ACT


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure amending the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act to broaden the purposes for which loans may be made under that act; to enable co-operative farm associations and certain farming corporations and other associations to obtain loans under that

DEBATES	October 1, 1968
act without the members or shareholders thereof being required to enter into any other formal agreement; and to provide for other consequential and related subjects.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A few moments ago, I was discussing the matter of interest rates in connection with the Farm Improvement Loans Act. At that time I indicated that I thought whatever scheme the minister devised for slightly increasing interest rates under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, there will probably be difficulty in obtaining much additional money that way. At the present time, of course, the banks are able to lend most of the money they have available for loans at a much higher rate of interest than the government will be able to provide. The banks will not be worried about security because at the present time they do not seem to be bothering about that aspect of things.
Consequently there is something I hope the minister might take into consideration and that is, instead of increasing the interest rate under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, which loans are in the nature of short term or interim term credit, the government might set up a fund similar to the fund it has for the Farm Credit Corporation. In this way, those who borrow under the Farm Improvement Loans Act would know exactly what rate of interest they would be paying. If this arrangement were set up, then the government would not have to rely on the banks to lend money to farmers at whatever interest rate may be decided if the banks decided to lend the money at all.
The farmer would have some assurance of how much interest he would have to pay over the years. I feel that if the government really wants to help farmers with regard to short term loans, the thing to do would be to set up a fund similar to the Farm Credit Corporation fund, and set an interest rate of 5 per cent. When the minister was discussing the Farm Improvement Loans Act he said that some of the functions of this act and those of the Farm Credit Corporation overlapped. He said people could borrow money from a bank under the Farm Improvement Loans Act to make a small purchase of land. Since there is an obvious attempt, apparently, to sort of overlap the arrangements between the Farm Credit Corporation and the Farm Improvement Loans Act, I would think a good way would be to combine the two, put both short term and long term credit under the Farm
October 1, 1968

Credit Corporation. This can be done quite easily by setting up the necessary fund. Then we would not have people going to a bank and finding one branch of the bank turning down a farmer, while another branch said yes. We would get some standardization in this way, as well as lower interest rates.
At the moment, the need for credit of those engaged in agriculture is great. If the government had taken a greater interest in farm policies in days gone by, there would not be the necessity for the extension of credit facilities at this time. Most people do not want to borrow money because it is very difficult to pay it back at the interest rates that are charged now. As I said earlier, I believe the government has a very special responsibility toward agriculture because the government has the responsibility for preserving the country's food supply. We now have a very serious problem in agriculture, and this may very well have a great bearing on the amount of funds available, and the interest rates under this proposed resolution. I refer to the corn problem in Canada.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
This problem is a complex one as most agricultural problems usually are. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, it is this: First, Canada produces at the present time approximately 70 per cent of its corn needs; the rest comes from the United States of America. Second, the United States government subsidizes in one way or another United States corn growers so that the United States grower receives approximately $1.35 per bushel U.S. funds. Third, the United States grades its corn very differently from the way Canadian grades are rated. This helps what is popularly known as the dumping of corn in Canada. Somebody put it very well when he said that this is "dumping by grading." Fourth, United States corn tends to come into the Canadian market just before the Canadian corn is harvested. Fifth, at the present time the United States government, because of a very large corn crop in the United States, is very anxious to get rid of its stockpiles of corn which it has been piling up for the last year or so. Room is required to store new corn.
Now, Mr. Chairman, remember that the growers in the United States are getting at least $1.35 per bushel as a result of United States government subsidies. This United States corn is dumped on the market in Chicago as low, so I am informed, as 31-cents a bushel. Granted, this is probably very low
679
Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act grade corn, but lots of tricks can be played with the grading of corn.
This, Mr. Chairman, hardly seems fair. Since we import 30 per cent of our com needs, perhaps slightly more, from the United States, the price in the United States tends greatly to affect the price in Canada. I am reliably informed that by the end of this week one of the popular grades of corn in this country will be selling for about $1 per bushel. Corn costs the Canadian farmers an average of $1.22 a bushel to produce. I realize it is difficult to be accurate when talking of averages, but according to the best information I have been able to get, that is the present cost to Canadian corn farmers. If the average price goes down to $1 per bushel, then it is very easy to see what is going to happen to the corn farmers of this country.
Perhaps the government did not foresee this coming, Mr. Chairman, but many com farmers did. A lot of the best corn lands in Canada have been sold in the last short while to what I am informed are wealthy buyers of land from other countries, particularly the United States. These people are purchasing a lot of our best corn lands. I do not think this is an exactly desirable state of affairs. We often complain about our industry, our resources and our lands being taken over by our good neighbours. I do not blame the United States for this; business is business. I blame the government for allowing this sort of thing to happen. If the farmers are forced to sell their corn at $1 a bushel, and perhaps even less before the season is out, since it costs them $1.22 to produce the result will be inevitable.
Dumping is normally understood to be a situation where a country sells its produce abroad at a price lower than it sells it on its domestic markets. Mr. Chairman, this is a piece of fancy fiction. As anyone with experience with dumping duties knows, dumping can be achieved in all sorts of ways-by means of subsidies, direct and indirect, soil banks, special grading of a product, avoidance and evasion of laws, evasion of GATT, and in other ways.
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that while technically the United States government may not be dumping corn in Canada since it is selling
fact dumping corn in this country, and everybody knows it. This is not the fault of the Canadian farmers. It is not because they are inefficient. It is because the government
680	COMMONS
Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act permits this to happen. The government has very much of a responsibility to protect the people of Canada from this sort of activity. The responsible officials of the Department of Agriculture must have known that this would take place this fall; everybody else seemed to know. However, nothing has been done.
It is the responsibility of this government to protect Canadian citizens from acts of foreign governments. This whole problem, Mr. Chairman, has been caused by the activities of the United States government. I do not blame them. After all, they are only looking after their own people and their own problems. However, their actions affect us. They affect our country and our farmers, who are good and efficient farmers. I suggest that we should not stand for this kind of activity that is depressing the price of Canadian corn.
One argument that has been made, and I think a fallacious one, is that if we cannot produce corn economically in this country, then we should let the corn farmers grow something else. This reminds me of an old expression which was attributed to the unfortunate Queen of France, who said: "If they have no bread, let them eat cake". This of course does not make sense. The United States might not have a surplus of corn next year so there would not be any to dump. In that event, there would be no corn in this country, and this might cause quite a few problems. We cannot rely on the surplus of other countries to furnish our needs. We need an adequate policy in this country to ensure and preserve our food supply. Occasionally we may have to pay for this in the form of a subsidy, but we can spread the payment among the taxpayers. This is small insurance to pay for ensuring that we do not become reliant for food on some other country, and perhaps find ourselves without at some future date. I suggest it is the responsibility of this government to protect our producers from the kind of competition with which they are putting up at the present time.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, quite a bit of U.S. corn is being brought into Canada at prices that, although they vary all the time, tend to be very close to the price presently being paid in Chicago. A lot of people have been wondering who it is who imports this corn into Canada. I do not know who it is. There are some questions on the order paper inquiring into this matter and I hope they will soon be answered, because lots of stories are being circulated. I am not going to say anything more about this, but I think in fairness to all concerned the whole matter

DEBATES	October 1, 1968
should be clarified. I think we should be told who is importing this corn.
Now, Mr. Chairman, since this problem has been presented, we might be asked what are we going to do about it. There have been a number of agricultural organizations in Ottawa the last few days speaking both to members of the government and the opposition. Some of these organizations have suggested that legislation should be quickly prepared to put the corn growers under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. I suggest this would restrict movement of corn. It would certainly stop the importation of this very low cost corn from the United States, it is true, but there are many other disadvantages. Frankly, having discussed the matter with a number of people, I do not think this would be a very good arrangement.
Since time is of the essence, the Canadian corn harvest having now commenced, I think something must be done right away. It is no use the minister saying that various groups of corn growers have different solutions, and when they decide what they want he will give it to them. That is passing the buck. The minister has told us that the people of Canada put this government into office, and I suggest that they expect some decisive action both from the government and from this minister.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I respectfully suggest to the minister that what he should do, since time is of the essence is, by order in council, put corn under the terms of the stabilization act to provide an adequate return to the grower. This could be done quickly. I think he should place it at approximately 115 per cent of the last ten-year average, which would provide a return of approximately $1.39 a bushel to the grower. This will cost the taxpayers money, but it is a small insurance to avoid the problems I referred to earlier. Remember that if the corn growers do go out of business it will put a lot of people out of work. The Cockshutt Co. at Brantford announced the other day that it was letting 500 people go because of lack of demand for farm machinery, arising from uncertainty about markets for agricultural products, including corn. As I say, this proposal will cost some money, but so would extra payments from the unemployment insurance fund. So for Heaven's sake let us keep the farmers in business, give them a proper return for their labours, and ensure the nation's food supply.
October 1, 1968
Since the government is economy minded these days, it might help somewhat if they would try to stop the dumping of cheap corn in this country. This could be done in a number of ways-through discussions with the minister's opposite number in the United States, or perhaps by a suggestion that if no action were taken severe anti-dumping restrictions might be passed. Putting corn under the terms of the stabilization act would be an incentive to the government to try to keep cheap corn out of the country, since to let it in would cost the government money. It would also allay all the fears and uncertainties now present in the minds of corn growers. It would prevent many going bankrupt. It would protect Canadians against unfair competition from abroad. The machinery exists. The action I suggest need only be for a 12-month period; in the next 12-month period the government could possibly find other means of dealing with this problem, perhaps some modification of the Wheat Board arrangement. The government would have time to think of a better solution. Any kind of subsidy should, I think, be only of a temporary nature; but what I have suggested is a good way of doing things, a viable and direct way, and I hope the minister will give it consideration.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I simply wish to say that I have no objection to referring the report of the Farm Credit Corporation to the standing committee, with the qualification that we would have to wait for that committee to be established. And the first order of business ought to be for that committee to consider the estimates to be referred to it. If, after considering the estimates, the committee decides that it wants to go deeply into the subject of the Farm Credit Corporation I do not see why this report should not be referred to the committee as its second task. I do not wish to repeat the argument against sending the bill itself to the committee. But the committee could carry out essentially the same study if the report were sent to it.


Gerald William Baldwin: If the estimates are sent to the committee they would include the appropriation directed to the Farm Credit Corporation, and with all respect to the minister's good intentions the committee does not need his consent, or that of the government, to make whatever examination it sees fit. It is seized with the task of considering all the estimates, including those of the Farm Credit Corporation. I assume this would include the right to call witnesses, including members of
Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act the corporation. I suppose they might even be asked about the report.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is precisely the argument I was making a few minutes ago. I said the committee was not prevented from looking into this matter, regardless of whether or not the government referred the report of the F.C.C. to it or not. The committee has full authority to make this kind of examination when the particular item in the estimates comes before it. However, a number of hon. members wanted a further assurance that we would give the committee an opportunity to examine the operations of the F.C.C. I am sure the hon. member for Peace River has now succeeded in convincing his hon. friends that they already have the right to which he has referred, and do not need any assurance from the minister.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think my hon. friends were concerned that the government should not use its majority on the committee to prevent their making uninhibited use of the occasion to examine the chairman of the F.C.C. if they thought that was necessary. I realize the hon. gentleman cannot indicate in advance what attitude government members will take in the committee, but I hope he will use all the influence he has to make sure they will not seek to prevent the committee making this kind of examination.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member for Peace River realizes full well that the minister would not attempt to use his influence, that is, if he has any, in that way. On the other hand he would not wish to use his influence in compliance with his request to inhibit the progress which the committee might wish to make from day to day.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I should like to make some further remarks on this subject in the light of the farm conditions we are facing, and which we shall have to contend with in connection with this farm credit program. I believe that agricultural conditions, the earning power of farmers and their ability to ensure a satisfactory profit margin are factors relevant to our credit program, and that the credit program is an integral part of the total farm picture.
If anyone doubts this he should look at the history of the depression in the 'thirties, when we found ourselves in debt adjustment courts because farm earnings were insufficient to carry the debt load the operation had incurred. We had to review that debt load

October 1, 1968
682	COMMONS
Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act and make adjustments involving a substantial loss to farmers and to those who had provided credit. Let us not doubt that this could be repeated, though perhaps not on the same scale or in exactly the same way. Even though it is said that history repeats itself, it often does so in a fashion somewhat different from the experience of the past.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
So, the credit program which the government proposes and may intend to carry out must have reference to the farm conditions that actually exist. Judging from the throne speech and this legislation before us, the government's agricultural program is practically entirely the credit program. There is no mention of the national marketing boards that were spoken of during the election campaign.
I do not see them here. Yet when one looks at the situation of agriculture he must concede that all is not well.
When farmers will abandon their fields and take to the roads, with tractors in the province of Ontario, surely it is worthy of notice. When you also see tractors being used for the same purpose of protest in the province of Saskatchewan, surely it is worthy of notice. This credit program does not take notice of the basic changes that are taking place in farming, and of the manner in which industry is impinging on the farm picture. Yet this will have to be a part of the whole.
The government says it cannot tolerate the delay involved in referring the Farm Credit Corporation legislation to a committee, yet time will have to be spent picking up the pieces if the legislation does not do the job effectively.
If the interest rates are increased the government, as I understand it, proposes to be a sort of umpire between the lenders and the farmers, to say what the rate will be. I suppose if the rate is high enough and the farmer is being choked the umpire will say, "You will have to let him up so that he can breathe, so that he can go borrow some more money and pay some more interest, or else he will just fold up". I think this is the serious situation we are looking at.
The minister says that the Farm Credit Corporation supervisory staff could be made available to the lending agencies. In all seriousness I ask him whether the corporation has that supervisory staff? When I say supervisory staff I mean staff that has been specifically trained and is being specifically used to supervise farm credit.
[Mr. Gleave.l


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I would like to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that I am sure I did not say supervisory. I said advisory.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I thank the minister, but it is not advisory staff that will be needed. It is trained staff that will be needed in the Farm Credit Corporation, and if they are to assist other people they will possibly do so in an advisory capacity. But my point, Mr. Chairman, is that unless the corporation now has trained supervisory staff it cannot lend such staff to anybody else.
This is one of the important points in the whole program if we are going to draw upon other credit companies and insurance companies that we are told will be selected, including those already qualified in the farm field. I would appreciate it if the minister would advise us how these companies or corporations, that will be lending money to farmers, will be selected? Is it going to be open to any that may care to come in?
Personally I would not want to have the job of saying it will be this one or that one, but perhaps there are people within the Department of Agriculture who are qualified to say it will be this one or it will be that one. If there is going to be a selection we should know the basis of selection. These are some of the important points that need to be cleared up.


Melvin James McQuaid: Mr. Chairman, in the very short time at my disposal this evening I would like to deal chiefly with item No. 6. Although this item has been carried I understand an arrangement has been arrived at whereby it may still be discussed. Perhaps at this time, however, I might call it ten o'clock.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Hugh Faulkner: It being ten o'clock it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, before we move on to the adjournment motion perhaps I could announce the business for tomorrow. We will continue with the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act resolution, which is item No. 7 on today's order paper, and then proceed to item No. 5 on
October 1, 1968

today's order paper with respect to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Then we will go on to item No. 8, which is a resolution preceding a bill to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, and after that we will deal with the resolution preceding the amendments to the Post Office Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I tried to ask several questions of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) regarding the Women's Bureau in his department, but was ruled out of order. Questions were also asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), but I believe the answers given were not complete. Therefore I put this matter on for discussion tonight.
It was reported yesterday that the Canadian Union of Public Employees announced a brief, which will be submitted to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women this week, stating that the Women's Bureau in the Department of Labour is not doing a proper job in protecting the rights of women as employees.
There were also certain remarks made by Mrs. J. Findlay, who had been director of the Women's Bureau and who retired from that position last February. Both made several criticisms against the bureau, and I can list them as follows. First, they said that the bureau did not have an adequate staff. At present it has only three persons in it. Second, they said that the director did not have enough authority or status, and consequently did not have an important enough role within the Department of Labour. It was suggested that Treasury Board should reevaluate and upgrade the director's position. In this respect there was also criticism that a new director had not been appointed since the retirement last February of Mrs. Findlay. Third, they said that the Female Employees Equal Pay Act passed in 1956, which comes under the Women's Bureau in the Department of Labour, is not adequate, does not

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion have enough teeth, and generally is not sufficient to do what it is supposed to do. Some people have suggested that this act be brought into line with the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and the Fair Employment Practices Act.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The fourth criticism is that the present bureau and the law which it administers is not generally known among women employees. It is suggested that as a consequence women have not taken advantage of the provisions that are already there to protect them. It is suggested further that the bureau should set up an information service to make known to the women the rights they have under the act, which the bureau is in a position to enforce for them. Another suggestion is that the bureau take a more aggressive position with regard to seeking out areas in which women are discriminated against. I might say in respect of the use of more information services, that the story which appeared in the Globe and Mail today was right beside an ad by the Department of Labour Women's Bureau which set out clearly the type of work it does.
I think more should be done in this regard by the Women's Bureau, which comes under the federal Department of Labour. The brief also criticized the lack of communication between the Women's Bureau and other departments within the federal government which deal with matters relating to women. Mrs. Findlay said that although she had certain jurisdiction over many laws which are intended to protect women there was no real communication between her bureau and the other departments of government. She felt that there should be this communication.
The sixth point in the brief is a criticism of the manpower retraining programs in respect of their work among women. I am aware that this does not come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour, but since it is brought up in the brief and is related to labour I think it should be mentioned. It is stated that many women who have been housewives for a long period and who wish to enter the labour force are not able to find employment which would make them productive people in our society.
At present we are not making the most of our female labour force. The Economic Council of Canada has stated that we must take steps to drastically increase our economic production. One certain way of doing this is to have an active, content and highly trained
October 1, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion female labour force. I believe that our women should be given a full role in our economy with men. This will benefit not only the women but also the whole society. I hope that the minister will give careful consideration to the CUPE recommendations.


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks may I say that the minister agrees essentially with many of the observations made in the brief presented to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women by the Canadian Union of Public Employees and re-emphasized this evening by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand).
Statistically, according to the latest figures available, the number of women working in Canada at the end of June 1967 was approximately 170,000. These women are covered by the Female Employees Equal Pay Act or by the provisions of the Public Service Act. At the request of the minister, shortly after he took office a review of the Women's Bureau was made as well as an appraisal of the act to which I have just referred. Steps were immediately taken to fill the vacant role of director of this important branch and to upgrade its classification to bring it more in line with the degree of importance that the minister attaches to this area of his department. As a result of this study, a director has been chosen at a classification and salary that is in line with those paid to other branch heads. The name of this director will be announced very shortly, provided of course that there are no appeals against her choice as permitted under the Public Service Act.
While I am sure all members realize that federal jurisdiction extends to a comparatively limited number of women in the work force of Canada, it is realized that the federal department has a responsibility to lead rather than follow the provinces in recognition of the growing importance of women in the labour force, and to do everything in its power to eliminate all forms of discriminatory practices.
As the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace has pointed out, the Female Employees Equal Pay Act is basically good legislation. Its weakness rests with the fact that it acts only on complaints brought to our attention by affected workers. Perhaps as Mr. Little of the union pointed out, we have not made sufficient efforts to acquaint women with this act and its provisions. Perhaps the unions have been lax as well in not acquainting their

membership with the provisions of the act; but indeed Mr. Little was frank and honest enough to indicate that the unions themselves are not without blame.
Proposed changes to the act have been suggested to the minister, but it is hoped that these changes can be reviewed when the report of the royal commission is changed, in order that the act be made as perfect as possible.
It is obvious, for instance, that the proposed changes must permit the department to initiate action and determine whether or not discrimination is being practiced against the female segment of our working force. If past history is any indicator, provincial legislation usually follows shortly afterwards.



OIL-REPORTED REDUCTION IN U.S. IMPORTS FROM CANADA

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, today I asked two questions of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The first one was, briefly, did the United States make a unilateral decision to cut back the quotas on exports of crude petroleum from Alberta, Canada, to the United States, or was this the result of negotiation between the two countries. I received an answer which gave statistical information about what has happened in the past. I am not talking today about what has happened. I then put this question to the minister:
Perhaps the minister did not quite understand my question. We all realize that the national oil policy is subject to negotiation, but did Canada negotiate this export loss in crude petroleum to the United States or was this done on a unilateral basis by the United States?
I have discussed this matter with the top people in the oil industry and they advise me there has been a cutback for the next quarter of 10,000 barrels of crude per day. As a result of that situation the Calgary Herald of September 28, 1968 carried the following heading: "Alberta oil exports cut" and the subheading "U.S. to restrict imports". This article was written by Fraser Perry, one of our more reliable newspapermen, who thoroughly understands this particular subject.
I wanted to obtain an answer from the minister as to whether this cutback had been negotiated, or is the result of unilateral action by the United States. I was not being critical of the government.
October 1, 1968

The article to which I referred reads in part as follows:
United States action which could cost Alberta export sales totalling close to 10,000,000 barrels of crude oil in the next three months, has created new tensions in Ottawa, Washington and the oil centres of North America.
This is causing tension as well in Calgary, the oil capital. The oil industry has stated without reservation or equivocation that there has been a cut-back. I am not denying or arguing for one moment that since the implementation of a national oil policy in 1961 there have been negotiations, or that the National Energy Board set up by the Conservative government has done an excellent job in this regard. Neither am I denying that in the last three months there was an improvement in the export of oil. What I am saying is that now there is a cut-back.
Several months ago when I suggested there was a cut-back in the export of grain the former government practically laughed me out of the House of Commons. This government has statistics which show what a great job it is doing in this field, and I am not denying that. What I am saying now is that it does not make any difference whether you have statistics or not, if representatives of the industry were in my place tonight they would tell you that the maximum exports we have ever had represent only 30 per cent to 40 per cent of our production.
The Canada Year Book, which I think is pretty reliable, indicates that we import crude petroleum into eastern Canada through the Montreal market to the extent of 395,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Venezuela, Arabia, Iran and Iraq. We export to the United States-I say "we", but it is American capital that is bringing the crude petroleum in here-on an average only 295,000 barrels of crude petroleum daily. A few days ago this figure was cut by 10,000 barrels.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
It is obvious that the minister did not negotiate on behalf of Canada; it is obvious that it was a unilateral deal. I say this is obvious because the minister would not answer the question today. He wanted to give statistics on what had been done in the last three months. I am not questioning his figures; he and I can give figures. But as of today we have lost the export of 10,000 barrels per day from the Calgary area. This is the seriousness of the situation. The industry has pointed this out. I do not think the minister
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion would argue with the newspapermen, companies in the United States and the industry in Canada; surely he will not do that.
I have here some figures which were obtained from the National Energy Board. In the first quarter of 1968 the industry in Calgary exported 293,000 barrels of crude petroleum per day to the United States. In the third quarter of that year the figure was
353,000	barrels per day. But there has now been a cut-back to 280,000 barrels per day, which is less than the average mentioned in the Canada Year Book. This is less than the average last year, and there is definitely a fall-off.
In addition, Mr. Udall, the minister of the interior of the United States, has advised the industry in the United States that they must cut back on their imports of crude petroleum from this country. That is only a suggestion from the government in Washington, but as my good friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) appreciates, when they get a suggestion like that, they take it as an order.
In the Puget Sound area, which is the Washington-Vancouver area, 140,000 barrels of crude petroleum per day go in. That figure is being cut back to 100,000 barrels per day. Because of this situation I sought information from the minister today as to what the government is doing about it. I wanted to know whether they were negotiating with the United States. Are they saying to the United States, "You have the Montreal market. You refine crude petroleum. You bring in 395,000 barrels of crude petroleum per day, and that finds its way into refined products that are sent to Toronto and even farther west." This is the area which was negotiated between Canada and the United States and is our western supply centre.
So basically we are in this position: We are losing our domestic market and our exports. We want to keep up our gross national product, but the same thing will happen in western Canada with regard to petroleum as happened with grain. This government said they would give western Canada representation, and they would give some power to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) from Alberta. It is true they are now members of the cabinet, but they are being stripped naked of their jurisdiction and powers in this government. That is our complaint, and we are trying to get information from the minister.
October 1, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I repeat that I am not quibbling about whether the figure was 117,000 barrels, but I am saying there has now been a cutback. I want to know whether this was a unilateral or a negotiated arrangement. If it was a negotiated arrangement, why did Canada give in to the United States?


John James Greene: 

POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-RECONSIDERATION OF POLICY RESPECTING RURAL MAIL CONTRACTS

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 27, the Postmaster General in a brief statement to the house announced the curtailment of mail deliveries starting on February 1. The key sentences in this statement which appeared at page 496 of Hansard were the following:
Deliveries of mail will not be made on Saturdays. This will include letter carrier service, parcel post and rural route deliveries.
This gives rise to any number of questions, but these are at least three of them: The hardship on those expecting six day mail delivery; what happens to the working conditions of the mail carriers; and the particular subject of this inspiring debate, namely what effect it will have on the rural mail carriers. And of course the public interest must also be considered.
My own question to the Postmaster General, among the many being put to him today, refers to the formula that would be used to achieve new contracts with rural mail carriers who have had capital expenditures on their automobiles, as a rather necessary and basic part of their contract. The Postmaster General's answer to other questions was that he was not willing to spend six days money for five days service. I would point out to him that there is a capital investment in a car. While the minister can order the rural mail carriers to deliver five days a week instead of six, he cannot stop the depreciation on the car. It will continue from one week to another.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I believe the minister will agree with me, and I think most members will agree with me, particularly those in rural or partial rural
October 1, 1968

constituencies, that the rural mail carrier does not have a happy life. He is usually in competition with somebody else before he can get a contract to deliver the mail. He usually pares the cost as close to the line as he possibly can-and sometimes goes below it, because after a period of two years these contracts are almost always renegotiated with the department itself. The rural mail carrier must take his chances on a rise in the cost of automobile licences or a change in the rate of car insurance. These things can make a very substantial difference in that gentleman's financial position.
In so far as the car itself is concerned, he has to meet monthly payments. My experience, and I dare say this has been the experience of many other members, has been that the financing of cars gives rise to more legal problems for the people across Canada than anything else. I hope therefore that in paring costs or cutting down the deliveries from six days to five, some heed will be paid by the Postmaster General and his department to the capitalization of the vehicle, whether it be a bright and shiny car or some old heap driving Her Majesty's mails down the highways and byways of this nation.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) and myself are at odds on this question at all. I simply said, in reply to his question this afternoon, that obviously the contracts will have to be renegotiated. I recognize the points the hon. member has brought out, that the mail carrier is faced with certain fixed costs such as depreciation whether he works five days or six days. These costs are not going to be reduced, nor are his insurance charges. Obviously any renegotiation of the contracts will take account of these facts.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
On the other hand, the mail carrier will not be working six days a week. He may or may not be in a position to find other employment on Saturday or over the week end. The point is we certainly should not allow the contracts to stand as they are because the direct, out of pocket expenses such as gas and oil and all the rest will not be expenses for that Saturday. Obviously there is room here for renegotiation. There is room for taking account of the public interest and the responsibility of the minister to act wisely as a trustee of the public funds which are placed at his disposal. There is room here for reasonable renegotiation, with all that word may imply.
As I suggested, the Post Office Department and the government are sensitive to the fact that a great many mail contractors are not gaining an adequate living. This fact raises other problems, such as whether we should not-we are doing it, by the way-conduct a complete re-examination of the rural routes as they presently exist to ascertain if it is not possible, when two contractors side by side make $3,000 or $4,000 a year each, to amalgamate the two routes and thus assure one rural mail carrier of a reasonable living.
All of these questions are to be included in a general re-examination by the department, and this examination is going ahead very rapidly. We recognize all this, Mr. Speaker, and in the bill to come down I think the hon. member will also find we have taken account of it. With regard to the precise problem he has raised, that of depreciation, we may even make some suggestions about longer contracts that will provide for a better depreciation of the contractor's equipment.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.28 p.m.


Wednesday, October 2, 1968