1968-10-03

Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have a declaration to make; and I may say we are getting out these declarations before the study of the post office bill in order that all members of this house may have a better and broader idea of some of the changes that are being made in the post office.
The cost of post office money orders will increase as of November 1. Increased revenues of approximately 25 per cent are expected from the new fee structure. These increased revenues will not balance the money order operation now, but when coupled with a new money order system which will be fully operative by 1970, this service will then begin to pay its own way.
The new fee structure simplifies the money order operation in that seven fees only are required for the transmission of money in amounts up to $100 to any point in Canada or to any country with which the Canadian post office has an agreement for the exchange of money orders.
While the maximum fee of 25 cents per $100 in Canada remains unchanged, a minimum charge of 10 cents has been introduced. The complete schedule of fees is as follows. Money orders for less than $1 will now cost 10 cents; less than $5 will cost 15 cents; less than $15 will cost 20 cents, and up to $100 will cost 25 cents. Money orders in all amounts to the United States will cost 25 cents. Money orders to the United Kingdom of less than $10 will cost 25 cents; less than $50 will cost 50 cents and up to $100 will cost 75 cents. Money orders to other countries up to $50 inclusive will cost 75 cents and from $50 to $100 will cost $1. We expect to recover about 82 per cent of our costs for the money order system. Therefore it can be seen that pressure remains on the department to introduce new, efficient and modern techniques in order that it may recover the additional 18 per cent,
which is something of the order of $2,500,000.
I do not think the public would forgive us if we solved our problems only by increasing rates.


Mr. Mac T. McCulcheon (Lamblon-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to thank the minister for his courtesy in supplying the opposition with an advance copy of this announcement. However, we are particularly sorry that this government has once again seen fit to hit the little people. The minister apparently has a great concern about making the Post Office Department pay its own way. I am not sure where I stand in that regard, but I am wondering whether-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I am just wondering whether the minister might prevail upon his cabinet cohorts to do what they can to make the C.B.C. pay its way.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to confirm the fact that the Postmaster General was courteous enough to let us have copies of his statement, but that does not make the statement any easier to accept. The Postmaster General says he is making these announcements one at a time so that when we reach the discussion of his proposed legislation we will have the total picture. I suggest that what the Postmaster General is demonstrating is that we ought to amend the Post Office Act so parliament will have control over more of the rates than is now the case. We seem to have control over the postage rates for first class mail and a few other things, but there are many aspects of the postal service and many charges which apparently the government can put into effect by executive action without getting parliamentary approval. This ought not to be.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
This announcement today, when coupled with other announcements concerning increased charges, and when coupled also with the announcement that the delivery service is to be reduced to a five day week, gives a total picture of increased charges and reduced service. We do not think this is the

October 3, 1968
Post Office Department kind of package we should be getting from this government which is dedicated to the concept of new politics.
I have just one other comment, Mr. Speaker. Every time the Postmaster General makes an announcement he recites the cliche about the department paying its way, as though that were an article of faith. The hon. member who preceded me said he did not know where he stood on this issue. I say to him, to the Postmaster General and to the government as a whole that it is not an article of faith that every individual service provided by the government has to pay its way. National defence does not pay its way; the Senate does not pay its way. There are many things in our structure of society and government which do not necessarily in themselves pay their way. There are services that government is set up to provide. We think this is a false cliche that the government should not be able to get away with, as the Postmaster General tries so often.
We shall be well armed for the discussion on the post office legislation when it comes, but it seems to us that if there are many more of these announcements it will be one great big package of reduced service and increased charges, and we do not like it.


Mr. Real Caoueile (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I too thank the hon. minister for his courtesy in sending us a copy of his statement. I also congratulate him on sending me a text written in perfect French, something we do not see too often.
Mr. Speaker, according to the statement of the minister, the income of the department will be over 25 per cent higher than in the past. Now, everyone knows that as the result of the recent postal employees' strike, salary increases of some 17 per cent were granted.
But today, the minister announces a 25 per cent increase in returns, and that means not only an increase in returns, but also an increase in taxes for the Canadian people, because the Canadian people will be paying those fees or new taxes.
Now, we see that the fee on a money order for 1 to 99 cents will be 10 cents, and 25 cents on a $15 to $100 money order.
As the minister is a member of the government that is working towards the just society it promised, why does he not suggest, at the same time, to all his friends who voted for the present government, that they ask for one-cent money orders instead of $100 money

orders, to enable the government to make 10 cents per money order instead of only 25 cents for a $100 money order?
It seems to me that would fill up the coffers of the government more easily, because, naturally, there is a lack of funds. Every time similar statements are made, we are told that there will be an increase in taxes. While he was at it, the minister could have proposed the issuance of one-cent money orders only, which would mean returns of 10 cents each time a money order is made out. The minister would then have no financial problems and only the Canadians, especially those who elected this government, would realize to what extent the just society is being set up in Canada.



MEMBERSHIP OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE

Mr. Bernard Pilon (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the house made on September 24, 1968, 1 move:
That the special committee on procedure appointed on September 24, 1968, be composed of the following members: Messrs. Aiken, Blair, Deach-man, Forest, Horner, Jerome, Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre), Lambert (Edmonton West), Lang, Macdonald (Rosedale), Olson and Rondeau.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a statement on corn in English and in French along with four background papers, also in both languages.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: What kind of statement?


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Before this statement is tabled could the minister indicate what it is? Merely to have an indication that there is a statement is not sufficient. We should have some amplification.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I would be glad to read it, but it is seven pages long.


An hon. Member:: What is it?
October 3, 1968	COMMONS


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are additional copies available now in both languages which could be handed out to hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has asked for leave to table these documents. If there is no leave, the documents cannot be tabled.



CORN-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON STABILIZATION POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Not knowing what might have been in the statement mentioned a minute ago, and in view of the uncertainty surrounding the government's intentions and because of the expected arrival tomorrow of a cavalcade of corn growers, will the minister undertake to clarify very succinctly the government's intention with regard to the stabilization of the corn market?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to read the statement if the house were willing to revert to motions so I could do that, but it will take eight or ten minutes to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Let us revert to motions.


Some hon. Members:: No.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns his responsibility for housing. Can he tell us whether he has investigated the charges made in Maclean's magazine that a new Canadian real estate company has been denied access to the classified sections of two Toronto newspapers; and if the minister has investigated these serious charges could he inform the house?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: I understand that information has been received in my office in respect of this matter and I propose to send it to the combines investigation branch. If they feel that an investigation is warranted, I might also send it for consideration to the Toronto real estate board.
DEBATES	733
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Saltsman: I have a supplementary question. I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister would also consider referring this matter to his task force, since it would probably be of interest to them in their study of housing in Canada.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think that is a good suggestion. If the allegations prove to have some foundation then it would of course be a matter in which the task force would be interested.



PILOTAGE

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT On the orders of the day:
['I wonder if the minister would make representations to his representative that steps be taken to stabilize the prices of world commodities other than just those from underdeveloped countries, such as corn for instance?']
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
Could he tell the house whether his department intends to act on the recommendations of the royal commission on pilotage and introduce a bill in this house in the near future?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is proposed that legislation will be introduced during the current session which will be of an interim nature. Then additional legislation covering the question of pilotage on a more comprehensive basis will be introduced perhaps at the next session of parliament, as soon as agreement can be reached as to what the long term legislation should be like.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. Minister of Transport for his answer. I think it is going to make many Canadian pilots happy, particularly those in the riding of Lotbiniere.
I would like to ask the minister whether he intends to introduce interim measures until he can present the legislation which he has just mentioned, in order to assist Canadian pilots in taking some retraining, since their situation is untenable at present.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If I understand the question correctly, Mr. Speaker, that is what we propose to do.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Sainf John-Lancasler):: May I ask the minister whether the interim
734	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry legislation to which he has just referred will apply to all pilotage districts, or to just one or two particular districts in Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not believe I can answer that question from memory, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether it applies to all districts, but it certainly would apply to the St. Lawrence and great lakes basin, which are primarily affected.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I do not know who is acting as minister of external affairs, but I am sure the house and the country would like to know whether the department has ascertained if the political pilgrims to Biafra arrived in that country with greater ease than food and other assistance has been able to achieve.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am no better informed than those who also read the newspapers. However, if it is of interest to the house I will secure a report for tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say whether the high commissioner's office in that country is being advised regarding the work of mercy of these gentlemen, and whether the co-operation of the department is going to be given to assure their safety?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The gentlemen referred to as the pilgrims will get the usual courtesy extended to every Canadian by our high commissioner in Nigeria. Unfortunately we do not have a high commissioner in Biafra.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy Royal: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and it arises out of the recent meeting of the I.M.F. and the world bank. Does the government prefer not to act now on the proposal to help stabilize the prices of primary commodity exports from underdeveloped countries?

DEBATES	October 3, 1968


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Perhaps I could be given 24 hours to study the question and discuss with the hon. member its full purport; then I would give an answer tomorrow.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I wonder if the minister would make representations to his representative that steps be taken to stabilize the prices of world commodities other than just those from underdeveloped countries, such as corn for instance?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: My question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As the minister is probably aware, during the last parliament the committee on Indian affairs was authorized to make visits to the reservations, which was not done to any extent. Can the minister assure the house that this same authorization will be given to the standing committee on Indian affairs and northern development?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the hon. member is referring to a question relating to the internal management of the committee, and such a question should not be asked at this time.


Robert Simpson: May I reword the question. Can the minister assure the house the committee on Indian affairs and northern development will be called together very quickly?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I hope so, Mr. Speaker; soon.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I should like to ask the Postmaster General to check his department to ascertain whether he has received complaints from the daily newspapers of Canada about the curtailment of service, which they claim will result in Friday's newspapers being delivered to people on rural routes on Monday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking whether the minister has received
Oclober 3, 1968



such representations. The question as asked in those terms is not in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Postmaster General say what arrangements will be made so that Friday newspapers will reach their readers before the following Monday or Tuesday?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, we are going to hold meetings early next week with the circulation managers of the various Canadian dailies or representatives of their associations. I have heard from some papers, and I think I am breaking even in the editorial comments. Some are good and some are critical.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. With particular reference to the Quentin Durgens, M.P. television series, does the C.B.C. allow sponsors to dictate the scheduling of such programs?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: It is quite obvious that, as a rule, the C.B.C. does not allow sponsors to dictate the time when programs will be shown. With regard to the particular case mentioned by the hon. member, I will be glad to check and get the information.



STUDENT LOANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I planned to direct to the Prime Minister, but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. The urgency of my question relates to the Prime Minister's experience with university students in Regina yesterday.
Will the Acting Prime Minister indicate to the house whether the government contemplates relaxing the tight criteria that is now evident with respect to student loans?
29180-47}
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the second part of the question might be placed on the order paper.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-Easf Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, and because of the urgency of this matter to the people of Cape Breton, I would ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government is now in a position to make a statement on the Devco report; or is the minister prepared to table that report?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and bring it to the Prime Minister's attention.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this question has been raised with the government as a matter of urgency. Telegrams and messages are pouring in from Cape Breton asking for a report from the government, which report was due before this. Since the report is overdue I think it is time the government found out who is responsible for making that report.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister responsible would like to say something about this.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minisier of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I received the report a few days ago. I intend to study it and later on I will see what I am going to do with the report.


Donald MacInnis: A supplementary question. Would the minister take into consideration the urgency of this matter to Cape Bretoners and make the report available, in view of the fact that the time allotted under the legislation has now passed?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have received the report which is dated October 1. If the hon. gentleman would be nice enough to give me time to read and study it, that would be appreciated.
736	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry NORTHERN AFFAIRS



RECOMMENDATIONS OF INDIAN-ESKIMO ASSOCIATION RESPECTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Does the government intend to carry out any further reorganization of Indian affairs administration in order to give effect to the recommendations of the Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada to transfer community development functions to a native Canadian development institute?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, that suggestion from the Indian-Eskimo Association has been received and like any other recommendation made to our department by the groups concerned, it is being given serious consideration.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development now supplied the Minister without Portfolio with a copy of the booklet outlining the reorganization of the department?


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: I wish to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Could he assure the house that he will make available to members of parliament or, at least, to members of the Indian affairs committee, a copy of the discussions now taking place in Quebec and in other parts of the country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, officials are taking note of every meeting. Rather than a word for word report, it is an account of the gist of the arguments advanced. I hope that at the end of the nineteen consultations now being held, a report of the opinions expressed by the representatives will be made available to members of the committee and, perhaps, to .all the members of parliament.

DEBATES	October 3, 1968



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: My question is for the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, but is addressed to him in his capacity as Minister of Transport. Will the minister advise the house whether action has been taken by the minister as a result of representations made pertinent to the rerouting of the rail link to Roberts Bank.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that on the face of it this question might be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency which is not apparent to me the hon. member can give me appropriate notice and the matter will be discussed at the time of adjournment. There can be no supplementary question.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the Minister of Transport in his seat. I am directing this question to him in his capacity of Acting Prime Minister with his peculiar knowledge as Minister of Transport. My question is, was the Minister of Public Works announcing government policy in Vancouver when he said that the federal government must control the railway access to the Roberts Bank port?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have not seen the report referred to by my hon. friend.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary question. The other day the Prime Minister was asked a somewhat similar question in your absence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should direct his question to the Chair.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Just to edify and educate the Minister of Transport, a question was asked of the Prime Minister, and he said the Minister of Transport when he returned would in time make that statement. I wonder whether you are in a position to make that statement as Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. gentleman knows he must address his question to the Chair.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Is the Minister of Transport prepared to declare the policy that the Prime
October 3, 1988

Minister said the Minister of Transport would declare when he returned to the house? I am glad to see him back.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley was just ruled out of order because he referred to the Acting Prime Minister as "you", or "did you", or so on. I would remind the house that the swinging Prime Minister, who wants to make this a swinging place-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not the reason the hon. member for Annapolis Valley was called to order. I am sure he realizes what the situation is.


Donald MacInnis: The Prime Minister made reference to ministers of his own cabinet by name the other day and was not called to order for it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thank the hon. member for his lecture.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the government currently discussing with the B.C. provincial authorities the jurisdictional problem involved in respect of the rail route to Roberts Bank?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No; not officially to my knowledge. We have taken the position that the routing of the railway owned by the B.C. government is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the province. At the same time we have noted the interest of all because of the controversy in respect of land use. It is in this connection that we have expressed our concern, and we have made representations to the government of British Columbia in that context.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary question in order to perhaps clarify my earlier question of today. Would the Acting Prime Minister kindly look at the statement by the Minister of Public Works in Vancouver last week end and report to the house concerning whether that is government policy? Will he also advise the house when we might expect a statement on the position of the federal government in respect of the Roberts Bank access road?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take note of the suggestion and find out what the Minister of Public Works has said in this connection.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister please inform the house whether a legal opinion has been obtained as to whether this is a provincial or a federal railroad?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: At least one, Mr. Speaker.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to seek a definitive legal opinion on this matter?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



EXPO '67 REPORTED INABILITY OF AUDITORS TO VERIFY REVENUES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since in its recent audited statement Expo '67 showed an approximate loss to Canada of $274 million, and since the two auditors said they were unable to verify all the revenues received, can the minister explain this failure to verify revenues? If so, can he say in what form the auditors communicated with him?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether this question ought to be allowed. If there is urgency perhaps the hon. member might indicate where the urgency lies.


Alfred Dryden Hales: This is an urgent matter, Mr. Speaker. I think the minister ought to advise the house whether he has an explanation for this failure to verify.
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry,
Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, first of all I cannot accept the premise that this was a loss. I think it was an investment in Canada, in the future of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Luc Pepin: On the specific subject of control of revenue, the Auditor General has indeed made a comment in his report. The best answer I can give the hon. member is given by the corporation itself. At page 18 of its annual report are found these words:
The control of the direct currency receipts of Expo 67 has been considered one of the largest activities of its kind in the World. The management faced one of its greatest challenges when, within the first days of the opening of the exhibition, it became necessary to proceed to a review and to adapt all its installations in order to accommodate-
738	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the minister kindly come to the conclusion of his reply.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The easy answer is that the money not accounted for, some $97,798, represents one tenth of one per cent of the revenues of the corporation that the Auditor General could not certify. The record of the Expo corporation in this regard, I am told, is as good as the record any similar corporation could have achieved.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I asked the minister whether he had received a letter from the auditors explaining the failure to verify. That is the question I should like to have answered.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No. The point is made in the report of the Auditor General. I regret that everything was not forecast or foreseen by Expo as well it might have been had it been operating in heaven.


Alfred Dryden Hales: May I direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. Has the loss mentioned in the report been taken care of in the estimates that have just been tabled? If so, under what department does the matter come?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the house will recollect that last fall it was indicated that special provision outside of regular estimates would be made in respect of the deficit, if any, for Expo. There is no provision in the current estimates to cover this.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will this matter be covered by supplementary estimates?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If, Mr. Speaker, the deficit is to be resolved or concluded this year, it will have to be done by way of supplementary estimates. If, however, the deficit is not to be closed out in the current fiscal year, there will be no need for a supplementary estimate this year.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A further supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. Since Expo corporation must close its books at the end of March, 1969, will this matter appear in the estimates or will there be a supplementary estimate to cover it?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, and as the hon. member just mentioned, the
IMr. Pepin.)
DEBATES	October 3, 1968
books only close on the last day of the fiscal year. There is then a choice of dealing with this matter in the current fiscal year, in anticipation, or in the next fiscal year after the event. That choice has not yet been made.



REQUEST FOR NAMES OF NATIONAL COUNCIL MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the minister assure the house that he will table the terms of reference and list of members of the proposed national grains council before that council is actually established?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Minister of Agriculture and I are meeting in Winnipeg, and following this we shall appoint members to the council. Who those members are will very rapidly become public knowledge. If my hon. friend wants me or the Minister of Agriculture to table the names of these hon. gentlemen, I will gladly do so.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the honourable Postmaster General.
In view of the critical economic situation in the eastern townships, would the honourable Postmaster General tell the house whether he intends to implement the decisions of the government to build two federal buildings, one in Coaticook, and the other in Lac Megantic, which would contribute to giving assistance and work to the unemployed.


Mr. Speaker:: The honourable member
might want to put this question on the order paper?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasl-ings):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport relating to my question of yesterday regarding the ship canal facilities between lake Erie and lake Ontario. This is
October 3. 1968

an urgent matter, since those facilities are quickly nearing the saturation point. My question is this. Has the minister received a recommendation from the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority urging the expansion of these facilities?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not really think this matter is of sufficient urgency to be dealt with on orders of the day, but since the question has been asked, however, I shall try to answer. A report was tabled some months ago on the study which has been made in respect of the future of the seaway, and particularly of the Welland canal. This report has been under study by an interdepartmental committee for some time. There is not yet a recommendation available for consideration by the government. In the meantime, as a result of technological improvements in the handling of ships, improved control methods and other means indicated, we may be able to prolong the usefulness of the existing canal system by some number of years, with a consequent saving of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to the Canadian taxpayer.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF INTENTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: have a question for the Acting Prime Minister prompted by an item in today's Toronto Star quoting government spokesmen to the effect that the Prince Edward Island-New Brunswick causeway project has been scrapped; that the bitter pill has been prepared and the sugar coating is being sought. Will the Acting Prime Minister advise whether the government still honours its commitment to Prince Edward Island and intends to build this causeway?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think I should refer this question to the Minister of Public Works.


An hon. Member:: It is his day off.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Never on Thursdays.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I reply by saying there has been no change in the position of the government since the last occasion on which this question was raised in the house, and that any change in policy which might be made would be reported to the house in the usual way.
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR CANADA



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Is the report true that the minister intends to appoint Mr. Rod Mclsaac to the presidency of Air Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member no doubt realizes that he cannot ask the minister to confirm or deny a report.


George Harris Hees: Ten o'clock please, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As a former minister of transport the hon. member must know how little influence the minister really has.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforfh (Kent-Essex):: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Has the government formulated a definite policy regarding corn marketing? Has this policy been made known to the press, or does the minister intend to follow the normal course and announce government policy in this regard in a statement in this house on motions?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I tried to table a report a few minutes ago but hon. gentlemen in the opposition refused.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, they did, Mr. Speaker; they refused to accept it. The reason I did not read it is this that since it is very comprehensive it would take ten minutes to do so.


Mr. Ricard:: Revert to motions.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Even though members opposite did not allow it to be tabled, there are copies around.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: Let it be
quite clear on the point raised by the minister that he asked leave to table a statement as to the contents of which we had no idea whatsoever. If the minister, like his colleagues, was prepared to make statements which are succinct and directed to the facts, we would be
740	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry prepared to entertain them. This is what the standing orders provide tor. I think the minister has no right to slip in information through a procedure of this kind because he is not prepared for members on this side to comment on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the procedure referred to. But I think the house leader for the other side should know that this subject of corn marketing in Ontario and the problems involved is very broad and complicated, and I could see no useful purpose in making the statement any shorter.


Harold Warren Danforth: May I ask the minister whether, if this side of the house is prepared to revert to motions, he will make this statement to the house today?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes. I have it here and I am prepared to read it if hon. gentlemen opposite wish to revert to motions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: We must have unanimous consent, and the Chair has heard negative replies to that suggestion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: From the Liberal side.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald William Baldwin: Can the
President of the Privy Council in his capacity as leader of the house indicate the nature and order of business for the coming week?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Today we propose that the house consider first the two farm financing resolutions, the resolution preceding amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act and then the resolution preceding the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act amendments.
We would then call today second reading of Bill C-109 with respect to the Windfall extension of the C.N.R., in the hope perhaps of receiving third reading also by leave of the house.
Tomorrow we would call the resolution preceding amendments to the Prairie Grain

DEBATES	October 3, 1968
Advance Payments Act, and when that has been completed the resolution preceding the amendment to the Judges Act.
On Monday we would call the second reading of Bill C-110 to amend the Farm Credit Act, and thereafter second reading of the other two farm financing bills. On Tuesday we would call first the resolution preceding amendments to the Post Office Act and, when that has been dealt with, second reading of the bill amending the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
On Wednesday we would proceed with the further stages of the farm financing bills, and continue during the remainder of the week with those bills, together with the advanced stages of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and of the Judges Act, if the latter has not already been completed.
The foregoing is subject, of course, to variation, depending upon the time when individual measures are dealt with and, of course, to interruptions due to events not at the moment foreseen.


Hon. Marcel Lamberi (Edmonton Wesi):: Is
the leader of the house in a position now to say when the budget will be presented to this house? Will it be on the 17th?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am not in a
position to make an official statement on that point. I can assure the hon. gentleman it will not be next Thursday.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture was prevented by some of his colleagues from making his announcement on motions-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: -would he agree to make the statement during discussion of the resolution which will be before the house in a few minutes?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the question might be directed to the minister at that time.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister of Justice let the house and the country know whether consideration is being given to the setting up of a commission to inquire into the massive
October 3, 1968

increase of crime by gangs and international syndicates; and also whether his department is giving any consideration, in view of the increase in the number of murders with guns and other weapons, to any change in the law respecting capital punishment?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: In answer to the first question may I say we are constantly reviewing measures of law enforcement, particularly in the light of the serious aspects which have become apparent in recent years. As the right hon. gentleman knows, of course, primary responsibility for the day to day administration of justice lies in provincial hands.
In answer to the second question, there has been no contemplation of reviewing the law on capital punishment at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister not agree that responsibility for full investigation into international and syndicated crime within Canada rests with the national government, while enforcement of the law is a matter for the provinces?


John Napier Turner: I would go so far as to concede that. It might well be. I should like to have a meeting, after the presidential election in the United States, with the attorney general of the United States to discuss this subject.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norlh):: Has the minister received any request from the attorney general of the province of Quebec to set up a royal commission to examine the spread of crime across the nation, particularly in the light of what my right hon. friend has said about the increase in murder?


John Napier Turner: I had better take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. While awaiting completion of the study of the Woods committee report, would the hon. gentleman consider allowing an interim increase, possibly beyond 100 per cent, to triple and quadruple amputees?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question was asked a few days ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Inquiries of the Ministry RESEARCH



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORTS RESPECTING CANCELLED PROJECTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muslcoka):: have a question to direct to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On September 23 the Prime Minister promised to consider tabling the scientific reports relating to the cancelled projects of the Queen Elizabeth observatory and the intense neutron generator. In view of the possible fwival of the observatory project may I ask 'when these reports will be tabled?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister Ipf Energy, Mines and Resources):: No decision has yet been made in this regard. If mjr memory serves me correctly only the report with respect to the Queen Elizabeth telescope was referred to in that question; I do not recall any undertaking with respect to the ING project, though I may be wrong.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask, then, when the Queen Elizabeth observatory report will be made available?


John James Greene: No decision has yet been taken in this regard.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My
question was intended for the Secretary of State for External Affairs but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that U Thant, Secretary General of the United Nations, said the United States must unconditionally cease its bombing of North Viet Nam as the first step in a peace settlement, does the Secretary of State for External Affairs agree with the Secretary General that the United States must unconditionally stop the bombing of North Viet Nam as the first step in stopping the war in Viet Nam?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as asked is not in order.

October 3, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the honourable Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence, I shall put it to his parliamentary secretary.
In view of a serious breach of the established practice and the violation of the rights of member states by the Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, according a written communication of the Irakian delegate to the United Nations, does the Canadian government intend to relieve the ambassador of his duties?



NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
RIVERS, MAN.-REPORTED CLOSING OF BASE On the orders of the day:
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: I should like to direct this question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the defence council recommended to the minister that the Canadian Forces base at Rivers be closed by April 1969 and, if so, where does the matter stand?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member would consider the advisability of placing the question on the order paper.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is it the intention of the minister to recommend to the government that it scrap its plans for the unilateral implementation of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act as passed on July 15, 1964?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, far from scrapping Canada's 12 mile fishing zone I would have us enforce the headland to headland limits within which Canadians have exclusive fishing rights. I would be even more aggressive. I believe Canada must take a growing interest in the management of our offshore fishery resources on both our coasts. By that I mean our fishery resources extending out to the limits of the continental shelf. Better management on our continental shelf obviously includes areas 
where other nations have historic rights, and where we therefore do not have an exclusive right to fish.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary should be directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence I will ask either the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Fisheries to deal with it. On March 12, 1968 the former secretary of state for external affairs stated that it was his intention to request another international conference-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The form of the hon. member's question is certainly out of order. The hon. member is aware that he must ask a direct question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Is it the intention of the government to ask for the convening of another international conference in order to bring about the desirable features which the Minister of Fisheries has enunciated today?


John (Jack) Davis: I think it will be necessary to have at least one and perhaps several international conferences in order to achieve some of the objectives I have already outlined.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Would he tell us if consideration of the report submitted to him by the Economic Council of Portneuf concerning the situation in my constituency will soon enable him to recommend that this area be recognized as soon as possible as a designated area?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it would be advisable for the hon. member to learn that the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development is responsible for this federal program.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development will take due note of the question.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have taken due note of the question.
October 3, 1368



MARIJUANA-CONSIDERATION BY HOUSE COMMITTEE OF CONTROL MEASURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question was originally for the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Perhaps in their absence and because of the urgency of the matter I might direct the question to the Acting Prime Minister. Because of the growing menace of the use of marijuana and the conflicting attitudes toward its control as expressed by the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the deputy minister of national health and welfare, would the Acting Prime Minister use his good offices to have this urgent matter referred to the appropriate house committee as soon as possible.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I shall be glad to bring my hon. friend's question to the attention of the Prime Minister.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport in his capacity as the minister who reports to the house in respect of housing. Due to the interest in the activities of his housing task force, will the minister undertake to make a statement on motions tomorrow and at that time tell the house how many briefs have been received by the task force to date, how many of those have actually been heard, and what criteria are applied to determine whether a brief will be heard or merely received?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is it on a political basis?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, it is not a political question. It is a question of there not being sufficient hours available to hear all the excellent briefs that have been prepared. As I believe I have already indicated to the house, we appreciate the tremendous interest that has been shown


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The suggestion made by the hon. member was that a statement be made on motions. I believe this was the question that was asked.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I could not give that undertaking at this time, Mr. Speaker.
29180-48?,
Farm Improvement Loans Act [DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act to provide for a further three-year loan period ending June 30, 197!; to substitute for the 5 per cent rate of interest on guaranteed farm improvement loans made under the act such rate or rates of interest as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council; to extend the purposes for which guaranteed loans may be made to include the purchase of land as an addition to an existing farm enterprise; to increase from $15,000 to $25,000 the maximum amount of any loan that may be made under the act to a borrower together with any amount owing in respect of other guaranteed farm improvement loans; to authorize the Minister of Finance to designate certain trust and loan companies and insurance companies and certain credit unions, caisse populaire and other co-operative credit societies as authorized lenders under the act; to establish a limit of $1,200,000,000 as the aggregate principal amount of guaranteed loans that may be made by all authorized lenders in that period and a limit of $300,000,000 as the aggregate amount of guaranteed loans that may be made by authorized lenders other than banks during that period; to increase the present limit of liability of the Minister of Finance in respect of loans made by individual lenders to encourage lending by small-volume lenders; to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act and for other matters related or incidental thereto.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bechard in the chair.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, will the minister now take this opportunity to make the statement he was not able to make earlier? Apparently he can use this opportunity under the relaxed rules of relevancy to make that statement.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the house agreed to relax the rules of relevancy in dealing with the three resolutions, Nos. 5, 6 and 7 which were to be taken together as they all deal with the same subject matter, namely farm credit and its various divisions. There has been no agreement sought or indeed made to relax these rules of relevancy to the point where we can now deal with other matters during our consideration of a resolution on farm credit.


Gerald William Baldwin: We are willing to do so.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I do not know whether Your Honour was in the chair last evening, but I made some extensive remarks about the corn marketing problem, and I related those
October 3, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act remarks specifically to the rules of relevancy adopted during the discussion of these resolutions. I was not called to order by Your Honour and there were no points of order raised by hon. members on the government side of the house. Surely this gives the minister latitude so he can at this point make an explanation and answer the questions I posed,


Mr. Horner:: Money is no good if you cannot pay it back.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I realized that the hon. member was completely and clearly out of order when he was making his speech.
I did not raise any objection because it seemed that occasionally, although not very often, he tried to relate the problems of com marketing to farm credit. I do not believe that because he got away with being out of order I should do something that would be equally out of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Make a statement.


An hon. Member:: Your halo is getting tarnished.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to speak about this question of relevancy and make a spirited defence of the right of the minister to make a statement at this time. I am quite sure he knows that any question in respect of farm financing is related to the financial position of farming, and surely that subject is relevant to the statement which he now has and is bursting with enthusiasm to make. The question of relevancy is quite apparent and we are quite prepared to admit that it is in order for him to make a statement regarding the financial position of farmers. This qualifies any statement he has in respect of the government's position regarding the corn marketing situation. Such a statement would help the farmers to assess their financial position and in this way it is relevant. I am happy to defend the minister's right in this regard.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I regard corn marketing problems, in Ontario particularly but in other parts of the country as well, as being of great magnitude. I cannot accept the contention that the subject matter of the resolution before us is not also of great importance to the farmers of Canada. They have been waiting for quite some time for amendments to these acts or, if you like, the reinstatement of them. We think it is important that we get on with these resolutions and the bills to follow as quickly as possible.


There are many other agricultural problems. I am the first to admit that, but I suggest that if we relax the rules in order that we may have a wide open discussion about all these problems when we are attempting to get these amendments through we would in effect frustrate the objects of the government in this regard.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, the minister has related his remarks to a statement on government corn marketing policy. Surely he should assure the com producers that they will have some degree of security in the production of com. He should make his statement now. He has already given it to the press. This resolution relates to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. It is a well known fact that the banks will not lend money to farmers if the industry is not financially sound so that they can repay the loans. It is the minister's obligation to this country and to members of this house to give some assurance to the corn producers that government policy will be such that farmers will be able to repay their loans. The minister has already given this statement to the press. Is he afraid to make the same statement now to the elected representatives of these people? That is the only conclusion I can come to because he has the consent of the house to do so during the consideration of this resolution.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not afraid to make the statement, and I offered to table it. This statement was made a few moments before I came into the house and all of the information is now available. Hon. members in the opposition know that today is the last day for debate at the resolution stage. If there is unanimous consent that we relax the rules in order that we may discuss many other things than farm credit I am willing to do so. Let me remind members of the committee that there probably will not be sufficient time between now and the end of this day for all members who wish to make statements about farm credit to do so. If we are going to enlarge the subject of debate some hon. members who wish to speak on this matter will be prevented from doing so. If there is unanimous consent to relax the rules of relevancy I will read the statement.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You must be afraid.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not a bit afraid.
October 3, 1968	COMMONS


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. Although the matter discussed a while ago by the committee is very important, it is difficult for the Chair to relate in some way the resolution now under consideration and the difficulties encountered by corn producers in Ontario.
Furthermore, in view of the extensive statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) on introduction of the three resolutions to amend the Farm Credit Act, I believe the minister can now dispense with further comments and the committee members should limit their observations to the resolution now under consideration.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Chairman, on this occasion I would of course like to congratulate the minister for having reached the high level of a ministerial position after making the transfer from this side of the house to the government side. In years past I sat very close to the minister when he was on this side of the house and recall that on many occasions he was with us, so to speak; he was on our side with regard to many issues. On the issue of finances he was definitely against high interest rates.
However, apparently the Liberal party has asked him to really earn his stripes, because the first bills that he as a minister will be introducing deal with an increase in interest rates. We all know that the Liberal party has become the party of high interest rates. We all know that the Liberal party has become the party of big business. Apparently the minister, having gone over to the other side of the house, has not, as we had hoped, taken some of his principles with him. We hoped that he might improve the Liberal party, but he has apparently left his principles behind and has done everything the party has asked him to do.
When the Bank Act was last reviewed in the House of Commons these words were used.
I quote from Hansard of March 17, 1967:
It seems to me that all that is going to happen or the practical application will be that the banks will be charging 71 per cent for all the loans they have out now at the statutory limit of 6 per cent. One effect of this move is simply going to be to raise the cost of living, the cost of operating at the manufacturing level and the wholesalers' level, so the ultimate result will be an increase in the price structure.
The speaker continued with these words:
Even if that were true, Mr. Chairman, I think the members of parliament have a responsibility to
DEBATES	745
Farm Improvement Loans Act the Canadian people. They need to look at the whole economy to see what the net result of the change is going to be. No matter how I look at it, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the end result will simply amount to an increase of 1J per cent on all the loans and financing of the chartered banks. As I said, if you include this increase in the cost of manufacturing operations and throughout the whole distributive system, then I suggest there will be a significant increase in the cost of living as a result. I think this is one of our primary responsibilities and something we need to be concerned about.
The author of those words is none other than the present Minister of Agriculture. He went on to say in the same speech:
You just have to try to do what the hon. member is trying to do now, and that is place a new definition upon your words. Having said something the hon. member is trying to explain it away hoping that we will forget the words he used. But in this chamber what we say is written down! and what was written down was what I quoted.
I often wonder whether the minister sleeps well at night, having taken on the big responsibility of his portfolio. He represents many farmers and must be aware that they are in dire straits and are faced with great difficulties. I think he really wanted to do something for these farmers, but what he is now doing is not helping them. The minister is really trying to improve the position of the banks.
How did we get ourselves into the present position? In this connection I should like to quote from the annual report of the Farm Credit Corporation. On page 7 of that report the following words appear:
It has become more difficult during the past decade to generate capital from farm income as operating expenses have increased more rapidly than farm product prices.
This has been the root cause of our difficulty. Apparently the minister thinks that this measure will provide a solution. I remember that on the occasion of the Bank Act being reviewed in the house I asked the then minister of finance the following question, as reported in Hansard of March 21, 1967:
Should we find ourselves in the position that for two months after the coming into force of this bill there are fluctuations in the interest rate and the banks decide they must first see how the rates level out and as a result restrict loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, what safeguards are available to farmers? I realize that the point I have raised is only a possibility, but what guarantees are there that farmers will be able to obtain loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act?
The reply of the then minister of finance was:
This is a highly hypothetical question and perhaps I should not even attempt to answer. There are strict provisions in the law against any such
746	COMMONS
Farm Improvement Loans Act conspiracy as the hon. gentleman has described. Second, X cannot believe that the banks of this country will stop providing the services they have been providing for farmers under the Farm Improvement Loans Act when greater freedom is given under this act. It is my belief, and it can oniy be a belief, that it will be in the interest of the banks to continue serving farmers under the Farm Improvement Loans Act as they have in the past.
Those were the words of the minister who was trying to tell us that he was really working in the interest of all industry. However, as it turned out he was only working in the interest of the banks on that occasion. I warned the minister at that time that we would be in this difficult position. The minister now stands in his place and admits that we have got ourselves into a fix because the government did not take that problem into consideration.
Three bills will be introduced which will deal primarily with capitalization and the availability of credit to farmers. These bills are supposed to improve the farmers' position. However, when one looks at the situation that has existed in the last few years one realizes that more and more loans have been granted to farmers. It appears to me, therefore, that these bills are a deliberate attempt by the government to drive the small farmer off the land. This is a deliberate policy of the government. When one reads the bills sent to our offices, one realizes that this is in fact the case.
The annual report of the Farm Credit Corporation shows that in the past ten years $915.75 million has been lent to farmers. In other words, in order that the farming industry may survive it has had to borrow $915.75 million. In addition, as of December 31, 1967, farm improvement loans totalled about $428 million. This means that in the last ten years the farming industry has found it necessary to borrow $1,343 million in order to keep going. But at the same time we have lost some 10,000 farmers off the land each year. I relate these two things.
It has always been in the interest of the country to provide economic farm units. However, the effect of the proposed legislation will be to speed up the removal of farmers from the land. Apparently this is the only solution this government has. One can reach no other conclusion after looking at the bill and realizing that as much as $100,000 will be made available to farming corporations. How can anyone who obtains a loan of $40,000 compete with another person who obtains $100,000? Surely only one conclusion can be

DEBATES	October 3, 1968
reached. How can a farmer who does not necessarily wish to borrow any more stay in the business? How can he survive against this type of competition? How can the industry stay in the hands of the farmers rather than large corporations? How can one keep the farmers on the land? It will not be possible. As the minister himself said, what these bills will do is to increase the cost of production. Who will be the one who will be hurt? It will be the small farmer who has been struggling for years to set up a unit which he thought was economic, but faced with this type of competition from large farms and corporations he will not be able to survive.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
When the Farm Credit Act was first introduced the intention was to help the small farmer. However, under this legislation the only thing that can happen is that the small farmer will be driven off the land and in this way his troubles will be solved. We will in fact be telling him: Forget your worries. That is all that the minister is doing.
When the minister was on this side of the house I thought he had the interest of the farmers at heart. When I first heard he had been appointed Minister of Agriculture I said to myself, there is a man who understands the position of the farmers. I am sure he still understands the position of the farmers, but he is certainly not helping them. In fact, he is doing directly the opposite. He is forcing the farmers off the land and he will increase the cost of production. He must have considered the bill at length and he must know that its effect will be to enable the corporations to buy up land. We have had vertical integration for years and farm unions have made representations to former governments. People who have had any kind of interest in farming communities have always been concerned about the fact that vertical integration is driving the small farmer off the land.
What will these bills achieve? They will increase the rate of vertical integration to the point that anyone who has any love for the land, the ability to work the land and has spent years trying to stay on the farm will realize that those days have gone by. Where will it all end? We will see a lot of people mortgaged to the hilt. Right now, 25 per cent of all farmers have mortgaged their land. At this rate there will be nothing left but mortgaged land. It will all be either in the hands of the government or in the hands of the corporations. You can take your pick. There will either be corporations owning all the
October 3, 1968
land, which is not advisable, or the government will hold all the land, which is communism. No one else will be able to afford it. It is called either communism or socialism, the term used in communist countries, but neither one is acceptable to farmers. It is unacceptable because agriculture is the only industry left in which an individual can still fully participate together with his family. This will not be possible once this bill is put into effect.
It is quite evident that the only solution this government has is to enlarge the amount of credit available. What will happen then? I warned the previous minister when he introduced the bill increasing the amount available for loans that the one thing which would definitely happen would be the inflation of the price of farm land because the corporation which has $100,000 will outbid the small farmer with $40,000. How will the government get around that problem? Surely this will be the result when the amount available for loans is increased.
This is not what the farmers are interested in. Wise use of credit is great, but not when the government is deliberately trying to get the small farmer off the land because they seem to have no other solution to the farm problem. They are making it possible for the big corporations to outbid the small farmers. This causes social problems, the rush into cities, urban problems, a housing shortage and the reckless abandonment of farms. In the last five years we have disturbed 75,000 farmers. Fifty thousand have moved off the land because they have not been able to keep up, and the other 25,000 have mortgaged their land.
I will now move on to another subject, Mr. Chairman. We are broadening the purposes for which loans may be made, and repeated representations have been made by various organizations that this be done. This may be advisable in areas where facilities such as are provided by trust companies, caisses populates, credit unions and so on are available, but since when have these institutions granted money at a lower rate than chartered banks? As far as I know none of them does. The banks will look at the rates offered by credit unions and trust companies and they will say: If our competitors can charge this rate, why can't we? Surely they will be entitled to come to this conclusion. The end result will be that interest rates will go up as a result of this competition. It will have the opposite effect from what we really want.
Farm Improvement Loans Act
The result will be that land will be owned by the large corporations and interest rates will go up to a rate which some order in council may or may not set. We will end up in the same position as that in which we were in the thirties. I remember that people in my parents' generation used to say; "You will have to be very careful and stay out of debt". That was their attitude. Perhaps they had a reason for adopting such an attitude. Now the young generation think they have all the answers and they put democracy to the test. They must have a lot of money and everything must be available. That is why we must have all this credit. They say, "we do not care as long as we have credit. We will worry about paying for it later". The interest rates will then be higher than the principal. Young people nowadays do not care whether they own the land as long as they have the use of it. Is this the type of society we want? I do not think I want to encourage such thinking. I wish to register my protest right now. This is not the direction which I would like to see the farming industry take.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
It has been said that interest rates will have to be increased. When we look at the annual reports of the banking institutions, we should be concerned that the banks are not lending more money at this low rate of interest. My opinion is that loans could be granted to farmers at the same rate as loans are granted to hospitals and municipalities. The banks may say those loans are secured by taxes, but there is only one tenth of one per cent involved in connection with farm improvement loans and that amount is guaranteed by the government. There is no risk involved. The more money that is available to farm machinery companies, the higher they raise their prices. Do not think for one moment that when that amount of money is available to the machinery companies they are not going to take advantage of it. They say to the farmer, if you do not buy machinery we will sell it to the big corporations. In order to stay in business, the farmer has to be able to pay the same price. The machinery companies even stated that they would charge all the market would bear. This statement was made to the committee investigating the farm machinery business by the president of Massey-Ferguson.
I want to return to the question of the profits of banking institutions. I have already mentioned that the farm industry has borrowed $1,443 million and at the same time the

748	COMMONS
Farm Improvement Loans Act industry is losing 10,000 farmers every year. In so far as the profits of the banks are concerned, I note that in I960 the Bank of Montreal had a profit of $19,905,000 and in 1967, $20,720,000; Nova Scotia, $11,700,000 in 1966 and $12,909,000 in 1967; Toronto-Domin-ion, $10,892,000 in 1966 and $12,284,000 in 1967; Commerce, $24,473,000 in 1966 and $26,-
575,000	in 1967; Royal, $27,432,000 in 1966 and $30,278,000 in 1967.
Who needs the help? Are we going to stand here and say that the banks are in real trouble when they are showing profits of this type? Are we going to say that they cannot provide the type of service needed at a lower rate? Surely they could if they so desired. Someone has said that they could but they will not do so. If they will not do so, then the government has a responsibility to provide the long term credit that is needed by setting up a corporation which could do the job.


Albert Béchard: Order. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Albert Béchard: Does the committee agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley James Korchinski: I thank the committee and I shall be brief. I want to quote from a speech made by the leader of the Creditiste party. On this particular occasion, February 23, 1968, he had a report which he obtained from the other place. This report resulted from a question asked by Senator Pouliot, and it indicates the loans made by Canada to certain other countries. I am going to name the countries and the rate of interest on the loans. To Korea we lent $1 million for 37 years at 3 per cent; Pakistan, $44 million at no interest for a period of 50 years plus 10 years of grace, or 60 years; to Thailand, $1 million at no interest for a period of 50 years; to the Caribbean Islands, $1.8 million at no interest for a period of 60 years; to Jamaica, $8.25 million at an average of three quarters of one per cent; to the West Indies, $250,000 without interest for 60 years; to the Argentine, $756,000 at three quarters of one per cent for 60 years; to the Central American Bank for economic integration, $3,780,000 at three-quarters of one per cent for 60 years; to Chili, $8,460,000 at three quarters of one per cent for 60 years for part of the loan and 3 per cent interest for 37 years for the balance of the loan.

DEBATES	October 3, 1968
I could go on, and perhaps I should cite two or three more examples. We lent the Republic of El Salvadore the sum of $3,240,000 at three quarters of one per cent for 39 years; to Mexico, $540,000 at three quarters of one per cent for 60 years; to African members of the commonwealth, $3,500,000 at 6 per cent for 30 years and $1,600,000 without interest for 60 years.
All I say is that if we can be charitable to other countries surely it is in our own interest to provide money to an industry that provides food. Certainly we do not live to eat, but we do eat to live. If we want to provide food as cheaply as possible for Canadians, and if we want to provide food as cheaply as possible for the rest of the world and be charitable in that way, then surely it is only sensible to provide the agricultural industry with loans at a low rate of interest.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: May I just ask a short question of the Minister of Agriculture? Will he assure the house that tomorrow when the corn growers are here he will meet with them and give them a fair hearing? Will he discuss with them the statement he made to the press?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, much more than that, I can say that for the past week or more officials in my office have been as helpful as they could possibly be in making arrangements in Ottawa for the tractors of these farmers and for all other facilities that will be needed to have a meeting here on parliament hill. We also have a room at the Department of Agriculture that will hold 200 or 300 people and we could meet there, if weather does not permit a meeting outdoors.


George Harris Hees: Are you going to be there?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Certainly I am going to meet with them. We are doing everything we can to be as helpful as we can.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Could I ask another question of the minister?
The Depuly Chairman: Is it on the same subject?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes.
The Depuly Chairman: I have recognized the hon. member for Timiskaming.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I have been very surprised at some of the things that have taken place this afternoon. While I do not believe in reincarnation, certainly the Minister of Agriculture has been showing
Ociober 3, 1968

some of the shades of Jimmy Gardiner and some of the characteristics of C. D. Howe in his disregard for parliament. During the discussion of this resolution concerning farm credit the minister has stated that the farmers need this piece of legislation in a hurry. However, he knows full well that the Farm Credit Act ran out in June of this year. He knows, too, that there has been very little money lent for a period of eight or nine years because of the reluctance on the part of the banks. The minister says we should have passed this legislation in February. This is probably the kind of legislation the house would have passed in February, and it is damn well the legislation that this house expected to pass in April when parliament sat for one day. I do not believe, therefore, that the minister should look at the opposition with a jaundiced eye but rather that we should perhaps look at the minister with a jaundiced eye.
I am surprised at the minister because he knows the rules as well as anyone in this house. There are three or four high priests of the rules, and he is one of them. If anyone knows how the rules should operate, he should. He is one of the self-appointed high priests. I believe that the matter of corn prices warranted an examination by the minister today. In my opinion this debate is not remote from the price of corn in Essex county, but it certainly is remote from the price of corn in Timiskaming because none is grown there. Climatically Timiskaming is not in the right area. However, in Timiskaming there is another problem which makes it absolutely necessary that farmers receive credit at a reasonable rate of interest. That rate is probably in keeping with the rate suggested by the hon. member for Temis-camingue.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The hon. member for Mackenzie indicated how generous we have been with interest rates charged to other countries. Apparently we have lent money at a very low rate of interest. There are shades of C. D. Howe, and certainly some conservatism with a small "c", in the legislation before us now, which does not seek to establish an interest rate for a particular industry but follows current levels. This means that the business community is controlling most of the expenditures of the government.
The Postmaster General made a statement this afternoon in which he said that his department must pay its own way. There are

Farm Improvement Loans Act those who believe that even from the days of Wells Fargo it has never been necessary for the post office to pay its own way in that it has served to unite the people of the nation by supplying them with certain facilities which were not available to the individual. The same may be said of the Farm Credit Corporation.
We should not be interested in the interest rates charged by banks. If a farmer has enough collateral he can borrow money from a bank at the current interest rate, whatever it may be. It is not necessarily 1 per cent higher than that charged on government loans or student loans.
I suggest that in view of what happened in Regina last night the image of this government will become quickly tarnished. I am not one to participate very much in the question period, but I was surprised that nobody asked about the revolution of students in Peru and their participation in the military coup there. I am also surprised that nobody asked about what may become a serious problem for the Olympic games because of the student riots in Mexico City. The government must recognize that we need money to develop our natural resources, whether these resources be in the form of student education or agriculture.
I suggest, that we should not try to make money on loans to farmers. As in other pieces of legislation that deal with farmers, we should try to establish some advantage that will accrue, not necessarily to the farmers individually but to the industry generally.
We have made some serious mistakes. I am not sure whether it was the government's mistake that the stabilization board did not anticipate the present corn problem, but we certainly did not anticipate any difficulty when we developed the national dairy commission and established industrial milk prices. However, through our action we changed the small one-can farmers into producers of industrial milk who no longer separated cream on the farm. These farmers had to borrow large sums of money from the Farm Credit Corporation to buy a bulk tank, which in Timiskaming costs between $12,000 and $14,000.
As a result of this policy which was formulated in Ottawa, our farm separated cream industry, which was the backbone of small farming operations in Canada, was transformed into a bulk producer of industrial milk. We have also changed the operations of almost 90 per cent of the farmers in western Canada who carry on mixed farming. We
October 3, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act have asked them to borrow money under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, under other farm legislation and even under ARDA in order to establish themselves as economic units. I suggest that when we become involved in matters such as this we should be guided by some principle. This principle must surely be the provision of sufficient credit to develop our industries and in turn our national economy. Thus the role of credit is very important.
Personally, I do not give a damn if we lose $5 million or even $10 million through farm improvement loans provided they are a subsidy to industrial development. I believe many more people would be more receptive to subsidizing the development of a stable and progressive industry than to subsidizing other operations which turn out to be calamities. I do not know how much the cheese subsidy amounts to or the subsidy on powdered milk, but there is a surplus in this area of 200 million or 300 million pounds.
The farmers in Ontario have been forced by the government into bulk tank operations. The government told the farmers that they would not buy milk from them unless it was in bulk tanks. The Ontario milk marketing board decided that milk should be in bulk tanks. Any milk in cans is probably not under the operations of the milk marketing board of Ontario. This kind of control having been exercised, these farmers have had to borrow in order to expand their operations.
We are the people who indicated to the Ontario farmers that no longer was a family farm to consist of 160 acres. I suppose in western Canada a family farm unit would be a full section. We are the people who have declared that a multiplicity of units must be brought together to make one economic farm unit.
We have also suggested that farmers should buy farm machinery, and so farms are becoming automated in the same way as other industries. This costs money. As a result farmers have to borrow money, and in my opinion they should be able to borrow it at a rate they can afford. I suggest we are misleading our farmers when, on the one hand, we advise them to buy a new tractor or other pieces of farm machinery and, on the other hand, allow the banks and lending institutions of this country to raise their interest rates to a level that puts loans to farmers out of their reach.
The minister is in the agricultural industry himself; I understand he is a rancher. This is

one segment of the industry that has had a certain stability during the last few years, though I believe those engaged in this occupation say it is not as stable as it should be. Nevertheless beef prices in Canada have become fairly stable over the last eight or ten years, and the result has been a fairly stable industry. However, one sector of the agricultural industry is in serious difficulty, our corn producers.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The other day a very good friend of my father's came to my office. He and my father for some time had shared responsibilities on the old Ontario milk marketing board. This chap was in the dairy business a few years ago but over the years he became discouraged with the dairy business and moved into the production of corn. In this project he was given assistance in the form of a large loan made through a government agency. Now he finds that it costs him $1.20 to produce a bushel of corn. At noon today I noted that corn was listed on the market at something less than $1 per bushel.
I know the minister is not a financier but I ask him, what hope is there for the survival of agricultural producers when their produce sells for less than its cost of production? Even if my figures should be out by ten cents either way, the farmer still stands to lose substantially. Yet in spite of these conditions the federal Department of Agriculture is making the stupid recommendation to allow the chartered banks to set interest rates on farm improvement loans.
Those in agriculture in this country are not stupid, and that is why they are coming to Ottawa. The minister is a farmer and no doubt he has a tractor. He knows tractors are slow; they are difficult to handle on the highway and are boring to drive long distances. The minister must know that tractors are en route to Ottawa. Police are escorting them at a set speed of 15 miles per hour. The minister will agree with me that if he were a farmer he would only mount his tractor and drive it to Calgary or Edmonton if he had a very compelling reason for so doing.
The minister says that this resolution is not about corn, and I agree. This resolution is about money, and if it passes the farmers will have to pay more for the money they borrow. I submit that parliament should not permit an increase in the cost of money to the farmer while at the same time permitting a decrease in the price of farm products.
October 3, 1968	COMMONS
Always, even in my C.C.F. days, I have supported the concept of parity prices for farm products. A parity price would mean that the farmer would have his production cost and would be allowed an additional wage for the work he did. When he sold his produce on the market, he would be entitled to a return equal to his outlay. Sometimes he might even be lucky enough to make a small profit on his investment. But the important consideration is the parity price.
What is the present situation? The farmer is faced with rising production costs and falling market prices. Yet the government is bringing in legislation that will increase the price of money that farmers borrow. I submit the government should look again at the concept of parity prices.
If the government is unwilling to consider parity prices I submit it ought to consider subsidizing farm production. I do not apologize for mentioning this concept, since without a subsidy our farmers will suffer losses. They cannot enter the open market and borrow money at 5 per cent. Consequently they will suffer losses, and that is where a government subsidy comes in. I believe the government could, with great advantage, make subsidies to agriculture available in the field of farm improvement loans.
No farmer with a team of horses, 160 acres, a walking plow, seed drill and all his other equipment can possibly make a living today. He might have done so five or six years ago but he cannot do so now. Often I attend the markets in my area and very often you will see from 400 to 500 day old to week old calves on the market. This indicates that these calves are not being raised on the farm and that farmers in the area are engaging in the production of milk, either industrial or fluid. All those in agriculture need short term credit and I think the greatest service this government can do agriculture is to stabilize at reasonable rates the cost of such credit.
No doubt hon. members will remember the millionaire farmer who for a while ran the Department of Agriculture. We heard complaints to the effect that the Liberal government was in such terrible political straits that it was necessary to appoint an agricultural minister who came from the east. Personally I thought the appointment was a good one. The government ought to continue appointing such men to such posts. I remember the days of Jimmy Gardiner and the 40 years in the wilderness for eastern farmers. I remember the days of the former minister from the west
DEBATES	751
Farm Improvement Loans Act who is now a senator. I also remember the days of farm syndicates when some could afford pieces of machinery worth $75,000 and when the federal government enacted legislation for 364-odd people in the very rich class. My point is that those people cannot be considered the backbone of agriculture in Canada. Those who today form the backbone of agriculture need money to operate their farms, to expand and to make changes.
We in parliament over the past five or six years have devised tools to help the agricultural community. In my area I have found a form of assistance other than farm improvement loans in current use. The ARDA people are buying land. The ARDA people will buy the farm across the road and rent it to a youthful farmer.


Albert Béchard: Order, please. I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Albert Béchard: Does the committee
agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: I thank the committee and I shall not abuse the privilege it has extended. I was saying that ARDA buys land. Under the ARDA legislation farms much larger than is realized are being assembled and then rented. As I said, the ARDA people buy the farm across the road and the one down the road and they may rent them to a young farmer under certain conditions. Over a period of three years he will be able to collect a large block of land in respect of which only a nominal payment is required. At the end of the period, three years or five years, he will be given the option of releasing it or of making payments to ARDA.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
My point is that we have a responsibility in the field of credit to ourselves, to the agricultural sector and to the whole of Canada, and that if we are not completely opposed to subsidies we should admit that one of the most equitable ways of subsidizing agriculture in this country is through the provision of low-cost loans to farmers. I would therefore appeal to the minister to reconsider these resolutions. His party did not go to the nation as supporters of a completely free enterprise economy. They put forward the idea of a just society. As I see it, among other things this means refusing to burden agriculture with
752	COMMONS
Farm Improvement Loans Act interest rates which will make the banks rich while causing hardship to the agricultural workers of Canada.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Chairman, we are discussing the farm problem which is extremely serious, because farming is a basic industry, not only in Quebec but also in the whole country.
I have listened with a great deal of attention to the remarks of the hon. members from other parts of our country, and I have come to the conclusion that the farm problem exists all across Canada. I cannot understand that, in the case of an industry as important as agriculture, ways cannot be found to solve a problem which is of concern not only to the farmers but also to the whole people.
The farmer's returns are inadequate as compared to the number of hours he has to devote to his work during the production cycle and as compared to his invested capital. That is why he often has to resort to borrowing in an effort to improve his production capacity. The government probably thought that by making his credit facilities easier at reasonable interest rates, he would be able to improve his position and to stabilize his enterprise.
Various problems prevent the farmer from developing his operation, putting it on an economic basic in all respects and getting from it a stable income. The main problem is that of prices because the farmer never knows what to expect in that sector.
The farmer never knows beforehand, except for a few products, what price he will get when he puts his production on the market. That is what happened last year to hog producers, for instance, and to egg producers who had to put their products on the market at a price lower than the production cost. That was not the way to increase their income, allow them to become financially independent and survive in a normal way.
What would happen to a manufacturer, for instance, if at the other end of the production line in his plant the price offered for his product was lower than his production cost? He certainly could not stay in business very long, he would go bankrupt. That is the situation in which agriculture finds itself in our country. It is likely that no one wants to call it bankruptcy but everyone is complaining that agriculture is in a very precarious situation.
DEBATES	October 3, 1968
Among the obstacles which also prevent the farmer from getting a foothold, from surviving in a normal and advantageous way, there is the weather over which no one has any control.
The farmer is faced with those difficulties. He sometimes suffers heavy losses due to excessive rain, drought or insects which destroy the seeds and prevent him from getting something for his work. I know that neither the government nor the farmer can do something in that field. However, it seems to me that such drawbacks are quite enough, without us having to bear on top of that the ups and downs of an unstable market as far as prices are concerned.
I wonder whether a generous increase in the farmers' borrowing opportunities would settle their problem or whether it would be to the sole advantage of lenders who expect a higher rate of interest. Would this rise in the rate of interest be profitable to the farmer, or rather to financing institutions making the loans?
Another factor which prevents the farmer from bearing the expenses which a normal development of his business entails, is the cost of farming machinery. The problem by far exceeds the limits of a given milieu. Farm equipment sells at a very high price and the manufacturers do not always take into account the eastern or the western agriculture, in their manufacturing.
Some spare parts are sold at an excessively high price, absorbing a large part of the farmers' income because, very often the spare parts cannot be readily adapted to the various kinds of equipment bought in Canada.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In order to lower the production cost of farm machinery, it might be a good idea to encourage the setting up of strong Canadian industries in Canada that could manufacture equipment suitable to our needs, as well as spare parts which could be used as equipment of different trademarks without too much inconvenience.
Mr. Chairman, I may be drifting away from the subject but I shall come back to it. I am not too keen about this measure, because it does not really meet the needs of agriculture in eastern Canada. The agricultural economy of Quebec has always been centered on the dairy industry. An increase in the size of farms and of dairy herds is offered as a solution. I am convinced of one thing: in the province of Quebec the dairy industry has.

October 3, 1968

been, remains and will remain for a long time, the basic industry in our agriculture.
However, the increasing number of milk cows, each year, in Quebec and the decreasing number in Ontario shows that the dairy livestock is also decreasing in the other provinces. This gives Quebec the first place in Canada as far as the dairy industry is concerned.
We have 38 per cent of the whole dairy livestock, and milk production of Quebec represents 35 per cent of our Canadian production.
In 1966, Quebec farms produced 6,500 million pounds of milk bringing $224 million to the producers. That is not enough to remedy the situation, and it would be necessary to increase prices in order to raise the revenue of dairy producers.
Price support should be increased on a continuing basis, always taking into account prices, costs and production.
Consumers, hearing a farmer talk about the increase in price support, will perhaps think, and quite rightly, that if the government complies with our request, consumer prices may go up.
However, the Creditistes submitted during the election campaign a proposal which would allow the government to satisfy both the producers and the consumers by using the Bank of Canada to advance the necessary credit to the Canadian Dairy Commission. This commission would then grant the necessary subsidies to the dairy producers, which would allow them to get a reasonable price for their products and have a decent income which would make it possible for them to expand their operations as much as reasonably possible.
Mr. Chairman, I am in favour of the enlargement of farms. We have been practising it in our area for a certain number of years. We are also in favour of increased herds of milch-cows, in order to have profitable family businesses which can survive. Then, our sons will be truly interested in the survival of our agriculture for the advantage of the Canadian community and the French-Canadian community.
But by experience, Mr. Chairman, I know that a given moment, one cannot go over a certain limit, because if the size of the farm is unduly extended, we will have to resort to outside labour and this would be quite costly. It would contribute also to increasing the cost of production and, finally, it would reduce
Farm Improvement Loans Act the net income, so that the situation would not be improved.
There is also some uncertainty with regard to the policies of the federal and the provincial governments. The federal government has a word to say in the field of agriculture, through its legislation on the international market, etc., and the provinces also have some responsibilities. But it often happens that when a farmer goes to the government, either federal or provincial, to ask for help, he gets the following answer: "Go to the provincial government, this does not concern us," or "Go to the federal government, this does not concern us." And so they pass the buck, while the farmer waits, suffers and, in the meantime, the situation grows worse. That is why the agricultural situation will continue to deteriorate, unless an agreement is reached and the responsibilities of the federal and the provincial governments in the field of agriculture are clearly defined.
Incidentally, allow me to make a suggestion: there is a lot of talk about a new constitution, etc.; but where agriculture is concerned, when a new constitution is drafted, I should like the situation to be taken into account, and an attempt made to correct it, by defining exactly what responsibilities belong to the federal government and to the provinces in the field of agriculture, so that one might know where to look in our society.
Mr. Chairman, before bringing my remarks to a close, allow me to draw the attention of the house to the resolution before us. There is a huge question mark in my mind. On page 14 of the annual report of the Farm Credit Corporation, one can read the following: FINANCING Farm Credit Act
To finance its lending program during 1967-68, the Corporation borrowed $194.5 million from the Minister of Finance at an average interest rate of 6.16 per cent-
Further on, the result of the difference between the interest rate paid by borrowers and that paid to those who financed the government is given.
Approximately 80 per cent of the funds lent by the Corporation bear the statutory interest rate of 5 per cent. The Corporation borrows funds from the Minister of Finance at current interest rates which are much higher than the average rate the Corporation may charge, thus creating an interest deficit which lasts for the duration of the loan. A continuation of the excess of interest cost rates over interest revenue rates will result in cumulative and rapidly accelerated annual operating losses.
Mr. Chairman, I should like the minister to tell us, while this question is under study,
October 3, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act whether there is really a relation between the report of the Farm Credit Corporation and the bill which would allow the cabinet to increase the interest rates on loans granted to farmers.
Mr. Chairman, in a general economic development program we have to take agriculture into account. Agricultural policy must be a part of a general economic policy. The conventional distinction between agriculture and industry tends to conceal or at least to deny the fact that agriculture is itself an industry which, in addition, generates more industrial activity, wealth and jobs. This is why I said at the onset that agricultural industry is an essential industry which affects not only the farmer but the population as a whole.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We must direct and organize farming in such a way as to integrate it efficiently in the mechanism of modem economy, and more particularly the food industry. Mr. Chairman,
I cannot understand why there is so little concern about an industry which is so important for all the people of the world, since we need from the cradle to the grave the fruits of labour of that industry in order to exist. We need food every day of our lives, and it is in the farming industry that we find it.
How is it, Mr. Chairman, that the land that feeds mankind is not able to provide a living for a man? This land that feeds all human beings in the world is not able to give a decent livelihood to the one that works it for the benefit of the whole population.
We must definitely rid agriculture of its traditional characteristic of being necessarily and indefinitely dependent on the state.
Mr. Chairman, it is getting embarrassing for the farmer, year after year, to keep asking the authorities for a recognition of his rights so that he can survive and develop. We should at least ensure his survival and development permanently.
Mr. Chairman, if one day the situation of agriculture is such that the best farmers do not earn an honest reward, then all will be lost.
The economic nature of modern agriculture compels us to assure for the farmer, in all fairness, the same standard of living, the same economic and social benefits enjoyed by the other citizens engaged in economic activities requiring as much knowledge, capital and work. That must be the social and economic status of the real professional farmer.
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse) .1

Mr. Chairman, the farmer is not asking the state and society for a special status or special advantages. In working towards this aim, we should avoid measures and methods of organization which would tend to make the farmer a ward of the state and force us to witness, without being able to do anything about it, the progressive disappearance of initiative, of the right of the farmer to expand and improve his operations according to his means, his skills, his will to succeed, his sense of responsibility and his own efforts. We could lose a great deal.
In short, we should, I agree, give the farmer greater credit facilities but, for heaven's sake, let us not raise the interest rate and let us guarantee the farmer better and more stable prices, so that he may repay his loans without any difficulty.
Let us suppose that a 40 year old farmer borrows $25,000 to improve his farm by purchasing more land.


Albert Béchard: Order. I am sorry to inform the hon. member that the time allotted to him by the rules has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Albert Béchard: Does the committee agree to allow the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and my colleagues for this generosity. I will not abuse it, you may be sure.
As I was just saying, let us not raise the interest rate. Let us guarantee the farmer better and more stable prices, so that he will be able to repay his loans without too much difficulty. I was saying that if a 40 year old farmer borrows $25,000 in 1968 in order to make his farm economic, he has no hope of increasing his income in the near future unless he can get better prices for his products.
Would we have really succeeded in helping him, or would we have not in actual fact managed to bind him tighter, as well as his son who will have to take over tomorrow?
Mr. Chairman, I am prepared more than any other hon. member to collaborate fully with all my colleagues in this house and in the government, in order to try and make things better, through suggestions, work and studies of all kind. The survival of that business, that vital industry will therefore be ensured and our families will be able to keep
October 3, 1968

at it. This business, which is described as a family business, will make it possible for those engaged in its operation, to feel happy and proud to be Canadians.
Thus, if ever events threatened to snatch it away from us, we shall find people attached to the land, ready to fight as true patriots, in order to preserve something which really belongs to us and which is advantageous to the whole nation.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I was rather disturbed to hear the minister indicate earlier that he might not be available tomorrow to meet the corn producers. They have spent a great deal of time and energy to come to Ottawa on their tractors to bring their serious problems to his personal attention. I hope the minister will have the good sense to make himself available all day tomorrow and meet the corn producers when they arrive in the morning. It is my belief that he will require all day to explain to them the statement he made earlier. He said in effect that the government is unwilling to do anything to help them.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not right.


George Harris Hees: If the minister believes that anywhere in his statement he has indicated he intends to help the corn producers I would be interested to hear him outline the nature of the help after I have concluded my remarks.
The government has finally, six months too late, brought in the necessary amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The farmers of Canada have been deprived for months of the necessary credit they should have had through a continuous operation of the act. As a result they have been faced with two alternatives. They either had to put off necessary improvements to their farm operations because this credit was not available to them or they made these necessary improvements with money borrowed at exorbitant rates.
The minister said the other day in the house, as recorded at page 601 of Hansard that he was not able to bring in these amendments until this time. Let me read what he said:
This guarantee has been renewed by parliament from time to time in respect of loans made during three year periods. The most recent period was added in September, 1964, to run from July 1, 1965 to June 30, 1968. Hon. members may recall that it did not prove possible to deal with this measure before the three year guarantee period expired

Farm Improvement Loans Act on June 30, 1968. In view of the subsequent dissolution of the house, this is the first opportunity to bring this measure before the house for consideration.
Had the Prime Minister kept his word when he advised the people of Canada, right after being chosen leader of the Liberal party and Prime Minister, that he intended to call parliament immediately to clean up the legislation then on the order paper and then take a summer recess to be followed by an election in the fall, these Farm Improvement Loans Act amendments would have been before the house months ago and our farmers would not have been denied the credit they have needed in the past six months. The farm community would then have found it much easier to continue its operations than has been the case. This is a direct result of the Prime Minister going to the country in April. No one can disagree with the statement that these Farm Improvement Loan Act amendments, with which we are now dealing six months too late, were not passed earlier because of the unwillingness of the Prime Minister to call parliament early in May.
Farming is a business operation today, and I am sure that everyone will agree that credit is necessary to any business operation but cannot solve the problems facing our farmers today. These problems have been in existence for some time. As we know, the farmer has for many years been caught in a very real cost-price squeeze. To find out exactly how the farmer has been doing for the past ten years I obtained the relevant figures from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics which keeps such figures for the government. I wanted to find out how the farmer had been making out in the last ten-year period, what he had received for his products and what he had to pay for the things he had to buy. During this ten-year period prices paid by our farmers increased by 35.1 per cent. The prices received by our farmers for the things they sold increased by only 24.3 per cent.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
It is easy to see from these figures that during the past ten years our farmers have become steadily worse off year by year. It is clear to us, and I hope it will soon be clear to the government, that this situation must be corrected if we are to preserve agriculture as our basic industry and if we are to preserve the family farm as the basic unit of agriculture. Far too many young men are today leaving the farm because they do not see a bright future in farming. The policies of this
October 3, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act government during the past five years have been responsible to a great extent for this situation.
I believe the best way to solve the cost-price squeeze in which our farmers find themselves today is for the government to establish a royal commission to examine all facets of the operation of our farmers, food processors, machinery manufacturers and all those who sell our food products in their various forms-in fact, the whole farming operation from the time the seed goes into the ground until the customer buys the product in whatever final form it is made available to him. This royal commission should also study the cost of those things the farmer has to buy in order to carry on a normal operation. It is important to find out who is making an abnormal profit in this whole process.
One thing is sure, our farmers are not making an abnormal profit; they are making only a reasonable and steadily declining profit, as is made clear by the figures I mentioned a few moments ago. The profit of our farmers has been slipping year by year. The situation of our farmers has become steadily worse. If we are to retain agriculture as our No. 1 basic industry, keep young farmers on the farm and make it possible for the family farm to remain our basic agricultural unit, we must solve the problem of why the cost-price squeeze has been increasing year by year.
So I once again urge the government to establish a royal commission to examine this whole problem in all parts of the country. We must do whatever we can to solve the problem with which farmers have been faced for many years and which has become worse year by year. The cost-price squeeze is gradually throttling the farming industry in Canada.
I should like to speak briefly about one of the problems which our farmers face. This problem particularly affects farmers in the province of Ontario and points up the need for credit being made available quickly and at low interest rates in order to help farmers who are faced with serious adverse conditions in their farming operation.
I speak particularly of the problem of those who grow and process tomatoes in Ontario. I have been advised by the president of the Ontario food processors that the average processed cost of canned tomatoes and tomato juice is $5.30 a case of 24, 28-ounce cans. Canadian growers and processors have been encountering very serious competition from processers and growers in France, Spain and
[Mr. Hees.l
Bulgaria. The products produced in these countries can be landed and sold in Canada at a price that varies between $5.20 and $5.60 a case. The reason these products can be landed and sold at this low price is that in each of the three countries I have mentioned the product is subsidized by the government.
This situation was made clear to the government earlier this year by two organizations, the Ontario food processors in their very excellent brief presented to the government, and the Canadian food processors in their very excellent brief. These briefs pointed out clearly the problem faced by our growers and processors. They pointed out the subsidy paid per case in the countries of origin of those products. They asked very earnestly that the government impose a countervailing duty on these products, when they land in this country, equivalent to the subsidy paid in the country of origin. That is a sensible request. If this is not done, our processors and growers cannot fairly compete with processors and growers in the countries I have mentioned. The present situation is having a very detrimental effect on Canadian growers and processors.
I strongly urge the government, and the minister who recently took over this portfolio, to seriously examine these excellent briefs which were presented earlier this year to the government. I urge the government to impose countervailing duties equivalent to the subsidies paid in the countries of origin. The situation that exists is making it impossible for Canadian processors and growers to make a reasonable profit, to be able to compete, stay in business and help the Canadian farming industry to flourish and produce a good livelihood for those who subsist by the industry.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the house the stand on farm credit taken by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at their board of directors meeting in July of 1968. I shall quote the resolution they passed at that time:
That legislation of the farm Improvement loans type providing government guarantees on bank loans for farm purposes, at the lowest possible rates of interest, should be immediately enacted.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It goes on to say:
Many farmers require long, intermediate and short term credit to develop their farming operations to meet modern conditions of production, and low returns to agriculture production often make interest rates higher than 5 per cent an
October 3, 1968	COMMONS
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 restructured federal agricultural credit service, that 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.
The C.F.A. requests that at a very early date the federal government, and its agencies in the farm credit field, with the members of the advisory committee to the F.C.C. enter into detailed consultations with the C.F.A. on detailed farm credit policy requirements.
Both of our farm organizations which are national in scope, the National Farmers Union and the C.F.A., have taken similar stands on the matter of farm credit. I cannot understand how a government responsible to the farmers of Canada as a whole would disregard the recommendations of both and instead say they propose to change the credit program so that the interest rate will be set by the governor in council. Obviously it will be higher than the present rate; otherwise, of course, there would be no point in changing the act. How can they propose to do this in spite of the recommendations and advice received from the collective farm organizations in this country? There may be times when farm organizations, like anyone else, may not be entirely correct, but in this field I think their advice and recommendations should be very carefully considered. If they are not considered, the result will be an escalation of costs in the farm sector and in farm production.
I should like to read what an economist on the staff of the Economic Council of Canada, Wolfgang Illing, said, speaking on the rising cost of housing in Canada:
The rising cost of money has had a greater impact on the over-all price of housing than the increased cost of serviced land.
He went on to say:
The cost of borrowing money to buy residential property and the cost of serviced land in urban areas are the principal causes, with the cost of borrowing the more important of the two.
He gave some interesting examples. He said:
An increase in interest rates from about 6 per cent to about 9 per cent has added more to the monthly payment of an average mortgage than a $5,000 increase in the price of the building lot would have added without a change in the interest rate.
A 25-year $16,500 mortgage, at 6 per cent with a $106 monthly payment, results in the payment of $15,200 in interest for a total repayment of $31,700.
DEBATES	757
Farm Improvement Loans Act The same mortgage, at a 9 per cent rate, would result in monthly payments of $137, and interest payments of $24,500, for a total repayment of $41,000.
This is approximately a little short of $9,000 added to the price of the house as the result of the increased interest rate. What is being proposed here is that we should do the same to the farmer. The result will be an increase in his production cost comparable to the increase in the cost of housing. We will end up in agriculture as we have done in housing. In housing we have expensive money and a shortage of houses, while in agriculture we will have expensive money and reduced production without the efficient, well organized farm units which we should have in this country. We will put the small farmer against the wall and we will put the large farmer under a debt load which it will take him years to repay, if he ever does.
Of course, as the minister said, the government has the power to do it if they choose to. Speaking the other evening, he pointed out to the opposition that "the hon. gentlemen opposite who have been reduced from 96 to 72 ought to have got the message by this time." He said that in effect the government has the power to do it and they will do it over the opinions and opposition of members on this side of the house.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I ask the hon. gentleman to read the sentence preceding that one so as to put what I said in context. Hon. members opposite were challenging the right of the government to propose legislation. That is why I mentioned the numbers.


Mr,. Gleave:: Does the minister wish me to read the preceding sentence from Hansard? It is a fairly long statement.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: To do so would be fair. I leave it to the hon. member to determine what is fair.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I grant the minister the privilege when he rises in his place to read whatever he may choose ahead of what I said. I have no objection to reading it, but this is the opinion he expressed. I do not want to put him in a position in which he does not choose to be. If he does not choose to say that, he does not have to. What I am pointing out is mainly the position of farm organizations and the opinions which they have expressed which, I say with all due respect to the minister, should be carefully considered because these organizations
October 3, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act represent the rank and file of the farmers across our nation. They represent L'Union des Catholiques Cultivateurs de Quebec, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Farmers' Union, and many others from all provinces. These organizations represent farmers all across the country and it is their considered opinion that the present 5 per cent interest rate is the maximum that the farm industry can bear and continue to be productive.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I have here an article from the Western Producer for September 26 which is headed, "Western Grain Industry: We Must Export or Die". The article contains the text of an address by Charles W. Gibbings, president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. He points out the precarious position of the western grain industry. It is in a difficult, tight position. He is quite right when he says that we must export grain or we will not survive. I am a farmer in that area. When the grain industry is in that position, is this the time to revise the credit structure of the farm industry in Canada? Is this the time we should pick, when the industry is already struggling for survival? Do we pick this time to add to the increasing costs of production of the farmers out there who are already struggling with increased costs of machinery and fertilizer and the other things that go into the production of grain? Are we, as a government and a people, going to make a decision that will add another straw to the camel's back? At this time the com growers of Ontario are declaring themselves to be in the same position.
I believe all these things should be carefully considered when we talk about adding to the cost of money. We can make more money available for the farmers to borrow, as we are proposing to do under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. There is a provision in this measure to increase the amount of money available. I suppose some of our farmers will be desperate enough to avail themselves of the increased amount of money in order to try to bail themselves out of the hole in which they are, to try to delay the day of reckoning which must surely come.
However, let the house remember why the Farm Improvement Loans Act-was passed in the first place, and why the Farm Credit Corporation came into being in the first place. The Farm Improvement Loans Act was passed in the first place because farmers were in such a state they could not get credit from the ordinary sources. They could not get

credit to tool up, to buy the machines that were needed as a result of the depression and following the second world war. At that time the whole agricultural industry had to be retooled and re-equipped and credit had to be found to do this job. These measures, the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Farm Credit Act, were designed to do this job. The interest rate was set at a point which it was considered the industry could carry at that time. We can make the extra money available, but if we do so at a cost which the industry cannot bear, or if we make this money available to an industry which is in a precarious financial position, then we are only going half way. In addition to these measures we will have to have a marketing structure, a price support structure and an over-all agricultural policy which will keep the industry in healthy condition. I believe this is the first consideration which should be before this house, to see that agriculture is in a healthy financial condition and that credit is available at a rate the industry can bear.


Mr. Howe:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate the minister on his appointment to this portfolio. I hope he will take as his example the former member for Qu'Appelle who showed more understanding and sympathy for the Canadian agricultural industry and economy than, in my period of service in this house, has been displayed before or since. I should like also to take this opportunity to invite the minister to attend the international plowing matches which are going to be held in Wellington county beginning October 16. I hope he will avail himself of the opportunity to see some of the best farm land in the world.
The introduction of this measure, provides an opportunity for members of this house to present to the minister some of the problems in connection with farm credit and agricultural problems in general. Credit, whether it is for the householder, the farmer, the merchant or the industrialist, has become a way of life. Sometimes it is rather interesting to note that it would almost seem that the size of the loan or mortgage has become a status symbol. I well remember a comment made by Dr. Howard of Chalmers United Church in this city in referring to modern philosophy. He said modern philosophy was made up of wall to wall carpeting and back to the wall financing.
I sometimes think that the use of credit should be a subject in our school curriculum because it has become of such universal
October 3, 1968

importance. Sometimes it is too easy, sometimes it is too expensive and in many cases it is abused. Of late we have had instances of this in the Farm Credit Corporation and there have been instances cited in connection with student loans. In providing legislation covering this subject I sometimes feel we should proceed very carefully because, after all, we are legislating not just for today. We are introducing legislation that may last for 40 years. Perhaps it would be well to listen to the words of Mr. Leach, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who said:
I am concerned about what sort of economy those In their twenties today will inherit from us who are two and three times their age.
Today's extravagances, while they can be perhaps financed by borrowing, will have to be paid for ultimately by the younger people and maybe we who are in our forties and sixties should have considerable concern about this.
I am particularly concerned about the cost of credit to farmers. During this debate it has been stated that making credit available does not get to the root of agricultural problems. I feel that the cost of credit can assist the farmer who is faced with a rising cost of operation with no compensatory increase in the price of his products. However, Mr. Chairman, this is not new. Since I came to this house in 1953, year after year reference has been made to agricultural statistics which threaten to destroy financially the farmers of this country. However, we must give the farmers credit for being able to do something about their problem. The only way they have been able to overcome the cost-price squeeze-and I think they deserve a great deal of credit for this-is by their ability to make one, two, three and sometimes ten blades of grass grow where only one grew before.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In that connection, it is rather interesting to note that in the introductory speech of the Minister of Agriculture-


Albert Béchard: Order. The Chair has been informed that a messenger from the other place is now on his way to this house. Therefore the proceedings of this committee will be suspended and I do now leave the chair.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform this house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has passed Bill No. C-108, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of
Royal Assent
money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1969.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: While I have the floor I should like to advise hon. members that the matters to be discussed at the time of the adjournment period are the following: the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), Consumer Affairs; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), Education; the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth), Harbours.


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend the Publication of Statutes Act.
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1969.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Olson (for Mr. Benson)-Mr. Bechard in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act to provide for a further three-year loan period ending June 30, 1971; to substitute for the 5 per cent rate of interest on guaranteed farm improvement loans made under the Act such rate or rates of interest as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council: to extend the purposes for which guaranteed loans may be made to include the purchase of land as an addition to an existing farm enterprise; to increase from $15,000 to $25,000 the maximum amount of any loan that may be made under the act to a borrower together with any amount owing in respect of other guaranteed farm improvement loans; to authorize the Minister of Finance to
October 3, 1968
[Stage Direction]
Farm Improvement Loans Act
designate certain trust and loan companies and insurance companies and certain credit unions, caisse populaire and other co-operative credit societies as authorized lenders under the act; to establish a limit of $1,200,000,000 as the aggregate principal amount of guaranteed loans that may be made by all authorized lenders in that period and a limit of $300,000,000 as the aggregate amount of guaranteed loans that may be made by authorized lenders other than banks during that period; to increase the present limit of liability of the Minister of Finance in respect of loans made by individual lenders to encourage lending by small-volume lenders; to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the Act and for other matters related or incidental thereto.
William Marvin Howe: Mr. Chairman, I was discussing the wonderful contribution our farmers have made to this country and the wonderful efforts they have made to keep their heads above water. I was surprised to hear the statistics quoted by the minister when he spoke about farmers. He had this to say as found on page 599 of Hansard:
Between 1961 and 1966 the number of farms in Canada with gross sales in excess of $5,000 per annum increased from about 140,000 to about 192,000. In the same period the number of farms with gross sales of more than $10,000 per annum increased from 50,000 to 95,000 or 90 per cent.
Those statistics almost give the impression that farmers never had it so good. However, the statistics quoted as coming from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings this afternoon would indicate that this is not true. Farmers, however, have become increasingly efficient, despite what the studies of some may indicate. The fact is that in 1930 one agricultural worker fed 11 persons, in 1946 one agricultural worker fed 13 persons, and at present one worker in the agricultural industry feeds 33 persons.
In the same connection I was interested in a recent newspaper editorial which said:
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Canada's farmers have an impressive record of producing food efficiently. Food exports over the years have earned large sums of needed foreign currency, while the abundant supplies of low-priced food for our own consumers have been a vital factor in the rapid rise of the standard of living of most Canadians.
But it is becoming apparent now that farmers are growing weary of subsidizing Canada's economy with cheap food.
This is very true, Mr. Chairman. Among the prime elements in arriving at the cost factor in modern agriculture must of necessity be the cost and availability of credit. It would appear that the legislation proposed will increase the availability in areas where

credit can be provided. However, in connection with the cost there appears to be considerable doubt that the farmers of Canada will be treated in the same realistic way that they were in 1958 when the party to which I belong was in power.
Many of us on this side remember the battles we had before the rate of 5 per cent was maintained and I do not think I am giving away any caucus secrets when I mention that we had considerable battles with some of our own urban members as to the reality of maintaining that rate on the part of the Farm Credit Corporation. It would seem, to judge by the small number of speakers from the other side of the house in this debate, that even though some of them come from important agricultural areas they are not particularly interested in this aspect and I sometimes wonder whether in those secret caucuses we have heard so much about they have stood up to persuade the Minister of Agriculture that this interest rate should be maintained at 5 per cent.
So far as the farm improvement loan legislation is concerned I feel the minister should indicate some definite formula so that farmers may know just where they are heading- probably a formula associated with the prime bank rate. Experience has shown that farmers are just as good credit risks as institutions which get the prime bank rate and I feel that in the case of farm improvement loans the figure should be arrived at on the basis of a definite formula easily understandable by farmers and of assistance to them.
If the farmers of Canada are to be forced to pay the high interest rates current at the present time they will have to receive more money for their products. Then what will happen? The cry today is that the farmers are the favoured group in our national picture. We who represent the farming areas are getting tired of the finger being constantly pointed at the farmer as the one who receives the greatest chunk of what is spent on the higher cost of living. It is true the price of food in the marketplace may have increased the cost of living but in many cases this higher cost has been created between the farmer and the consumer as a result of the increased costs of processing, packaging, freezing and transportation.
One of the reasons I rose to take part in this debate is my feeling that in addition to this legislation we in Canada need some type of assistance in cases of emergency and disaster. This idea was suggested some time ago by the Federation of Agriculture in one
October 3, 1968

of its briefs. The necessity for legislation along these lines was described in a paragraph which stated:
Occasionally farming areas are struck by sudden national catastrophes such as severe drought, large scale floods, storms of hurricane force, severe infestations by insects, plant diseases of epidemic proportions, severe frosts at certain periods for plant and tree growth and other natural hazards.
Damage to buildings, fences, machinery, fruit trees, livestock and land in addition to actual loss of production under such disaster conditions can be very severe. When this happens, many farms are in immediate need of credit for the purpose of restoring actual assets destroyed or damaged and for current farm operating and living expenses until production can be brought back to normal.
This recommendation appeared in a brief presented by the Federation of Agriculture in support of some form of federal emergency loan legislation. The need was brought vividly to my attention this year when a hurricane blew through the township of Proton in the southern part of Grey county. The heading in the local newspaper reads: "Thousands of Dollars Damage By Cyclone In Proton Township". The article reads in part:
One of the most destructive storms to have ever struck this district tore a narrow path through Proton Township on Thursday, Aug. 22, 1968, about 4:00 p.m. At least four barns and other buildings were unroofed, a silo demolished, shambles made of two residences, hundreds of trees broken and uprooted, hydro and telephone lines disrupted, rail fences scattered and grain flattened.
Farmers have no control over occurrences of this kind which take place more often than some people think. It is almost impossible to take out any kind of insurance to cover hurricane damage and I feel strongly that some form of assistance should be available. When I returned to Ottawa I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture asking whether he would give consideration to doing what the province of Ontario already does, that is, match dollar for dollar what can be collected by friends and neighbours in the particular area affected. In passing, I should like to congratulate the people in the Proton area who have taken such a practical interest in their own neighbours by collecting more than $10,000 to help the victims of this hurricane. This will be matched by $10,000 from the provincial government and I can see no reason why it could not be matched by a similar contribution from the federal government. Even though the minister has up to now refused to make assistance available along these lines, I hope he will reconsider his attitude because the amount involved would not be large, not nearly as great as we understand the former minister
Farm Improvement Loans Act of agriculture intends to spend on refurnishing his office. Possibly it would only amount to $10,000 or $15,000, but we feel its provision would be of great assistance to those concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six
o'clock.


William Marvin Howe: There is one other thing. I should like the minister to suggest to the farm credit administration office in that area that the farmers affected should, if they find themselves in difficulty as a result of the circumstances I have described, be allowed a little extra time in which to repay their loans.
To sum up, I sincerely hope the 5 per cent rate can be maintained under the Farm Credit Corporation and that in connection with farm improvement loans some definite formula can be provided such as linking the rate to the prime bank rate. Further, I hope Canadians can be given some type of emergency disaster loans and that the minister will give favourable consideration to matching the action of the provincial government in assisting the farmers of Grey county who lost crops and property in the hurricane.


The Chairman:: In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 15 (4) of the standing orders the hour for the consideration of private members' business has been suspended for this sitting. Accordingly, I do leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Ritchie:: In rising to speak on farm credit I feel that there are substantial areas, particularly in respect of the Farm Credit Corporation, that deserve wide scrutiny at this point. Since the original Farm Credit Act was instituted there has been a substantial change in farm economics, marketing problems and in the general economic climate in which the farm industry must operate. During these past ten years there has been a phenomenal increase in the price of land, in the price of machinery and farm operating costs. The increase in land price has been aided by the rapid rate of inflation, competition from would-be new farmers, and competition by established farmers who increase their holdings when the amount of land available remains static. There is just no more land being created. As well, there has been
762	COMMONS
Farm Improvement Loans Act some demand by investors as a hedge against inflation. All this has increased the amount of capital required to carry on a viable farm operation so that the capital required is now in the neighbourhood of $60,000 to $100,000 for a modest farm.
So far as farm improvement loans are concerned, in respect of which the banks and other companies will be lending money, it would seem that the rate of interest on money should be tied to the prime interest rate. This would introduce a flexibility into the lending which I think would be very advantageous and would prevent a situation that has occurred in the past few months.
In relation to the Farm Credit Act I should like to point out that the amount of farm capitalization necessary to carry on an adequate farm is of a large order. The capital repayment necessary to pay for a farm involving a $60,000 to $100,000 capital investment is in the nature of $3,000 to $5,000 per year. This is a very heavy burden for the farmers to bear in relation to their earnings. With the high level of income tax this means that the farmers' standard of living is seriously compromised. He is placed at a serious disadvantage in respect of his living standards, compared with his counterpart in the city who has the advantage of having the necessary capital supplied by others. In discussing with young farmers the reason they leave the farm for relatively low wage jobs in the city, this would appear to be a factor.
Although it is not usually recognized as such, in our high cost economy, the old adage that the farmer lives poor and dies rich will be much more applicable in future than it is at present. It would seem obvious that, in the future, capital repayment on land for farms by the individual farmer will have to be spread out over long periods. Indeed it will be likely that in his lifetime a farmer will not often retire the debt acquired in the purchase of land and the building of his farm unit. In order to retain the family farm unit it will be necessary to allow the accumulation of capital by a farmer and his family to some greater degree than is allowed under our present taxation structure. This would require the calling of witnesses before a committee to study thoroughly the agricultural field, the lending field and the taxation field. A means must be found by which the farmer will be in a position to retain more of the capital he has accumulated, particularly in view of the very high income tax level. Some thought should be given to a program which would allow a

DEBATES	October 3, 1968
farm to be passed from generation to generation without complete refinancing. I notice a change in the resolution which might have been incorporated for the purpose and, if so, I welcome it as a useful instrument.
A small farm has now become a small business the operation of which requires a major effort on the part of the farmer. The business of lending money should be considered in the light of the fact that the individual farmer is a businessman generally alone, and that therefore our present taxation and social structure, as in the case of a small business, does not give the farmer a proper opportunity to take his place in society. If the family farmer does disappear in the foreseeable future his demise will be caused by the taxation policies in relation to business. At the present time the family farm, on the whole, is efficient and provides more food more cheaply than does any corporation. However the family farm must be allowed to operate and breathe; otherwise it will be taken over by corporation farms to the disadvantage of the whole community. The Farm Credit Corporation has been established now for a long time, but in view of the great changes and a whole host of new problems that have arisen it should be studied in depth.
The only way to achieve this is for the agricultural committee to carry out a study in depth of this problem. Until this is done the interest rate should not change from its present level of 5 per cent and should not be subject to change by the governor in council operating in secrecy and without accountability. The farmer must know what his interest rate is to be. There should be no doubt on his part concerning the interest rate. An interest rate of 5 per cent is reasonable on the average over a long period. Although the funds for lending by the Farm Credit Corporation are taken out of the consolidated revenue fund, much money has already been paid back into the fund, so that to some extent it is self-sustaining. No change should be made in the interest rate or in the terms of interest until there has been a review of the necessity for this, and of the other factors involved in a study of the interest rate.
It might be that the Farm Credit Corporation has funds of its own which it could use for the purpose of carrying on modest research. It might be reasonable that a young farmer could be given a rate of interest lower than the normal rate for a period of time, until he becomes established and is in a position to pay a higher interest rate. Farm credit is a very important factor in the business of
October 3, 1968

farming. In considering the problems which face farmers today it is on a par with marketing. It is absolutely essential that a good system of farm loans be evolved and that changes be made to meet varying conditions. There must be greater means by which farm credit can be obtained. These bills seem to be merely a hurried extension of existing legislation, and do not indicate that there has been thoughtful consideration of the needs of the farmer.


Mr. Douglas:: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to enter this debate because I have a feeling that it has already been prolonged to too great an extent. I believe that if we are really concerned about the plight of the farmers and the interests of the farmers we would have discontinued this debate two or three days ago, and would have proceeded with our business of passing these bills.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Albert B. Douglas: It is not only the bills referred to in these resolutions which are being held up, but there are other important bills waiting in the wings, such as the bill concerning the increase in cash advances. Much of the debate so far has been more or less irrelevant, and certainly it has been time consuming and repetitive. I am afraid that a good deal of it will be repeated when we discuss the bill in the house later.
What are we supposed to be doing here? I believe we are supposed to be discussing three resolutions which deal with programs which have been in operation for some years, and which have been accepted and used by the farmers of Canada. We should be discussing the renewal of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, revisions to the Farm Credit Act and revisions to the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act. But we seem to be ranging very far from these topics at times.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
In regard to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, I think it is important to reactivate this as soon as possible, because many farmers are waiting for these loans. I do not think it is particularly beneficial to farmers to have us spending time trying to assess blame, or take credit for things done or left undone in the past years or months. I think it is important to get these bills introduced and passed. The farmers are waiting for this legislation in order to make use of these provisions.
I am very pleased to hear that credit unions are to be allowed to become lending

Farm Improvement Loans Act institutions under this act. The provisions which make it possible for farmers to borrow money under the act to purchase small land holdings over a relatively brief period of time will be beneficial as well.
I want to say a few words about the Farm Credit Act and the farm syndicate loans act. Farmers have accepted the provisions of these acts, and they have accomplished at least two beneficial results. They have made it possible for farmers to attain economic units, and have created a great deal of efficiency in farm units in Canada. They have also made it possible to transfer farms to the younger generation, and this is one of the most important things that can be done at this time.
The proposal to increase the capital under this act will enable a continuing use of these funds in future years. I believe also that the father-son partnership provision is good. It will enable such a partnership to borrow more money than might otherwise be available.
I welcome also the provision which makes credit available to farm co-operatives and farm corporations under the Farm Credit Corporation. I think it is a good idea that the people living on Indian reserves, either in bands or as individuals, will now be allowed, once this resolution becomes law, to borrow money from the Farm Credit Corporation.
There is one reservation I have in respect of this resolution regarding the Farm Credit Corporation act. I sympathize with many of the members who have expressed their concern, particularly those members on the opposition benches. I made a similar statement during the debate in reply to the speech from the throne that I should like to see interest rates remain the same as they are at present under the Farm Credit Corporation act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
I am not sure that I will be successful in persuading my colleagues on this side of the house to support my stand in this matter, but if anyone can do this it is not likely to be someone on the opposition side. The best thing we can do in this committee is to expedite the passage of these resolutions, and get on with the job of providing these additional credit facilities to the farmers of Canada.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Chairman, my only reason for speaking on this resolution this evening is my concern about its implications. I am of a different opinion from the hon. mem-
October 3, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act ber for Assiniboia, who suggested there was nothing to worry about. The resolution we have before us should be considered seriously.
I agree with another hon. member who suggested that interest rates on these loans should be pegged. I am particularly concerned with interest rates because of what happened many years ago. I remember the hardships that my family suffered when trying to keep up the payments on loans, due to interest rates. They had to obtain a mortgage in order to stay in business. In 1937 the bank which held the mortgage on the land my father owned in Alberta required him to sell the cattle he had to stay in business. I remember their taking the machinery and the land, and everything else it was possible to remove in order to pay up the mortgage. These people were not interested in my father keeping his farm lands. It is my suggestion tonight that if we permit this resolution to pass in its present form, without pegging the interest rate, we can expect the same thing to happen again.
Surely no one questions the fact that the Farm Improvement Loans Act should be reinstated; but these changes, whether acceptable or not, should not be shoved down our throats. We must seriously consider the interest rates which are spelled out in respect of guaranteed farm improvement loans prescribed by the governor in council. We are all aware of the fact that the N.H.A. rates are those prescribed by the governor in council.
When we look at the situation which exists throughout Canada we realize that only those people who earn $8,000 a year can qualify for these loans. If this measure is passed in its present form, the farmers who are not earning that amount of money could be in the same position as 80 per cent of the people in this country who cannot qualify for an N.H.A. loan. I hope the minister will realize that the young people and the elderly people who must obtain loans under the act are the people who are most important to this industry. Having regard to the analogy I have made, we are making provisions to allow the governor in council to practise discrimination against the farming people of this country.
The Minister of Agriculture said, on September 30, that the Minister of Finance advised that when the legislation was introduced in the house the new lending period would be made retroactive from July 1, having regard to loans made after June 30, and that these would be guaranteed by the government. I ask members of the house what

better lending institution could possibly be found than the government of this country. I am sure anyone who wanted to establish a lending institution would be pleased to know that the loans he was making were backed by the people of Canada. The Minister of Agriculture suggested it was important to keep in mind that the object of this legisla-ion is to facilitate guaranteed loans to farmers, but the ultimate decision of whether such loans are made rests with the lender.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
These facts will help to throw some light on what has been taking place in this country ever since the war. The defenders of the profit, or free enterprise system, have been taking their prosperity in cash, while the ordinary John Doe has been encouraged to take his prosperity on credit. I suggest this is exactly what is happening today. This was offered as a remedy for his own tight money problem, resulting from too much money being drained out of the economy in profits. This stimulant could have only temporary benefits and the sources were limited.
As the economy has slowed down, the government has been unable or unwilling to diagnose the case or come to grips with realities. Instead they are experimenting with various kinds of free enterprise nostrums. They have cut taxes for the rich. When this did not produce the desired results, they increased taxes but provided refunds to corporations, which simply means that the corporations were not taxed at all.
Those who have taken $5 billion out of the economy in 12 short months are the people who receive special consideration at the hands of the old line parties. Having drained the public purse, they now favour high interest rates for money. I include both the Liberals and the Conservatives in these remarks. I do not think there is any question whatsoever that there is not one iota of difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives, with regard to protecting the private corporate interest in this country. I appreciate the position the Conservatives have taken in this particular situation, but I wonder what they would do if they were now in office.
There is one more analogy I should like to make, Mr. Chairman. It is that many, many people are very critical of the hippies that we have in Canada today. So far as the hippies are concerned, I believe they are fed up to the teeth with the absolute inactivity of the government of Canada. I am sure they are fed up to the teeth with the absolute lack of
Ociober 3, 1968

responsibility on the part of members of parliament, when they fail to meet the issues head on. In this regard I refer to the resolution now before us. Here we are giving the right to raise the interest rate on farm improvement loans to the economic hippies- and I am sure this country is full of economic hippies. We do not have to look very far to realize this and to realize they do not care what really happens to the farmer today.
The most important fact we have to face today is that farm people very much need the money that is available to them by way of a farm improvement loan. I assure the committee that the people to whom I have spoken are most desirous of being able to avail themselves of farm improvement loans, but they are not desirous of availing themselves of such loans if there is an increase in the interest rate. These remarks apply to the people with whom I have spoken within the last week, and before that. They suggested that, because of the present interest rate they are unable at this time to take advantage of the loans available to them. I am sure that when the bill following this resolution is passed there will be absolutely no way of pegging the interest rate.
I was very surprised when the other day the Minister of Agriculture suggested that the majority of his party really is not very much interested in what the opposition have to say in this respect. I think it is high time that, regardless of the majority of any party in this house, the government realized that the minority has a right to be heard and to be told exactly what is going on.
I think what happened this afternoon is a perfect example of what happens with this government. The minister neglected to give us information on the measures proposed in the order paper, but the information was given to the press ahead of time. I realize that resolution No. 5 contains many necessary provisions. We all realize that we are not going to hold up its passage indefinitely, but we ask that this matter be referred to a committee that will be able to consider it and decide in what way it could be improved.
It has always been my opinion that the government should recognize there are experts in every field with which they deal. These experts are not necessarily in the ranks of the government. I believe that every government should at least recognize the fact that there must be consultation with those people most directly affected by the legislation proposed, and I suggest the people in the agricultural
Farm Improvement Loans Act field should be consulted about these matters. People representing farm organizations should be given the opportunity to discuss the matters with which we are now dealing.
One hon. member suggested that a royal commission be appointed to study this whole question. I have absolutely no confidence in royal commissions. I suggest that the only way to enact the best kind of legislation to solve these problems is to consult the people concerned. They should be brought before the agriculture committee and allowed to express their views as to what is best for their industry and our society.
1 agree that this discussion must come to an end. Many of the things that have been said are being repeated. I urge the government, and particularly the Minister of Agriculture, to pay great attention to setting an interest rate in respect of farm improvement loans that will be equitable to all. I have no hesitation in opposing this resolution in its present form. I shall have no hesitation in going back to the constituency from which I come and telling my people why I opposed it. I believe that because of the method used in setting the interest rate under this legislation we can expect the worst for the farmers of this country. I do not mean just the western farmers, but the farmers in this whole nation. I urge the Minister of Agriculture to give serious attention to the rate of interest, and the one clause of the resolution to which I have referred.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief in my remarks. I have only a few things to say about the speeches that I have heard in the house, and I shall add some comments of my own. First of all I want to congratulate the last speaker upon some of the cogent remarks he made on the matter of increasing the interest rate. One of the things we must keep in mind is that the field of agriculture has changed a great deal in the last 70 years. It has changed from a farmer providing food for himself and another person in 1900, to today providing food for upwards of 35 people. This shows the great scientific developments that have been made in farming. As a matter of fact, I do not think any industry in Canada has produced, per capita, the increased rate of production of the farm operator.
This proves that the farm operator has the necessary skill, the necessary education and the know-how to run his farm, given the opportunity to obtain capital. Another fact we must keep in mind is that farming is a costly
766	COMMONS
Farm Improvement Loans Act business. You can start an operation with a dairy farm and buy 25 or 30 cows, and you will pay upwards of $300 to $500 per cow. Then you have to buy coolers and all the other things that go with operating a dairy farm. You also have to pay high wages for any help you employ. Particularly in dairying. This can be multiplied many times over, on bigger operations but it shows the capital that is necessary to run a farm, increasing with the size.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
If there is to be such a high rate of interest, then it would not pay the man to start farming because it would be very difficult nowadays to start a dairy farm of 100 acres fully equipped for under $80,000. At 7 or 8 per cent the interest on that would be about $6,000 a year, before there was any income whatsoever. This is one thing we have to keep in mind. On the one hand there is the high value of investment in this industry, and on the other hand we subsidize the automobile manufacturers up to $50 million a year, and with no qualms at all. The Canadian people have the right to subsidize farming operations because when we look at the facts and figures we find that there are no other people in the world who are as cheaply fed, with the possible exception of those in the country to the south, the U.S.A. as are the Canadian people. We also find that in relation to their income, the money which Canadians spend on food is less per capita, according to their earning power-with one exception, the United States

than anywhere else in the world.
So we do not need to apologize for subsidizing this industry. As a matter of fact, if we do not make it possible for the young fellow to start a farming operation, we may have to pay the penalty of paying through the nose because we will not have his products to sell or the food to buy to eat. Last year we imported into this country some $300 million worth of goods which we could produce right here in Canada, and our total imports of agricultural products ran upwards of $900 million. These are facts which we should consider very seriously in this house. Here we have an industry producing cheaper than anywhere in the world, with one exception, but we quibble with them and say they have to pay an interest rate which is sometimes as high as 8 to 10 per cent. This does not make common sense. This is one industry which it would pay to subsidize, because food is a necessity. We have to have it. I do not

DEBATES	October 3, 1968
see why any apology should be made for keeping the rate at a level which the farmer can afford.
As I said before, we have to consider the farmer's high cost of investment. Who can start a farm of 100 acres and invest $80,000 in a dairy herd, and at the same time borrow a sufficient amount of money to purchase the equipment necessary to run it at the proposed rate, and make it a paying proposition.
The second point I wish to make is that the farmer is not only a producer but also a purchaser. He purchases the farm equipment that is manufactured in some city which employs labour. If this factory is not selling its products, it does not employ labour, the result is unemployment and the unemployed will have to be given assistance. We have here a two edged sword. The farmer of today is a specialist in his own right. If he is in the dairy business, he produces milk. If he is in the hog business, he produces hogs. However, that farmer does not generally produce more than one product. Many of them do not even have their own garden produce. They go to the store to buy it, just like the fellow in town. However, let us compare the farmer with the city dweller who purchases his food and shelter. He does the same as the farmer, but the farmer is also producing goods and he needs equipment which is manufactured in that town or city.
So let us not apologize. Anyone here who will stand up and apologize for helping the farmer is not thinking in the right way, or has not looked at the other side of the picture. He has not considered what the farmers are doing for this country. As a matter of fact, I think the hon. member for Timiskam-ing stated that the total administration cost amounted to only $3 million out of $263 million. That is proof of how good a risk the farmer is, in any investment that is made in him.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to take the opportunity now to compliment the minister on his appointment. The first thing he can do to pave the road with good intentions and to follow it through to a logical conclusion is to refer the annual report of the Farm Credit Corporation to a committee of the house, for further study, and to assure the house that he will do so. If he does so, I will sit down and let it go at that.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Chairman, as the only member from British Columbia to have spoken on this bill, and one who comes from a riding that has a large number of farms and rural
October 3, 1968

areas, may I say I feel that although, as many hon. members have mentioned, the debate has dragged on for a long time and now appears to become repetitive, it is important that I take part in it because, as I said earlier, the province of British Columbia, to my knowledge, has not yet been heard from. My riding of Fraser Valley West is of course famous for berries, dairies and poultry. It is a riding that will most probably be very interested in the kind of assistance which will become available under this legislation.
I should like to compliment the minister on much of what he has had to say in this regard. I am certain that much in these resolutions and the bills which will follow will be most helpful. I would be very interested to hear from other hon. members representing rural ridings, particularly on the government side, and especially to hear from the hon. member for Fraser Valley East who represents the neighbouring riding, because I know he has been in the poultry business for years and will have something to add to this debate.
We wonder about the economic pattern of this government, but apparently the clouds are being blown away and a distinct pattern is now emerging. On five separate items, the Canada student loans, the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act, and, if you look down a little further, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, the government has now revealed what we may come to expect as government policy in regard to various federal assistance programs.
Two tendencies appear clear: First, that at this time the government is no longer prepared to keep the interest rates stable and to keep them down to the previous lending levels and, second, that private lending agencies such as trusts, banks and mortgage companies as well as credit unions and caisses populates, will be the major suppliers of assistance funds, but at increased rates, which will encourage them to open their purses once more to help the country-banks, trusts and mortgage companies being the loyal corporate citizens that they are.
Of course there are ironclad guarantees of government backing, even though, as has been mentioned by two or three speakers, the failure rate on this kind of economic transaction is very small. All of us know what happened to the National Housing Act rates during recent months. Skyrocketting interest
Farm Improvement Loans Act rates put the purchase of a new home hopelessly beyond the reach of the average Canadian. Similar flexibility is being planned for at least five other assistance programs which I have mentioned.
The first inkling of what was to come was the announcement on August 16 made by the Minister of Finance that henceforth the Canada student loan rate will no longer be five and three quarters per cent but will be pegged at 1 per cent above the bond yield on August 16 of every year. This effectively put the summer work-short college students further in hock than ever. What I am asking the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, is this: What will the situation be as a result of this proposed legislation when we come to consider the farmers?
We will soon have before us for amendment and renewal three agricultural assistance bills. We have the Farm Improvement Loans Act, which is an intermediate term program of five to ten years for the purchase of equipment and machinery. This will allow money to be made available through banks at 5 per cent interest rates. We also have the Farm Credit Act which was for land purchases mainly and is now to be broadened. Of course, this is going to fill the demand for longer term loans, that is between 25 and 29 years.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Finally, there is the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act, which is probably the least used measure. It permits three or more private farmers to buy machinery in common, for its most efficient use. Whether or not this idea works out in practice is another point upon which I would not care to dwell tonight.
Now, Mr. Chairman, probably the most important amendment proposed is the one which, instead of fixing interest rates on these loans, would permit the rate henceforth to be set by the governor in council. By that, of course, we mean the cabinet through order in council. The matter will not come before parliament at all. If the cost of money continues to rise, as we can appreciate, so will the cost of loan capital to farmers and others. As we have heard, the farmers are a very hard pressed segment of Canadian society, and one wonders whether or not they can really afford this kind of help. It is my guess they cannot.
The other night we heard that 20,000 farms had been abandoned since 1961 and that the farmers' share of the consumer dollar had dropped from 56 cents in 1949 to 41 cents in
768	COMMONS
Farm Improvement Loans Act 1964. We have heard, too, how the rural dispossessed migrate to the cities and cause problems there. These farmers, and rather inadequately prepared people fom the rural areas, are forced to compete in the cities as a result of being dispossessed.
Now, the same kind of future is in store for the Fisheries Improvement Loans Corporation. Government guaranteed loans to fishermen will no longer have the 5 per cent interest ceiling, and the interest rate will be allowed to fluctuate. Thus the fishermen, like the farmer, will henceforth be victims and charged at the prevailing rate or whatever the traffic will bear. My constituents will want me to speak out on this matter of interest rates because they feel that interest rates are not subject to natural economic laws at all, but instead are manipulated to the benefit of various financial interests.
So perhaps the picture of the government's intention is emerging now with greater clarity, almost frightening clarity, sir. Certainly, more money will be suitable for these plans; but at what cost? We would like to know at what cost. It seems unfortunate, even unjust to me that individuals in this country who are studying, farming or fishing, in other words those who are vital to our country's future, are asked to pay more when they can afford it least.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am a newcomer to Ottawa. As a newcomer, I am very interested in the local livestock and wildlife. According to my observations, sir, there are more black squirrels on parliament hill than I have seen in any other place in Ottawa. I have often wondered why. If these measures pass, sir, I will know why.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks in reply to the many comments-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Saint Hyacinthe would like to speak. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture would prefer to allow him to speak, and then make his remarks.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments on the subject of agriculture, since I represent a riding well known for its wonderful farmers. I should like to take this opportunity to echo some of the recommendations made to the federal authorities by the Catholic Farmers Union.
IMr. Rose.l
DEBATES	October 3, 1968
I have here a brief sent to me by Mr. Real Montcalm, who is in charge of the information service of the Catholic Farmers Union. This brief contains some extremely useful information which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister, so that he might better understand the farmers' needs.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak at length, but I cannot let this opportunity go by without making a few comments.
In the brief it is said that:
-the goods and services used by the farmers increased by 60 per cent between 1951 and 1967, whereas the prices of farm productssold by the farmers during the same period...
-increased by only 17 per cent-
There is no need to have studied mathematics long to know that there is a lack of balance there. The minister should in fact avail himself of every opportunity to make up the discrepancy between the cost of production and the market prices of farm products.
Further in the same brief, Mr. Chairman, there is something about international negotiations, and here are the recommendations of the Catholic Farmers Union in that respect. I now quote from page 5 of that brief:
The C.F.U. is asking that the federal government, through international negotiations such as GATT, the Kennedy Round, etc., (a) to protect the eastern farmer against having his markets invaded by European or North American surplus farm products sold at dumping prices;
This afternoon, my colleague from Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) gave examples of products which invade our markets at ridiculously low prices, thus forcing our farmers to get rid of their produce at prices which do not allow them to meet their obligations. I continue:
(b)	to protect eastern Canada against imports of agricultural products which are not competitive on world markets nor on the Canadian market because the labour used in their production is paid at starvation rates;
We know, Mr. Chairman, that because of the very low wages paid workers in those underdeveloped countries, the latter can compete with the products of our farmers, who are forced to toe the line and pay salaries by far superior to those which workers receive in those underdeveloped countries.
The brief continues:
(c)	to cease sacrificing the farming economy of eastern Canada to other areas in Canada.
October 3, 1968	COMMONS
Mr. Chairman, those are recommendations made by the Catholic Farmers Union representing 58,000 members in Quebec. Surely these people did not make those recommendations without having thoroughly studied the farming problems. While everybody agrees that agriculture is the corner-stone of our economy and that family farming is disappearing, it seems that government circles are persistingly refusing to take the necessary steps to right this sad state of affairs which will certainly lead the economy and agriculture straight to bankruptcy.
The dairy problem is also discussed. We know that farmers, especially in the province of Quebec, draw about half of their income from the dairy industry.
The young farmer who wants to establish his own farm is unable to obtain the quotas which he needs. He must sometimes wait for a year to obtain a quota. It seems to me that there is a more human way of solving this problem and that the minister should give it special attention before it is too late.
There are many farmers in my area and in other areas also who, on account of the difficulties which they experience in selling their products or the prices they get for their dairy products, have disposed of their herds of milch-cows, and this is detrimental not only to farmers but to the whole population.
Therefore, I suggest to the minister to make it easier for the young people, the young farmers in particular who want to take up farming, to get the quotas they need, so as to make sure that their farm is run in a normal way.
Finally, there are many other subjects about which we could talk at length and make suggestions, but I think that other honourable members have raised some points which I would like to discuss. Therefore, tonight I will restrict myself to those few brief remarks.

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to thank hon. members on both sides for many of the constructive remarks they have made for the purpose of improving the farm credit facilities available to the farmers of Canada. I intend in a moment or two to reply briefly to some of the specific questions that have been put and representations that have been made, but I think one common thread runs through almost all of the speeches that have been made on this resolution today.
DEBATES	769
Farm Improvement Loans Act
The hon. member who has just taken his seat, the hon. member for Wellington-Grey, the hon. member for Assiniboia, the hon. member for Dauphin, the hon. member for Mackenzie, the hon. member for Bellechasse, the hon. member for Cardigan, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, the hon. member for Selkirk, the hon. member for Joliette, the hon. member for Simcoe North as well as the very interesting member from Timiskaming referred to the change in the interest rate and objected to an increased interest rate under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
It is no secret, Mr. Chairman; I do not like high interest rates any more than any other member of this house. But the fact is that under the old statutory limit of 5 per cent for all practical purposes the banks discontinued, their operations under this act long before it expired. Hon. gentlemen, who are familiar with the act, know that bank managers and banking institutions decide to whom they will lend money. The government guarantee was tied in with a 5 per cent interest rate on such loans. The bankers discontinued making loans under the act because interest rates throughout the economy generally rose above 5 per cent. Indeed, in many cases the banks are paying more than 5 per cent to their depositors.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the main purpose behind changing the rate from the statutory 5 per cent to some other figure is to make the rate high enough that the bankers will use the legislation to extend loans to the farmers, yet the rate will be below the regular commercial or competitive rate because of the government guarantee.
As one or two speakers today have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that some of the larger farmers who are better off can borrow money from the banks right now to purchase farm equipment, though perhaps not on such a long term basis as money borrowed under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. If the credit rating of these farmers is good enough they can borrow money at the going commercial rate or at the best rate offered by the banks. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, a farmer who is not considered such a good credit risk is now paying to banks and financial institutions who make loans for the purchase of farm equipment interest rates of 9, 10 and even as much as 12 per cent.
Negotiations are going on with the banks to fix a reasonable maximum rate. As I have said, Mr. Chairman, it will be high enough to
October 3, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act make lending under the act attractive, but still below the regular competitive rate because of the government guarantee. Thus small farmers with not such a good credit rating as some other more prosperous farmers will be able to take advantage of this legislation because of the attractive interest rate, compared with what they are obliged to pay now.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister permit a question on this very point. He speaks of a very attractive rate and of its being below the regular rate. Can he give us some idea what the government guarantee is worth to the farmer? Is it one half of one per cent, one quarter of one per cent or one per cent? Can he give us an idea what formula he will use and what good the government guarantee will be? That is the point we are really worried about.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The guarantee is this good, Mr. Chairman. Ten per cent of the aggregate loans under the old act were guaranteed by the government. That was a high enough percentage to give an iron clad guarantee to the chartered banks, who were making loans on a pretty extensive basis, that they would not lose. As far as the larger financial institutions are concerned it is almost a 100 per cent guarantee, but-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, the minister has misunderstood my question. I want to know how good the guarantee is for the farmers, not the banks. I am well aware how good it is for the banks; it guarantees 10 per cent of the maximum amount lent. But how great a reduction in the interest rate to the farmer does this guarantee bring about? Will the minister concede that it brings about 1 per cent, one half of one per cent, or some other figure?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the precise rate will be. The banks are lending their own money and they want the rate to be high enough. However I can say this, that for those farmers who are now obliged to pay some finance company or even banks rates of 11 or 12 per cent interest, the government guarantee will be of very substantial benefit.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Just one more question, Mr. Chairman. Under the old financial system the usual credit rate from banks was 6 per cent; that was the ceiling on loans to farmers. Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act the rate was 5 per cent. Can the minister assure


both this house and the country that under the new system the guarantee to the bank will mean that the rate will be 1 per cent lower than the prime borrowing rate offered by banks without a guarantee?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, negotiations between the Minister of Finance and the banks are not yet complete, so I cannot say precisely what they will agree is the maximum rate with a government guarantee. But I can say that it will not be 1 per cent or one quarter of one per cent lower, but several percentage points below what some farmers are forced to pay now.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am not talking about
machine companies or finance houses but about banks, Mr. Chairman. I am talking about borrowing from banks.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am too. I am convinced the guarantee will be of great advantage to the farmers, and in some cases the rate will be several percentage points below what it is today.
This is the reason, Mr. Chairman, we want to bring back into operation the Farm Improvement Loans Act. It was a highly successful act until general interest rates in the country rose above the statutory limit. I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite know that just as well as I do.
If I may now turn to one or two other matters, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Temiscamingue made some very interesting remarks yesterday. He quoted some speeches that I had made in the house in earlier years. However, Mr. Chairman, I can now no longer indulge in the luxury of making positive assertions without responsibility, such as my hon. friends of the opposition.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You did a lot of that in the past.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I admit I used to be able to do so, Mr. Chairman, but one of the sacrifices that one has to make on joining the Liberal party is that one can no longer enjoy the carefree days of being in opposition.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Listen to the minister.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please.


Harold Warren Danforth: Will the minister accept a question?
October 3. 1368


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. It is obvious that the minister is free to entertain a question if he wishes to.


An hon. Member:: Free to entertain?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Hugh Faulkner: But he need not.


Harold Warren Danforth: Will the minister permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister's statements are of interest to every member of the house. Is he trying to say that he is establishing his credibility as a member of the government by destroying his credibility as a member of the opposition?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Oh, certainly not, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: That is what you are
doing.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Exactly the opposite is true. I can no longer indulge in the luxury hon. gentlemen opposite indulge in. Hon. gentlemen may make positive assertions and they know they will not be taken up on their statements. I am in a different position.


Stanley James Korchinski: The minister should read his speeches. I quoted from those speeches.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I must now reply to some hon. gentlemen who asked me legitimate questions. Perhaps I might reply to others, if there is time.


An hon. Member:: You bring on the
questions.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Wellington-Grey invited me to attend the international plowing match on the 16th, 17th and 18th October, and I thank him kindly. Unfortunately the grains council meeting will be held in Winnipeg on the 16th and may continue into the 17th; then we are to open the new terminal elevator at Prince Rupert on the 18th. As a result I am unable to accept the invitation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why does the minister not reply publicly to the corn farmers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I shall be doing that at ten o'clock tomorrow morning, and I shall ask the hon. member to be there.
Farm Improvement Loans Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why does the minister not reply to them in this house?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Selkirk raised the matter of the contents of chapter 5 in the report of the Economic Council. I say to him that I have made two or three public pronouncements in the press to the effect that I do not agree with all assertions and recommendations in the report of the Economic Council. On the other hand I must say that, on balance, I agree with much of the report. I do not accept assertions that seek to question the relative increase in productivity of our farmers. I think our farmers have done a marvelous job in increasing their productivity, especially when one compares that increase with the productivity enjoyed by other industries in the past few years.
The hon. member for Joliette made interesting comments about agriculture in general, and I shall take those into consideration. I must say that some of his remarks were not specifically related to the subject matter of the resolution before us.
The hon. member for Cardigan suggested that land values are rising and that small loans are not being made in proportion to those rising values. I suggest the record indicates that the sizes of loans granted by the Farm Credit Corporation have increased. The sizes of those loans have not increased more rapidly than land values have increased, and that must be taken into account. It must be remembered that the entire purpose of the Farm Credit Corporation is to create economic farm units. If land values were not keeping pace with inflation and if we were not increasing the sizes of loans, the corporation would not be providing the service it was designed to provide.
The hon. member for Mackenzie quoted to me some of my earlier speeches.


An hon. Member:: May I ask a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Could we save further questions until the end, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Mackenzie enjoyed quoting my speeches of several years ago. I thank him for his courtesy, but I must tell him that my answer to him is the same as the answer I gave to other hon. gentlemen some minutes ago.


Stanley James Korchinski: The minister spoke differently then.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member asserted that the government is trying deliberately to hurt somebody by amending this act. I say to him
Oclober 3. 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act with all sincerity that the government is deliberately trying to help the small farmer by passing this legislation.


Stanley James Korchinski: The government is helping corporations, and not small farmers. You are hurting the small farmer; that's what you are doing.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Dauphin made some constructive remarks and I appreciate the tone in which he made them. When the hon. member for Bellechasse spoke, the main theme of his speech was interest rates. I think I answered his argument a few moments ago.
The hon. member for Simcoe North tried to impress on the house that the efficiency of the agricultural sector generally in Canada had gone up. That was his argument. If he was trying to convince me, I must tell him he was preaching to the converted. I am convinced that in the field of agriculture we have a proud record of increased productivity, especially when that increase in productivity is compared with increase in other industries.
I must inform the hon. member that the subsidy paid to farmers through the Farm Credit Corporation is to continue for many, many years, whether interest rates change or not. That is, all the contracts that have been let have to be subsidized. The subsidy will be the difference between what the corporation paid for the money and what it was lent at for the duration of the contract.
The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings asked for an undertaking that I meet with the members of the Ontario Farmers Union, who are here. I tell him and the house that I intend to meet with them at ten o'clock tomorrow morning. The hon. member ought to know that in slightly over one month I have already met twice with members of the Ontario Farmers Union. He need not try to convince me that a problem exists in the field of corn marketing; I am convinced that there is a problem, and I am trying to find some solutions for it. My proposals are not complete answers; nevertheless I want to take step toward a solution for this serious problem.
The hon. member asked me to stay in Ottawa all day tomorrow. I am prepared to spend one or two hours, or more perhaps, with members of the Ontario Farmers Union tomorrow. Tomorrow night I am to meet the Minister of Agriculture for Alberta in Edmonton, and I can inform the hon. member that the harvesting and marketing problems

out there are as severe as any problems we have in this part of the country.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sure the farmers will appreciate two hours of the minister's time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We shall discuss in Edmonton various matters that are of primary importance to agriculture.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister is giving the Ontario farmers two hours. He is breaking my heart.


Stanley James Korchinski: The minister might ruin his week end, if he gave them more.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The meeting in Edmonton was set up before I knew that members of the Ontario Farmers Union were to be here on Friday, October 4.
The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings said that we ought to have introduced improvements to the legislation sooner. Well, Mr. Chairman, we could go on and on talking about the sins of omission and what was not done yesterday. We could go back one month, one year, five years and so on, and spend much time talking about what was not done. You cannot turn the clock back a minute, let alone half a year. It is a complete waste of time to argue and make assertions about what should have been done in the past. Let us turn our attention to what we can do now, and in the future.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Give us an answer-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I know that members on this side were anxious to bring in amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act away back in February but at that time the hon. gentlemen wanted an election or something.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the statement just made by the minister is absolutely-


Mr. Mcllraith:: Absolutely true.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -incorrect. At no time was it announced in this house back in February that the government wished to proceed with farm improvement loan legislation. Let him refer to the official record, to Hansard or anywhere else, and he cannot prove that this
October 3, 1968	COMMONS
party or the party to my left held up that piece of legislation at any time.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order. The time allotted to the Minister of Agriculture has expired.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Perhaps I could have one minute in which to reply.


James Hugh Faulkner: There was no point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I really do not wish to irritate the opposition. I wish to close by saying in the most kindly and constructive way that the most beneficial thing we could do at this point in time, regardless of what went on in the past, is to get on with passing these resolutions; to pass resolution No. 7 so that we can bring on the bills right away.
Many hon. members have asked whether we would refer the annual report of the F.C.C. to the standing committee on agriculture. I am willing to do that, provided hon. members will accept as their first responsibility in that committee the examination of the estimates which will also be referred to them. They could then proceed to an examination of the report, which would provide exactly the same opportunity for investigation or study as referral of the bill would have done, except that we would have the bill, and the capitalization of the corporation increased in order to continue the good service it is providing to Canadian farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Schreyer:: I wish simply to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. He has a disarming way of making a pretence of answering certain arguments, but he continually ignores-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Hon. members can forget about calling for order, because I have the floor.


George James McIlraith: You have violated the rules.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I can take as much time as members opposite are taking to interrupt.


James Hugh Faulkner: I would ask the hon. member to put his question.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I was simply trying to lay the foundation for my question. It is members 29180-50
DEBATES	773
Farm. Improvement Loans Act over there who are stalling. I will ask it when I am good and ready.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Richard Schreyer: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Does he or does he not accept the main thesis of chapter 5 of the report of the Economic Council to the effect that agricultural productivity in Canada has grown at a rate less than half of that in the United States?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No; it depends on what space of time one is talking about. I wish I had the figures with me. I have looked at them, though, and I believe that since 1946 the rate of increase in the agricultural sector in Canada has been something like 2.6 per cent whereas in the United States it was 1.4 per cent. So we are gaining. But of course we were farther behind them to start with, so there is still a gap.


Edward Richard Schreyer: The minister would admit, though, that there is still a great deal of room for improvement in the growth of efficiency in the agricultural industry?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Certainly.


Edward Richard Schreyer: That being so, is it not strange that the hon. gentleman should be asking us to approve a measure which will increase the cost of capital input to farmers, thereby making it more difficult to increase the efficiency of Canadian farms?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No. What we are talking about now is resolution No. 5 and I sincerely believe that, however one looks at it, it will lead to an overall reduction in capital cost because of a reduction in interest rates following the reinstatement of the government guarantee.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I should like a word of explanation from the minister, if he would be so kind. I think I heard him say there was a subsidy being enjoyed by farmers who had taken out loans from the corporation. My first thought is that money is presently being repaid, and probably going back to the government, which did not cost 5 per cent. Does the minister say there is a large subsidy, or is it small? Or did he not mean that when he spoke about a subsidy?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Minister of Finance, who borrows money for the Farm Credit Corporation to lend it to the farmers, has for several months now been paying more than 5 per cent, the statutory limit. The extent of the
October 3, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act difference between whatever he pays and the 5 per cent rate, has to be considered as a subsidy because this difference is paid out of the national treasury. That is what I mean.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Did I understand the minister to say "during the past several months"?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: From whatever date on which the government paid more than 5 per cent for the money.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The minister was talking about helping young farmers. This question concerns a great many people in my riding and in western Canada. Does the government intend to provide interest-free loans to help young farmers who are trying to become established in the farm industry? If so, when, and if not, why not?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Chairman, no consideration is being given to interest-free loans at this time.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I should like also to put a question to the honourable Minister of Agriculture.
Earlier the honourable minister referred to the fact that banks were reluctant to lend money to farmers at the interest rate allowed up to now.
Would the minister not know of another place or another program by which the government could get loans for the farmers at a lower interest rate than that which the banks, at the present time, are able or willing to accept?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Chairman, I know of no better place to obtain the money than in the marketplace and the portion which is supplied to the Minister of Finance by the Bank of Canada.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture whether in his opinion the Bank of Canada still exists?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes. The hon. member can look at almost every advertisement the government puts out for new loans and he will find that the Bank of Canada is taking up a substantial portion of them.


[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mr. Yewchuk:: I should like to make a comment and ask a question in this regard. As I see this measure which is being introduced by the hon. Minister of Agriculture, it really is a two-edged sword. I would liken it to the example of a farmer being given a swig from a jug and then being given a whack on his bottom, which knocks the jug out of his mouth. We are giving him credit and then kicking him by raising the interest rate. I wonder whether this really is a solution at all. If he is not to have increased markets for his products, what is the point in his buying more machinery or increasing the size of the plant he runs. I do not believe this is a real solution to the farming problem as a whole. I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture really thinks this will solve the farming problems.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not believe the passage of this resolution or all three resolutions and the bills which are to follow will be anywhere near a complete solution to all the problems we have in agriculture in Canada. I should like to remind the hon. member that if he looks around the world he will find that in the United States, in France, in Denmark, in Holland or in almost any place where they have a fairly advanced agricultural economy they have the same kind of marketing problems we have here. I am convinced that our problems are no worse than tnose in these other countries, although some of those countries may have a higher level of subsidy than we have in Canada.
I certainly would not want to mislead the hon. member or any other hon. member into thinking that these measures constitute a complete solution. I do believe however that the Farm Improvement Loans Act is an improvement. I know that there are farmers now who are paying 7 per cent to 12 per cent to the banks for this kind of credit, and if they go to some of the other lending institutions, such as the finance companies, they pay an even higher rate. It is our sincere hope that we will be able to reduce this rate several percentage points below that, with a government guarantee.


Stanley James Korchinski: Did I understand the
minister to say that the Minister of Finance is presently discussing with the banking fraternity what rate they would accept at the present time; is that the correct interpretation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not necessarily what rate they would accept, but I think we should have
October 3, 1968

some discussion with the people who will be lending the money. This includes not only the banks but also the other financial institutions mentioned in the act. After all, it is their money. We do not intend to confiscate anybody's money and say to them that they must lend it at a certain rate. We wish to find a level sufficiently high that they will in fact make loans, but at a rate sufficiently low that the government guarantee is effective. As I have said at least ten times this evening already, I believe that because of the guarantee there is a rate that will be substantially below the present rate that will be arrived at through these negotiations.


Stanley James Korchinski: Would the minister not consider amending the bill before he even introduces it in the house, so that it neither suggests the rate be set by order in council nor that it be set by the bankers association?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think perhaps the hon. gentleman is confusing this act with the Farm Credit Corporation act. I believe I am correct in saying that there will be a maximum rate fixed under which the government would make the guarantee under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. So the representatives of the people in the government will have a great deal to say in respect of what the maximum will be.


Stanley James Korchinski: That is in respect of the Farm Credit Corporation. What about farm improvement loans? Is that a different situation again?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am talking about farm
improvement loans now.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I do not wish to appear to be vindictive, but I should like to take a couple of minutes to make a few comments concerning the response of the minister. I believe some of us are prepared to concede that the government is somewhat limited in the extent to which it can influence interest rates under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, if that act is to be reasonably effective. Surely however, the minister would agree that there are no similar restrictions on the government in respect of its ability to influence interest rates charged by the Farm Credit Corporation. I should like to ask him whether it is likely that there will be a differential in interest rates under the Farm Improvement Loans Act and those charged under the Farm Credit Corporation act. I think this is a significant point and I believe the minister should indicate to us the intention of the government. Is
29180-50 j
Farm Improvement Loans Act it feasible, or is it intended, to maintain a differential of some degree?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I do not know exactly to what the hon. member is referring. If he is asking whether there will be a different interest rate at which the government would give a guarantee under the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the amount prescribed by the governor in council in respect of the Farm Credit Corporation act, there could very easily be. As I attempted to explain to hon. members two or three days ago, the prescribed rate is somewhat more flexible than an economic rate, because in practice the economic rate has been 1 per cent above what the government expects to pay for money, and the prescribed rate could be exactly the same amount, or lower, depending upon the priorities on the treasury.
I believe this debate could probably better take place so far as the Farm Credit Corporation is concerned when we have Bill C-110 before us. I believe we are now considering resolution No. 5 which concerns the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


Stanley James Korchinski: Is there a definite formula the government will be following or will the rate which is to be established by order in council be subject to pressure from without?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, there may be a definite formula, but as conditions in the country change of course the formula could change. I do not like the connotation the hon. gentleman puts on the word "pressure". This government intends to act responsibly taking into account all the priorities that make calls upon the national treasury and keep the rate within the context of that kind of attitude.


John Leroy Skoberg: I should like to ask the minister a question for clarification purposes. In respect of resolution No. 5 it is noted that loans may be increased from $15,000 to $25,000. Would an existing farm improvement loan which now is at the rate of 5 per cent be incorporated in a new loan at the existing rate or at the new rate?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I can assure my hon. friend that those are firm and binding contracts. It is supported by the law that 5 per cent was the interest rate at that time and cannot be changed.


John Leroy Skoberg: There may be a provision in the law, but have you had any assurance from the banking institutions? I have seen the interest rates change.
October 3, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think the hon. gentleman should distinguish between demand notes- which is a term used rather extensively now in banking-and term notes. I believe all the previous farm improvement loans were written on term notes. It is a matter of law that the interest rate shall be no more.


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Chairman, realizing that Quebec families need the underground drainage I mentioned this week, I wonder if the minister could tell us whether he intends to give particular consideration to this vital matter for the families in Quebec and to allocate funds for this project?
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I think this is essentially a provincial problem, and I am not sure what the details of their extension is for this particular purpose. I think the F.C.C. has made some loans for land improvements of that nature.


Mr.   La Salle@: The hon. minister gives me the impression of being worried. He tells me that this is a provincial matter. I would like to set his mind at ease by telling him that, in my opinion, Quebec would nevertheless accept a certain sum under a cost sharing agreement.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I feel that what I have to say is relevant in view of the fact the minister dealt with this subject. He was good enough to indicate that he was prepared to meet with the group of farmers coming to see him tomorrow. He also indicated in a press release today, which I have had the opportunity of reading, thanks to the courtesy of the minister, that he will have nothing new to add in respect of the government's policy on this corn marketing situation which exists in-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member because I know the subject matter of his remarks is important, but at the present time we are dealing with resolution No. 5 on the order paper. I would request the hon. member to restrict his remarks to that subject. We have been wandering to a certain degree in the course of this debate, but I do not think we should stray that far.
(Mr. Skoberg.]


Harold Warren Danforth: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is the opposition to be restricted to a narrow interpretation of relevancy when the minister has already been permitted to deal with any subject he has chosen? I think this is very unjust treatment afforded to opposition members in the house. We will have to take recourse to other action if we are not allowed the privileges granted to members on the government side.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman, it is not surprising tonight that we have heard some suggestions during this debate that we should not hold up this legislation. We have been asked why we should not let this resolution go through. It has been suggested that we should have the bill presented in order that we can enact this so-called great legislation. It has been suggested that present legislation is accepted. It seems there are quite a number of members who say that we should not argue about what is involved in this legislation, because if this resolution is passed the results will be beneficial. But I suggest that because of what is implied in this resolution we will not have the same measure. The fact is that we will have, as pointed out by some hon. members, an act in force in this country which will not be of great benefit to the agricultural industry. If the proposed measures are brought forward and passed we will no longer be dealing with the same legislation.
I was not sent to Ottawa to sit idly by while some of these provisions were made into law, without speaking on behalf of my constituents and the other people of this country. I see in this resolution the wording:
-to substitute for the 5 per cent rate of interest on guaranteed farm improvement loans made under the act such rate or rates of interest as may be prescribed by the governor in council;-
I do not intend to stand by idly. If any member here in the house had said at the time of the recent election campaign that a measure such as this, in respect of the Farm Credit Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act was to be passed with provisions for these high rates of interest, that member would not be sitting here now.
The minister referred to the fact that banks had stopped lending after the ceiling was taken off bank interest rates. That is true, and I suggest that the minister and the government must take responsibility for the present high interest rates. It is no wonder that the banks would like to lend less money to farmers as a result of the increase allowed in bank interest rates before this parliament was
October 3. 1968

convened. The government must accept the responsibility for this situation, but what is it doing? The government is now looking to the farmer, the fishermen, the home owners and the students of this country to pay the whole shot. The government must pay for the irresponsible policies which have been adopted.
The hon. member for Selkirk referred to the Economic Council report. He asked a number of questions when he took part earlier in this debate. The minister has suggested that he did not really accept the report of the Economic Council. This is a very queer statement. If the minister questions the statement made by the Economic Council regarding agricultural productivity he should be prepared to bring forward the facts to refute the claims drawn by that respected body appointed by the government to give advice to the government about the economic conditions we face at this time.
We could argue that perhaps some of the facts suggested by the Economic Council should be modified, but there is one conclusion that cannot be doubted. The productivity of the agricultural industry must be increased. That industry needs more capital. It would be a sound policy on the part of the government to peg the interest rates that the farmers of this country must pay.
The fact is well known that if the farmers have to pay high interest rates, and if there is no reduction in that rate as a result of this legislation, their production costs will be much higher than they can afford. The returns the farmer receives from his production are too low as compared with the interest rate he must pay. The minister has suggested that by this proposed legislation the government is helping the agricultural industry. This is not a measure which will help. If the government wants to help assure a sound and stable agricultural economy, it should reconsider this plan and introduce a fixed reasonable interest rate, such as the 5 per cent interest rate which has been in existence up to this time.


Harold Warren Danforth: A few moments ago I
attempted to ask the minister a question pertaining to some remarks he made about the current corn marketing situation. In your wisdom, sir, you ruled me out of order on the basis that my questions were not relevant. I abide by your ruling, but for the next few minutes I intend to talk about farm improvement loans in relation to the Ontario corn marketing situation. I will show you how this relates to farm improvement loans.
Farm Improvement Loans Act
One of the greatest problems facing the Ontario farmers in my area today is the inability to obtain sufficient funds to purchase the necessary equipment required for the successful production and harvesting of corn. One of the problems is caused by the deterioration in the marketing of corn, which is of such an extent that farmers are turning to other sources of income with which to buy machinery. The cost of machinery used in the growing and harvesting of corn is very great because the machinery is of a very specialized nature. The cost of this machinery is somewhat higher than that used in the production and harvesting of other grain crops.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I speak of combines that have special heads. Normally one would expect to pay from $12,000 to $15,000 for a combine, but these special combines cost from $20,000 to $23,000. With expenditures of this kind for the harvesting of corn, there is only one place to which the farmer can turn at the present time for a loan, and that is to the machinery company itself. The machinery companies are taking full advantage of this as businessmen, which they are, but they seem to be charging exorbitant interest rates compared with those formerly applicable in respect of a farm syndicate or a farm improvement loan.
So the farmer of today is faced with the situation that the money must come from somewhere. The policy of the government will not provide him with the money through, the sale of his corn crop. The return from this-crop is insufficient. Therefore the farmers are forced to march to Ottawa to try to force the government into making a policy statement-These people are unable to obtain the money in the way of a farm improvement loan. When they stand around on the hill and wonder what the government is going to say, through the Minister of Agriculture, they will be very impatient if they find they will have to pay a higher rate of interest because the minister in his wisdom will not add anything to his press release of today. Mr. Chairman, I am sure you can appreciate how this question is directly connected to the matter we are discussing tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: His cabinet colleagues have hamstrung him.


Harold Warren Danforth: I have dealt with the high cost of harvesting equipment. Another piece of equipment that is used very extensively in
October 3, 1968
778	COMMONS
Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act the production of high quality corn is the dryer. These dryers take the moisture out of the corn after it has been harvested and then the corn can be stored in common storage. Dryers are very expensive indeed, costing many thousands of dollars.
I believe that farmers will more and more betaking advantage of a farm syndicate loan whereby a group of farmers band together in order to obtain the necessary funds with which to buy equipment, which is most specialized in nature. This type of equipment requires a great deal of financing and the farmers, because of their low returns last year and this year, are finding it even more necessary to turn to government agencies for money.
I hope that in his address tomorrow the Minister of Agriculture will indicate to the farmers that they will not be needing this extra money in the form of loans, that they need not be concerned about an increase in interest rates, that the policy of the government will be flexible enough to stabilize the market, thus putting the farmer in a position to finance his own equipment. This is all the farmers of this country are asking for. This is all they are asking for in connection with farm improvement and farm syndicate loans. They consider these loans as an emergency measure to tide them over this very critical period in corn growing and marketing in southwestern Ontario. This money is required because their costs are increasing month by month and year by year.
I hope the minister and his colleagues on that side of the house are not in a position to understand that the matter is of a critical nature, that there is great concern for the harvest this year, that what the farmers receive from that harvest will in great measure influence the amount of money they will need by way of a farm improvement or farm syndicate loan. It will indeed influence how much money farmers will be seeking from the Farm Credit Corporation to increase their holdings.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that because of these few remarks you have appreciated that corn has a definite bearing on the resolutions with which we are dealing tonight. I trust Your Honour appreciates that there is a close connection between the two. The matter is in the minister's hands and I am sure he will deal with it in detail tomorrow.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


Mr. Olson (for The Minister of Finance) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-lll, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FARM MACHINERY SYNDICATES CREDIT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, October 2, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Olson-Mr. Faulkner in the chair:
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 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.
James Hugh Faulkner: Order. House again in committee of the whole on a certain proposed resolution amending the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act. Shall the resolution carry?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, before the resolution carries I would like to say a few words about it. This is the third measure introduced in the house leading us to believe that the interest rate will again be increased. I ask the minister to state clearly whether that is the case. Will the interest rate be increased with respect to farm syndicate loans, too? If so, by how much? What will be the new formula in respect of this measure?
Under the proposed farm credit bill it will be possible for two or more farmers to borrow $100,000. Under the farm syndicate legislation which the Farm Credit Corporation administered seven farmers had to group together to borrow $100,000 and each farmer had to sign a guarantee for the total amount. An individual farmer could borrow up to $15,000 and a group of seven or more farmers could borrow as much as $100,000.
Can the minister give the house some idea of what he thinks the limit should be under the farm syndicate legislation? How large does he think the individual guarantees should be behind which a syndicate must be prepared to stand before a loan is made? We
October 3. 1968

know that when the syndicate legislation was first introduced into the house it applied to machinery only. Now we notice that it is making loans for buildings. What kind of guarantees does the corporation require for loans for buildings, for example? Chattel mortgages are not necessarily acceptable in some parts of Canada. What is the standard pattern in that regard and what are the proposed changes?
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
With regard to the matter of buildings, there is one other point which I should like to mention. I read the minister's speech on this whole subject. Would the legislation include feed lot operations, as well as a number of other things in which we see greater development in the agricultural industry, and which will develop still further in the years ahead? What advantage has the syndicates legislation over the Farm Credit Corporation legislation, which is now before the house, in view of the fact that the total amounts are the same in both cases? I would be grateful if the minister could give us a brief run-down on this particular aspect of the resolution.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I can understand the hon. member's desire to receive answers to all these questions, and I will answer as many of them as I can. First of all, the rates under the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act are not limited by statute now. They are what are called economic rates, that is a rate which is 1 per cent above what the farm credit corporation pays for the money. There is no intention to change the rates now in existence.
So far as the limits are concerned, it would be far easier if I could deal with this matter when the bill is before the house, and I certainly will. It is not intended to raise the limits appreciably. However, what we are more concerned about, with the limited experience we have now with the farm machinery syndicates bill, is that we would like to change the structure of the entity. Up to now a group of farmers had to form a separate entity or a syndicate, and had to have an agreement. If they were in some kind of a corporation or co-operative, previously this did not satisfy the terms of the act; but now we see no reason, on the basis of our experience, to require them to set up a separate agreement if they already have one.
Second, we believe that buildings which can be used by more than one farmer should come within the scope of the act. This
Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act includes the site for the buildings, and other things that can be used by more than one farmer. This was the purpose of the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act in the first place. Now we find there are some rules, regulations and statutory limitations which should really be changed in view of the experience which was gained. However, I would ask hon. members to allow me to deal with these specific questions when the bill comes up for discussion. We have it ready and we will bring it in as soon as the resolution is passed. I wish to say sincerely to hon. members that I will be able to deal with these questions much more effectively at that stage.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am quite agreeable to that, Mr. Chairman, and will let it go at that. However, there is one brief question which I would like to put to the minister. He suggested that 1 per cent above the government borrowing rate is the rate now in operation under the syndicates legislation, and that he does not intend to change this. Can we then assume that this will be the pattern followed by the Farm Credit Corporation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This can only be taken as an assumption, and an assumption is not a positive statement. It may be similar, but I am not prepared to say at this point what the governor in council may do.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The two loans are made to similar groups. I assume the minister would not want to charge a different rate of interest in each case.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We certainly would not want to charge them any more.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In other words the house can assume it will be less than 1 per cent higher than the rate at which the government borrows the money.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The house can assume it will be not more than 1 per cent higher than the rate at which the government borrows the money.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Olson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-112, to amend the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
October 3, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



AUTHORITY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ALBERTA BRANCH LINE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: the second reading of 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 Kaybob property of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited and its associates.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may we have the assurance from the government and from the minister responsible that the bill will be referred to the committee, as is customary with such a bill?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My understanding is that while it has been the custom to refer C.P.R. bills to a committee, it has not been the general custom to do so with C.N.R. bills. There were some discussions on the other side, particularly comments by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), that it would not be necessary to make the reference to the standing Committee.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I can speak again, but may I say that I do not believe this was the understanding. In view of this fact, perhaps we should call it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, in raising the question I did the other day concerning disposable bottles and the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to the public in this regard, I believe I am raising an important question

with considerable implication to our society. I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), the parliamentary secretary to the minister, is in the house tonight and will be able to convey to the minister some of the arguments I put forward. I urge the minister in this particular case, as he will be urged in other cases, to be the ombudsman for the people and to represent the interests of the public against particular interests in our society.
If there is to be any meaning in the euphonic passage in the speech from the throne, the government can prove it at this point. I may just recall to the house that passage which said that-
-facilities for the repose of the mind and restoration of the spirit, for sport, and for physical relaxation are and will be of increasing importance to our social environment.
I suggest that unless some action is taken with regard to disposable bottles, which are becoming a curse in our society, there will be very little repose of the mind or of the spirit in our society. These words in the speech from the throne will be hollow and mocking.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The two newspapers in the Waterloo riding have reported on the situation. I should like to quote from the Evening Reporter of July 25 in which there is an article which reads:
If some type of action isn't taken soon, it could not longer be safe to walk barefoot in the park or on the beaches along Puslinch Lake because of broken glass and discarded tin cans.
And each morning, patrols of Hespeler's board of works visit town playgrounds and parks to pick up the shards and slivers of glass.
In the Kitchener-Waterloo Record there is an article which reads:
The program is acute in city recreation areas. It will become acute in rural areas. The bottles are finding their way into pasturefields from roadside. They shatter on contact producing slivers and shards of glass.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, these bottles are becoming a menace to man and beasts alike. The idea of the barefoot boy, so revered in our history and ideology, may very well be a thing of the past. Many public bodies have condemned the use of disposable bottles and I should like particularly to congratulate the city of Kitchener which passed a resolution calling on other municipalities to outlaw their use. This resolution has received a great deal of support from such organizations as the Canadian School Trustees Association, which met in Ottawa; the Ontario Parks Association, which met at
October 3, 1968

Brantford and the Ontario Mayors and Reeves Association. The last named organization has supported this position for several years.
In fairness I might point out that, to my knowledge, only one municipality, Etobicoke, has opposed this resolution. It should not come as any surprise that the largest manufacturer of disposable bottles is located in that area. The companies making these bottles will argue that they are not the only ones creating problems of pollution or danger to the public. This is probably true. They are not the only ones, but they are one of the significant ones. If it is any satisfaction to them, I think they should be aware that in the battle to clean up our environment and make it more safe, they will not be the only ones on whom attention will be focused.
It is often said-and the disposable bottle people have said it-that, after all, they only produce these things to meet customer demands. I cannot recall staying up nights hoping and wishing that somebody would invent a disposable bottle I could use, nor can I recall many consumers who have. I feel this is one further example of corporate groups in our society promoting and marketing products, not so much because they benefit the public but because they happen to benefit the particular interests concerned.
In this case, I feel we have to distinguish clearly between the interests of the consumer and the interests of private corporations. I believe that those who have foisted this disposable bottle upon the public have done the public a great disservice. I think it is an example of commercial irresponsibility and a piece of arrogance, especially when they say they are producing them to meet consumer demand. To the profit oriented or the lazy in our society, these bottles may be a blessing; but to others who want to clean up our environment, who feel there are higher social priorities, disposable bottles are becoming a curse. It is the classic struggle between private good and public benefit and I hope the consumer department will look after the interests of the public.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the nonreturnable bottles are concerned, and especially the problem that they create in our communities, I join with the hon. member in deploring the situation. The minister's office has informed me that some time ago they received a resolution passed by the legislature
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of Alberta asking the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to study and consider the problem created by non-returnable bottles. Since my minister assumed office he has had a number of meetings with his officials on this question, and there appears to be some difficulty in determining the jurisdiction of the department with regard to this problem.
While already there is legislation and some regulations in force dealing with the packaging of food and medicines to ensure purity, and while we in the department are contemplating legislation to deal with the prohibition or regulation of the sale of hazardous products, non-returnable bottles would not appear to fall within either category.
However, Mr. Speaker, in line with the minister's duty to promote and encourage the institution of practices tending to improve protection of the Canadian consumer and to co-operate with provincial governments or their agencies, or with private groups, the minister will be having further talks with his officials and will consider the question of nonreturnable bottles, with a view to formulating some type of regulation.
After these departmental talks, it is intended to invite representatives of the manufacturers, the users and the retail distributors of these bottles to Ottawa to discuss the problems and all proposals, as well as to ascertain from these people what they intend to do relative to the problem mentioned by the hon. member.



EDUCATION-AGREEMENT ON GRADE AND SUBJECT STANDARDS

Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I hope that I can survive these few moments on my feet without being ruled out of order. This will be a rare if not unique experience for me.
About a week ago, Mr. Speaker, I asked the following question which I directed at the time to the Secretary of State, as reported at page 469 of Hansard:
In view of the Canadian School Trustees' recent resolution calling for more uniform education standards across Canada, will the minister give consideration to establishing a national office of education to provide leadership for greater interprovincial agreement on grade and subject standards for Canadian schools?
Now, Mr. Speaker, in asking this question I am bound to go beyond the immediate terms of the question before us; for while greater interprovincial agreement on grade and subject standards might occur, and possibly
October 3, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion already has occurred, without the establishment of a national office of education, perhaps progress toward this end will surely be more rapid under the auspices of such an office.
Certainly there are many education professionals who would disagree with the need for uniformity-and indeed, fear the effects of it-if the term uniformity is taken to mean complete congruency of grade, subject and textbook adoption from one end of the land to the other. I would include myself among those who would be against the establishment of a national office of education if I felt that its inauguration would hobble any imaginative or innovative approach to publicly supported learning.
Uniformity, you see, can only go so far, because an overdose can be stifling and deadly, whether it is within one school, within one province or across a whole nation. Public education historically has been preoccupied with group learning and the supposed efficiency intended to result from improved class or mass methods and techniques. But the results of such preoccupation has been almost uniformly disappointing. That groups learn anything is a misconception, and within this misconception lies the root of the problem. Groups learn nothing. Only individuals are capable of learning, and he, the individual, has often been overlooked by the education industry.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In the long run, Mr. Speaker, what we need is not greater uniformity in our curricular offerings to young people, but more, much more, provision for the multiplicity of talents, Interests and needs of each individual student. Just as a hungry man does not want a meal in the long run but immediately, so does the need for more interprovincial agreement on educational standards become, in the short run, an extremely desirable objective. I have little doubt that a national office of education could assist us here.
Certainly, it seems that since our people move about the country from province to province a great deal now, grade 7 in British Columbia should be similar to grade 7 in Ontario. Where does this paucity of educational consensus leave the migrant's child? Course offerings differ widely from grade to grade, and from province to province, with richer provinces and regions in Canada providing enriching optional subjects, and better qualified teachers and the disadvantaged

regions tending to be as impoverished in educational opportunities as they are in other ways.
The 13 years of secondary school required by Ontario, for instance, in contrast to the 12 years required in British Columbia, discouraged me from bringing my family to Ottawa this session, since one of my children would face an extra year's schooling here before graduation and the beginning of professional training. Wide provincial variations in university entrance requirements also exist and could benefit from rationalization. I think I have said enough to highlight the educational hodgepodge that already exists in Canada.
A standing committee of ministers of education was established in 1966; there was hope of forming a secretariat in Ottawa; but plans for that seem to have been curtailed. One official of a national educational association commented that it seems to take the council of ministers six months to make one breast stroke. Indeed, a breast stroke, however leisurely, is progress of a sort for provincial representatives who hitherto disdained to get their feet wet in national problems. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the establishment of a national office of education under the Secretary of State is necessary in order to bring into focus possible solutions to national educational problems which might otherwise languish for years before ad hoc committees of ministers or Canadian education association officials.
I see a national office of education primarily as a co-ordinating body to provide leadership, or a centre, if you like, which would say to the rest of Canada and the world that our national government regards education as one of the most important functions of national endeavour. A national office must be more than a symbol, because federal support for education is a major budget item each year. I have seen in Hansard for 1966 that amounts ranging from $250 million to $500 million per year were spent as the federal contribution. Yet the federal government's position in its relations with provinces on educational matters is all pay and no say.
The issue is not whether the federal or provincial governments have the say in education or, according to Professor J. Katz of the University of British Columbia, one as to which governments have the right to represent Canada at international conferences on education, but whether Canadians can afford anything but full co-operation between federal
October 3. 1968

and provincial governments on all educational matters at home and abroad.
In the United States, where 50 independent, but similar educational systems exist, as opposed to ten in this country, they found it expedient to establish 101 years ago a national office of education. Can we therefore afford to persist in our leisurely approach?
I close, Mr. Speaker, with a plea that we reform the way we handle educational problems at the national level. To support my plea I quote the words of the Prime Minister, in August of last year who, when he referred to his 1956 writings on Quebec education, wrote:
The consequence was that we had to wait twenty years lor the only reform that really counts: education. 1 agree that reform in education is the only reform that really counts.
It may not be too extravagant to suggest that the structure of education at the national level is roughly equivalent to the irrelevant and unrealistic structure that existed in Quebec 20 years ago in order to prepare the citizens of the province to meet the challenges of the day and the days ahead. The time therefore to establish a national office of education is now.


Mr. Robert Stanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware that the Canadian council of ministers of education was created in September 1967. Its purpose is, and I quote:
-to allow the ministers to have consultation on matters of common interest and to allow full cooperation between provincial governments in common fields of interest in education. The council will co-operate with other educational organizations to promote education in Canada.
The permanent structure of the secretariat and the scope of its field of action are not yet known. Still, the secretariat should serve not only as an instrument for consultation and as the framework for common activity but it should also facilitate agreement on the main points of general policy.
The member may rest assured that the federal government is at the complete disposal of the provincial governments to achieve their objectives in that field.



HARBOURS-ROBERTS BANK, B.C.-REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING RAIL LINE

Douglas Aird Hogarth: During the sitting of the house this afternoon

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Helly-er) what action the government had taken in view of the representations made with regard to the re-routing of the Roberts Bank rail connection. This matter, you will note, Mr. Speaker, has received almost daily attention in this house by way of questions, as well as in our debates, and it is of the utmost concern to those who represent the people of the lower mainland of British Columbia.
The available facts are somewhat meager but it would appear that in 1966 a United States corporation entered into a contract with Japanese interests for the purpose of shipping a substantial quantity of bulk coal from Natal, British Columbia, to Japan. Apparently as a result of negotiations it was agreed that the Canadian Pacific Railway would deliver the coal to a port which the provincial government proposed to construct at Roberts Bank. This arrangement involved the construction of a connecting link between the C.P.R. and the port, and this port was to be constructed by B.C. Hydro, a provincial government authority, financed by the C.P.R.
Early this year the federal government became somewhat apprehensive of the intention of the B.C. government to compete in port facilities on the west coast, and proceeded to construct the port itself under the auspices of the National Harbours Board. About this time concern began to emerge as to the location of the connecting rail link, since it was bound to pass through the lower mainland of British Columbia affecting farm, recreational and urban areas. The chairman of the National Harbours Board is reported in the Vancouver Sun to have stated, quite early on, that all the transport facilities in and out of the port would be channelled in one corridor, and went on to say that the lower mainland regional planning board would be consulted. This board is comprised of representatives of 28 member municipalities and is the principal agency involved in the planning of land use in the lower mainland. This planning has extended to the compilation of a short-range and long-range plan for the whole area.
Oblivious of all planning and totally devoid of any contact with the board, the railway chose a route which was completely unacceptable to any of the member municipalities, effectively destroying much of the farmland involved and certainly adversely affecting the recreational areas of that part of the province.
October 3, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
This route could easily have been accommodated immediately to the north, where this devastating situation would not have taken place. The inference remains to this date that the decision was made entirely on the basis of what is good for the C.P.R. is good for the nation. As a result of a multiplicity of complaints, the north mainland planning board held a meeting to which all parties were invited, including the officials of the railways, but no one from the railways even condescended to appear to offer any explanation whatsoever concerning the reason for this route. An overwhelming number of briefs was presented at this meeting totally condemning the chosen route.
The question having been raised in the house, the minister has now taken the regrettable position that the federal government seemingly cannot control the actions of even the federal railway that is involved in this ridiculous mistake. It comes as a surprising shock that this link is not to be declared a work for the general benefit of Canada, in that eventually bulk shipments will proceed over this line from the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. It would appear that the ultimate control of that connecting link will come under the aegis of the provincial authorities and not under the aegis of the federal government, where it should be.
It is equally surprising that the C.P.R. cannot be legislated against in order to prohibit actions of this kind that are so deplorably detrimental to the public interest, and to the interest of the people of British Columbia. It is my respectful suggestion that every available resource of the federal government should be brought to bear to prevent this gross travesty that will go down in history as a classic mistake in urban planning. We are paying dearly for some that have been made many years ago in our province as well as in many other provinces of Canada.
The urgency of this matter arises out of the fact that the commencement date for the construction of this railway is obviously imminent, if the coal delivery dates as published in the press are to be relied upon. My question simply is, what action has been taken to give effect to the representations that have been made concerning the rerouting of this line in a more acceptable and viable location.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am of course interested in the intervention that has just been made by the hon. member. He has, I think quite rightly, said in summary that the problem here is primarily one of land use and urban planning. As a learned lawyer he is well aware that this is a matter which under our constitution comes solely within the competence of the government of British Columbia, as does the railway which is being built to connect to the port.
Following the representations from members, including those of the hon. members for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) and Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle), as well as from the lower mainland regional planning board, and based upon their request for information on the reasons for the decisions of the railways to locate the line on the proposed route, I have written to the railways involved in servicing Roberts Bank, and to the premier of British Columbia, to ask that the railways meet with the executive of the planning board to make known the economic and other considerations which dictated the selection of this railway route. Because of the urgency of the situation, I have asked that this meeting be convened at the earliest possible date.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Friday, October 4, 1968