1968-10-30

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

Mr. McGrath: What was the cost to Canadian National Railways for providing rail passenger service in Newfoundland for each year from 1949 to 1967 inclusive?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Pursuant to section 314 I, subsection 3 of the Railway Act, the railway is required to submit, on a confidential basis, concurrently with the filing of an application to discontinue a passenger train service, a statement of costs and revenues of the company attributable to the carriage of passengers by the service as the commission may prescribe. The foregoing requirement was met by the company in connection with its application for authority to discontinue passenger train service between Port aux Basques and St. John's, and by order No. R-507 dated November 6, 1967, the railway transport committee gave notice that it had determined the said passenger train service had incurred an actual loss of $918,000 in the year ended December 31, 1966.


LOANS AND GIFTS TO HYDRO COMMISSIONS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	During the past five years, how much did the federal government or Crown Corporations lend to the Newfoundland Hydro-Electric Commission and at what rate?
2.	How much was loaned to Hydro Quebec and at what rate?
3.	During the past five years, how much did the federal government or Crown Corporations give to the Newfoundland Hydro-Electric Commission?
4.	How much was given to Hydro Quebec?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am
informed by all departments and crown corporations as follows: 1. (a) $23,020,473.59 at
5i percent per annum; (b) $9,149,524.15 at 5g percent per annum.
2,	3, and 4. Nil.


EXECUTIVE CONSULTANTS LIMITED
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has the federal government retained the services of Executive Consultants Limited and, if so, what services are they providing and to what department of the federal government?
2.	On what financial basis have the services of Executive Consultants Limited been retained, were tenders called and, if so (a) what were the names of the firms that submitted bids and the amounts of each (b) for what reasons were Executive Consultants Limited selected, and (c) what is the total amount of their contract or contracts and for what period of time does this contract or contracts cover?
3.	What are the names of the principal officers of Executive Consultants Limited and what are their principal occupations?
4.	Does the firm of Executive Consultants Limited still use the telephone numbers of the office of the Prime Minister and office of the Minister of Transport and, if not, on what date did this firm discontinue the use of these telephone numbers and for what reason?


Yves Forest: I am informed by all departments as follows: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Since this part of this question deals with matters not connected with the government, no authoritative reply can be made.
4.	The firm has never made or received telephone calls through either the office of the Prime Minister or the office of the Minister of Transport.


RURAL MAIL CARRIERS
Mr. Rynard: X. How many persons are employed as rural mail carriers in Canada?
2.	How many rural mail carriers were prevented from carrying out their duties during the recent postal strike?
3.	What rate of pay was received by the rural mail carriers for standing by ready to work during the recent postal strike?
4.	What was the reason, if any, why some post offices were closed to the rural mail carriers, while others remained open, during the postal strike?

October 30, 1968
Questions
5.	Will the Minister not give further consideration to the compensation of rural mail carriers for the loss of time suffered during the postal strike?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is in five parts.
1.	There are 5,546 rural route contracts in Canada.
2.	Contractors for 971 rural routes were prevented from carrying out their duties during the postal strike.
3.	None.
4.	No postal service, including rural mail delivery, was provided at offices that were on strike. At offices that were not on strike, postal service continued in the usual manner to the extent possible.
5.	The department's position has been reconsidered and regular payment will be made for the period during which the service was interrupted, less the normal operating expenses which were not incurred while the service was not performed.


FEDERAL BUILDING, BRIDGEWATER, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Has the government decided on a site for a proposed federal public building in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, what is the area and boundary of the site selected?
3.	What amount of money has been allocated for this building?
4.	On what date is it anticipated to call tenders for construction of this building?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	An amount of $100,000 is in the 1968-69 main estimates of the Department of Public Works for this project.
4.	Providing a decision on a site is made in the near future, plans should be ready for tender call in the summer of 1969.


PAYMENTS BY U.S. UNDER COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY
Mr. Harding: 1.	(a) How much was paid to the Canadian Government by the United States in 1964 for the 30-year sale of Canada's share of the downstream benefits under the Columbia River Treaty (b) was this total amount transmitted to the Province of British Columbia for construction of the treaty projects?
[Mr. Rynard.l
2.	(a) What is the total amount to date, if any, paid to the Canadian Government subsequent to 1964 by the United States for flood control benefits (b) was this total amount transmitted to the Province of British Columbia and, if so (c) on what dates and in what amounts?
3.	(a) What is the total amount, if any, which will be paid to the Canadian Government by the United States for future flood control benefits (b) when and in what amounts will these payments be made (c) will these payments be transmitted to the Province of British Columbia?
4.	What is the total amount, to date, remaining in the Columbia Treaty Fund, including interest?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as follows: 1. (a) $253,929,534.25 in United States funds; (b) Yes, $273,291,661.24 in Canadian funds.
2.	(a) $63,398,000 in United States funds;
(b) Yes; (c) November 22,	1967-$11,929,-
031.25 in Canadian funds. September 17, 1968 -$212,540.63 in Canadian funds. October 10, 1968-$55,909,812.50 in Canadian funds.
3.	(a) and (b) $1,200,000 (US) upon commencement of operation of the Mica dam; $1,875,000 (US) for each of the first four calls by the United States for the flood control operation of storage not involved in the basic flood control payments; (c) Yes.
4.	Under the Canada-British Columbia agreement of 8 July 1963 the province undertook to finance the Columbia river treaty projects in Canada. Disclosure of information on the current status of the Columbia treaty fund is therefore the responsibility of the province.


PETITCODIAC CAUSEWAY, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Thomas (Moncion): 1.	What has been the extent of the financial participation in the Petitcodiac Causeway of (a) the federal government (b) the Government of the Province of New Brunswick (c) the City of Moncton?
2.	What is the estimated total cost of the Causeway, and what amount has been spent to date?
3.	What was the original completion date of the Causeway, and on what date will it now be completed?
4.	Have investigations been initiated into problems of silting as it affects navigation and, if so, what have been the results of such investigations?
5.	Have investigations been initiated into fish losses as a result of (a) silting, or (b) insufficient flow of water through the fishway and, if so, what have been the results of such investigations?
6.	Have investigations been initiated into problems of pollution in the waters above the Causeway, and is any assistance planned re sewage disposal?
October 30, 1968


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Forestry and Rural Development, Fisheries and Energy, Mines and Resources as follows: 1. (a) $646,648; (b) $1,994,665; (c) Nil.
3.	Original completion date not set. The definite date for completion is unknown at this time.
4.	No.
5.	A Department of Fisheries team is investigating the passage of fish at Petitcodiac causeway. Studies are being made to determine if adjustments to the fishway are required. Low water has been a problem to migrating salmon runs throughout the Mari-times during 1968, due to the unusually low rainfall.
6.	No.


SPACE LEASED FOR CAREER ASSIGNMENT PROGRAM, SMITHS FALLS
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	Has the Public Service Commission rented or leased space in Tops Marina Motor Hotel in Smiths Falls for its Career Assignment Program?
2.	If so, how many floors, suites, rooms?
3.	What are the terms of the lease, or the amount of rental?
4.	What realtor or other agency was instrumental in arranging the rent or lease, and for what service fee?
5.	Did the Commission spend any public funds on renovating, refurbishing, redecorating or furnishing this space?
6. If so, what was spent on redecorating on chairs, tables, rugs, drapes and other appointments?
7.	Did the Commission find it necessary to make this expenditure on leased or rented quarters and, if so (a) for what reasons (b) what adjustment in their charges did the proprietors make in compensating the Treasury for this investment?
8.	Is there a bar on the premises rented or leased by the Commission; was it formerly available for public use, and is it now confined to the exclusive use of the Civil Servants taking the Career Assignment Program course?
9.	Could not the required accommodation have been provided in federal buildings in Ottawa, and why was it necessary to undertake the program in Smiths Falls?
10.	Where do the majority of Civil Servants attending these career courses work and live, in Ottawa and Hull, or in Smiths Falls?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I have been given the following information by the Public Service Commission: 1. Yes.
2.	48 rooms.
3.	Room rentals for 40 rooms have been pro-rated to include meals and 8 rooms for
Questions
use as office, library, seminar rooms, lecture room, dining room and lounge at a rate of $20.00 per night, Monday to Friday and $11.75 per night for Saturdays and Sundays.
4.	Arrangements were made directly between the Public Service Commission and the manager of the Tops Marina Motor Hotel. No service fee was involved.
5.	The Public Service Commission undertook the furnishing of the classroom, office, library and seminar rooms.
6.	No funds were used for redecorating. Furnishing costs were for chairs (56) $5,584.58; tables (32) $2,362.80; rug $1,422.20; drapes $510.00; and office and library furniture $796.80.
7.	Yes. (a) Due to the special nature of certain rooms which were used as classroom, library, office and seminar rooms. As an example, a rug and wall drapes were necessary for acoustical purposes, (b) No adjustment in charges were arranged as the furnishings are installed for the duration of the lease only and will be utilized in any new location and in no way benefit the motor hotel owners.
8.	The space leased to the commission foi dining purposes was formerly a cocktai lounge and contains a small bar facility.
9.	No. A residence situation is necessary for this type of course and the location was chosen following an extensive survey of accommodation available within reasonable distance of Ottawa.
10.	The majority of civil servants on the present course live in the Ottawa-Hull area.


COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS-WORK IN BIAFRA
Mr. Coates: 1.	What assistance, if any, has the Company of Young Canadians provided to the people of Biafra?
2.	Have any of the members of the Company of Young Canadians volunteered to go to Biafra to assist in the distribution of food and in any other manner and, if so, how many have gone to Biafra and how many have volunteered to go to Biafra?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1. None.
2.	No.


CANADA PENSION PLAN STAFF
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the present strength of the Canada Pension Plan staff and has the staff been reduced in the past year?

October 30, 1968
Questions
2.	Of the present staff, how many are earmarked to deal with claims for survivor benefits under the plan?
3.	How many claims have been received to date for survivor benefits and of that number how many have been processed and what has been the length of time required to process a claim for survivor benefits?
4.	Has the department received complaints from claimants as to the length of time required to process a claim?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The present strength of the Canada Pension Plan administration, including the head office and district offices is 385. This number has not been reduced in the past year.
2.	Persons on staff in the claims section at head office are not exclusively assigned to the processing of applications for survivors' benefits. All applications, whether for retirement pensions or survivors' benefits, are processed as they are received. At present, some 25 employees are directly involved in the processing of applications at head office. However, assistance is also provided by field officers and others.
3.	The distribution of applications for survivors' benefits is as follows:
Received In Pay
For death benefit	7,054	3,611
For survivors' benefits
(widows and orphans)	6,834	2,828
The period required to process a survivor's application, that is, from the time it is first received until it goes into pay is, on the average, about three months. A considerable amount of documentation is required, including proof of the death of the contributor, proof of his contributory earnings, proof of the dates of birth of the contributor and his survivors, proof of marriage, and proof of school attendance for orphans 18 years of age or more. It might also be noted that under the legislation the payment of benefits is made at the end of a month. Accordingly, an application may be approved at the first of a month but the cheque would not be issued until the end of that month. Survivors' benefits first became payable in February 1968. Retroactive payments are made when applicable.
4.	Some inquiries regarding the length of time required for the processing of a claim have been received at district offices. Where delays beyond the normal have occurred, they are usually related to difficulties encountered in obtaining necessary acceptable documentary evidence to establish entitlement to benefits. Full explanations are provided whenever necessary.


TIME LOST THROUGH STRIKES AND ILLNESS
Mr. Mather: In 1967, how many days labor were lost by Canadian workers as a result of (a) strikes (b) illness?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Departments of Labour and National Health and Welfare as follows: (a)
Man-days
Federal jurisdictions	lost in 1967
I.R.D.I. Act (Public
service excluded)	172,000
Not under I.R.D.I. Act	1,610
Provincial jurisdictions	3,871,450
Total-all jurisdictions	4,045,060
(b) Information not available.


MAIL HANDLING, MOOSE JAW
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Has there been any change in the distribution in Mail Service as it pertains to the City of Moose Jaw?
2.	Is there any mail that was previously sorted at Moose Jaw, now going through to Regina for sorting purposes?
3.	Has the equipment for mail handling been removed from the C.P.R. station at Moose Jaw and. if so, for what reason?


Eric William Kierans: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes-no longer required.


FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR FILM SOCIETIES, ETC.
Mr. Roberts: Does the Government of Canada provide any financial support for film societies, film museums or cinematheques in Canada and, if so, what has been the amount expended for this purpose for each year since 1963?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows: Nil.


FARM CREDIT LOANS, RICHMOND CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Beaudoin: Since 1962, and for each subsequent year up to the present, how many loans were granted by the Farm Credit Corporation in the federal constituency of Richmond, and for what amounts?-
October 30, 1968


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that statistical records are maintained on a municipal county basis and are not available on an electoral basis. For the two complete municipal counties (Richmond and Wolfe) in the electoral district of Richmond, the answer
Year No.	of Loans	$1962-63	52	657,1001963-64	44	451,9001964-65	65	834,8001965-66	53	702,9001966-67	74	993,5001967-68	63	935,000April 1/68-Sept. 30/68	45	865,080


OLD AGE PAYMENTS, LAKESHORE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many persons received (a) Old Age Pensions (b) Old Age Assistance benefits in the federal constituency of Lakeshore in the years 1965, 66, 67, 68?
2.	What is the average amount paid under the Old Age Assistance Act in this constituency for the same years?
3.	How many persons receiving Old Age Pensions in this constituency are aged: 65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, 85-89, 90-94, 95-99, 100 and over?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) Statistics concerning old age security are kept on a provincial basis only. It is therefore not possible to answer this part; (b) Statistics concerning old age assistance benefits are kept on a provincial basis only. It is therefore not possible to answer this part.
2.	See 1 (b) above.
3.	See 1 (a) above.


ROADS TO RESOURCES, NORTHERN ALBERTA
Mr. Yewchuk: Is it the intention of the federal government to (a) resume the Roads to Resources Program in Northern Alberta within the next two years (b) construct that segment which falls within the boundaries of Wood Buffalo Park?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as follows; (a) No. The decision to discontinue this cost-shared program upon its completion was conveyed to
Questions
the federal-provincial tax structure committee by the Minister of Finance in September 1966. (b) No information.


FEED GRAIN ASSISTANCE
Mr. Harding: 1.	What was the total amount paid by the federal government for freight assistance on feed grains shipped to markets in Canada?
2.	What was the total amount of freight assistance to each province and how many tons of feed grains were shipped to each province under this plan?
3.	How much of the total tonnage involved was shipped through the Canadian Wheat Board?
4.	Does freight assistance for feed grains apply to both truck and rail shipments in every part of Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1.	Total amount of federal feed freight assistance paid on feed grains, shipped during crop-year 1966-67, is $20,600,863.15.
2. Total freight assistance paid and tonnage shipped to each province for crop-year 196667 follows:
Freight Assistance		Tonnage
	Paid $ 4,724,636.91	Shipped
Ontario		893,560.1
Quebec	9,992,117.23	1,299,831.0Nova Scotia	1,770,123.23	148,821.7New Brunswick	998,408.49	77,260.7Prince Edward Island	442,339.53	29,879.5Newfoundland	467,088.12	23,172.6British Columbia	2,206,149.64	246,425.73.	Total tonnage of wheat, oats, and barley, shipped to each province under this program, marketings of which are under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board; Ontario, 661,296; Quebec, 988,875; Nova Scotia, 107,058; New Brunswick, 44,808; Prince Edward Island, 18,992; Newfoundland, 17,767; British Columbia, 56,253.4.	Yes. Truck and rail shipments have been included in the program in eastern Canada since 1964. Trucking was included in the British Columbia program in July of this year.


FEED GRAIN ASSISTANCE, CRESTON, B.C.
Mr. Harding: 1.	What does the federal government pay on freight assistance for feed grains being shipped to the Creston area of British Columbia from areas (a) outside the province (b) within the province?

October 30. 1968
Questions
2.	Does the federal government pay any freight assistance for feed grains being shipped out of the Creston area and, if so, what are the amounts; if not, for what reason has this feed grain exporting area been excluded from these payments?
3.	Is a review of the feed grain assistance rates for the Creston area under active consideration and, if so, when will a decision be handed down; if not, will the matter be reviewed this year?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1.	(a) $9.80 per ton; (b) $9.80 per ton.
2.	No. The provincial government pays assistance on shipments out of the Creston area.
3.	Yes. This matter is under consideration and some changes may be made within a month.


FEED GRAIN ASSISTANCE, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Harding: 1.	Does the federal government pay any freight assistance on feed grains shipped to markets in British Columbia from areas (a) outside the province (b) within the province and, if so, what areas are included?
2.	Is the Province of British Columbia divided into zones for freight assistance payments and, if so, what are these zones and what is the freight assistance paid for feed grain shipments to each from areas (a) outside the province (b) within the province?
3.	Are freight assistance payments made on feed grains shipped by (a) rail (b) truck, from both outside and within the province?
4.	Does the freight assistance on feed grains from outside and within the province apply to sales both through the Canadian Wheat Board and outside it?
5.	Is there any additional freight assistance by way of moving feed grain within the province and, if so, what is it?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. (a) Yes. (b) Yes. The Peace river area.
2.	For freight assistance payments, the province of British Columbia is divided into 9 zones:
Zone No.	Rates per ton
1-Southern interior	$ 9.80
2-Lower mainland	10.00
3-Vancouver island	11.60
4-Cariboo-Chilcotin	9.80
5-Central interior east	5.60
6-Central interior west	8.80

North-West	11.00
8-Lower coast	13.00
9-Central coast and Queen Charlotte islands	15.60
(a) and (b) Same rates apply. 
3.	(a) and (b) Yes.
4.	Yes, however for feed grain from outside the province and outside of the wheat board, the assistance applies only on millfeeds, corn and rye which do not come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
5.	The provincial government has a policy whereby freight assistance is provided on the transportation of feed grains from the Creston-Wynndel area to the consuming areas of British Columbia.


IMPORTS OF EDIBLE OILS
Mr. Danforih: 1.	What quantities of edible oils, by type (soya bean, sunflower, safflower, corn, etc.), have been imported into Canada for each month of 1968 through September with country of origin?
2.	What is the name of the firm or firms and companies importing this edible oil and what was the quantity imported by each of them?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: 1. The following commodity classes record the imports of the principal edible oils: 393-20, corn oil; 393-24, cottonseed oil; 393-40, olive oil; 393-52, peanut oil; 393-60, soya bean oil; 393-64, sunflower seed oil; 393-85, vegetable cooking fats (except shortening) and packaged salad oils.
Statistics showing the quantity of imports recorded in the above mentioned classes, by country of consignment, for the months January to July, 1968, have been published in the monthly catalogue No. 65-007-"Trade of Canada, Imports by Commodities". The publications are obtainable from the Queen's Printer, Ottawa, and are available for reference in all public libraries and in the Library of Parliament.
Import statistics recorded in the above noted classes for the month of August, 1968, are given in the attached table.
Statistics are not yet available for the month of September, 1968.
2. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics does not compile lists of names and addresses of firms or companies importing goods into Canada. Data on quantities imported by firms or companies are not available.
October 30, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	2207
Questions
Imports of the Principal Edible Oils, by Country of Consignment, for the Month of August 1968.
Commodity Class	Quantity	TotalsNumber	Description	Country	Cwt.	Cwt.393-20	Corn oil	Netherlands	6,068	United States	8,076	14,144393-24	Cottonseed oil	United States	4,824	4,824393-40	Olive oil	France	134	Greece	859	Italy	1,672	Portugal	96	Spain	1,031	United States	298	4,090393-52	Peanut oil	Nigeria	29,120	Hong Kong	66	United States	413	29,599393-60	Soya bean oil	United States	29,169	29,169393-64	Sunflower seed oil	Netherlands	6,614	6,614393-85	Vegetable cooking fats	United Kingdom	265	(except shortening) and	Sweden	504	packaged salad oils	United States	667	1,436


TESTS CONDUCTED AT SUFFIELD RESEARCH STATION
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	Of the work done at Suffield by DCBRL, how many tests are conducted annually at the request formally or Informally of (a) the United States (b) the United Kingdom (1965-67) and what is the percentage of such requests?
2.	How many reports were at the request of (a) the United States (b) the United Kingdom?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1 and 2.
None. The program at the Defence Research Establishment Suffield is developed on the basis of exchange of information and of statements of requirements of common interest to all three countries. Although United States and British agencies may undertake to contribute to, or participate in, tests, the tests are only carried out when they constitute part of, or have a direct impact on, the Canadian program.


PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL, SUFFIELD RESEARCH STATIONS
Mr. Saltsman: How many professional personnel are present at DCBRL on the average day at Suffield and, of
these, how many are paid by (a) the United States Government or one of its agencies or contractors (b) the United Kingdom (1965-67) or one of its agencies or contractors?


David Walter Groos: On the
assumption that "D'CBRL" at Suffield is intended to mean the Defence Research Estab-blishment, Suffield, Alberta, the total number employed there is 37. None of these are paid by (a) or (b). However, from time to time, scientific employees of the United States government or its agencies, and of Britain or its agencies, are present at the establishment for conferences or participation in work of mutual interest.


AVAILABILITY OF DEFENCE RESEARCH REPORTS
Mr. Sallsman: Of the work done at Suffield by DCBRL, what percentage of reports are available to (a) the United States (b) the United Kingdom (c) any interested member of the Canadian public (d) other members of NATO (e) France (1965-67)?


David Walter Groos: On the assumption that "DCBRL" stands for the

Oclober 30, 1968
Questions
Defence Research Establishment Suffield and Defence Chemical, Biological and Radiation Establishment Shirley's Bay, the release of reports is determined largely by the extent of mutual interest and the limits imposed by international agreements concerning the inclusion of another country's data in Canadian reports. The approximate percentages are (a) and (b), 98 per cent; (c) 52 per cent; and (d) and (e) 75 per cent.


'TRAINING OF NIGERIANS AS OFFICER CADETS
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Do the Canadian Forces currently train Nigerians as Officer Cadets and, if so, what are the terms of reference of this training?
2.	How many Nigerians were trained as Officer Cadets in Canada in 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is in two parts, as follows: 1. No officer cadet training for Nigerians has been conducted since April 1965.
2. Of the 41 officer cadets who came to Canada in 1962 and 1963, 34 completed their courses and graduated.


ILLNESSES AT DEFENCE RESEARCH STATIONS
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	In the last three years, has anybody working at the DCBRL at Shirley's Bay or at the Suffield Experimental Station become ill or injured as a result of contact with the agents being developed or tested there and has anybody died from these injuries or illnesses?
2.	What agents were involved?


David Walter Groos: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


U.S. REPORTS RECEIVED BY DEFENCE RESEARCH BOARD
Mr. Saltsman: What percentage of the reports prepared by the United States biological warfare researchers at Fort Detrick in the year 1967 were received by the Defence Research Board and what percentage of the classified reports does this constitute?


David Walter Groos: The number of reports prepared by the United States biological warfare researchers at Fort Detrick in the year 1967 is not known.
[Mr. Groos.1


TAX ADVANTAGES OF PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANIES
Mr. Saltsman: Do any privately-owned companies in Canada enjoy a tax advantage similar to that of the Newfoundland Refining Co. and, if so (a) what companies (b) where do they operate (c) who are the major shareholders (d) what is the nature of each such arrangement?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: No.


'BENEFIT TO MILK PRODUCERS THROUGH BUTTER PRICE INCREASE
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has the Minister of Agriculture or the Canadian Dairy Commission taken any steps to ensure that industrial milk producers will receive the full benefit of the recent increase of two cents per pound in the retail price of butter and, if not, who will benefit by this increase?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is as follows. The federal government does not have authority to fix prices to producers within a province. This authority rests with the provinces.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Crouse: 1.	What are the names of all government ships due for refit in all government departments from September 1, 1968 to March 31, 1969?
2.	What is the estimated amount to be spent on these ships during this period?
3.	Will competitive bids be called for this work, or will the ships be regionally allocated to relieve unemployment in depressed areas?
Return tabled.


CRIMES INVOLVING DEATH
Mr. Coates: 1.	Of the total number of crimes committed in each of the years from 1960-67, inclusive, how many involved the death of one or more persons?
2.	What is the breakdown of crimes committed that resulted in the death of one or more individuals, by provinces, and how many of these crimes have resulted in the laying of charges of either manslaughter, non-capital murder or capital murder in each of the years from 1960-67, inclusive, and how many of these crimes remain unsolved at the present time?
Return tabled.
October 30, 19G8


CRIMES COMMITTED
Mr. Coales: 1.	What has been the total number of crimes committed in each of the years from 1960-67, inclusive of what is the breakdown by provinces and territories?
2.	Of the total number of crimes committed in each of the years from 1960-67, how many have resulted in charges being laid against one or more individuals and of the total number of charges laid, how many resulted in convictions?
3.	Of the total number of crimes committed in 1960, how many remain unsolved at the present time?
Return tabled.


RECIDIVISTS IN CANADA
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What was the total number of (a) indictable (b) summary offences, by province, tried in Canada in each of the last five years?
2.	How many recidivists, by province, are there in Canada with more than 2, 3, 4, 5, or more convictions for (a) indictable (b) summary offences?
3.	How many recidivists, by province, are there in Canada with more than 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or more criminal convictions?
Return tabled.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the answers to questions I would point out that the answers to two questions of mine have been held back in a manner that is inexcusable and constitutes, in my opinion, a contempt of parliament. The first question-and I referred to it the other day-is No. 57. On September 13, which was a month and 17 days ago, I asked the following question:
How many Liberal members of the last parliament and Liberal candidates in the last election have been appointed to positions in government, civil service, or to government boards since 25th June?
There can be no excuse for the failure to answer that question, except that the Secretary of State is not doing his duty but is flying kites outside the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The second question to which I refer is No. 275, as follows:
In the report of the Company of Young Canadians for 1967-68 there is an item that $489,019 was expended for consulting and professional fees during the year.
What are the names and addresses and amounts paid to each of the recipients of such payments?
Questions
I asked for that information in the month of July, and the answer was that the group had the answer but would not give it, even if it was in the annual report of the Company of Young Canadians, until parliament asked the question. Surely, sir, a matter such as this, with regard to which the government is in possession of the fullest information, should not be the subject of a denial of the answer to this House of Commons. In this respect there should not be a delay for a very long period of time because, after all, those who occupy positions such as the head of the Company of Young Canadians cannot act as sawdust Caesars toward parliament and its requests.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am much obliged to the right hon. gentleman for having raised the matter of question No. 57. As the house knows, it is within the competence of members under the rules of this house only to address questions within the administrative responsibility of the government, and I am glad to have the opportunity of bringing to the attention of the house difficulties which have arisen with regard to both this question, to question No. 71 in the name of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), and question No. 155 in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid).
In relation to question No. 57, neither candidates for election to the House of Commons nor members of the house are required to declare a party affiliation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Hees:: Now we have heard it all.


Mr. Speaker:: Could we have order, please.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Consequently there is no record-


George Harris Hees: Even your own members are laughing at you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether hon. gentlemen wish to hear the answer. Consequently there is no record under the administrative responsibility of the government of Canada from which an answer to this question-that is, No. 57-can be drawn.

October 30, 1968
Motions for Papers
In relation to question No. 155, since persons appointed to the Senate, the bench, federal government boards, commissions, agencies, etc., are not required to declare whether they have ever been candidates in federal elections, there is no record under the administrative responsibility of the government of Canada from which an answer to this question can be drawn.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In relation to question No. 71, part 2 of this question raises the same problem as does question No. 155. I am having prepared a reply to part 1 of question No. 71. My hope is that it will give most of the information sought by question No. 57, and I hope to be in a position to answer that on Monday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, while all of us will believe the hon. gentleman when he says he has no idea as to whether they were Liberal candidates of former members appointed, all I can say is that this is in accord with the abolition of patronage in advance of the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau); but that does not apply to question No. 275. I do not think I have the answer of the house leader to that question. Certainly all these specious and implausible arguments he has advanced cannot apply to the delay in answering that question, even though it is going to be embarrassing to some of those who sit opposite.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has misconstrued my remarks with respect to question No. 57, as he will see when he examines the record tomorrow. With regard to question No. 275, I will take that up with my colleague.


Mr. Real Caoueile (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to the questions put on the order paper.
On September 12 last, I put the following question on the order paper and I quote:
1. During the past three years, which judges ot the Superior, District and County Courts, as referred to in Section 96 of the BN A Act, have been appointed to extra-judicial functions, such as sitting on Royal Commissions, and advisory committees?
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me it should have been possible to reply to that question earlier. I put that question on the order paper almost
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).!
two months ago and it has yet to be answered. It should not take that long to find out how many judges have sat in these various capacities.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to bring this to the attention of my colleague to see if we can get an answer at an early date.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 8, 12, 17 and 26 are agreeable to the government, subject to the usual reservations with regard to confidential papers and authorization from government authorities concerned.
Would Your Honour be good enough to call notice of motion No. 18?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



NEWFOUNDLAND-DISCONTINUATION OF RAILWAY SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 8-Mr. Peddle:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all letters and other communications between the Government of Canada or any of its representatives, and the Government of Newfoundland or any of its representatives, relating to the proposal of the C.N.R. to discontinue rail passenger service in Newfoundland and the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission in relation thereto.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12'-Mr. Rose:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada, any Minister or Department thereof, the Canadian Transportation Commission, the Canadian National Railways and the Government of British Columbia and the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, relating to the joint Federal-Provincial Development of the Roberts Bank Port in British Columbia, dated since January 1, 1967,
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 17-Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all letters and other communications in the
October 30, 1968
[Stage Direction]
possession of the government dated since January 1, 1966, concerning the British Columbia Hydro rail route from the Matsqui area to Roberts Bank.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 26-Mr. Schreyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all documents and correspondence exchanged between any federal department or Crown corporation and Mr. McDonald, lawyer, of the City of Regina, relative to the claims against the C.N.R. made by any one of the construction firms engaged in the construction of the Great Slave Lake Railway.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 18-Mr. Rose:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, memoranda and other communications received by any member of the administration and prepared by any person in the Public Service of Canada since January 1, 1967, relating to the joint Federal-Provincial development of the Roberts Bank Port io British Columbia, including any railways connected thereto.
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Minister of Transport. I think the hon. member will appreciate that this motion relates to corres-pondance between public servants, who are advisers to the minister, and the government. This type of correspondence has always been claimed to be privileged and not to constitute a public document. For these reasons I wonder if the hon. member would be prepared to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: No,
Mr. Speaker. If there is going to be any argument about this I prefer to have the motion transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion No. 18 is transferred for debate pursuant to standing order 47.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 24 was on today's list, and I was asked by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to move it on his behalf.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the hon. member I wonder if it could be allowed to stand for another day so I might have an opportunity of discussing it with him.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



MEDICARE-PREMIUM REDUCTIONS BY PROVINCES RECEIVING FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it the policy of the government that a province which is receiving a contribution from the federal government toward the cost of its medicare program ought to reduce any premiums charged by it, and thus pass along the federal contribution to the subscribers?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: It
would be the sincere hope of this government, Mr. Speaker, that our contribution toward medicare would be reflected in a reduction of the premiums that are paid by Canadians for medicare rather than having the funds used for other purposes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has any province which has entered into an agreement with the federal government been asked to undertake such a reduction in its premiums?


Edgar John Benson: I do not believe we have the legal right, under the medicare act, to require the provinces to do this sort of thing. However, I would sincerely hope it is their desire to pass on this saving to their constituents.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Was there ever any request made or agreement or understanding reached in a federal-provincial conference between the provinces and the government of Canada that the provinces would reduce any premiums in this regard?


Edgar John Benson: No, but we believe the provincial authorities will be honest and decent toward their own electors.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I simply want an answer to my question. I take it the answer is no. I have a further supplementary question. Is it the policy of the government of Canada to direct the provinces as to how they should or should not raise their revenues?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman obviously knows the answer to that question. The raising of revenues within a province is the responsibility of the province. However, we trust that in the case of medicare, when so much has been said about how much it is going to cost the people of Canada,

October 30, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry at least the provinces will treat their own constituents fairly in this matter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My last supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is this. Does the Minister of Finance really consider he is in a position to judge whether a province is treating its people fairly?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The last question naturally is not in order.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE CHANGE IN STATUS On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, and ask him whether he is in a position to inform the house about the plans he has made with regard to the function and place of the Atlantic Development Board.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, if the constitution and the role of the Atlantic Provinces Development Board are to be modified, this will be done when the bill to create the department is examined.


David Lewis: A supplementary question. In view of the general statement the minister is reported to have made last night in Halifax, I think, is the minister in a position to tell this house something I have asked him on previous occasions, namely what establishments he is setting up and what plans are in progress for dealing with regional disparity, so that members of this parliament may know what is in store in this field?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that question is of such a general nature that it would be simpler, in my opinion, for me to send a copy of my speech to the hon. member for York South. He will then understand what it is all about.


David Lewis: I have a further supplementary question. In view of the fact that the issue is obviously very important, and my reading of the minister's speech last night will not help members of this house to know what plans there are to deal with the basic problem of regional disparity, when will the minister be

in a position to tell parliament what his plans are?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as soon as we are in a position to introduce in the house a bill or legislation creating the new department, we will be able to state clearly what we intend to do.


David Lewis: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the house when that date will be; this year, next year or some time in the far future?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the answer depends in part on the members opposite; so, I cannot tell.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Since both the president of the National Research Council and the President of the Treasury Board, who of course until recently was minister of industry, have recently stated publicly they feel Canada must greatly increase its volume of industrial research in order to remain a competitive industrial nation, does the government plan in the near future to inntroduce measures which will induce this necessary and very large increase in industrial research in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows, of course, of the great help we are giving to industrial research in Canada at the moment through grants.


George Harris Hees: But, Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that both the president of the National Research Council and his colleague the President of the Treasury Board have said in so many words that what we are presently doing is not nearly enough to induce this necessary increase in industrial research?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: I suggest that the minister
should better inform himself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
October 30, 1968



AIRPORTS

[Stage Direction]
VAL D'OR, QUE.-INQUIRY AS TO OPENING On the orders of the day:
Mr. Oza Tetrauli (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell us when the inauguration of the Val-d'Or airport is to take place?


John Napier Turner: will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State. In light of the kite flown by the minister concerning a new youth policy and the explicit omission from his remarks of a reference to the Company of Young Canadians, does the government propose to disband the Company of Young Canadians and to substitute for it what might be called youth conscript or culture conscripts?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the right honourable member has mainly noticed the omissions in that speech. I was obviously speaking of projects.
Now, I did not mention the Company of Young Canadians as it is not a project but an achievement.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received from the provisional council of the company the recommendation of a person to be appointed as permanent director?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that this proposal is to be conveyed officially to us today.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my ques-
Inquiries of the Ministry tion to the Prime Minister. During the past several weeks were any communications sent by the government to the military government of Nigeria regarding relief supplies and the allegation that has been made that these relief supplies could not get through to Biafra because of the fact that there was no Nigerian government agreement. Have there been any such communications? Has the Canadian government directly communicated with Major General Yakubu Gowon and asked that relief should be permitted to get through? If there have been such communications, would the Prime Minister not feel it would be appropriate to file the various messages in this connection?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I am somewhat confused by the question, Mr. Speaker. Obviously there have been many communications with the federal military government of Nigeria. The whole question of bringing relief to the suffering people of Nigeria has been discussed several times. As the hon. member knows, there is a Hercules aircraft in Lagos. As the hon. member knows, there is also one in Fernando Po. I might take this occasion, Mr. Speaker, to announce that I have just received word that this Hercules left Fernando Po at 18.15 hours local time with 20 tons of food bound for Biafra.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Trudeau:: As to further aspects of relief for the suffering people of Nigeria, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure that I understand whether the hon. gentleman wants to inquire about something else.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to find out is whether in the past six weeks the government of Canada has sent any messages to the military government of Nigeria in regard to the question of Canadian relief being made available to those in need.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have perhaps not sent messages directly to General Gowon; we have sent a great many messages through our officials in Lagos, and our high commissioner or his officials have communicated with the federal military government.


John George Diefenbaker: Would not the Prime Minister think anyone with "a bleeding heart", to use his expression, would send a message directly to the general who is the head of government? I ask that because the

October 30, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry 20 tons of food, which now appropriately are being sent, might have been made available much sooner had a message been sent to the general.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Burnaby-Seymour.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I restate the question by way of a further supplementary. I have been trying to find out whether there is any correspondence, and the Prime Minister has not answered that yet. I want to know the answer and I ask this directly. Did he ever send a message to the head of that government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The right hon. member may be surprised at the answer, Mr. Speaker, but it is yes; I did send a message.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: When?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I generally took the position, Mr. Speaker, that General Gowon who is trying not only to govern his country but fight a civil war as well should not be put under an imposition by me as a result of too many messages. I believe our high commissioner and his officials in Lagos can communicate with fruitful results with the government there. I did not take the position, either, that my intervention would be of such import that it would shake the world or alter the results of the civil war. But at one point I did send a message directly to the general.


John George Diefenbaker: When was that? Will the Prime Minister say approximately when he sent that personal message? Will he table that message, because I have found that one can get immediate replies from that government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thought the right hon. gentleman was rising to congratulate me for having done what he suggested should be done. As to the exact date and content of the message, I shall acquaint the house with these facts at some appropriate occasion, possibly during the debate on the report of the committee of parliament on this matter.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I congratulate the Prime Minister and the government even at this late stage for having finally taken the 20 tons of food into Biafran territory. I wish to ask whether the Prime Minister has received a communication from the

World Council of Churches of Geneva, in which they forward a request that Canadian Hercules aircraft be made available for flights from Sao Tome?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such request. I will inquire, but I think I can tell the hon. member in advance that it has been the position of the Lagos government that they will authorize the use of Canadian military aircraft and personnel by the Red Cross, but they are not prepared to authorize that use by the churches. I realize that this somewhat contradicts the information the hon. member believed was obtained at New York. We have how received specific word from the government of Lagos that they have authorized flights by the Red Cross, and that they do not feel it necessary to authorize flights by the churches. As the hon. member no doubt knows, the churches are making flights without the authorization of Lagos.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of privilege I might say that the information was not something I thought I heard. I heard Foreign Minister Arikpo clearly make the statement that flights by the churches in addition to those made by the Red Cross would be permissible if under the supervision of the International Red Cross. I wish to know whether the government has been in touch with the International Red Cross to see whether they will arrange to supervise the flight of Hercules planes taking food supplies from Sao Tome, in order that the maximum amount of supplies might be flown into Biafra.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the question of the maximum number of flights is determined by the possibilities of taking off and landing. My understanding is that the Red Cross has asked for one Hercules, and for not more than one.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are the Prime Minister's officials or the Prime Minister making contact with officials of the Red Cross in Equatorial Guinea to determine whether it might not be more effective to use additional Hercules aircraft? Having seen part of the operation I understand that additional Hercules aircraft would be tremendously useful at this time in the relief operation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have been discussing this with the Minister of National Defence. Our understanding is contrary to that of the hon.
October 30, 1968



member. The government of Equatorial Guinea feels that we have one Hercules too many there. They feel one Hercules is about all they can handle at this time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand from the Prime Minister's answers that his government has made direct representations to the government of Nigeria in order to assist the Red Cross to obtain the necessary permission from the government of Nigeria?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of our having made such representation. There is a Hercules in Lagos now; therefore we have nothing of this nature to discuss with the government of Lagos.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Red Cross is having difficulty obtaining this permission, and since the Prime Minister initially took the position that the government of Canada would not make representations directly to the government of Nigeria to help the Red Cross obtain this permission, is my understanding correct that the government of Canada since then has made direct representations to help the Red Cross obtain permission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that understanding is not correct. I think the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to some questions that were asked about flights from Sao Tome. With regard to flights by the Red Cross, representations for these had been going on for quite some time. We made such representations to the government of Lagos and we finally obtained an answer that they would accept use by the Red Cross of Canadian military personnel. That was clearly defined, but that was several weeks ago.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether other hon. members might not have an opportunity to ask questions. However, I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one more supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since representations were made to assist the Red Cross obtain permission, would the Prime Minister not consider making representations in order that certain church groups might also obtain permission from the government of Nigeria?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, we did. This question was discussed with the Nigerian government and I gave their answer a few moments ago. They said they would authorize Canadian military personnel and aircraft under the authority of the Red Cross, but not under the authority of the churches.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ray PerraulJ (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the deep concern held in all parts of this house for the welfare of the victims of the Nigerian civil war, and in view of the world wide praise for the Canadian program to aid Czech refugees, can the minister tell this house the number of refugees from the Czechoslovakian invasion who have been assisted by Canada to date, and the total amount expended on their behalf?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What's the matter. Aren't hearts bleeding over there?


Raymond J. Perrault: I do not know the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Though the hon. member is asking for very specific information, my impression is that he is asking for statistical information, the type of information normally obtained by putting questions on the order paper. If there is urgency the hon. member knows he can give notice to the Chair.


An hon. Member:: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: The question has not been accepted, so no supplementary can be asked.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: I have a question for the Prime Minister with regard to the statements he made in Halifax. Will the right hon. gentleman outline the government's position in connection with a statement on television last evening in which the Minister of Justice referred to the Solicitor General as the senior
2216	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry member in matters of patronage in and around Ottawa?


John Napier Turner: On a question of privilege, I referred to the Solicitor General only as the senior member of the government in the Ottawa area.


Donald MacInnis: Just one word, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the ruling you have given with regard to answers to questions. I put my question to the Prime Minister as head of the government with regard to the statements he made in Halifax, and I would repeat-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked his question. If the Prime Minister would like to reply in the usual way-


George Harris Hees: Let's have something better than that.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Prime Minister answers, perhaps I should explain that the rule to which the hon. member has alluded is that a question referring to a statement made outside the house should be directed to the Prime Minister, as has been done, and should ask whether that statement represents government policy.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect, having asked the question the hon. member should allow the Prime Minister to answer.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The answer was given by the Minister of Justice. He was misquoted by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. The reason I did not answer right away was that I suspected there might be a misquote coming from the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, and probably a question of privilege too, I suggest to the Prime Minister in all sincerity that whether he intended it or not, his words carried the imputation that the hon. member who asked the question was quite likely to have misquoted the Minister of Justice, and I suggest the Prime Minister might wish to correct that imputation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No correction, Mr. Speaker, because there was no such imputation. I was
[Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond) .1
DEBATES	October 30, 1968
suggesting that the hon. member had misquoted my hon. friend and the facts, as stated by the minister, indicate that there has been a misquotation. When I said there probably had been one I was merely basing my opinion upon the statistical average of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether we will make much headway by pursuing this matter further.


Donald MacInnis: On a question of privilege, I think the Prime Minister himself has clearly indicated that he does not know what went on last night, and I quote him as having just said-*


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please?


Donald MacInnis: The Prime Minister, referring to last evening's program, used the word "probably". This is an indication that he did not himself hear the remark made by the Minister of Justice and could not therefore impute motives in connection with any question. When seeking a reply from the Prime Minister, it is not "the usual" we want; it is the facts we want, and if the backbenchers of the Liberal party wish to continue in an effort


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made his point. I recognize the rule is that no improper motives may be imputed, and I am sure hon. members on both sides recognize this rule and wish to abide by it.


Donald MacInnis: Further to the question of privilege, I would be perfectly willing to allow the matter to stand where it is if the Prime Minister would get up and say that he actually witnessed the program last night; or if not, withdraw his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: On this question of privilege-


An hon. Member:: There's the expert.


Robert Muir: No, I
am not an expert as some ignoramus across the way has suggested.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
October 30, 1968


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this is not the way in which the House of Commons should conduct its business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member would kindly state his question of privilege as quickly as possible I shall give a ruling on it.


Robert Muir: agree with you, Mr. Speaker; this is not the way to run the house and you have your hands full when you have characters like that to contend with. Since this session began the hon. member for York South has had to straighten out this individual over there who is the leader of this country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member would realize how far these things can go. I would ask the co-operation of all hon. members-


Robert Muir: right, Mr. Speaker. On this question of imputations being made, the hon. member for York South on two occasions has directed the attention of the house-and it is the same today-to the fact that the Prime Minister was imputing motives to hon. members. This is not correct. Today he was imputing motives to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. The right hon. gentleman reached this chamber in the same way as the rest of us, and he has no more right to impute motives than I have, or than any other member has.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member for Provencher also has a question of privilege to raise.


Mr. Mark Smerchanski (Provencher):: hope this is a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It arises on the same basis. It has been said there has been a lack of humanitarian consideration by our present Canadian government. I feel I wish to congratulate most heartily the Minister of Manpower and Immigration-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It would probably be easier to rule on this question of privilege than on the previous one.
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING


HAMILTON, ONT.-HEARING OF BRIEFS BY TASK FORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I just wish to contribute something constructive to this swinging question hour. I notice the Minister of Justice is here, and that earlier he was speaking on behalf of the Minister of Transport. I should therefore like to direct a question to him. Has the minister any indication now, or can he confirm the fact, that the task force will be visiting Hamilton, Ontario; and, if so, when?


John Napier Turner: Yes, I can. The task force on housing plans to visit the city of Hamilton some time in November. The reason the exact date is not yet set is that the Minister of Transport wishes to weigh the briefs from all interested parties, including one from the city of Hamilton. We will certainly advise the hon. member so he can be there.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Could the Minister of Justice, who answered on behalf of the Minister of Transport, tell us if the task force or the study group will again sit in Montreal to hear other representations on housing? Since the group was supposed to sit three days and stayed only one day, does the government intend to ask it to return to Montreal?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker the Minister of Transport will take note of the hon. member's representations.


SPECIAL PROVISION FOR DRYING OF SPECIALTY CROPS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In his absence I should like to direct it to the Minister without Portfolio. Is the minister now prepared to give me an answer to the question I asked on October 24 with regard to giving priority to the moving of damp grain and more specifically flax and rapeseed, which will suffer severe loss if left out over the winter?

October 30, 1968
Farm Credit Act


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minisler without Portfolio):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; the Canadian Wheat Board is giving priority to the moving of damp grain. This has been indicated several times before in Hansard. This does not apply to tough grain because of the quantity of damp grain which exists. There is a special quota in existence regarding the seeds to which the hon. member referred. These therefore are being given priority as well.


BRIDGES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Transport but, since he is absent,
I shall put it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the representations made by the Chambers of Commerce and by several intermediate bodies, from the eastern townships in particular, as well as the statements made by the Quebec government concerning the abolition of tolls on the eastern townships speedway, does the government or the Minister of Transport intend to abolish tolls on the Champlain bridge, which leads to the eastern townships autoroute?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question asked by the hon. member could easily be put on the order paper.


FARM CREDIT ACT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 29, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-110, to amend the Farm Credit Act-Mr. Olson-Mr. Bechard in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose on Tuesday, October 29, clause 6 of the bill with an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot was under consideration,
On clause 6-Agreement re loans to Indians on reserves.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose last night we were discussing clause 6 which contains amendments to the Farm Credit Act to make provision for Indians who are farming on reserves to make use of the services provided by the Farm Credit Corporation.
[Mr. Gleave.l
Ths Deputy Chairman: Order. May we have a little order in the committee, please.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think there may have been some misunderstanding about the provisions of the entire clause because certainly it was designed in such a way that it would make the services of the Farm Credit Corporation available to the Indians, to corporations on Indian reservations and indeed to a band in the same way as they are available to any other citizens of Canada. There may have been some misunderstanding about that.
Based on the representations that were made last night, particularly by the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo, I am prepared to consider an amendment that has just been brought in which would further clarify the provisions contained in that clause. I wonder, therefore, whether I might ask that clause 6 stand for a few moments while we give consideration to this matter. Then we could return to this clause and perhaps suggest an amendment which I could have one of my colleagues move.


Albert Béchard: Does the committee agree that clause 6 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
Clause 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-Regulations respecting interest.


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Chairman, on clause 8-


Albert Béchard: Order. Might we have a little order in the committee, please, so that we can hear the hon. member for Crowfoot.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will attempt to make myself heard. A particular point is at stake in respect of clause 8. I should like members of the committee to consider this very carefully. In clause 8 there is a change from the existing act. The expression "family farm corporation" is being changed to "farm corporation", or corporate farming. In essence the family farm is being replaced by corporate farming. This is a very grave amendment. I hope that every member of the committee will attempt to understand its full meaning and intent, because the minister assured us that in fact 51 per cent of the shareholders of a corporation would have to be actively engaged in the farming industry. Nowhere in the bill is there such a suggestion. In fact, in clause 11 there is an indication that as long as one single member of the
October 30, 1968

corporation is in fact actively engaged in the business of farming or has the intent to become engaged in the business of farming the corporation will qualify.
If we turn to page 12 where it says, "in the case of an individual who is a shareholder," we see that it goes on to say that a farming corporation may become eligible if it is borrowing money for a member of that corporation who is an active farmer or has the intent to become an active farmer. If the minister would assure us that there would be ample regulation to make it abundantly clear that a very small proportion of the corporation would be permitted to be non-farming, then I believe such a corporation would perhaps be permissible.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
In respect of an earlier clause the minister went on to say that the whole reason for this was to take in junior members of a family. By definition it is well understood that that is the meaning of the term "farm family". It means those members of the family who are not of legal age, but a farm corporation or a corporate farm means something altogether different. It includes the whole gambit of our society. As one member mentioned yesterday, it could include a marketing association such as a shopping centre or a packing plant which wanted to borrow money to buy land. It could well include speculators who want to use Farm Credit Corporation money to buy up land adjacent to towns or cities or manufacturing plants. This would allow these people to make a profit through speculation because of the increased value of land. They would not have to make a success of farming. I think this clause creates a loophole, and whether or not the regulations will plug that loophole I am not in a position to say. We have not seen the regulations and they may not be made public for months.
Let me draw the minister's attention to the act as it was. I presume this same provision will be in effect in the new act after it is amended. It states that the corporation has the right to make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of the act without restricting the generality of foregoing sections. It states that the corporation can define the expressions "economic farm unit", "single farming enterprise", and "co-operative farm association". If the minister can clearly define those past regulations perhaps it will make it easier for us. I do not suggest he should tell us what the new regulations are because they
29180-140^
Farm Credit Act
may not have been drafted yet, but if he could clearly define an economic farm unit, a single farming enterprise and a co-operative farm association, as well as a family farm corporation, we might rest assured that the provisions will be narrow enough to prevent what we have in mind.
Unless we have more details as to the regulations I can only say that there is a great loophole created by these amendments which will allow huge corporate entities to build up and take advantage of lucrative markets. I refer to what has been called vertical integration. We may be creating a loophole which will allow enterprising businessmen to make a co-operating farmer a partner and buy his land through the Farm Credit Corporation. That farmer could then stay on the land without using it until the adjoining town or a business needed it. In that way there could be speculation through the use of Farm Credit Corporation money.
I am concerned about those two situations, and I should very much like the minister to give us the existing definitions in the regulations in respect of an economic farm unit, a co-operative farm association and so on. If the minister will do that, perhaps we might find ourselves in a position to pass this clause. I think it is dangerous to bring this clause in as it stands.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, to alleviate any concern as to whether or not the regulations under the Farm Credit Act will be drafted in such a way as to benefit other than bona fide farmers, let me suggest that it must be kept in mind that whenever in this act the term "farm corporation" is used, it means a farming corporation as defined by the regulations. The definition will require that the control of the operations of the corporation and the preponderance of its ownership must be held by individuals who are principally concerned with the operation of the farming corporation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is the minister now reading the regulations?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will present the regulations later. The regulations under the new act are not available. The regulations are always written after an act is passed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is the weakest excuse possible. The minister knows that this act has been in existence since 1959. I was asking him about the old regulations.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I want to point out also that the arguments of the hon. gentleman are not

October 30. 1968
Farm, Credit Act
valid if he claims that clause 8 will allow anyone who is not a bona fide farmer to use the credit facilities of the F.C.C. for speculative purposes. That is very clear in my mind, and I take that to be the concern of the hon. gentleman. Let me alleviate that concern in his mind.
These regulations are available to the hon. member and I will send him a copy of them if he wishes. The term "family farm corporation" under the old regulations of the act prior to amendment is defined as follows:
-means a corporation the principal object of which is the carrying on of an enterprise devoted to the production of agricultural products and at least 95 per cent of the shares of which are owned wholly by persons that are related to one another either through blood relationship, marriage or adoption with not less than 51 per cent of the shares owned by the actual operator or operators of the farm;
These definitions are rather long, but if the hon. gentleman wishes I will read them. I would prefer to send him copy so that he can read them. What is now contained in the definitions no doubt will be carried forward into the new ones. We have not found it necessary to define a single farm unit because that is fairly obvious. If a farm unit meets the qualifications of an economic unit and is owned by one individual there is no need to define it further.
Let me draw to my hon. friend's attention the fact that the amendment makes it possible for the corporation to make loans to farmers who have decided for their own purposes to incorporate their business. There are all kinds of good reasons for doing so. Surely the hon. member would not wish to deny farmers the right to obtain credit because they had incorporated. Surely he does not wish to be in the position of saying, do not incorporate because you will be denied the credit that other farmers can get. This is contradictory to the argument the hon. member made yesterday that there is an intrusion into the farming enterprise by corporate entities. What we are doing now is providing the facilities through which farmers can compete with this intrusion, to whatever extent that assertion is valid.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister has assumed something I did not imply. I should like him to give the definition in the old regulations of an economic farm unit. He had the regulations in his hand.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have them right here. An economic farm unit means:
-an area of farm land that, together with such buildings, farm equipment and livestock as in the judgment of the corporation are necessary for the efficient use and exploitation of the land as a farming enterprise, will, under the operation of the applicant, produce revenue sufficient to
(i)	pay the cost of operation and maintenance of the land, buildings and chattels,
(ii)	provide a livelihood for the applicant, and
(iii)	pay to the corporation within the time agreed the amount of the loan made to the applicant;
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the discussion that has taken place and would like to ask the minister why this change has been made. The family farm corporation was a satisfactory arrangement under the Farm Credit Corporation and allowed for a very large expansion of the type of operation that I am sure every member who represents a rural area is pleased to see. I refer to the father-son relationship within the farm unit. In many cases this is a registered partnership and becomes a company.
I would like to know why this new definition has been written into the bill. I am sure we are all in agreement with the hon. member for Crowfoot-the minister, I am sure, is also in agreement with him-that we do not want to provide another loophole for the vertical integration of agriculture. All farmers are well aware of the fact that when they are pushed to the wall they often find it very easy to obtain money from business people in the community in order to set up a corporation. In this situation the farmer or farmers set up a corporation on the basis of shares being made available and they operate the corporation. I am sure the minister is not interested in promoting this kind of operation.
What was wrong with the family farm corporation which was a father-son operation and bore a blood relationship which I am sure the Farm Credit Corporation regulations will not disallow? Representations must have been received by the department to warrant this change. If this is the case, perhaps the minister would tell us what they were and the reasons for the change having been made in the bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the explanation is as follows: Under the old act it was defined as a family farm corporation, and recently a number of neighbouring farmers have, for
October 30, 1968

the purposes of efficiency; the purchase of machinery and the co-operative use of all the requirements in connection with farming, if I may use that phrase, grouped themselves together in a co-operative, partnership or corporation. The name of the entity is not important. They have grouped themselves together, and if they had done that under the old definition of family farm corporation and these people were not blood relatives, of course they could not take advantage of the credit facilities of the Farm Credit Corporation.
It is my opinion that these people are doing a service to themselves and the country by being more efficient in these partnerships, cooperatives or corporations, and that we should therefore amend the act so that this kind of operation and arrangement can be recognized and thus use the facilities of the Farm Credit Corporation.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I was always of the opinion that co-operative farm associations could legally be formed by a number of farmers grouping together. I may be wrong but I understood that people like the Hutter-ites in certain areas and the Mennonites in other areas have done this in the past. A number of persons in different parts of the country have done the same thing. There is in my area a very large farm corporation that is registered as a co-op with two major shareholders. I thought we had provided under a section of the Farm Credit Corporation act the right to co-operative associations to set up a legal program to allow for this type of operation.
I do not know very much about corporate structure but I presume this provision has something to do with the tax structure. If it has, it may not be a bad thing. But I am still of the opinion that we should keep the family farm corporation, with its blood relationship, because most of the amalgamation of farm land today has been carried out by people with a blood relationship.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is right in what he is saying, but a farming corporation, or whatever expression is used, certainly does not exclude a family from being the shareholders or members of the corporation. As I said a few moments ago, the purpose of this amendment is to apply the word "corporation" to a small group of farmers, three or whatever number more, who have incorporated to set up a legal entity, so they will not be excluded from the provisions of the act.
Farm, Credit Act


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a brief question. Do any of the definitions in this clause have any association with that part of the act which indicates that those who are intending to farm will be granted loans by the Farm Credit Corporation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that question is yes, but in practice it is that they are about to begin farming immediately on getting the loan.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am very sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I did not hear the last part of the minister's answer.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The answer to the question is yes, there are provisions for an applicant who is about to begin farming, but in practice it is that they are about to begin farming as soon as they obtain the loan so that they are financially able to do so.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I ask a further question, Mr. Chairman, for clarification. I thank the minister for his explanation. Does the minister intend to make any provision to ensure that those intending to take up farming through a corporation or as individuals shall have had previous experience in farming?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is a provision in the bill which requires that the field man ascertain to his satisfaction that such an applicant has had farming experience. I am advised that the provision is in clause 4. It can be found on page 3 of the bill at approximately line 23 and continuing therefrom. The provision is as follows:
(1) in the case of an individual, where in the opinion of the corporation the experience, ability and character of that individual are such as to warrant the belief that the farm to be mortgaged will be successfully operated-
Of course, experience is involved there.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have one further question in this regard. I realize it is rather difficult to say whether a corporation as such has had farming experience. Is it the minister's intention that the principal shareholders of a farm corporation shall have had this experience? Will there be any provision as to the percentage of the members of the corporation who shall have had farming experience? Will this provision apply to the directors of the corporation which is being set up in the business of farming, to just one director, or to the shareholders of the corporation? What is the minister's intention in this regard?

October 30, 1968
Farm Credit Act


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I should have read the next paragraph of clause 4. I ask the hon. member to look at it. I quote from where I finished reading a moment ago:
(ii) in the case of a farming corporation or a co-operative farm association, where in the opinion of the corporation the experience, ability and character of those shareholders or members who are principally occupied in the farming operations of the corporation or association, as the case may be, are such as to warrant the belief that the farm to be mortgaged will be successfully operated;
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I would also refer the hon. gentleman to the definition of farmer in clause 1, where I think it spells out fairly clearly that the F.C.C. will not only have the right but the duty to examine these characteristics of the individuals involved in a corporation. It is quite obvious that we cannot assess whether a corporation is going to be a good farmer. It is the individuals who are going to be farmers, with the experience and capabilities necessary to operate a farm.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thank the minister for giving a very complete answer to the question. It is a good thing to have these answers on the record. Sometimes it may prevent future arguments between officials of the corporation and those who make representations on behalf of farmers.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I may be a little slow to catch this, but under the regulations to date we could be assured that when a loan was made to an individual to form a corporation, or to two individuals, those people were actually farmers. It was the policy of the Farm Credit Corporation to insist that they be farmers.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I can assure my hon. friend that that policy will be maintained, but I point out that the provision did not stipulate full 100 per cent income from farming but mentioned farming as the principal occupation. The collective judgment of the corporation in these cases has been based on a definition of something substantially higher than a simple majority.
tTranslation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, with regard to clause 8 which defines the terms "economic farm unit", "single farming enterprise" "cooperative farm association" and "farming corporation", I should like to ask the minister whether, as in the past, there will be conflict between federal and provincial loans to agricultural organizations. In many cases, for instance, we are told that the Quebec Farm

Credit Bureau objects to loans being made by Ottawa. I have seen proof of that in my own riding.
Is there, at the present time, conflict between the legislation proposed to the house and that in effect in the province of Quebec for, unless I am mistaken, the province of Quebec alone has a Farm Credit Bureau, contrary to the other Canadian provinces. Is the government introducing this bill to help only the economic farm units in provinces other than Quebec, or in those of Quebec as well?
Will the agricultural units or corporations back home be able to obtain loans from the federal government as easily as western farmers. As I understand it, the legislation proposes to help farmers and farm associations in western Canada, namely in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba? Will possibilities be as good for the eastern farmers as they have been in the past. Will they continue to be in the future under the terms of this bill?
Mr. Chairman, the member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is constantly rising to fight for the interests of the Alberta farmers. We know that. Others speak for the interests of Saskatchewan and Manitoba farmers.
I want to point out we do not oppose government aid to all farming associations and corporations or co-operatives out west. Still, we will fight with tooth and nail so that the eastern farmers, our agricultural societies such as C.F.U. and the co-operatives, it matters little, get the same benefits from this bill, from these loans, as the western farmers.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wish to advise my hon. friend from Temiscamingue that the F.C.C. has more staff in the province of Quebec than in any other province, and that all the services are offered in Quebec in the same way and under the same rules and regulations as they are offered any place else in Canada.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, that is not an answer. Everyone knows that the minister has a large staff in the province of Quebec. However, the minister is aware of the fact that there are fewer loans made to agricultural organizations in Quebec than in western Canada. Even if there are more bureaucrats in the province of Quebec, that has nothing to do with milking cows or farming. What we want to know is whether there will be more easily obtained federal loans than in the past.
October 30, 1968


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In my opinion there are two explanations. One is that in Quebec in addition to the F.C.C. there is a fairly active provincial agency which makes loans. In many of the other provinces there are no provincial agencies which make credit available to farmers. The other important point is that in some other provinces the agricultural sector is a major part of their whole economic structure, more so than in Quebec. I think it would be fair to say that in Saskatchewan agriculture makes up a higher percentage of the total provincial economy than does agriculture in Quebec.


Mr. Ritchie:: I would like to point out that in making loans the experience and ability of an individual are taken into consideration. I think that is good, but with the advent of the family corporation consisting of father and son injustices may occur. I realize that the corporation's field men must necessarily cover their bets or percentage losses as best they can, but I submit that a father and son corporation, where the father is in his fifties and is well established in farming, will have a substantial advantage over a young farmer who may not be too well known in the neighbouring district and who may not have as much capital as his family counterpart.
Whenever land is offered for sale in my riding numerous people bid for it. I would like the minister to tell me how the corporation's field men will not discriminate against young farmers in these cases. Other than giving instructions to field men, what can be done to prevent the business of agriculture from losing young farmers who would eventually be successful but who at present are not well known to the field men?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not know if I can explicitly express how the field men are going to achieve what the hon. member has requested, but I would point out that in these amendments we are increasing the amount available from the F.C.C. to young farmers from 75 per cent of the assessed value of a farm unit to 90 per cent. I think that is a major step toward meeting the request that the hon. member has made.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If I understand the minister correctly the reason for changing the words "family farm corporation" to "farming corporation" is that in clause 1 the word "person" has been changed to "individual". Under the
Farm Credit Act
act as it now stands a farmer means a person whose principal occupation is farming. A person is a legal entity and could well include a corporation. If one were to read the definition the other way, a farmer would mean a corporation whose principal occupation was farming. In considering clause 8, the minister assured us that 51 per cent of the shares would be held by persons actively participating in farming. He went on to suggest that in the regulations the percentage would be much higher than that and would be nearly all of them. Why hide behind the regulations so far as the family farm is concerned? He suggested that in so far as the family farm was concerned 95 per cent of the shares must belong to blood relations. Could the minister give us some assurance that perhaps 95 per cent of the shares of these corporations must belong to members of the corporation who are actively engaged in the business of farming?
It is all well and good not to disclose the interest rate and to say that is has to be set later. We did not approve of this idea. Surely this problem is not nearly as touchy. Surely the minister can give us the percentage. Will it be 90 per cent, 95 per cent, 75 per cent or will it drop back to 51 per cent? I do not believe we are being overly inquisitive in attempting to elicit this information. I think it is only fair that the minister should try to enlighten the committee as much as possible during the passage of this bill. By so doing he will also enlighten the Canadian public as to the exact percentage of shares that would have to be owned by actual farmers in a farm corporation.
I have one other suggestion to make to the minister and I would like his comments upon it. I am not particularly eager to move another amendment. I am pleased to learn that the minister is giving some consideration to the amendment I moved last evening. We were pleased to allow clause 6 to stand in order that such consideration might be given. Could the minister not have added the words "family farm corporation" in this clause when he was making these changes? In other words, do not strike out the family farm but leave it in and add "farming corporation" if he so desires. Do not discriminate against the mainstay of agriculture in the past.
I believe the family farm will have a part to play in the agricultural industry. After all, it is only through the co-operation of the whole family that a success is made of this type of farm. Therefore I sincerely urge the

October 30, 1968
Farm Credit Act
minister to consider the recommendation I am making. As I have said, I am not eager to move another amendment. I cannot see why the minister would not leave "family farm corporation" in the clause and include "farm corporation" if he desires. I do not want to move an amendment but somebody on the government side could. It bothers me a little to have the family farm stricken from the clause. The minister believes in the farm corporation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The answer is so simple I am sure it is obvious to the hon. member. Family farm corporations are included in farm corporations. It would be redundant to add those words. If it is a farm corporation or a family farm corporation, it is right in there.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It may well be in there and it may not. There may be a difference in the total number of shareholders permissible for a family farm corporation. Far be it for me to say that the bill is so well or carefully drafted that it can do without two extra words in it. It cannot be said that these two words are not absolutely needed. We may have to have three extra words so that the provision would read, and/or a family farm. I am sure the minister would find there was a difference in the regulations between the number of shares that would have to be held by blood relations for a family farm corporation and the shareholders of a corporate farm. I say to the minister that while they may be the same they are not necessarily the same. In order to encourage the continued existence of the family farm, I sincerely urge the minister and his associates to include those words-and a family farm.
I cannot emphasize this point too much. If the minister believes that the family farm has been the mainstay of the agricultural industry in the past and will continue to be in the future, I am sure he will accede to my request. If he does not believe in the family farm, if he wants to treat the family farm the same as the corporate farm, then let him strike out those words. I really do not believe he wants to do that. I really do not believe the members of this committee want to do that.
I am not moving an amendment at this time but I am pleading with him to add these words to cover the family farm. The amendment would be simple and could go through within three minutes. This is a very important point. No politician who has ever campaigned in the rural parts of Canada from

one end of the country to the other was ever elected by disregarding the family farm. The minister knows it. He can say that these words would be redundant, that "farming corporation" includes a family farm. It may, but not necessarily. I urge the minister, therefore, to quickly draft an amendment to include these words. I do not want to move an amendment because when an amendment comes from this side of the house all the backbenchers on the other side seem to think they have to vote against it. All the members on that side of the house seem to believe that all the brains are on that side. I do not want to place the family farm in jeopardy. I do not want the credit for moving the amendment, I want the family farm to be covered by this bill. This is all I want. I urge the minister to have one of his boys quickly prepare an amendment so that the family farm will be preserved.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The position the hon. member for Crowfoot is taking now, Mr. Chairman, I think was well expressed by the minister when we were dealing with clause 1. Clause 1 asserts that a farm corporation will be defined by regulation. We intend to put in the regulation a definition of the various kinds of corporations. I thought that was already clear to the hon. member.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Just on that point-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Wait until I make this explanation which apparently the hon. gentleman missed. The definition will make a distinction between shareholders who are related and those who are not in so far as share distribution is concerned. Indeed, the definition of the family farm corporation that is in the regulations now very likely will be carried into the new regulations.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not want to belabour this point, Mr. Chairman. I remember debating this question earlier, and since I realized that was not the time to move an amendment to this clause I waited, as the rules provide I should, until clause 8 came under discussion. I then broached the subject. The minister may scold me, if he pleases, for not remembering what took place before, but I do remember the debate and the explanation given by the minister at the time.
We are now on clause 8 and I am making a final plea. The minister has said there will be
October 30, 1968

definitions in the regulations which will distinguish between a family farm and a corporate farm. However, there is no provision in the act that the regulations will be changed. The act provides that the corporation may make definitions in regard to an economic farm unit, a single farming enterprise, a cooperative farm association and a farming corporation, but it does not say that there shall be a definition which will specifically spell out what is a family farm.
The minister says that certainly there will be a distinction made in the regulations. If he were to include in this clause, in addition to "farming corporation", the expression "a family farm", then a definition would have to be made in the regulations of both types of operations or both types of corporation, if I may put it in that way. Why does the minister not make this definition statutory and insert it in the act? I cannot understand his reluctance on this point. All he has to do is insert three words in the bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would help the hon. gentleman to understand the position if I were to tell him that we see no purpose in inserting redundant words in an act. I would also draw to his attention that clause 1, which has already been passed by the committee, provides very clearly that a farming corporation will be defined by regulation. What the committee accepted when it passed that clause was the amendment of the former clause which provided:
"farmer" means a person whose principal occupation is farming, and, for the purposes of Part II, includes a co-operative farm association and a family farming corporation as defined by regulation;
So the act originally provided that a family farm corporation would be defined by regulation. We are now deleting the word "family" for reasons that I have explained a number of times, and all of which I find valid.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I find it hard to understand the minister's reluctance to make this simple adjustment that would please everyone in the house and would be a very good thing for the minister to do.
I remember that last year in the house reference was made to a famous occasion in the fall of 1950. I remember that occasion very well because I had been elected to the house a few months before. Parliament had been called to deal with a railway strike. Mr. St. Laurent, the prime minister of the day, presented a bill which needed a simple adjustment but one which the opposition asked the prime minister to make so that 29180-141
Farm Credit Act
there would be no misunderstanding. The prime minister agreed to this and promised that it would be done when the regulations were promulgated. Later it turned out that the prime minister's promise was not carried out, that it had no bearing whatever on the legislation, and the regulation was never passed.
Therefore, because of the importance of family farms to those who rely on them for their livelihood, and in view of the reasonableness of the request that has been made by the hon. member for Crowfoot, I would urge the minister to be reasonable. If he intends to make this change by regulation, then I would ask him to have the bigness and the generosity to make a slight change in the bill now so that there can be no doubt about it in the future.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The only reason for not doing so, as I hope hon. gentlemen opposite can understand, is that we would have to go through the entire bill and include those words because they appear nowhere else. Clause 8 relates to other clauses and to phrases that are used throughout the bill. Therefore there will be definitions of these words in the bill and in the regulations.
Clause 1, which the committee has already passed, provides that the government has the right to define a farming corporation. I have already given an undertaking that the distinction between shareholders of such a corporation who are related and those who are not will be made in the regulations. It is not a question of resisting something here; it is just that we want all of the words in the bill to make sense.
I do not want to repeat the reasons for changing the wording so that corporations that are composed not necessarily of blood relatives can be recognized by the F.C.C. This is why we have used the term "farming corporation" rather than excluding all but a family corporation. I think all of the reasons I have given are valid. Putting in one or two words does not worry me that much, but surely they should be useful words. Everything for which hon. gentlemen opposite have asked is already provided for in the bill and will be provided for by regulation. I have already given an undertaking to that effect.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, without arguing further on the subject, because I do want to get the bill through today, I move:
That on page 6, line 28. after the word "corporation" the following be added:
"and family farm".

October 30, 1968
Farm Credit Act
The sentence would then read .. 'farming corporation' and 'family farm' for the purposes of this act".


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, the reason I intervene is that I think this amendment must be made to the bill. It is not good enough to rely on the promises or wishes of a person when it comes to a question of interpreting laws. When you get down to the clinches the officials always interpret the words the way they want. Many times the will of parliament has been frustrated simply because, having passed a certain act, we did not tee up the regulations properly and the officials who interpreted the act completely discarded our reasoning.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, might I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What useful purpose would there be in authorizing us to make regulations to define a word that does not exist in the bill?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am explaining that now. What I am worried about is not so much the interpretation of words but that the money goes to the right people. In order to dot the last "i" of the bill and so that nobody will have any doubt about what we mean, I do not think it would be redundant to include the words "family farm". Stupid officials-and they do exist-could interpret the act to frustrate the will of parliament.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
When the government says, "You can trust us to look after the family farm" I want to know why the family farm is being written off. My statement is not based on guesses. I have been told this in clear words. I know this government does not intend to encourage the operation of inefficient units. If the family or corporate farm is not inefficient, why is it necessary to make money available in this manner? Despite the government's statements that inefficient units must be made more efficient and that we must lend inefficient units money, which may or may not be a subsidy, why is the agricultural industry in such dire circumstances today? I will tell you, Mr. Chairman. It is as the result of this government's policy.
The corporate farmers are not in trouble, and I know that. The large prairie farmers and the large dairy farmers are not in trouble but many thousands of small farmers are in

trouble. I want to hear an assurance that small family farmers will be assisted as well as young boys who are just beginning to farm.
Frankly, I do not trust any government that has gone so far in destroying our family farms. It is necessary for the government to instruct those who draft laws and regulations that at all costs the family farm is to be preserved. There is already on the statute books legislation covering acreage payments. That is of help to the small farmer. Agriculture would be stabilized if the government would implement a longstanding promise of all governments in Canada and introduce a two price system for grain. The government ought to look again at dairy policy and at the policy affecting mixed farms. If I can be assured that the young farmer who is just beginning to farm and the homesteader are to be helped under this legislation, I shall resume my seat and congratulate the minister. Unfortunately there are no indications that this will happen. I have letters on my desk from small farmers who are worried because they do not think they can survive until next seeding time. They are worried about the future for themselves and for their families.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I am not worried so much by the phrasing of this particular clause as I am by the general tone and intention of the bill. Perhaps I might be permitted to read part of a script used by the Prime Minister in Winnipeg on June 6, 1968. Paragraph 3 reads:
The government proposes to amend the farm credit legislation to provide for broadened applicability and to stimulate the entry into the industry of younger people. These amendments would provide increased coverage for farmers desirous of acting in partnership, would improve the ability of farmers to enter into agreements with their sons, and would facilitate the entry into farm ownership of young farmers who have demonstrated superior managerial ability. Action would also be taken to expand the activities of the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act to provide for loans on permanent installations, housing, specialized equipment for the joint use of several farmers, and for allied purposes. The provisions of the farm improvement loans would be expanded, and the operations of this act integrated with those of the Farm Credit Corporation.
In that statement on farm credit there is no mention of any intention to encourage the expansion of corporate farms. Yet it seems that the main emphasis in this bill is on the corporate farm. There is no emphasis, it seems to me, on help being given to the younger farmer. In fact, the Ottawa Journal on September 14, 1968, forecast-
Ociober 30, 19G8


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the only question before the committee is the amendment moved to clause 8. The amendment seeks to authorize the government to define the words "family farm". We have been all over the ground the hon. member is talking about dozens of times. I wonder whether we could address ourselves to the question before the committee.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I think the mover of the amendment wanted to introduce into this bill some of the sentiments expressed in the document from which I have just read. If you call me to order, sir, I will not proceed with my remarks. If you allow me to proceed, then I will.


Albert Béchard: I will ask the hon. member to proceed.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Thank you. I was about to say that the Ottawa Journal forecast an interest rate of between 7J and 8 per cent. I should like to know how such an interest rate will assist the younger farmer. We should not remove from this bill a protection farmers have enjoyed, namely, guaranteed interest rates on certain loans. I doubt that we on this side of the house will support the bill unless that protection is retained. I ask, what is the good of the farm management service that is proposed here if the farmer's protection is removed? Without doubt that service could be of real assistance to farmers if the protection with regard to interest rates were retained.
Judging from the farm bills brought before the house the government's lending program is not at all integrated. In light of the government's apparent farm credit policy I submit it will not be integrated and will only add to the difficulties of family farmers who are already faced with grave difficulties. The government asks us to accept its farm credit program. Though the amendment may help matters I submit that if the government removes the protection which farmers have enjoyed it may be difficult in the future to put right the harm that may be done.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to address a question to the minister instead of making a speech. It arises out of some distinction in my mind between the definition in clause 1 and the reference in the clause we are now considering. In part of the constituency I represent it is possible for a farm to be owned to the extent of say 80 per
29180-141j
Farm Credit Act
cent by a farmer whose principal occupation is farming, and to the extent of 20 per cent by a son who may do enough to keep the farm up to date but whose main occupation is not farming but something else. Can the minister say whether in these circumstances such a farm family would qualify for 100 per cent benefit under this act or whether the borrowing would be restricted to 80 per cent because the principal occupation of the minor shareholder was not farming? I would appreciate an answer. This is a serious question and I have not taken up much of the committee's time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not sure of the purport of the question. If I understood the hon. member correctly he asked whether or not an 80 per cent figure could be used if a young farmer, under the age mentioned in the bill, were a minority shareholder. Is that correct?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, if the principal occupation of the minority shareholder is farming the upper limit would apply.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Suppose the young farmer is able to help his father for only part of the time and his principal occupation is something other than farming, does this restrict the amount which can be borrowed under the legislation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, it would, because we require that the principal occupation of those concerned be farming.
Amendment (Mr. Horner) negatived: Yeas, 34; nays, 76.


Albert Béchard: I declare the
amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wonder whether we could revert to clause 6. I should like to move an amendment.


The Chairman:: Is it agreed that we revert to clause 6?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 6-Agreement re loans to Indians on reserves.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In accordance with the arguments I put forward last night and today when I asked that clause 6 be allowed to

October 30, 1968
Farm Credit Act
stand, I should like my colleague, the President of the Privy Council, to move:
That subsection (1) of section 17A of Bill C-110, An Act to amend the Farm Credit Act, be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"17A. (1) With the approval of the Governor in Council, the Corporation may enter into an agreement with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the purpose of enabling loans to be made under this Act to farmers who are Indians on reserves, to farming corporations and co-operative farm associations the shareholders or members of which are Indians on reserves and to bands engaged in farming operations on reserves."
This does not change the meaning greatly, but the amendment does make it quite clear that for the purposes of the act corporations of Indians who are farmers on reserves, cooperatives, farming associations whose shareholders are Indians on reserves, and Indian bands are included among those qualified to apply for loans under the legislation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, there is already an amendment before the committee and I doubt very much that another amendment can be moved now. We do not intend to take advantage of the situation but I suggest that the committee might proceed to further clauses in order to permit my hon. friend from Crowfoot to consider whether or not he would be justified in withdrawing his amendment.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If the hon. member for Peace River would look at page 4, line 29, he would see that after the word "reserves" is added the phrase "and to bands engaged in farming operations on reserves". The amendment simply amplifies and explains.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am not objecting to that. But the fact is there is already one amendment to clause 6 before the committee.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That amendment was lost.


Gerald William Baldwin: I understand my hon. friend moved an amendment to clause 6-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, that is so. No matter how sound the minister's amendment may be, it is out of order. If he wished he could move a subamendment to the amendment in my name to clause 6 now before the committee, but he cannot move a further amendment until the first is disposed of.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Very well, we will deal with yours first.


Albert Béchard: Order. There is already an amendment before the committee. If it is the intention of the hon. member foi Crowfoot to withdraw it-
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wish to facilitate the work of the committee to the best of my ability, Mr. Chairman, but before I withdraw my amendment I should like the minister to explain to me the purpose of clause 6. Subclause 4 refers to the total amount of loans. Note that the plural form is used. We are dealing with more than one loan. We are talking about the total amount of loans outstanding that may be made to any one band under this legislation. It says "under this act", not under any other clause of this act or under clause 6, the amount shall not exceed $100,000. This is what I should like to have a definition of. If it does not mean what it says or if I am reading something into it that is not there, I wish the minister would explain it. It refers to the total amount of loans to any one band. It does not say that the loans are made singly to one band. As I interpret it it says that the total amount of loans within one band shall not exceed $100,000. If it does not mean the total amount of loans within the band then I believe this should be clarified. The way I read it it says under this act and not under any particular clause. I am very anxious to get this bill through tonight and therefore I do not wish to belabour this point. If the minister can explain how I am misreading this then I might be prepared to withdraw my amendment.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The reason subclause 4 is there and the reason the expression "Indian bands" is used in the other clauses is so that the band itself, whether large or small, can in the name or identity of the band itself borrow up to $100,000. This gives them the same rights as any other corporation. Because there is some question concerning whether a band could be considered to be a corporation, cooperative, partnership, and so on, we have included in section 17A (1) of clause 6 and in two or three other places the provision that the band, as a legal entity, can in fact borrow as much as any other corporation. Clause 4 simply says that the upper maximum of $100,000 will apply also to a band. I repeat again that in addition to the funds that could be lent to a band as an entity-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the first amendment.
October 30, 1368


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Do you not want an explanation of why clause 4 is there and what it means?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, but do not bother to read your amendment.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There was some misunderstanding by the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo about whether or not clause 4 limited to $100,000 that could be lent to the entire band. It certainly does not. I do not know how many, but there could be five, ten or 20 partnerships, corporations or co-operatives, or indeed individuals, within the same band. That clause is there simply to provide that the money is to be lent to the band in the name of the band. It is necessary that it be there because it is not clear yet whether a band itself could be considered to be a corporation, co-operative or partnership. That is the reason it was included.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Why limit the amount to $100,000? There are reserves of various sizes. In my constituency I have two reserves. One is large and the people there are fairly well advanced in farming operations. The other is small and the people there are not advanced in farming operations. I cannot understand why it is limited to an amount of $100,000. There might be a reserve which would need $500,000 for its development.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If there were a number of individual farmers on that reservation who made application for an aggregate $500,000 and if that was approved by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, they could be granted $500,000 in total.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I think that is questionable.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the amendment to subsection 4 of new section 17A. I do so because of what the minister said at the commencement of the debate. He said that the intention of the government is that our Indian citizens will be placed in exactly the same position as other Canadians who are engaged in the farming industry in Canada. If this is the intent of the minister and the government, I submit that under the terms of the clause as it now stands we are not achieving the desired objective.
I believe the government is in trouble with our Indian friends, first, because of its reputation as expressed by the saying that the white man speaks with forked tongue, second, because of our tendency to treat our first citizens as second class citizens and, finally, because of the lack of consultation. I
Farm Credit Act
support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot because I think the clause speaks with a forked tongue, if I may use that expression.
I cannot refer to the amendment put forward by the minister, but he speaks of corporations and co-operatives. The fact is that on most reservations there are very few co-operatives. The co-operative movement is just beginning on reservations. There are very few corporations. The band council is the main agency for transacting business on the reservation. So in actual fact the $100,000 would be the maximum limit. I believe that if the committee and the minister would approve of this amendment we would be able to get over this obstacle and no ceiling would be placed on the activities of the band council in this regard. If it is the desire of the minister to place the Indian bands on the same basis as other farmers in Canada, this is one simple way to carry out that objective.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If the hon. member, who has had long experience in this connection, would read the bill carefully and particularly clause 6 he would find that it puts Indian farmers on exactly the same basis as every other farmer in this country. This is spelled out in great detail. Even if a co-operative should have 1,000 members who are other than Indians it could not get more than $100,000 from the corporation. That is clear. We are applying the regulations to Indians as individuals, as partnerships and as corporations exactly the same as everyone else in this country.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, on this point the minister has suggested that in fact this clause means all loans made by one band and not all loans within one band. This, in essence, is what he is saying. Therefore I suggest that this clause is redundant because subsection (1) says:
-farmers who are Indians on reserves and to bands engaged in farming operations on reserves.
It says "and to bands". Let us look at subsection 5 where it says:
The provisions of this Act, in so far as practicable, shall apply to all loans made or to be made to farmers and bands referred to in subsection (1)__
If we interpret subsection 5, which is difficult to interpret, in the way the minister interprets it, namely, that it is not all loans made within one band but loans made to one single band as a legal entity, then the clause is redundant. It does not have to be there because subsections 1 and 5 specifically spell out that bands can borrow money. In answer

October 30, 1968
Farm Credit Act
to a question put by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, the minister said that after consultation with the department of Indian affairs and Indian band may well be able to borrow $500,000. I should like to read my amendment again for the benefit of members of the committee. It is:
That all the words after "shall" in line 3, page 5, paragraph (4) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:	"be determined by agreement
between the corporation and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with the approval of the governor in council.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I should have added the words "and consultation with the band concerned". I will not delay the house by suggesting a subamendment to my own amendment, but in hurriedly drafting the amendment I left out those words.
I hope hon. members paid close attention to the minister's answer to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. He suggested that if a band came to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development it could obtain loans of $500,000. All I am suggesting is that we should not place a ceiling on one band. If we interpret this clause the way the minister wants us to interpret it we will not have one band forming an association. This is difficult to envisage.
The band on the reservation in my constituency would like to take over the farming of their own land. They have section after section of the very best land in south central Alberta. In order to give hon. members some idea of what I am talking about let me tell them that the crop on this reservation amounts to approximately 250,000 bushels, or about one-sixth of what the white man produces. These people have reached the stage where they want to become the farmers and farm this land as an Indian band.
The minister suggests there is a $100,000 limit and that this applies to the land owned or occupied by an Indian band. By adopting this provision we will be breaking up these Indian bands into four or five little co-operatives. They will have to do so in order to borrow $100,000 each. What are we trying to do, split them up and get them squabbling among themselves? There is no real purpose to this clause. It will force these Indian bands to divide and form small co-operatives. There will be one co-operative operating one section of land, another on another section of land and still another on another section. As one hon: member suggested, the minister is talking with a forked tongue. Whether he is doing

that or not, he is talking with very little knowledge of how these Indian band would like to operate.
I urge the minister and the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo to support my amendment. I know full well that he is aware of the situation to which I refer. I do not have to converse with him about this problem and I know that he is in agreement with what I have said. This provision will drive these Indian bands to form five, six or seven different co-operatives in order to obtain $500,000 for each legal entity. All I am suggesting by the amendment is that we should not put a ceiling on the amount.
When you consider the ten sections occupied by the Blackfoot Indian band you must realize that $100,000 is not enough to buy the equipment to farm that area. That Indian band has no equipment at all at this time. Surely we do not want them to divide in order to take advantage of some white man's stupid regulation. That is just about what the Indian will think about it. This is just more red tape created by government bureaucracy. Surely the minister can understand that.
It is my hope that the minister can accept my amendment which merely suggests that the amount of money allowable to an Indian band should be determined by agreement between the corporation, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Indian band. This is not an impossible request. I sincerely hope it will be accepted.
I shall not delay the committee any longer, but I hope the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo and the Minister of Agriculture will realize that this is a reasonable thing. I am sure they will both understand that if they vote against this amendment they will force these Indian bands to divide in order to take advantage of this provision. They will then understand that I was right in my suggestion. A measure with a limitation of this kind is not good in principle.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Chaircnan, I should like to say a few words on clause 6 and the amendment thereto. I certainly think all hon. members will recognize this provision as a belated but welcome move. I can only consider for my own part that the government is trying to make a genuine move in response to considerable pressure for programs to enable Indians to improve their economic condition. There is no question that such measures are required
October 30, 1968

to reduce the social and economic waste evident today in many parts of Canada on Indian reserves and among the Indian population.
Having said that, I want to note that it is regrettable it should be necessary to have a special clause in the act to enable its extension to Indian people on Indian reserves. It seems to me that the necessity for such a clause is one further example of the elements of segregation which are still present in our laws dealing with this group of people. I am fully aware that this general problem does not come under the specific purview of the Minister of Agriculture. However, I hope he will keep in mind the day when it will be possible to remove this special clause without in any way inhibiting the extension of Farm Credit Act facilities to people of Indian origin.
Assuming that legislative sanction is needed to deal with this matter, and I am not completely certain yet of the necessity for legislative action, I must say that the clause presented was inadequately conceived, inadequately thought out and inadequately drafted.
The first and major inadequacy is in respect of the role of the Indian person. In what respect does the Indian have any say in running his own affairs, as this clause is proposed? The scope of the agreement called for in subclause 1 between the corporation and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. It being five o'clock shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think there may be a general disposition in the house to waive private members' hour for this afternoon on the understanding, of course, that it will not be lost to private members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that private members' hour be suspended this afternoon?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee on Bill No. C-110, to amend the Farm
Farm Credit Act
Credit Act-Mr. Olson-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
On clause 6-Agreement re loans to Indians on reserves.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman, the scope of the agreement called for in subsection 1 between the corporation and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is not clear, and I would like to have some further explanation from the minister. For instance, I would like to know whether the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will have complete control over the Indian person's affairs. Will the Indian person have any say in running his own affairs, or will this agreement result in one more extension of the department's powers over the affairs of the individual? Will the Indian person or group have to go through the usual bureaucratic red tape in dealing with the applications?
I have known of many cases where authorizations have been delayed until they were of no value to the persons applying for them. I can give one example that I saw during the past summer. This was an application by a farmer who lives just outside the reserve involved for authorization to purchase seed grain. The authority to purchase the seed grain was received by the Indian farmer after it was too late to use the seed in that season. Will the Indian agent or superintendent have effective control? Will everything have to go through him? Will the Indian person or group have any direct contact with the corporation?
Moving on to subsection 3, I point out that this subsection removes the necessity for a mortgage on the lands involved as security. I can understand that some provision would be necessary in this respect because of the present legislative provisions with regard to the status of Indian lands. Presumably this is one point that will be dealt with under the agreement mentioned in subsection 1. Possibly the agreement will provide for some related measure. But if subsection 3 waives the necessity for a mortgage, it raises still further questions as to the necessity for a special agreement between the corporation and the minister as set out in subsection 1.
Subsection 4 has already been discussed quite thoroughly with respect to the $100,000 limit on loans to a band. This applies, apparently, to all sizes and types of bands and band areas. I want to say that nothing the

October 30, 1968
Farm Credit Act
minister has yet said with respect to this subsection in any way refutes or denies the case that was presented in regard to the amendment now before us, that in fact there should be some flexibility in the determination of the maximum limit of loans available to an Indian band. I suggest that in fact the subsection proposed in the bill will have the effect of limiting the Indian people with respect to any decisions they wish to make as to the manner and form in which they shall carry on their farming operations. It seems to me there is room for further flexibility in this regard. To that extent I certainly go along with the spirit of the amendment as proposed.
However, Mr. Chairman, there is another aspect of this clause which I think deserves further consideration. It is with respect to the question of what say the Indian people will have in determining the amount of the loan for which they will be eligible, particularly in view of the great variation in the size of Indian reserves in Canada. I feel this is a very important question. I suggested last night in private conversation with the hon. member for Crowfoot, after he had moved his amendment, that in fact there was necessity for further consideration of this point and the hon. member agreed, as he indicated a few minutes ago. As a matter of fact, I was about to move a subamendment when I attempted to obtain the floor just a few minutes ago. Consequently I move:
That the amendment be amended by inserting between the word "corporation" and the word "and" the following: "the council of the band concerned."
Following the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot, subsection 4 would then read:
The total amount outstanding of loans that may be made to any one band under this act shall be determined by agreement between the corporation, the council of the band concerned, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with the approval of the governor in council.
I so move, Mr. Chairman, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, it may come as a surprise to the committee that I should interest myself in this matter, but I assure all hon. members that I do have a concern in the question because I represent in this house an Indian reserve. I refer to the remarks made last night by the minister in his anxiety to answer the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo, who had indicated support for

suggestions made from this side of the house when he spoke of the tremendous amount of Indian land available for Indian farming. The amount of land available for Indian farming is in excess of six million acres.
When one considers that there are well over 2,000 reservations and well over 500 bands, one has to look very closely at the remarks the minister made last evening when he said, as reported at page 2197 of Hansard, that three or more Indians who form themselves into a corporate partnership are eligible to borrow up to $100,000. The question that comes to my mind is: Will they be treated as an individual partnership in the same way as individuals would be in any other form of business? If $100,000 is made available to the band, what is the responsibility of any three in that band who set themselves up as a corporate partnership? What is their responsibility to the band and as to the loan the band itself has received? In other words, will the corporate partners within a band be responsible for their share of the band loan? If this is the case, they can in no way be considered as an individual partnership, because in borrowing $100,000 as a corporate partnership they have set themselves up as an individual group within the band. In this situation, how will the minister and the department be able to hold them responsible for their share of the loan of $100,000 made to the band?
Does the minister consider, as he has already indicated, that not only is a band entitled to borrow $100,000 but any number of band members can set themselves up as corporate partners? If there is a band of say 600 members and they decide to divide themselves up into partnerships of three, you will have 200 corporate partnerships each applying for a loan of $100,000. The minister knows very well what this adds up to in the way of money.
I do not think the minister can legislate fairly by this bill in the form in which it is now before the house. He is telling the Indian people that this money is available but the question arises, where will the money come from if they decide to pursue to the utmost the course I have mentioned? If every band in Canada borrowed $100,000, and the individuals within those bands divided themselves into corporate partnerships of three, the amount of money required just would not be available. I am, of course, exaggerating the situation, but if such a request came from all the Indians in this country the money just would not be available for them.
October 30, 1368

I repeat, that I do not understand how the minister can put forward the suggestion that a corporate partnership can be set up by any three Indian farmers and they can be held responsible for the $100,000 which may be borrowed by the band itself. I ask the minister under what form of legislation does he expect he can hold people responsible under these conditions?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This clause says:
With the approval of the Governor in Council, the corporation may enter into an agreement with the Minister of Indian Affairs-
That is a prerequisite to making loans to anyone on an Indian reservation. The reason is simply that we cannot take security on the land. I am sure that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be consulting with the bands as to what kind of arrangement will be made. That is not the limiting but it is the controlling factor with respect to the extremes that the hon. gentleman mentioned.


Donald MacInnis: I will avoid the extremes, which are also possibilities, and again ask the simple question: Under what legislation or what supervision can a separate corporate partnership be set up whereby its members, being band members, can be held responsible not only for the corporate partnership but for the over-all picture of the band? In other words, if the band borrows $100,000 are they, as individual corporate partners, also responsible for the band's share of the $100,000, or are they looked upon as individuals? If they are looked upon as individuals, in what position does this place the band?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If the hon. gentleman reads new section 17A (1) he will see that it says:
With the approval of the Governor in Council, the corporation may enter into an agreement with the Minister of Indian Affairs-
What the agreement will entail is of no particular concern to the Farm Credit Corporation. We want to make it as easy as possible for Indians who are farmers to obtain the same services as anyone else who is a farmer. If we get the security of the agreement it is not our concern how that security will be sustained either within the band or between the band. I am sure the band will be able to look after this aspect of it.
Farm Credit Act


Donald MacInnis: The minister is confident of what the band can do but once again I ask him a simple question. As the minister responsible for this legislation he should be fully aware what the legislation implies. In the event that a band borrows $100,000 and three individuals set themselves up as a corporate partnership can they, as individuals, be held responsible for the loan of $100,000 to themselves and also for their share of the loan that has been given to the band? Never mind the minister saying read this or read that. Can the individual be held responsible for a loan of $200,000 or can he not?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Anyone, whether he be a member of a corporation, a partnership or a band, and to whatever degree he has an equity in the entity, is in fact responsible for it. If three Indians who are farmers enter into a partnership and borrow $100,000 I suppose each one of them is responsible for one-third of it, indeed the whole of it if there is default on the part of the others.
If a band borrows $100,000 and there are 100 members in the band-there could be 500 members in a band but suppose there are only 100-there would be collective responsibility that could be reduced to an individual responsibility of $1,000.


Donald MacInnis: That is exactly what I was looking for. The person within a band who sets himself up with two others as a corporate partnership is no longer an individual according to the interpretation placed on this by the minister. In other words, despite the minister's effort to treat the Indian as an individual, on an equal basis with all other Canadians in this just society, he has said that the three individuals setting up a corporate partnership are no longer individuals because they are held responsible not only for their own borrowings but for the borrowings of the band as well. Therefore their individuality, as three men setting up a corporate partnership, is removed from them.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great concern to this debate and I am a little confused why a limit has been set in new section 17 (4). The minister indicated that what he was trying to do was to attempt to place the Indian on the same footing as everybody else. If so, of necessity he should not have referred to a sum of $100,000. Therefore, speaking to the subamendment it seems

October 30, 1968
Farm Credit Act
to me that this can be offensive from the Indian point of view. Whether a band consists of 50 members, 1,000 members of 5,000 members the minister has arbitrarily set a figure that can only mean there will be hardship. There can be no question about that because he has stated that a band can get only $100,000. Yet at the same time he says the government is trying to treat Indians just the same as anyone else. It cannot treat Indians the same as anyone else when it includes a provision like this stipulating that a band is entitled to only $100,000. If he wants to treat the Indian with some respect and appreciate his dignity I plead with the minister to consider the subamendment and the amendment.
If the minister accepts them he will be able to take cognizance of a band consisting of 1,000 people. I am not too well aware of the number of men, women and children that usually form a band, but does the minister not realize that when he stipulates $100,000 he is restricting whatever good this legislation may achieve? I plead with the minister to appreciate the fact that we are dealing with people. He is talking about corporate entities, partnerships and associations. We are dealing with people.
If we are going to move toward the just society, here is an ideal opportunity for parliament, and particularly the government, to be just. Let us recognize that a band can consist of 2,000 people. If we do not recognize that fact then I say this new section smacks of discrimination. It is offensive, and we do not want that record in the first session of this parliament. I ask Liberal backbenchers to pay particular attention to these amendments that are attempting to show there is discrimination. There is discrimination because the bill now says it does not matter how many people are in a band, and no matter what their capital projects are they can get only $100,000. I plead with the minister, let us not be offensive in new subsection 4. Let us be interested in seeing to it that this measure does have some merit.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is no offensiveness in this bill at all. I would remind the hon. gentleman that what we are doing for the Indian farmers, and indeed for bands where farming is undertaken, is exactly the same as what we are doing for anyone else. For a corporation of people who are Canadian citizens other than Indians, if the corporation consists of 100, 500 or 1,000 members the limit it could get would also be $100,000.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Did the minister consult with any of the Indian associations before this proposal was drawn up and ask them how they wanted to approach the matter?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What we are doing here, Mr. Chairman, is providing precisely the same provision for Indians as anyone else in the country. There is no special consideration for them but there is certainly nothing less than equal consideration.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: This is not an answer to my question. I am not thinking in terms of equality. I am simply asking whether the minister consulted with members or officials of Indian associations before this proposal was drafted?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am advised that there has been consultation with the department of Indian affairs and officers of the Farm Credit Corporation have been on a number of reserves to make appraisals and assessments.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I know that consultations have taken place with the department of Indian affairs. I would expect that representatives of the corporation had been on reserves. I am asking, was there consultation with any of the Indian associations?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not with the Minister of Agriculture. I fail to see the purport of this question because what we are doing here does not make any special provision for Indians separately from any other citizen. What we are doing here is to write legislation to make available to Indians who are farmers precisely the same services as anyone else.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: My question was whether consultations had been had with Indian associations. The purport of my question was to ascertain whether the Indians had agreed to this particular procedure. I would assume that quite possibly it was in line with what these people wanted. However, their circumstances are different from mine, for example, as a farmer. I own land in individual right, but in the case of Indian bands the security would not be land as such but would be a different type of security. Surely this is a factual difference and it is the reason I asked the question to ascertain if there had been consultations and if the Indian people considered this provision was what they wanted.


Mr. Harding:: Could I put a question to the minister concerning something which is puzzling to me? For example, I understand that
October 30, 1968

five farmers can combine together as a corporate entity. If they do, I understand they will be allowed to borrow $100,000. Could each member of this group of five decide to go outside the corporation and borrow $40,000 on a separate parcel of land?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No.


Randolph Harding: The minister says no. The position, and I think it is a legal position, is that the band is a corporate entity, and if the band secures a loan of $100,000 how can any of the individual members of that group go outside the band and get a $40,000 loan?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has hit the point. He says an Indian band is a corporate entity. We are not convinced that an Indian band is, legally, a corporate entity and that is the precise reason subsection 4 is in there. It is the only reason.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have one quick question concerning the interpretation of subsection 4 as it now stands. Would the minister agree that it would encourage Indians within a band to form separate co-ops or individual co-ops so as to take greater advantage of this measure?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We would hope the passage of this part of the bill would have the effect of encouraging the Indians to follow what they in their own judgment believe to be the best way of making their farm operations more efficient, whether that would be as individuals, small groups or indeed as larger groups. What should be drawn to the attention of hon. members is that this bill does give a substantial advantage in many ways to farmers who are Indians because in most cases there is no requirement to purchase land and all the money can be used for improvements. It is not for the corporation to set up, in my view, arrangements which would make the Indian less capable of obtaining funds to farm by himself if he chooses, to farm in partnership with two or three others if he so chooses. They have a right to make exactly the same choice as other people. The question was asked, what do Indians want? Indians want to be treated the same as everybody else in the country and that is exactly what we are trying to write into this bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister is quite right, that is what we are trying to write into this bill. This is exactly what we are attempting to do. I posed a question to the minister and he answered in a roundabout way but I
Farm. Credit Act
understood his meaning. I want to present to him the problem confronting the Indian band in my constituency. They have a huge amount of farm land. They are now renting that land to white men and the Indians get a share of the crop. The present chief has explained this problem to me. If a group of Indians were to decide to farm one section of that land, they have to turn over to the band council the same share as the white men are turning over from the land they are farming. This has a very detrimental effect on the initiative of the Indians to go into farming on any large scale. The amount paid to the band council is divided amongst those other Indians who do not have the initiative or do not feel they should get out there and be quite as industrious as others. If the whole band could borrow enough money to become farmers themselves, then this one-sixth share would not have to be returned to the band council.
It is for this reason that I point out to the minister that placing a limit of $100,000 on a band will force Indians to start farming in smaller co-ops and will not solve the real problem because it perpetuates the tendency to reward the least industrious Indians on the reservation and penalize the industrious. If the minister is resolute in his opinion that only he can suggest amendments which should be approved in this house, that is his privilege. He has the majority over there. It is really the duty of members on this side to warn the minister exactly what he is doing. I think we have done this. If the minister is so firm, so hidebound in his attitude toward the amendment which I moved and the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina East, then I suggest we cannot get blood out of a stone. We can only vote on the amendment.
I must say the minister is making a mistake. He has suggested a limit of $100,000 be placed on the band as a legal entity. This clause, as it now stands, does that. We are saying, do not put a limit on the amount that can be borrowed at the moment but go through the process of consultation with the bands concerned and with the department of Indian affairs. This does not sound too difficult, particularly when the department of Indian affairs has to be consulted in any case. I will not belabour the point. As I say, you cannot get blood out of a stone. I am sure the minister will realize in the not too distant future that he has made a mistake.

October 30, 1968
Farm. Credit Act
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I will go one step further and say the whole bill should have been sent to a committee in the first place, as we recommended. If that had been done, representatives from the Indian bands could have told us exactly what they wanted. But the minister refused to send it to a committee. That was his first mistake and I am sorry to say it was not his last.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have been very interested to see the minister getting support from some of his backbenchers. His statement that he wanted to do the same for the Indians as he did for everybody else was very commendable. That is what all of us want to do.
There are a number of Indian bands with agricultural land in my area, and I would like to see them put in the position to develop those lands and become farmers. The minister has stated that a band is not a legal entity as we understand it, but it is as they understand it and it is also what they understand to be a co-operative. If we allow them to borrow the maximum of $100,000, the Indian bands will be limited to that amount.
In this clause the minister has not differentiated between people other than Indians who borrow from the corporation and Indian bands that borrow from the corporation. In the one case the loan is backed by a mortgage on the land. In the case of the Indians the loan is being backed by a guarantee on the part of the minister of Indian affairs. He really underwrites the loan, as farm improvement loans from banks are similarly underwritten. Instead of holding a mortgage the corporation has an agreement with the minister, acting on behalf of the crown, that the crown holds title to the lands.
If we were really interested in expanding the farming operations of Indian bands, we would not insist on a guarantee from the minister of Indian affairs in the case of a co-operative simply because the band, which I consider a legal entity, has not title to the and used by the band for reserve purposes. As a matter of fact, other lands used by the band which are not reserve lands are also held by the crown in the name of the Queen and administered by the minister of Indian affairs.
It is possible that Indians who are not connected with bands own their lands, in which case a mortgage may be granted. Since such Indians are not living on a reservation they

will not be classed by the department as a band.
I suggest that if the minister really wishes to treat Indians in like manner to others, he will have to consider establishing an unlimited ceiling on the amount that can be lent by the corporation to Indian bands. This raises the problem whether or not the corporation should be lending money for this purpose to the minister of Indian affairs. It also raises the question whether or not the department of Indian affairs should operate its own agricultural financing for those Indians on reservations, rather than leaving it to the Farm Credit Corporation. I suggest that the amount that an Indian farmer living on a reservation can borrow should be limited to that amount that the minister of Indian affairs is willing to guarantee.
I think we have to recognize that most of our Indian population is living on reservations. They are members of Indian bands and are not classed as legal entities under the terms of the Indian Act, the Interpretation Act or this act. Therefore, in my opinion they cannot be included within the proposal that is put forth in this bill.
I suggest that under the terms of this clause it is not possible for Indians to establish a co-operative, as is the case under other clauses of the bill. Neither is it possible for them to establish a corporation and to apply to the minister of Indian affairs for a guarantee in return for the title to the lands under this financing procedure.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I shall be very interested in how hon. members vote on these amendments, particularly members who represent a number of native Indian bands. I shall also be interested to see whether other hon. members who have gone across the country saying that they are willing to give equality to Indians are sincere and will support the amendment and the subamendment which will establish the right of the minister of Indian affairs to give a guarantee beyond the $100,000 limit and to the value of the land that the minister will administer.
I think before this bill is passed the minister should consult with his colleagues on the question of what this final amount should be. I am not one of those who think that the department draws up regulations which accord with what they think the minister has said; they make regulations that accord with what the act says. If no other provision is made in this act, the amount lent to Indian bands will be limited to $100,000. The minister of Indian affairs will be unable to raise
October 30, 1968

that limit by giving his guarantee. Neither could the Indians take advantage of the normal process under which co-ops, farm corporations and family farm units dictate the number of units that are involved. In my opinion the Indian farm population will not have the same advantages under this act as other farmers who are living off the reservations and who are outside the restrictions that are imposed on Indian bands.
I suggest that members on the other side of the house will have to consider seriously whether this restriction should be imposed on our Indians. The Indian affairs branch is investigating this whole question and they should be given the right to decide how Indian bands can take full advantage of this legislation in the same way as Indians who are not members of a band and can put up their own security and draw up to $40,000 in their own right. I am sure that many others will speak on this subject. I think that the best action they can take is to support the amendment.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Donald MacInnis: I wish to direct a question with regard to the $100,000 that is available to any corporate farm. Specifically I wish to talk about how this provision will affect Indians. Does the minister not realize that in this bill Indians are faced with three penalties? The minister's remarks were nothing but windowdressing. Indians who engage in corporate farming are responsible not only for their own $100,000 but they must guarantee the band's share of money. In addition they must turn over one-sixth of their crop to the band. References to Indian partnerships are nothing but window dressing, and considering the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo last evening I want to know whether he is satisfied with the minister's approach to this matter.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In this legislation no restrictions apply to an Indian that do not apply to any other citizen of Canada.


Donald MacInnis: Yet a few moments ago the minister clearly said that individual Indians who engage in corporate farming are responsible not only for their own share of the money but for the band's share also. The regulations governing Indian bands require such farmers to turn over to the band one-sixth of their crops.
Farm Credit Act


Mr. Pringle:: Mr. Chairman, since I come from an area which contains many Indian reservations I am interested in this clause and in the amendment. I appreciate the arguments and recommendations submitted by members of the opposition, but I wonder whether we are looking at this matter in the correct light. Are we debating an Indian bill or a farm credit bill. Since we are debating a farm credit bill, is there not a danger that we may discriminate against those who are not Indians?
I am sure many hon. members have borrowed money. When corporations borrow money the words "personal guarantee" are frequently heard. The directors of a corporation guarantee a loan jointly and severally. If we remove the ceiling on any money that may be advanced to our Indian population, are we not discriminating against those who are not Indians and not entitled to the same privilege? Parliament can allot only so much money to the Farm Credit Corporation. The amount is not unlimited. I therefore suggest that we ought to treat everybody equally and not discriminate against those who are not Indians.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am confused by the minister's most recent remarks. Does he not consider the ownership of land as the basis for any guarantee that is given to the corporation with respect to money lent? Yet individual Indians in a band do not own individual parcels of land. Has the minister considered that? Is there not a difference under this legislation between the Indian who individually owns no land and a man who does own land?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Chairman, there is no difference so far as the law is concerned. The hon. member may know that because of provisions with regard to Indians in bands giving security we are making a provision that will enable farmers who are Indians to give security with regard to the land that they farm in virtue of other acts. In other words, as a result of action taken by the minister of Indian affairs, Indians will have access to services available to everybody.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I do not know that at all. I do not think the Farm Credit Corporation can obtain a deed to a piece of reservation land. That land is not held by the Indians themselves but by the minister of Indian affairs for the crown. Though an Indian may have a share in the band's land, his share of 10 acres, 150 acres, and so on, does

October 30, 1968
Farm Credit Act
not consist of this parcel here or that parcel there. He cannot put his land up as security. If I go to the corporation and ask for a loan I put my land up as security. If I rent a piece of land from ARDA or anyone else, I cannot put that up as security. How then can an Indian, who has no direct ownership of his land, put it up as security for a loan from the corporation? The individual Indian, as I said, has no specific right to any specific part of the reservation and I fail to see how under these circumstances an Indian will enjoy the same benefits that a man who is outside the reservation will enjoy. The minister seems to think that a guarantee by the minister of Indian affairs will be enough.
A loan of $100,000 to a small reservation will have a different effect from a similar loan to a large reservation. This is a matter that ought to be considered. Frankly, I do not think the effect of this legislation will be the same for everyone.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: These amendments are to make sure that we respect the right of an Indian to his share, and so on. The hon. member knows we cannot take a mortgage on any part of the reservation, and that is why we are asking for an agreement to be substituted for a mortgage.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: If this is true, and that is what I assumed in the first place, what is the minister's objection to accepting a guarantee for an amount much higher than $100,000? In referring to the minister of Indian affairs he is really asking the Crown to make a guarantee. I should like to know why he thinks it should only be made to the extent of $100,000 rather than in terms of the size of the reserve, the number of people living on it, and similar considerations.


Some hon. Members:: Read the note.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Burton) negatived: Yeas, 43; nays, 56.
Amendment (Mr. Horner) negatived: Yeas, 43, nays, 67.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should like to move:
That subsection (1) of section 17A of Bill C-110, An Act to amend the Farm Credit Act be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"17A. (1) With the approval of the Governor in Council, the Corporation may enter into an agreement with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the purpose of enabling loans to be made under this Act to farmers who are Indians on reserves, to farming corporations and co-operative farm associations the shareholders

or members of which are Indians on reserves and to bands engaged in farming operations on reserves."


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This amendment is really redundant. It means very little, but I am sure that we on this side will accept it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We are generous. I wish I could say the same for you.


John Stratford Burton: So far as we are concerned this is a technical amendment to which we have no objection. However, I would like to point out that when questions were asked earlier about the scope or nature of the agreements envisaged between the corporation and the minister of Indian affairs they were not answered.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale)) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 13 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
James Hugh Faulkner: Shall the bill as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: the third reading of the bill.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton):
That Bill No. C-110, An Act to amend the Farm Credit Act, be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering clause 5 thereof.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, would the
house leader indicate the government's proposed plan of business for tomorrow?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if it would be possible to call the vote on the
October 30, 1968

amendment now and then proceed with third reading, we could then go on tomorrow with the business outlined and discussed with hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not know whether there would be a disposition on the part of the house to deal with the amendment and also third reading.
Business of the House


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No. Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this house stands adjourned until 2.30 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday. October 31, 1968