1968-10-10

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF GROUP OF GERMAN PARLIAMENTARIANS

Mr. Speaker:: May I bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a most welcome visitor to Canada, Herr Eugen Gerstenmaier, president of the Bundestag.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The president is accompanied by a distinguished delegation of German parliamentarians, and I should like to salute them as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: This visit gives us an opportunity to reciprocate, even if only in a very limited way, the generous hospitality extended to many Canadian government and parliamentary delegations to Germany during the last few years.

The Canadian members of parliament are indeed gratified and happy to welcome our distinguished parliamentary colleagues from Germany. Their visit gives us the opportunity to bring back to mind the considerable contribution of Canadians of German origin to all aspects of our national life. We therefore extend the heartiest welcome to you, Mr. President Gerstenmaier, and to your distinguished colleagues.

It is our hope that your stay in Canada will be interesting, pleasant and fruitful and that it will contribute to the strengthening of bonds of friendship between the peoples of Canada and of Germany.



THE LATE ARIEH ESHEL


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I
draw to the attention of the house the passing away last evening of the Israeli ambassador to Canada, Mr. Arieh Eshel. I know that all members of the house will wish to join in conveying our sympathy and regret to Mrs. Eshel and the immediate family at their grievous loss, and to the government and people of Israel. Mr. Eshel was a devoted servant of his country who had held three ambassadorial postings in this hemisphere-in Uruguay, Brazil and New York-before coming here. His time with us has unhappily been cut short, but we shall long remember his vivacity, warmth and dedication. As a mark of respect the flag on the Peace Tower is being flown at half mast today and will remain at half mast tomorrow.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: May I on
behalf of members of this party join with the Prime Minister in expressing our regret and sense of sorrow over the sudden loss to the people of Israel. The great record of public service of Mr. Eshel which made him so effective in this country in facilitating the relations between our peoples will long be remembered, and we feel a deep sense of sadness at his passing.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I wish to join with the Prime Minister in expressing the deep regret of my hon. friends and myself over the sudden death of Mr. Eshel. Like other members of this house I had the pleasure of meeting the Israeli ambassador during his short stay in this country, and I was impressed by his devotion to the cause of his people and to the cause of peace in the world. My hon. friends and I extend our condolences to Mrs. Eshel, who in her own right has served her country in many parts of the world, particularly at the United Nations, and to their children and the people of Israel at their loss.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I should like to table in

October 10, 1968
Labour Conditions
English and in French copies of the text of the speech I made yesterday during the general debate in the United Nations Assembly.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the documents to which he has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Lewis: Before we leave this order of business may I say one word. I had hoped the Secretary of State for External Affairs was about to make a statement to the house on his visit to New York, and particularly on his discussions concerning Nigeria and Biafra. I wonder whether the minister would consider doing so now.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have been asked to appear before the committee which has been charged with consideration of this subject, and I have a statement ready to make on that occasion.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: On a point of order, I wonder whether the house would consent to having the minister's statement printed as an appendix to Hansard today so we might all have a chance to see it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the state-to be made by the minister today at a later hour be appended to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Your Honour has misunderstood me. I was referring to the minister's speech at the United Nations.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of document above referred to, see appendix.]



CANADIAN OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION ACT


Hon. Jack Davis (for the Postmaster General) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-5 (from the Senate), to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[Mr. Sharp.1



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, to discuss a specific matter of pressing public importance.
I ask leave to propose the adjournment of the house because I consider the economic situation in the eastern townships to be of public importance. According to a letter I received from the municipal council of the town of Coaticook and several other associations concerning the economic situation of that town, an industry now giving employment to 225 people is due to close down early in 1969. Of course, pressures are being brought to bear with regard to the fate of that industry. We are asked to make the necessary interventions with the government authorities, with a view to solving the confused economic situation of the small town of Coaticook. It has a population of 7,000 and 225 family heads work for that small industry which is to close down; the consequences would be disastrous for that municipality, which needs all its industries and labour.
At the same time, I speak on behalf of the whole area of the eastern townships with regard to the strike at the Domtar company which started on July 18, 1968, and which affects the municipalities of East Angus and Windsor Mills. At East Angus, the industry employs 440 people and 760 at Windsor Mills. The Domtar employees in East Angus and Windsor Mills have lost, up to now in salaries about $1,625,000.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry to interrupt the honourable member for Compton. As he knows, according to the rules, he must indicate to the Chair and to his colleagues what specific motion he intends to move with regard to the adjournment of the house.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the house do now adjourn its proceedings to discuss an urgent and pressing matter, namely the economic situation in the eastern townships.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would not want to be unfair to the honourable member who has just moved a motion of adjournment, but he knows that under paragraph 7 of citation No. 100 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 4th edition, a motion of this kind
October 10, 1968

is subject to certain precisions, and I wonder if the honourable member would like to indicate to what extent, in his opinion, there is urgency of debate.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell the house how the citizens of the eastern townships feel about the urgency of the debate.
I have here a letter from the secretary treasurer of the municipality of Coaticook and I would like to read some parts of it:
In the absence of Mr. Dumont who is at home sick, I have been instructed by the council to send you a copy of a letter addressed to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Ottawa about the shutdown of the Penmans Ltd. plant in Coaticook which leaves 225 heads of families out of work-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must give as briefly as possible his arguments in favour of having a debate today instead of later this week or even next week. It is on that particular point that his remarks must bear at this time.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I have many other arguments. For instance, the newspaper La Tribune in the eastern townships published a score of articles on that subject. In fact, they were published in the following issues:	Monday, September 16, page 16;
Wednesday, September 18, page 20, Thursday, September 19, pages 1 and 9, Friday, September 20, pages 1 and 2, Thursday, September 26, page 2; Tuesday, October 1, page 2, Wednesday, October 2, page 2, Thursday, October 3, pages 2 and 7, Saturday, October 5, page 4, and Tuesday, October 8, page 5.
At this point, I want to quote that of September 20-


Mr. Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member and remind him once again that he must, immediately and as briefly as possible, point out to the Chair why he believes that a debate must be held today, and why we should adjourn the business of the house this very day for the purpose of discussing the situation he has just drawn to our attention.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, it would take too long to describe to the house in detail at this time the situation in the eastern townships. It has been described in all the newspapers of the area and it prevails not only in the town of Coaticook, but in East Angus, Windsor Millet and many other towns in the eastern townships.
Labour Conditions
We are raising the question because the problem is not a local one concerning one municipality, but a general one concerning the economy of the whole area. That is why we are asking for an adjournment of the business of the house in order to allow us to give details to the hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Having listened to the hon. member for Compton and to the arguments which the hon. member for Shefford has just submitted I think I am now ready to make a ruling on this motion.
I must remind the hon. members of the provisions of citation 100 (8) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms and I quote:
I do not think that, under the standing orders of 1882, a motion or a subject of this kind, having such a wide scope, was ever contemplated. What I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency-
The hon. member would like us to adjourn in order to consider a situation which in his own terms has been going on for some time. The hon. member for Shefford referred to a general crisis rather than to a specific problem. Under the circumstances, I regretfully believe that it is not possible to accept the motion of the hon. member for Compton. Besides, I know that during the next few days, there will be some general debates in this house and the hon. members for Compton and Shefford will have the opportunity to let us know their views on this important problem.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I preface my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs by welcoming him back to the house. We are not only pleased because of his presence here but because we have been concerned about the Prime Minister, who has been labouring with unnecessary burdens during the question period in the last few days.
Would the minister please tell the house when he expects the first Hercules aircraft to be loaned to the Red Cross to leave for Nigeria, specifically Fernando Po and Sao Tome?
October 10, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we hope the Canadian Hercules aircraft will be on the way to Nigeria within 48 hours with a reconnaissance party to survey the conditions of air strips in federal and rebel held areas in Nigeria as well as Fernando Po. A second aircraft is to be placed on standby for possible early departure.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the house the reasons for the delay in dispatching aircraft with supplies, and tell us what the need is for reconnaissance which he suggested would be the first job done by the Hercules?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the Hercules will be very valuable in the movement of supplies. It is not the lack of food in the area that is important at this time, it is the lack of transportation. The aircraft is going to be there for service, and it will be understood by hon. members that this type of aircraft is of a special kind. It is most important, if we are to make the best use of it, to know the exact conditions under which it will be operating. There is no question, however, about its operation as such.


David Lewis: I should like to ask the minister whether any conditions were imposed by the Nigerian authorities as to where the planes are to fly from and where they are to land. Are they to be flown by day or by night or both?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there is only one general condition, and that is that an arrangement must be made between the international committee of the Red Cross and the government of Nigeria.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouth-Halifax):: Will the minister indicate whether the Hercules or other types of aircraft will be offered to relief groups other than the International Red Cross?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the general
understanding with most governments is that it is preferable to channel all our relief through the International Red Cross. That is the accepted international practice.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the honourable Secretary of State for External Affairs.

While the honourable minister was at the United Nations in New York, did he get in touch with representatives of the United Nations or certain African countries, in order to obtain, through pressure or otherwise, a cease-fire between Nigeria and Biafra?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of question which I think would be better answered before the committee. I am sure it will be asked there, and I think it deserves a longer answer than Your Honour would permit at this time.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister advise this house as to the number of aircraft that will be placed at the disposal of the International Red Cross and/or other relief agencies?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has not yet made a decision, but there will be at least two.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
In a statement on the troubles in Biafra, the Secretary of State for External Affairs reaffirmed that Canada would support Nigeria against the secessionist rebels. Could the Prime Minister tell us if the policy of his government is the same as that of his minister, namely to keep on murdering Biafrans, or if it consists in helping Biafrans to free themselves from federal Nigerian troops.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think that question illustrates one of the most important reasons why we do not want to get mixed up in the politics of Nigeria.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the former prime minister indicated that the relief to be provided by Canada will be of limited assistance, will the minister seriously consider the provision of more aircraft for relief purposes?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as will appear, I hope, in the committee, the greatest problem of relief remains; because the most serious conditions are going to arise in the future rather than now, and I believe this country and the international community as a whole are going to be engaged in one of the most important relief operations the world has ever seen.
October 10, 19S8


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister please tell the house if food presently to be loaded on ships in Halifax will be sent to Nigeria-Biafra by plane before October 13?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this shipment has been co-ordinated with the International Red Cross. The food is being shipped at the time most suitable to the International Red Cross, by sea. It is not necessary to move it by air.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question concerns the transport to Biafra of relief supplies. Is it the intention of the government to provide helicopters as well, since the problem seems to be one of distribution in Biafra and not just delivery?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the particular request we have had from the International Red Cross has been for Hercules planes. That seems to be the aircraft that we in Canada can best supply.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister of Transport. Having in mind the fact reported this week that some 14,000 Mustang and Cougar motor cars have been recalled by the Ford Motor Company in the United States, would the minister ask his department to look into the situation as it affects Canada and make an early report to the house on the matter?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to make the necessary inquiries.



TEXTILES-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN EASTERN TOWNSHIPS, QUE.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put my question to the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is a member from the eastern townships, but in view of his absence, I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
I should like to know whether the present government intends to introduce, in the near
Inquiries of the Ministry future, legislation to stimulate and help the textile industry in the eastern townships, since it has now reached a point where it is losing rather than gaining ground.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me an identical question was put yesterday.



PORTNEUF, QUE.-BRIEF FROM ECONOMIC COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Has the minister studied the brief submitted by the Economic Council of Portneuf concerning the economic situation in that area? If so, is he in a position to let us know the decision of his department?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, 1 study all the briefs sent to me, including that one.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the question of the Minister of Transport in his capacity as the minister responsible for housing. I have had an opportunity to give the minister notice of this question. Will the minister tell the house whether any part of the $170 million to be made available to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as announced by the minister last Friday in this house, represents any additional money to be provided by C.M.H.C. for overall housing starts this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me, again, that this question was asked yesterday.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I very carefully checked this matter, and I believe the question was not raised yesterday in this exact form.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it does not represent an increase in the capital budget, but it does represent an increase in the expenditure for the present year over what had been planned before.
October 10, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



EFFECT OF U.S. REJECTION OF ANTI-DUMPING PROVISIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. I ask the minister whether the rejection by the United States Senate of the anti-dumping provisions in connection with the Kennedy round on the general agreement on trade and tariffs will affect the Canadian government's position; and if so, will changes be made?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minisier of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this question as notice.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister do everything in his power to have the white paper on the Kennedy round anti-dumping legislation referred to the standing committee?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, there have
already been discussions with the house leader of the hon. member's party. We would be very willing to have this matter referred to the committee immediately, without debate, after orders of the day today.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Transport but in his absence I direct it to the acting minister. Would the government give consideration to referring the report of the Canadian Transport Commission to the standing committee on transport and communications?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it would be asking too much of the hon. member to be present to ask his question the next time the Minister of Transport is here to answer questions.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Grey-Simcoe.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Transport but I see he has left the chamber. Therefore I will keep my question until tomorrow.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right honourable Prime Minister.
Can he make a statement to the house today with regard to the study he has made of the brief prepared by Quebec officials for the federal-provincial conference next December concerning the Quebec republic?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have read the brief.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Has the government changed its policy with regard to the export of water to the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a very general question and I doubt that it should be asked at this time.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, it is a question of urgency because a rumour exists that there has been a change. I think it is important that we find out.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, implied in this question is the suggestion that there has been a change in government policy in respect of the export of water for sale to the United States. I want to assure the hon. member that there has been no such change. There is intensive study in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and other departments in respect of the present requirements of Canada for Canadian water and the projection of requirements in the future. Until these studies are completed there will be no question of the consideration of exporting water for sale.



INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION RESPECTING POLLUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-fings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As the report of the science
October 10, 1968	COMMONS
council stresses the great urgency of introducing legislation to deal with water pollution without further delay, is the government planning to introduce such legislation in the very near future?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as this is a matter of great importance, would the leader of the just society hurry up the minister who is responsible so we can have this dealt with very quickly?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries relating to the new regulations he has announced to control the size of the British Columbia salmon fishing fleet. The program as announced sets a top limit on the number of fishing vessels that may engage in the industry, and since objections have been raised about these new regulations, what steps does the minister propose taking to ensure that there will be no discrimination in the issuing of new licences?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the licences are those of existing boats. The boats can be traded, they can be bought or sold by anyone. There is no limitation as to the number of fishermen; we have simply set a maximum on the number of fishing vessels on the west coast engaged in catching salmon. -


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, if a licensed salmon fishing boat is burned or lost at sea, will a licence be granted to the new, replacement ship?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there will be no automatic granting of a licence. That particular vessel will be struck from the registry. An appeal committee has been set up to which the unfortunate owner can apply, and depending on the circumstances he may or may not obtain a new licence.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries. A few days ago I asked the minister whether he would be prepared to take the initiative in referring these 29180-651
DEBATES	1023
Inquiries of the Ministry proposed new regulations to the committee on fisheries when it was established. Inasmuch as the membership of that committee was announced the other day, can the minister say when he will have on the order paper a motion to refer this matter to the committee for study?


John (Jack) Davis: Soon, I hope, Mr. Speaker. This is a new system; it is a world first. There are probably a few wrinkles which need to be ironed out, hence I will be only too happy to see it referred to the committee and hear positive suggestions on how to improve the system.


Frank Howard: Could the minister say when this might be?


John (Jack) Davis: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East
Richmond): I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the importance to the people of Cape Breton of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and its policies, would the Prime Minister release the latest report so as to put an end to the persistent and disturbing rumours?
Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I believe this question was asked yesterday of the minister.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; not only does the Prime Minister fail to get the import of the question, he fails to recognize the fact that this question was not answered. I ask him as head of the government to recognize the importance of the report of this crown company and of its policies for the future having regard for the fact that it was set up to help displaced miners. Since this government set up the crown corporation, 400 or 500 jobs have disappeared. Does he not consider it is time the report was released?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is hardly a point of order. The hon. member is making an argument in support of the suggestion that the report be released. It is an argument, not a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
October 10, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It would have to be a new question. I will recognize the hon. member.


Donald MacInnis: Would the Prime Minister consider releasing that portion of the report which deals with No. 20 colliery?


Mr. Trudeau:: I would be glad to consider it, Mr. Speaker.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I think I can raise a legitimate point of order regarding the conduct of the government. It deals with the schedule released by the Prime Minister in respect of the attendance of ministers in the house. I wonder whether the ministers have received permission to exchange days, as did the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development with the Minister of Transport in exchanging Monday for Friday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the government inform the house whether it is granting asylum to defecting Czechoslovak nationals who are leaving their employment as technical experts in different countries of the world to come to Canada, as did a number from India in the last few days?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, our policy is directed to refugees from Czechoslovakia.


Robert Norman Thompson: I have a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether Czechoslovak nationals who are in Canada will be made eligible for student loans for professional retraining.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the matter of ass'stance for students from Czechoslovakia who are refugees is under consideration.


Robert Norman Thompson: These are not students; they are professionals.



EXPO '67 TENDERS FOR DEMOLITION OF CITE DU HAVRE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put a question to the Minister of Transport and, in his absence, to the Prime Minister.
In view of the latter's absence, I shall direct it to the government, since I do not quite know which minister will be able to answer this question which is very urgent, it seems to me. I would like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, how urgent it is.
The tenders for the demolition of Cite du Havre in Montreal are closing at three o'clock this afternoon. Two days ago I gave notice to the Minister of Transport of the questions I intended to ask him.
Therefore, I ask any member of the cabinet, through you, Mr. Speaker, if the government intends to demolish the Cite du Havre in order to allow the real estate company to submit plans for the establishment of a Canadian film city or site there? It is a $12 million proposal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member will kindly give me notice in writing of the question, I will see to it that it is discussed tonight on the adjournment motion.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order.
In my opinion, and you will agree, it is impossible without immediate action on the part of the government, to answer a question which requires a reply before three o'clock this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I remind the hon. member that it is a quarter past three already.



SUGGESTED OVER-QUOTA DELIVERIES OF OUT OF CONDITION GRADES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the government or the Canadian Wheat Board made plans to allow over-delivery quotas for tough, damp, heated and out of condition grain from this fall's harvest?
October 10, 1968	COMMONS


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: There are no immediate plans in this regard. Of course the unit quota is the first thing that must be filled, and we must assess the whole situation before making plans for over deliveries.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister check with the Canadian Wheat Board to see whether the practice in previous years when harvest conditions were similar will be followed again and over-delivery quotas allowed in places where the out of condition grain is at its worst?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now making a submission or a representation.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Has he or his department received a written request from Hon. L. Peterson, minister of labour and attorney general for British Columbia, requesting a leave of absence for Judge Parker who has been appointed chairman of the mediation commission? If so what decision has been made in regard to the request?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression the question has already been asked, though I may be wrong.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to question Your Honour's memory. I do not think the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West has been answered, and since the minister seemed to be ready to reply to it I wonder if Your Honour could reconsider your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: It has already been
reconsidered.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice received a letter from the attorney general of British Columbia on May 29 asking for leave of absence for the territorial judge in the Yukon, Mr. Justice Parker, so he could serve as chairman of the mediation commission in British Columbia. This matter was discussed by the government and I wrote Mr. Peterson, the attorney general of British Columbia, on
DEBATES	1025
Inquiries of the Ministry August 21 and said we could not recommend that leave of absence be granted for a seven year period under the circumstances given by Mr. Peterson. I also told the attorney general of British Columbia that it appeared to us that certain provisions of the Judges Act were incompatible with Judge Parker acting as chairman of the mediation commission under the terms of that commission for a seven year period.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Could he advise the house if the Leader of the Opposition has tabled an attendance register for his ghost cabinet?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the honourable Minister of Finance.
In a speech he made on October 1, 1968 at the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the IRDB, the honourable minister mentioned in the second paragraph:
We try to seek and formulate a set of economic programs which will free some resources. We are looking closely at our taxation system and priorities-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The honourable member should ask a question and he should not make a speech.


René Matte: Here is my question, Mr. Speaker. Has the honourable minister considered the advisability of improving our monetary system?



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. I ask it in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, who is out in the country seeing how far short of performance is the just society.
Would the Prime Minister shortly place before the appropriate committee, either the justice committee or the committee on Indian affairs and northern development, the report
1026	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry of the royal commission inquiring into administration of justice in the Northwest Territories, which very pointedly emphasizes the lack of justice for some of the people in the territories who are subjected to the processes of law there?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I believe this report was submitted some months ago to the Department of Justice, if I am thinking of the same report as the hon. member. If I recall correctly, the matter that the commission had been set up to deal with has been settled, but I will gladly check into the over-all principles raised by the report to see whether any action should be contemplated by this house.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Will the minister request the Canadian Radio Television Commission to examine closely the degree to which ownership or effective control of the firm Stephens and Towndrow resides with the Columbia Broadcasting System of the United States or other U.S. interests?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question might well be placed on the order paper.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this is a very important matter which has recently come to light and has international connotations. I beg your indulgence to allow the minister to answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that if he disagrees with the Speaker's assessment of the urgency of the matter, he can always give notification for consideration of the matter at the time of adjournment later today.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another question in the same vein. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether government policy respecting United States control of media will not be diluted due to the apparent involvement of this particular firm with that of the well known friend of cabinet ministers, Mr. Geoff Stirling.


Mr. Speaker:: The first question might be discussed tonight, but not the second one.

DEBATES	October 10, 1968



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the great inconvenience, and I might say cost, to operators of coin vending machines in Canada owing to the new Canadian dimes and quarters, would the minister issue more news releases advising what help the government is prepared to give?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think the association of coin vending machine operators was fully informed earlier this year that the federal government would pay one half of the material cost of converting existing vending machines to take the new all nickel coins. I think this is generally known throughout the industry.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice. Yesterday I asked the Solicitor General whether a request had been made by the Prime Minister of Quebec for a probe into crime, and whether the government had agreed to follow the suggestion of the Quebec Prime Minister. The Solicitor General took the question as notice and suggested that the Minister of Justice would answer it.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the Solicitor General ought to reply to that question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Justice whether this comes under his jurisdiction or that of the Solicitor General? One has passed the buck to the other, and now it has been passed back.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take issue with that. I think the record speaks for itself. As the Solicitor General stated yesterday, the facts were as I had given them in an earlier answer to the
October 10, 1968

hon. member for Calgary North. I think I should say that nothing I said in the House on October 4 in answer to the hon. member's question was intended to be critical of the province of Quebec. Indeed, I do not think my words were open to that construction or interpretation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This appears to be a debate as to the responsibility of the minister. I suggest both to the minister and to the hon. member that this is not a problem we should try to determine during the question period.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, there is a small point of order here. I am not trying to debate with the minister at all. The Solicitor General stated yesterday, when I asked him a question about a probe into crime which had been suggested by the Prime Minister of Quebec, that he would take the question as notice. The day before the Minister of Justice had made some reference to it.
I think the Minister of Justice, with the greatest respect to him, misunderstood my question. He thought I was suggesting he had contradicted himself. All I want him to do is make a statement on whether the government is prepared to accept the suggestion of the Prime Minister of Quebec that there should be an investigation into crime, which is on the increase in Canada. Now, could I put that question again to the minister? I am sure he will not be argumentative.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps there might be a conference between the two ministers and the hon. member after orders of the day.
1Translation1



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
What steps does the government intend to take in order to find jobs for the 170 employees of the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in Saint Hyacinthe, who have lost or will lose their jobs by the end of the year, due to the strong competition with countries where salaries are far lower than those paid to Canadian workers?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question could be taken up again tonight at time of adjournment.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I submit this is a very important matter. I think the government should take steps to correct a situation which is going to make jobless at least 170 heads of family and seriously affect, as a result, many citizens in the town of Saint Hyacinthe.
I think the minister should give us an idea of what the government intends to do.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the minister concerned to give the house an idea of the programs of the government with regard to certain given situations. Such a general answer should be given either on motions or on the adjournment, when a minister has more time and can more easily give the sort of information which the hon. member for Saint Hyacinthe is asking for.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he could make a statement on motions tomorrow.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the problem created by the fact that the commuted value of a Canada Pension Plan benefit awarded to a widow is subject to estate tax, would the minister consider this matter when preparing his forthcoming budget?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister able to advise us whether, at the United Nations, he made specific proposals to the foreign minister of France regarding special measures of co-operation in the field of
1028	COMMONS DEBATES	October 10, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry
space research and satellite telecommunica-	EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
tion technology? If so, can he indicate in	Gabon-inquiry as to diplomatic
what areas the proposals lie?	relations


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is yes, I did make some proposals to the foreign minister of France. It would take me quite a long time to place them before the house. When the estimates of my department are being considered would perhaps be an appropriate time for me to give a full answer to that question.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and relates to the current consultations and meetings taking place with native Indians across the country and the concern they feel about not having available the proposed bill establishing an Indian claims commission, details of which the government outlined in the speech from the throne. Will the minister take steps immediately to make public government policy in this regard, or the government bill to establish the Indian claims commission, so that the matter may be discussed at the meetings which are taking place now?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been giving the matter of the Indian claims commission consideration and he has stated that there will be consultation when a basic policy for presentation is available about which there can be consultation.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did I understand the minister, who I believe is the acting minister, to say that there will be another series of consultations following the introduction of the Indian claims commission bill? If so, could he spell out in detail what is to take place?


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the acting minister does not spell that out in detail. We have just two minutes left.

On the orders of the day:


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has Canada initiated steps to renew diplomatic relations with Gabon?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In March the former prime minister of Canada said that he would ask if exchanges of correspondence on this subject could be tabled. Could they now be tabled?


Mitchell William Sharp: I was not concerned with these affairs so much in those days, Mr. Speaker, so that I shall look up the record and see what might be done. I might say, to clarify my previous answer, that of course there are relations between Gabon and Canada. All that has happened is that we have not exchanged diplomats.



VIET NAM-REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister for External Affairs.
Could he tell the house whether the government intends to revise its Viet Nam policy and, if so, could he be more explicit?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were to read the statement I made yesterday at the United Nations he might have a clear exposition of our position.


David Lewis: That is self serving evidence.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. On September 16 the minister said that the matter of the importation of United States turkeys at prices below the cost of Canadian production was to be given consideration. Has the matter been considered?
October 10, 1968

If so, with what result, and what action is to be taken?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has been considered. Though we are watching the situation every day we have no evidence that United States turkeys are being imported into Canada at prices lower than they are being offered in the United States. So far as action is concerned, we have not yet decided to take any action except to keep the situation under constant surveillance.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Defence Production. Notice of it was given yesterday by my colleague the hon. member for St. John's East. Would the minister tell the house whether the government has been advised of the reported plans to close down the big United States installation at Argentia, Newfoundland?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Defence Produciion):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Defence Production, Newfoundland's friend in the federal cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Lundrigan: I want to make the hon. gentleman a little more comfortable in his lonely role-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted, with the consent of the house, to ask the President of the Privy Council about the business for next week? I have been trying to obtain this information for the last 20 minutes.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of Ihe Privy Council):: As hon. members know, we shall continue with the committee stage of the
Business of the House Farm Improvement Loans Act bill today, to be followed by second reading and committee stage of the farm credit bill. There is to be a departure from the business as announced last night if the Chair would call item No. 21 on today's order paper, the white paper on anti-dumping. I believe there is general agreement in the house that this matter may be proceeded with this afternoon without delay.
Tomorrow we propose to go into committee of supply and take the estimates of the governor general, privy council, legislation and treasury board. On Monday, of course, the house will not be sitting. On Tuesday next we shall call second reading of the bill to amend the Post Office Act and, on disposing of that, we will proceed to second reading of the bill to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, and to the committee stage of that bill. On Thursday next we would call the resolution preceding the official languages bill and on Friday next we would call estimates, the actual estimates to be called to be the subject of discussion with hon. members opposite.


James Aloysius McGrath: Before Your Honour calls orders of the day, may I rise on a point of order. I wish to ask, Mr. Speaker, how any hon. member can direct questions to the ministry if they are not accepted by those ministers who are in their seats on behalf of other ministers. The Prime Minister today, I submit, refused to answer a question of mine which was legitimate. The Acting Minister of Transport refused to give an answer. My question is, how is one to direct urgent questions to the ministry if ministers are not to be in their seats?


Mr. Speaker:: I point out to the hon. member that the subject matter of his point of order took from 20 to 30 minutes of the time of the house yesterday.



REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF WHITE PAPER ON ANTI-DUMPING

Donald Stovel Macdonald: That the white paper on anti-dumping tabled on September 20, 1968, be referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
October 10, 19G8
[Stage Direction]
Farm Improvement Loans Act FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, October 9, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-lll, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act-Mr. Olson (for Mr. Benson)-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
On clause 1-Bank.
Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, at five o'clock yesterday I was interrupted by private members' hour. I had been in a verbal tussle with the Minister of Agriculture as to the size of loans and where the considerable amounts of money voted under these four bills were to go. I made an error, I am afraid. I said that the average loan was from $17,000 to around $20,000. I have learned, from papers submitted by the Department of Agriculture, that under the farm credit legislation the average loan has been $22,000.
That brings me to my main point, and if I make no other point in the debate I shall be happy. In my opinion, as well as in the opinion of many farmers in Canada, $1 billion and more, under one piece of legislation, is being directed toward fewer and fewer farmers and those farmers or bodies obtaining money are obtaining it in ever-increasing amounts. Last year the average amount lent under the Farm Credit Act was $20,380, and this year so far it has been $22,020. I refer to this act because these acts are so closely related that it is fair to say the rule of relevance is being kept. By lending such sums we are not getting to the root of the matter, namely, what are we doing to keep the small family farmer on the land?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The second question is: what chance does a young farmer have of acquiring a farm, starting up and making a success of it? It is not always possible for him to take over the family farm and in most cases where the farms are small I understand it is the deliberate policy of the government to withhold financial help in such cases unless the venture is obviously a paying proposition. This is putting the cart before the horse. How can a farmer possibly have a paying proposition unless his farm is well financed, in which case credit is hardly needed? Yet the administration will not lend money unless the operation is a cinch. I think the people of Canada are still pioneer-minded and that a large percentage of any money voted for


agriculture should be devoted to the encouragement of the new farmer, the small farmer. Unless this is done I believe serious consequences will ensue.
The farmers' union of Alberta recently sent out fourteen questions, not addressed to me personally or to the minister personally but to the government of Canada. These farmers want to know the policy of the government with respect to the position of the family farm in Canadian agriculture. They are asking this question because they know it is the small farmer who is finding it increasingly difficult to make a living. They know that such markets as we have are increasingly being divided among fewer people. It is only the relatively few farmers, the well financed farmers, the independent corporations which do not rely on agriculture for a living but are interested rather in depreciation and avoidance of income tax, that are in a good position to qualify for loans at the present time. Yet they are in direct competition with the small family farms.
I always try to avoid criticizing unless I have some positive suggestion to make. Having discussed this question with many farm unions and many individual farmers, I say we must find some way of licensing farmers. By this I do not mean that farmers should be placed under bureaucratic control. It is a matter of definition. If we are to pass legislation here to help farmers we must know who it is we are helping. I believe it is necessary to have large corporation farms; I am not saying they should be destroyed. I think there should be large, efficient farms, and well-heeled farmers on the land. I am not suggesting we should return to a peasantry, or limit downward the size of farms any more than limit them upward.
I think we should recognize three categories of farmers so that when we vote money for farm loans or credit under any of the several bills we have been considering we will know exactly what we are doing. The experience of allowing decisions as to where the money is to go to rest with the financial institutions has proved disastrous over the last 20 years. Those institutions are interested only in profit per dollar on a percentage basis. We as legislators are interested in something far wider and greater.
It will be necessary, I am sure, to divide farmers into at least three main categories and to make sure that rules apply to these categories in different ways. I see no reason why the taxpayers of Canada should subsidize
October 10, 1968	COMMONS
any large corporation. I do not intend to name any names, but there are corporations which are deep into the hog business, the poultry business and the cattle business-corporations which are not really farmers at all.
I do not see why we should lend money to them at any specific rate of interest whatsoever.
The small farmer who is caught in the cost-price squeeze and whose turnover is not large enough to allow him to absorb his costs and make a reasonable profit is in an entirely different situation. He is not in any position to argue with the financial institutions, nor is he in a position to bargain at the marketing end. The grain market is in the doldrums. The small hog raiser is in competition with the big producers, and he will not be able to compete any more effectively if we lend his competitors money at a reduced rate, whatever the actual percentage may be.
The little man is certainly not going to get loans if the criterion is to be 100 per cent certainty of repayment. If the policy is not to lend money until the success of a venture is guaranteed, no small farmer will ever be able to get a loan. He will only be driven downward, or else we shall find ourselves with a system of feudal tenure of land in this country, something which I believe would be disastrous. It surprises me that in putting forward these ideas I am not backed up by a Minister of Agriculture who believes in the principle of interest free money for the little people.
Nowhere in the regulations made under these four acts do I find the emphasis placed where it should be, that is, on maintaining a happy agricultural industry in the hands of little people living on the land and depending on the land for their livelihood. A system of licensing farmers would help us in designating what a farmer is. The minister has the ability to take this step. His department has the statistics available. If this suggestion were followed we would arrive at an essential basis on which to evaluate any legislation having to do with farming in Canada.
When we are dealing with farming I do not think we ought to spend our time splitting hairs. During the last election, Liberal propaganda pointed the finger of scorn at the present leader of the Conservative party, saying he was a socialist because he hoped to guarantee people an income. The Edmonton Journal, which is not thought of as a Conservative paper, had this report on Monday, June 3: "Mr. Trudeau assured the farmers of Canada an income." To my mind the word
29180-66J
DEBATES	1031
Farm Improvement Loans Act "assure" and the word "guarantee" mean one and the same thing. I am certain hon. members to my extreme left are in favour of a guaranteed income. So it must be our unanimous opinion that the people of Canada should enjoy a decent standard of living wherever they find themselves. The Prime Minister called it an assured farm income. The Leader of the Opposition called it a guaranteed farm income. I say-and I am no socialist-that when we are spending the taxpayers' money to guarantee anybody an income we should take a very good look to see exactly	whose income we are
guaranteeing.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The present administration takes pride in the fact that it has provided a great amount of money for farm credit. I am not sure of the total but on the books there is $915,837,195 outstanding, very close to $1 billion on these accounts alone. Personally I think all this money has not been going to the right people. The villages of western Canada, and I presume the same applies in the maritimes, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, are feeling the pinch of lack of population.
People who are interested in housing know what a problem we have in that regard. They have done their work and they can tell you that this business of driving people off the land into the cities is the wrong trend. We are indeed going to be a very sad country when we have 20 million or 30 million people rammed into our cities. The city is not a good place in which to raise families. It is not a good place in which to develop the individual initiative of which Canada has always been proud. It is very costly and unhealthy to live in a city. Driving people to live in a city is a backward step.
In case hon. members think that I have nothing but criticism I would point out that I have an answer to the problem. The small farmer can be protected by making sure that any government support policy is based on a reasonable quota system related to the family farm. This is the way to give an assured farm income or guaranteed farm income, whatever you want to call it, whereby the people who need it most can get that standard of living to which they are entitled, particularly if they are willing to work. There is no question of the farmers' willingness to work; otherwise they would not stay on their farms. They would crowd into the cities and there try to get on welfare plans. In the cities they would have an unnatural way of life, in many cases
October 10, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act an unhealthy environment, and no economic security whatever. What are these people going to do?
In case I am considered a dreamer, with only a sentimental attachment for the land, I would point out that this is not so. The world today needs the produce of Canadian farmers, and in the long run I do not believe we will produce more or better food if we return to the feudal system.
We are mining the land. We are destroying our villages. We are reducing the income of individual little people. If the government persists in this idea of taking small farmers off the land and enlarging the feudal estates it will depart a long way from Liberalism's dream in the last century. I say to the government: be honest about it. Admit you are going to create feudal landlords, to be friends of the big money men and of the big landlords. It is a strange thing that I have to stand on the so-called blue Tory side of the house to remind government members of the type of principles which made Laurier great. He saw this matter clearly. If I had lived in the days of Laurier perhaps I would have been a Liberal, but I cannot be that now when the Liberals are giving only lip service to the cause of looking after the small people. There is certainly nothing in any of these four pieces of legislation to lead me to believe that the government has a sensible approach to agriculture.
The farmers are asking for nothing unusual. The question is, what interest rate should we charge them on the money that is being made available? Yesterday I said that a rate of 5 per cent may have been all right ten years ago. But now there is inflation which has been aggravated by the government pouring large amounts of money into the wrong sectors of our economy, to help the purchase of land at wrong prices by the wrong people.
It is a paradox that when we cannot sell our agricultural products for a decent price the price of land is still going up. Is it because the farmer is really making a big profit and hiding it some place? Or is it a fact that land is rapidly going into the hands of people who are not agriculturalists, who are using it as an economic trick to get out of paying income tax and bearing their proper share of the country's economic burdens? While these people are doing this they are taking a living away from those whose birthright it is to make a living on the land.
The Farm Union of Alberta, at least, agrees with me on what the formula should be for 29180-86
lending money. They say we should have a realistic rate of interest for money lent to small farmers. The only excuse for lending money below the normal bank rate of interest is that a cost-price squeeze is operating against the small farmer that he cannot meet without some type o-f assistance. The fairest way to give the small farmer a break is by lending him money at a reasonable interest rate, and I believe that the interest rate should float with the cost of money. I do not suppose that the government has it entirely in its power to prevent inflation, but it does have the power to lend money to small farmers at a rate which has a bearing on the cost that the government itself pays for money. I am not an actuary but I would suggest a formula of 1 per cent above the Bank of Canada lending rate.
I do not think we have to consult the banks about this because by the preamble to this bill we see that there are lending institutions in Canada that are willing to lend money on an assured deal, on a government backed deal. Caisses populaires, credit unions and so forth are in the money lending business, and they would be only too delighted to handle these farm loans when the government guarantees them a return on their money.
As I say, the rate of interest should float with the cost of money, and the only source that has large amounts of money in Canada is the Bank of Canada which sets the bank rate. So, let the farmers have their loans at approximately 1 per cent over the bank rate. I will not quibble with the minister and the government if the rate differential fluctuates between .8 per cent and 1.02 per cent. Over a period of years it has been profitable for the banks to handle this business at a rate of approximately 1 per cent or half of one per cent above the bank rate.
The farmers agree with this suggestion. They are realistic but they want to keep their place within the economy. Naturally, if we have inflation the price of farm products should go up somewhat. There is no doubt that the farmer's costs are going up, and so we should set this interest rate according to a fixed formula based on what we think is right.
This is not the law of the Medes and the Persians. We are changing it every day; otherwise, we would not be discussing it in this chamber. Let us take an honest look at what we think should be a fair rate according to this formula and give it a try. The money will be repaid. If the banks, credit companies
October 10, 1968	COMMONS
and trust companies come back to us in 18 months or two years and show they have been giving this service to Canadian farmers at a loss, I think that as fairminded people we would be willing to raise the differential by, say, half of one per cent, to make sure that these companies do not work for nothing.


The Chairman:: Order, please. I regret that the hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Chairman, I rise not to delay the passage of this legislation but to get some answers that I feel we did not get yesterday to questions that were posed by members of the opposition. I hope the minister will come back into the chamber for a few minutes because that is all the time I am going to take, and if he is not here I will have to ask these questions all over again.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, may I reassure the hon. member that I am here in my capacity as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance to assist-oh, here comes the minister. I was going to say I would take careful notes of the hon. member's points and bring them to the minister's attention, but I guess his representations penetrated behind the curtain and the minister has returned.


George Robson Muir: I noticed that the minister was back and I thought he might as well be comfortable in his seat. It is obvious from the remarks made by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the chamber that we are all agreed that this bill should be passed as expeditiously as possible. It is also obvious that the prime object of the bill is to make money available to the farmers at the fairest and most reasonable rate of interest that we can devise and, at the same time, assure the availability of the necessary funds. I think we are all agreed on this.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am led to believe also, from the remarks the minister made yesterday, that he has finally agreed that the interest rate should be tied to some formula announced in advance, as part of the regulations under this act. So far as the formula is concerned I have a feeling, which I believe is shared by my colleagues on this side of the house, that in his answers yesterday the minister engaged in a little bit of hedging. I may be wrong and perhaps the minister will take the opportunity of clarifying the situation after I complete my remarks. Although he stated the rate of interest would be comparable with that paid
DEBATES	1033
Farm Improvement Loans Act on government bonds, in my opinion he did not come right out and say whether he meant long term or short term bonds or whether the interest on the loans would compare with the interest on a bond with a similar repayment period. Is the minister suggesting that multiple interest rates would be applied to the loans, depending upon the length of the loan period? I hope the minister will give us a clear, unequivocal answer to this question so we can pass this legislation and make it available to the farm community as quickly as possible.
The minister also said there will be some additional costs attached to these loans over and above the interest charge. Since there is no mortgage to be processed under the provisions of this legislation, I personally feel that there should be no added costs. I "fail to see where an added cost factor would enter into a loan program of this type. Perhaps the minister would explain to the committee how much this added cost would be. I am sure that if the committee could get satisfactory answers to these questions there would be no delay in getting the legislation approved. I am just reiterating to the minister that we want to know whether the interest rate is to be tied to long term or short term bonds or whether it is going to be set according to the length of the loan period. In the latter case, I suggest we would probably have multiple interest rates. As I have said, if the minister can give the committee answers to these questions there should be no delay in getting the legislation approved.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Perhaps I could answer the hon. gentleman in about a minute and a half by saying that I have not been hedging with hon. gentlemen opposite. I have given them all the positive information I have at this point in time. We have to recognize, and I repeat this, that the banks are lending their own money. We do not have any legislation now, and we do not want any legislation, that will give the government the power to direct the banks to lend their customers money at any particular rate of interest. What we can do, and what we will do, is to suggest a maximum rate under which we will guarantee these loans. In other words, we are not going to guarantee a loan if the maximum interest rate is not low enough to enable the legislation to provide a service to the farmers, not to the banks but to the farmers.
I have to say this to hon. gentlemen: we think it is reasonable that there should be a slightly higher charge for these loans than for
October 10, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act government bonds with similar terms because it is a fact the banks could lend this money to the government by just buying bonds. There are some additional expenses connected with servicing these loans and these expenses are not incurred by simply buying government bonds. This is the justification for the slight additional charge over the rate formerly charged.
So far as what the amount will be is concerned, I hope hon. gentlemen realize that by including small land purchases and presumably, therefore, longer periods for loans than were available under the old Farm Improvement Loans Act, there will be additional costs connected with loans of this type. We do not have any experience, however, with this type of loan and neither do the banks. I do say that the interest rate would be tried to a formula which would take into account a rate that is comparable with, that for the same term of government of Canada bond. I am sure hon. gentlemen will realize that we feel the banks will participate in this program to the same level that they did before. I hope my friend will agree with me that the banks gave wholehearted support to the Farm Improvement Loans Act over a long period of time. We want to make sure that they continue to do so. I have not been hedging at all, and as soon as I have positive, accurate information to give hon. gentlemen I will give it to them.


George Robson Muir: What the minister is telling us is that he is prepared to see multiple interest rates under the legislation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Chairman, I did not say that. I want to suggest that there may be a different rate for machinery, say, on a three year term. I am just throwing out these hypothetical cases. There may be a different rate for a land purchase on a 15 year term. Here again, we have to come back to the same argument I have used over and over again, namely, that it is the banks' money. We want to make sure they support this program and therefore we have to make some arrangements for setting a maximum rate under which we will guarantee loans at a point which the banks will support. It may be that there will be a slightly different rate for three year term loans to buy equipment which would depreciate rapidly compared with loans for the purchase of land. However, I am satisfied these rates will be tried to a comparable term that is current for government of Canada bonds.


George Robson Muir: Are we to understand, then, that there has been no discussion with the chartered banks or other interested lenders with regard to any formula that might be presented to them by the government and which they would consider satisfactory?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I would not say there has been no discussion. I do not think it would be useful at this stage to have a discussion or to say that the banks have agreed to this or have not agreed to that. Surely hon. gentlemen opposite must realize that it is necessary for the Department of Finance to have a bill passed by this house setting out the terms and conditions of loans before a final decision can be made as to what the maximum rate of interest will be under the guarantee.
I believe it was the hon. member for Assiniboia who asked me yesterday how long it would be after the legislation is passed before it would be operative. I cannot give a positive answer to the committee, but I would hope it would be within a few days after royal assent. We have reason to believe that is so.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Has any consideration been given to the question of different interest rates for operations of different sizes? I refer to the difference between a family farm and a corporation farm. Has this question been discussed?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Certainly it has been discussed. I am sure my friend will agree with me that the main purpose of this measure, and other measures, is to assist farmers in obtaining economic emits. Then, of course, we get into the complex question of what is, in fact, an economic unit. I followed my hon. friend's remarks very carefully and I agree with some of the points he made. I am sure he will agree that the best service we can perform for farmers is to give assistance in the obtaining of equipment and land in order that they can develop economic units to pay their expenses and provide themselves with a decent living from their farming operations.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Chairman, did the minister consult any credit unions or loan companies in respect of this measure? He said he made some preliminary investigations with bankers but we are not dealing only with banks in this regard. Did he consult them to see what interest rates they might find attractive?

October 10, 1968	COMMONS


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman I do not think any useful purpose could be served by making public statements in or outside the house regarding the exploratory inquiries that have been made of the people involved. I think this might make the situation more difficult. We should not speculate about things that have taken place up to this point. When the provisions of the bill are available we can make a decision about the maximum rate.
Let me point out to hon. members opposite that the maximum rate is not a matter for negotiation although it is a matter for discussion. One can become confused about the connotation of these two words in this context. I think in the final analysis the governor in council will decide what the maximum rate will be on loans which the government will guarantee.
The only purpose of this legislation, as I explained the other night, is to guarantee loans and lower the interest rates below commercial or competitive rates which now exist. Otherwise there would be no purpose. We are keenly aware that this is the purpose.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Chairman, I was somewhat surprised by the minister's statement that there had been no consultation with financial institutions other than banks.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I did not say that.


John Stratford Burton: I gathered from his remarks that there have been some discussions, but if I understood him correctly there have been no discussions with officials of credit unions.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not what I said at all.


John Stratford Burton: I understood that there have been no discussions with trust or loan companies which may eventually become involved in lending under this legislation. Because our discussion has taken this turn I intend to make some remarks about subclause 1 of clause 1.
The purpose of this subclause is to redefine the term "bank" as it is used in the act. It has the effect of qualifying other institutions under the provisions which guarantee loans to farmers. This paragraph provides that all chartered banks are qualified under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Provision is made in subsequent paragraphs to include credit unions, caisse populaires and other co-operative credit societies, as well as trust companies and loan companies.
DEBATES	1035
Farm Improvement Loans Act
These companies must be designated under the provisions of this measure by the minister. I am aware of a financial institution which would fall within this category; yet none of the officials of this institution have received information about this bill. This institution's employees are experienced in the lending field, and are interested in receiving information. I forwarded them a copy of this bill.
Paragraphs (ii) and (iii) set out the other institutions which may qualify for inclusion under the provisions of this bill. As I understand the wording, the minister is to be given the discretion to decide which institutions will be included. There is some justification for this because of the nature of some of these institutions and because of what is involved. It seems to me that this leaves the minister in a rather vulnerable position. He has absolutely no criteria to follow in deciding which institutions should qualify. He must use his own judgment, which I have no doubt is as good as the judgment of anyone else. It would be useful if the minister had some legislative guidance in making these decisions as to which institutions should be designated or qualified under this measure. This would provide some protection.
Let me ask the minister what policy is to be followed when making loans. Are there to be any basic criteria as to what institutions may qualify? The institutions which make these loans will be making them for the purpose of farm improvement, and as long as they meet some criteria there will be no difficulty about the guarantee. Without some criteria there will be very mixed-up situations. Various institutions qualified under the provisions may well be following different policies. There will not be any co-ordinated or integrated approach in respect of farm credit affairs. This could lead to very serious problems.
I have consulted the managers of several financial institutions which have been engaged in lending money for the purpose of farm improvement without the provisions of any government guarantee. Some of these people are well qualified from a managerial point of view and have competent employees. This is the type of institution we should have in mind when deciding the criteria or provisions under which they may qualify.
We must look at the broad implications of this measure. Will the minister consider these financial institutions very carefully before including them within the provisions of this bill? Is there going to be any co-ordination or
October 10, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act integration in respect of farm credit? This is very important because we are including a number of agencies which will deal with farm credit. We now have a federal agency, namely the Farm Credit Corporation.
Up to this time chartered banks have been making loans under the provisions of the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Most of these bank branches interested in making loans under this act are involved in the affairs of the immediate rural communities. They have personnel with knowledge of farm conditions in the areas they are serving. We are now extending the scope of this legislation. No doubt many of the institutions which will qualify under the new provisions will be able to handle these loans in a competent fashion. However, there are questions that should be answered regarding the approach that is to be used. I urge the minister to consider these questions seriously.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks about this legislation. Before I ask the questions I have in mind I should like to take issue with a statement by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.
I think it will be beneficial to combine farm credit legislation. It seems evident that in years to come we will be creating more corporations. It is in this sense that I disagree with the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. Many more institutions will qualify under the terms of this bill and these institutions will be able to lend money to those farmers who have been turned down by the Farm Credit Corporation. If a farmer applies to the Farm Credit Corporation for a loan with which to buy land and the corporation does not think he is a good risk, under the farm improvement loans legislation he can go to a bank and is entitled to obtain a loan. Those of us who have had any experience with banks know what happens when you apply to a bank for such a loan. The bank takes a statement of your net worth, and so on, and very few farmers are denied a loan under the farm improvement loans legislation. For this reason the legislation has been a blessing over the years.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
These are the people who will benefit from the program. This is what will happen, contrary to the wishes of the government that the large corporations shall one day take over all our farms. This is part of the thinking of 
the Farm Credit Corporation. I believe they will realize that there is a loophole in the farm improvement loans legislation which will benefit those who farm on a part time basis This is a good thing because it is the only salvation the family farmer has after he has applied to the Farm Credit Corporation for a loan.
I take issue with the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar in this regard. His argument was that the farmer will in a relatively short period be making large repayments on his loan and consequently his standard of living will be reduced. I realize that this sort of thing does happen, but the fact is that there is one place to which the farmer can turn for a loan after the Farm Credit Corporation has turned him down. He can go to a bank or other lending institution and obtain a loan. In this way he will at least be able to buy an additional quarter of land, and having bought the land can go back to the Farm Credit Corporation and say, "I am farming an almost economic unit and am now qualified to obtain a loan from you." This is what will happen, and I say thank goodness for it. It is good that there is one place to which the small farmer can go to obtain a loan.
I do not know whether the minister realizes it, but this program is in almost direct conflict with government policy in respect of farming, which is to eliminate the small farmer. These matters have been raised by other hon. members. I ask the minister whether we are to have different interest rates in respect of different purchases. Will there be one interest rate for the purchase of land, another for the purchase of machinery, another for the purchase of cattle and yet another for the purchase of buildings? We do not know what will happen with regard to interest rates. We do not know a great many things about this legislation. I think we are buying a cat in a bag. I am somewhat annoyed at and disturbed by the minister because apparently at this stage even he does not know the answers to these questions.
Apparently this legislation is not very important because the government house leader has told us that if it is not passed today we will move on and deal with other matters. Therefore there is not the urgency attached to it that the minister has tried to imply. There is a great need for this legislation, but the minister has not been very influential in persuading the government house leader that this is so. I do not think we need to rush into other measures but should deal
October 10, 1968	COMMONS
with this matter first. The minister should give us the details of this legislation. Even if the minister is not prepared to answer our questions, we still need legislation along this line.
If there is to be one interest rate applied to a loan for the purchase of land, another applied to a loan for the purchase of machinery, with a different depreciation rate, another rate in respect of a loan to purchase cattle, buildings, and so on, how does the minister reconcile his statement that the interest rate will be tied to the rate of government borrowing? Obviously there will not be any such tie. This is an attempt to convince the committee that the government is thinking along that line, but obviously the banks have not made any definite statement in this respect. Apparently the minister has not said to the banks: This is the government's thinking in this regard. The minister has not received the thinking of the banks; he is simply waiting for them to say what they intend to do.
If the minister is prepared at this time to answer the questions we have raised in respect of the legislation I will immediately resume my seat. I ask the minister whether he can tell us that he has said to the banks, "This is what I propose", and whether the banks accepted or rejected his proposals. He has nothing to offer with regard to the attitude of the banks to this measure.
The banks will benefit from this legislation, but what will be the situation as between one bank and another? I should not talk about caisses populaire because I do not know enough about them, but I do have some knowledge of the way credit unions operate. The minister should ignore any arrangement arrived at among the banks, if this is indeed the case, and should agree with the banks on an interest rate that will be most favourable to the farmer.
Although different types of lending institutions are to be included in this program, they should all be prepared to accept the rate set by the minister. I do not think that because different types of lending institutions are included in the bill there will be any reduction in the interest rate. If there has been an agreement between the banks and other lending institutions as to the interest rate to be charged, the minister can keep that in the bill for windowdressing and go across the country saying he has made it possible for farmers to obtain loans from all these institutions. He can holler hallelujah, if he likes, for having
DEBATES	1037
Farm Improvement Loans Act done this. The point is that these institutions will not be helpful in reducing the interest rate the farmer will pay.
What interest rate has the minister proposed to the banks? What has been the reaction of the banks to his proposal? The minister has referred to a government guarantee in respect of these loans. Is that guarantee meaningful? Will the interest rate differ as between one bank and another, for example, as between the Royal Bank of Canada, the Canadian-Imperial Bank of Commerce and the Bank of Montreal? We do not have the answers to these questions. The minister is not prepared at this time to give us an idea of what he has in mind. Perhaps it is because he has no idea of what the interest rate should be.
If the government has any thinking in this regard, obviously the banks have not yet accepted it. Surely at this stage of the game the banks should be prepared to say yes to the minister's proposals and he should tell the house what those proposals are. If he did this, a great deal of time would be saved in our committee discussion. The minister should tell us, "We have made an agreement with the banks. This is it." What is the secret in this respect? We have to know sooner or later.
Must I as an opposition member rise in the house and ask the minister every day whether there has been a change in the rate or a fluctuation in a bond issue? If I have to do this, will it be helpful? Would this be conducive to the dispatch of business in the house? Surely it would not.
I believe it is my responsibility as an opposition member of this house to ask the minister these questions. Every time there is a bond issue, no matter in what part of the year it may be, it will have a bearing on the interest rate the banks will charge. I do not want to be put in the position where I have to pester the minister until he gives us this information. We will not be satisfied until the minister is prepared to tell us the formula arrived at in respect of interest rates. If we have to continually ask the minister questions on this matter, will it be in the interest of good business in the house and in the interest of the farming industry-because farmers will be continually asking for loans? This is not something that will last only one day or one year. It will continue and it will increase. It has been going on now for some 20 years.
October 10, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act [DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Surely the minister must realize that this situation is different from loans to businessmen. There have been business failures and farming failures right, left and centre, but the point is that the amount of money lost in loans to the farming community is insignificant. This is the real difference. Therefore I suggest to the minister he should be prepared to answer this question at this time in order to silence this verbiage and help me to save my breath. Otherwise, every time an order in council is passed I will be asking myself what were the criteria in setting the rate, why did the government raise it, and what can be done to reduce it. I will be selfish for a moment and say that as a potential borrower myself I could ask, why should I pay that kind of rate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think I could help the hon. member by just saying to him that I spelled out very clearly in my speech yesterday that the rates will be set according to whether the guarantee will be available to all institutions at the same level. There may be two rates, but the whole essence of this is its simplicity. We want it to be easy for farmers to apply for this kind of loan. These rates will be set for certain periods, and every potential borrower will know exactly what the rate is for that period. They will not be adjusted more often than every quarter, and if the hon. member wants to ask me or the Minister of Finance four times a year what the rate will be I do not think he will be pestering us and we would not mind answering him.


Stanley James Korchinski: That is fine, Mr. Chairman. The minister has indicated there will be two rates, one for land. What will the other be for? Will there be different rates for land, machinery, livestock and so on?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I did not quite say that. There was a question whether there would be what was referred to as a multiplicity of rates. The hon. member said there might be one for mach.nery, one for livestock, one for land, etc. I suggest that, since a new provision or what amounts to almost a new concept is being added to this bill so far as its usefulness is concerned with regard to the purchase of land, there is a possibility of two rates being established, but not more than two rates, because of the difference in the length of term. We want to keep it simple. We have to keep that in mind because the very success of this provision in the past lay in the fact that it was simple to operate.

Perhaps I should take this opportunity to answer some of the questions the hon. member raised. It is important that this legislation be passed. It is also important that the Farm Credit Act and the legislation on advances on grain be passed, but it is up to hon. members to decide when they will be passed. I as Minister of Agriculture think that all legislation dealing with agriculture is more important than any other legislation. However, there are other ministers and other members of this house who represent other areas, and they also have some rights here. We have to bear in mind the fact that there is other, very urgent legislation dealing with other matters.
The hon. member referred to this legislation as being a loophole. He said that someone may be able to get credit under this provision through a loophole which exists in the regulations of the corporation. I do not agree with him because I do not think the credit rating of the borrower would be changed. There are some complex rules and regulations, such as the economic unit qualification, which the Farm Credit Corporation requires and which may not be required under this legislation. I am glad my hon. friend has endorsed this, but I would not agree there is a loophole in this legislation from the Farm Credit Corporation because I do not think this is the correct term for it.


Stanley James Korchinski: That is my own term, Mr. Chairman, and I am entitled to make my own definitions according to the way I see things. The minister has seen fit to give some answers to my questions, but I believe he has confused the issue even further. I asked whether there will be two interest rates, to which he said there would be a multiplicity of rates.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I said there will not be a multiplicity of rates.


Stanley James Korchinski: There will be two rates. Let us leave it at that. Apparently the minister cannot give me a straight answer. If he can, he should stand up and say so right now. So we will have at least two rates. If I wish to get a loan for the purchase of land, which I can pay off in seven or eight years time, and if at the same time I am entitled to the same type of loan for machinery, why should I pay a different rate for machinery from that which I pay for land? I am the same man who would be getting the two loans and in both cases the credit risk would be the same. I should be able to get my money in the same
October 10, 1968	COMMONS
way from the same bank. Can the minister explain that?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The difference is that when the hon. member borrows money for the purchase of land he may take the loan for 15 years while if he borrows money for a piece of equipment he may do so for three years.


Mr. Horner:: I wish to speak on the same point, Mr. Chairman. If a farmer borrows $3,000 to $10,000 for machinery and takes another loan for land at the same time, both to be repaid in five years time, would the rate be the same?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Under the past provisions of the Farm Improvement Loans Act my hon. friend knows that a different note was written for each piece of equipment and for different purposes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In the past the rate was the same for each piece of equipment and for each purpose. I am as confused as the hon. member for Mackenzie is. If there are two rates of interest, will one apply specifically to land and the other to machinery, or will one be charged for a five year term and the other for a longer term?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not wish to confuse the hen. members. I told them at the outset that all the details have not yet been worked out. Surely hon. members recognize that we need the authority of this parliament before we can initiate discussions of negotiations with all the financial institutions involved. If we went to them without the authority of the house and spoke about the proposed amendments, they would be asking precisely the same questions such as, what will parliament agree to, and so on. This is exactly what the Minister of Finance wants, namely, the authority of the house so as to enable us to give a government guarantee under the provisions of the act. It is only then that we will be in a position to make arrangements with the banks. We want to do it as quickly as possible.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am glad the minister wants to rush this legislation through because I want that also. But at the same time I want to have a few questions answered before I rush into this headlong and find it is too late to back out of it. If, as the minister says, the banks are waiting to know what this house wants, I think we can provide the minister with some suggestions in due course. However, there are several questions which I wish
DEBATES	1039
Farm Improvement Loans Act to put to the minister. It may be that the minister has dealt with this one; nevertheless I will put it to him. It is to be presumed that eventually this bill will be passed in one form or another and will receive final reading regardless of whether or not it is acceptable to us. Therefore, will it be possible after this legislation is passed for many of the farmers, who have taken loans in the interim period at rates which were not too satisfactory but which they had to accept at that time, to refinance their loans under the provisions of this bill or will they not be given this opportunity?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Minister of Finance answered this question some months ago. He said that any bank loan which was made since the expiration of the former act on June 30 would receive the government guarantee.


Stanley James Korchinski: There is only one other point I wish to make. It seems to me the minister is vague as to what the final rate will be. Can he tell us what the final rate will be? Is there a conflict among the banking fraternity, that is, the chartered banks, the near banks and so on, as to loans which would be available from other sources? Is this why we cannot arrive at a final determination of the formula? I am wondering whether this is where the trouble lies. If so, I repeat that the minister should simply deal with the banking fraternity at this stage. I realize that many of the credit unions are giving depositors a higher rate of interest, and this does make it difficult to bring them in. The only way we can do so is to raise the rates, and I do not think that is in the interests of the farming community.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
While the intention of the bill may be good, since these things cannot be done overnight I suggest that the minister simply deal with the banking fraternity and see whether the other lending institutions can work out their problems to enable them to fit within the framework of the bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, we think there is room in this area for all of these various institutions to provide credit. I do not think there is any conflict.


Stanley James Korchinski: Is there a conflict between the banks and the near banks?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not that I know of.
1040	COMMONS
Farm Improvement Loans Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, on the question of the near banks, would the minister say whether the Inspector General of Banks will have authority to examine the books of near banks which do not have a federal charter or licence to operate in a federal field?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, this ties in with the questions raised by the hon. member for Regina East, I think it was. This is the reason for designating those institutions that come within the act, as hon. members will see from clause 1, so that we do in fact have authority to make the kind of inspections that we need for proper administration of the act.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I have a further question on this point. Am I to assume that only those financial institutions that have a federal charter will be designated as lending institutions under the act? To be more specific, would the treasury branches in the province of Alberta qualify under the act? They have no federal charter and operate solely within the province.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, we visualize that there would be institutions under both federal and provincial legislation, chartered under federal or provincial law, which could qualify.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Both of them could?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then I go one step further. Is the Inspector General of Banks to be given authority to investigate the provincial institutions that have a licence to operate within a province but have no licence to operate all across the country?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman has raised some problems of which we are aware. We do not believe that this officer has the authority to investigate provincial institutions chartered under provincial law. Obviously the hon. member is raising a problem that would have to be taken into account when these institutions are designated under the act. We do not know the final details involved here.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have one further question. I should like to encourage the minister and the committee to get on with this bill, but this does amaze me. In view of the fact that the act expired three or four months ago, surely the minister or his department would have discussed inspection of non-federal institutions. If the minister wants to encompass these
 '
DEBATES	October 10, 1968
institutions within this act and guarantee up to 90 per cent of the smaller loans, surely we should know where we are going on this question. I am amazed that the minister and the Department of Finance have not gone into this question fully.


Mr. Pringle:: Mr. Chairman, might I say a word on this point? It has been my privilege to deal and work with farmers and I have been engaged in the farming industry in Alberta for many years, as well as in British Columbia and other areas. Perhaps these fellows on the opposition side do not have to borrow any money, but my farmers have to and they have to find it where they can. The big problem that my farmers have had in the last few years is to find money, which is in short supply.
When these fellows opposite had the chance to run the show we got awfully short of money. They should not try to curtail the money supply but should try to loosen it up a little. I have even dealt with the provincial treasury branches in Alberta and found them quite satisfactory. What we need to do is to loosen up the money supply so that advantage can be taken of it.
I think this is an excellent bill. For the last few days I have heard suggestions that we should speed up its passage. My farmers want to borrow some money but it is obvious to me that the members of the opposition are slowing down passage of the legislation. Let us get ahead with it, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, if hon. gentlemen opposite had as many brains as the noise they make is loud, then we might be able to proceed with this legislation. We on this side have urged the government to proceed with all haste. We believe we should have postponed the debate on postage stamps for a day so that we could get ahead with this legislation, but the government refused. We asked for unanimous consent of the house to proceed last Tuesday, but the government said no.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley East says that we have been holding up this legislation. The very point on which I tried to elicit information from the minister had to do with the treasury branches in Alberta which operate a very good banking system; I would be first to admit that. Yet the minister has not said that these branches would qualify under the act. He has not said that the Inspector General of Banks would be allowed to
October 10, 1968	COMMONS
investigate their books. Up to the present time, the only banks that qualify under the legislation are those which allow inspection by the Inspector General. It is my duty to the farmers in my constituency, as I see it, to make certain that every bank operating in my province qualifies under this legislation.
The minister has indicated that discussions in this regard will take place. I say to him and also to the Department of Finance that they have been lax in their duty if they have not already consulted the treasury branch of the province of Alberta and other credit unions.
If banks and near banks are to be included in this legislation, then there was nothing to stop the minister from standing in his place two or three days ago and informing the house that without a shadow of a doubt discussions have been held and inspection arrangements worked out in relation to provincial institutions. Instead, we have had secrecy. We have had covering up and all sorts of things.


M. Ervin Pringle: We have had too much opposition.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My hon. friend says there has been too much opposition. It is the duty of the government to present legislation to this house. It is the duty of the opposition on behalf of the country to ensure that the legislation will do what the government says it will. I and those on this side have done our best to assist the government in proceeding with this legislation, but it took us three days to get a statement on interest rates from the minister. Now today he tells us there may be two interest rates. A while ago I asked him what rate of interest would be set on loans to buy equipment and land, and he has yet to reply.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
To my hon. friend in the rump to my right I say that money lent on land has been a key factor in bringing about today's inflated land prices. It is up to hon. members interested in agriculture to examine closely whether money lent on land may or may not inflate land prices. I may be wrong in interpreting the minister's remarks, but I gathered that the interest rate on money lent on land was to be higher than the interest rate on money lent on machinery. The direct opposite should be the case. The interest rate on money lent on land ought to be lower because land depreciation is not a key factor when one
DEBATES	1041
Farm Improvement Loans Act considers the risk involved. In other words, machinery depreciates rapidly, and I hope that hon. members in the rump realize that. For the past few years land has been increasing in value and therefore money lent on land ought to bear a lower interest rate than money lent on machinery.


An hon. Member:: Right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I know it is difficult for hon. members in the rump to know about these things, but I must say to the minister and to his assistant that there is no reason to prevent passage of this legislation before six o'clock if this committee is informed on the subject of interest rates. Are there to be two interest rates? Is the interest rate on money lent on land to be higher or lower than the interest rate on money lent on machinery?


M. Ervin Pringle: Sit down and listen.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, we have some gratuitous advice from the new leader of the rump.


M. Ervin Pringle: I think the hon. member-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please.


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Chairman, I was about to say-


Albert Béchard: Order, please.
Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. The hon. member for Crowfoot has the floor.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I see that the would-be leader of the rump is being challenged for the leadership by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. I suggest to both hon. members that if they were prepared to open their minds as they are prepared to open their mouths they might perhaps learn something. Hon. members are welcome to enter into the debate but not to lengthen it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We are trying to elicit information so that the public and our constituents may be sure this legislation is being considered to the widest possible extent.
I notice the minister is trying to rise to his feet. I hope he wishes to clarify the question of interest rates because it ought to be clarified. He has left us in doubt about arrangements that have been made with lending institutions as to interest rates. Will they be determined on a territorial basis? Are they to fluctuate between banks?
October 10, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Crowfoot asked several questions that I should like to answer. He talked about the risk involved with land vis-a-vis. machinery. Under this government guarantee there is no risk on either type of loan because the money is guaranteed by the federal government.


Stanley James Korchinski: The minister was not very clear about that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Risk is not a factor. The only factor is time. The hon. member raised a point about money lent over a long term oearing interest at a slightly higher rate than money lent for a shorter term. He knows that that is so. I need not spell out to the hon. member the details of the performances and terms of various government bonds. He took that matter up so eloquently the other night himself. The hon. member also knows that so far as the federal government is concerned, government of Alberta treasury branches are extensions of the Alberta treasury. What authority do we have to inspect the provincial treasury? I am not sure that it is proper for us to consider guaranteeing loans that are made by the treasury of the province of Alberta. They can make their own guarantees. They are competent to do so.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In other words, loans by the treasury branches in Alberta will not be guaranteed under this act. Is that correct?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think the hon. member can assume that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am very disappointed and I may say that many farmers in Alberta will also be disappointed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not see what added value there would be to the government in guaranteeing loans that are part and parcel of the structure of the provincial government. They are completely guaranteed as far as that government is concerned.
The hon. member also raised the matter of credit unions. May I advise hon. member opposite that credit unions are now designated for student loans and that the program works very well.


André-Gilles Fortin: I should like to ask the minister for some details. In order to be understood, I will speak very slowly so as to make the simultaneous interpretation easier.
In the light of the statements he made the last few days, I should like to ask him first 
whether he is requesting the authority to sign agreements with private sources of credit] secondly, whether the house will have nothing more to say on this matter; thirdly, whether the government will be unable to guarantee approximately the requested interest rate or rates, and fourthly, whether he will be able to finance the operations of a public corporation which comes under the federal government.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I believe one question the hon. member asked was whether we should guarantee credit emanating from private sources. To the extent that banks, credit unions, caisses populaires, and other similar institutions are private, compared with other institutions in the public sector, we shall be guaranteeing credit emanating from such private institutions. We will guarantee the repayment of loans that such institutions grant to private individuals.
If my hon. friend will look at clause 4 of the bill he will see that the guarantee is for 90 per cent on loans up to $125,000 with respect to the institutions mentioned there, 50 per cent for the next $125,000, up to $250,000, and 10 per cent on any amount that exceeds $250,000.
The other question my hon. friend asked was, I believe, what rates of interest will the government guarantee apply to. I have answered similar questions for quite a long time. We do not know precisely what that rate will be. We must pass the bill first so that the banks and other financial institutions will know exactly what is involved, and then we have provision for the governor in council to prescribe a rate after some discussions have been held.


Mr. Mazankowski:: I wish to put two questions to the minister. I do not intend to hold up this bill in any way. In the provisions of the bill that pertain to classes of lenders, can the minister say specifically whether the Alberta treasury branches are to be included?
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Second, could there not be some provision made to accommodate interest free deals so as to help both the farmers and the bankers? Take the case of a farmer who buys a combine this fall on an interest free basis, payment to become due on the first occasion he uses the machine. It might be ten months before he does so. Could there not be provision made in this legislation for the machine
October 10, 1968
to be classed as a new unit? As the situation stands now it gives rise to considerable frustration on the part of the banker, the dealer and the customer when the time comes for the actual loan to be made. While we are dealing with this legislation I believe we should reach a clearcut policy on this kind of transaction.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In answer to the first question, let me say I can see no purpose in the federal government guaranteeing loans made by the provincial treasury. A government entity has full control already and we certainly could not apply the same rules to the treasury of a province as we can to the institutions which are included here. This is the case simply because another government is involved. The hon. member understands very well the legal and practical implications attached to doing what he suggests.
So far as the second question is concerned, refinancing in the strictest sense is not permissible under this act. However, a good deal depends on the arrangements made between the farmer and the machine company, whether a deal was actually consummated on the day the down payment was made and so on.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Does the minister not feel that this does not really involve refinancing, that the arrangement I have in mind is really a form of pre-delivery? After all, the machine concerned is still a new one.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am fully aware of that. In fact, I made some comment about it yesterday. It is a question of the terms. If the machine involved is new and unused and if the farmer has made no payment on it, perhaps it can be said that a deal has not been made until a payment is forthcoming. Possibly the machine has been rented up to that point. Some bankers have been concerned about this question in connection with farm improvement loans lest some of these deals would be challenged legally on the ground that they did in fact involve refinancing of a note. But we are willing to look at this question and see whether we can make the kind of accommodation which will fit the practical situation which exists. I should not like, however, to give the hon. member an undertaking that this measure will make provision for refinancing, because to do so would raise a great many problems with which we do not wish this legislation to be involved.


Mr. Rose:: In rising I should like to pay my respects to the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. He comes from the mystic east but was
Farm Improvement Loans Act described as the hon. member for Fraser Valley.
The debate on this clause seems to have been limited to members of the Conservative party and members of the New Democratic party. To come to the point of my remarks, it seems to me we have been manoeuvred here into discussion of the formula for setting an interest rate, whereas what we are really concerned about in this bill, as in a number of others, is the proposal for flexibility which it contains at a time when something definite and concrete is surely needed. This observation applies equally to the other farm bills, to the fishermen's improvement loan legislation and the Veterans Land Act. From my limited knowledge of farming it would appear that what we need is not more flexibility but a greater amount of stability.
For one thing, we need market stability. A farm improvement loan could be taken out during a period when the adjusted interest rate was relatively high and have to be repaid during a time of poor market prospects with predictable foreclosure, and so on. The formula prescribed under the student loan legislation was the government of Canada bond yield plus 1 per cent. We have not been told by the minister what the formula is to be in this instance. The hon. gentleman has talked about it and around it, but we have been given no definite information at all apart from what he said in his preamble yesterday afternoon. I can find no definite assurance in the legislation itself that quarterly adjustments will in fact be made. It is true there is a brief reference to this in Hansard.
Another subject which concerns members in this corner of the house is the minister's power to designate certain financial institutions. We should like to know the criteria upon which financial institutions are deemed eligible for such ministerial acceptability. We are interested in this because in contrast to hon. members to my right we are interested in seeing the kind of institutions which are authorized to make these loans broadened so as to include, for example, caisses populaires and credit unions.
My final comment arises from clause 4 in which it is laid down that $900 million is the limit imposed upon the banking institutions whereas the limit placed on credit unions and other institutions is $300 million. Is this just an arbitrary limit or is there some reason behind these figures which show an obvious preference for the banks by three to one?

October 10, 1968

Farm Iviprovevient Loans Act
Again I say that the committee has found itself sidetracked on the question of whether the formula should be this or that, half a percentage point above the long term yield on government of Canada bonds, or something else. What we are interested in really is something different. The fact is that our farmers, students, fishermen and veterans need stability, not the kind of flexibility which will lead to instability. We are opposed to the abandonment of a fixed low interest rate. If the minister would answer some of my questions in this regard I would feel much happier about the bill as it now stands.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The question which the hon. member has raised is essentially the same as that which was raised by the hon. member for Regina East. He wants to know the criteria upon which the minister exercises his powers of designation. That is pretty well spelled out in the first clause of the bill where it mentions "bank" and the term "bank", as my hon. friend knows, is used throughout the bill. The interpretation is, "a bank incorporated under the Bank Act." Then there is mention of a credit union, of a corporation within the meaning of the Trust Companies Act, of a loan company within the meaning of the Loan Companies Act, and of an insurance company within the meaning of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. These are the financial institutions that could be designated, but the bill does not say "or designated." It says "and designated." It is these companies that wish to participate in this kind of credit facility and have the guarantee made available to them that will make application to the Minister of Finance for designation. I think it is fairly clear what categories we are talking about.


Mark Willson Rose: The minister says that these various institutions may make application to the Minister of Finance. Under what conditions would the Minister of Finance agree that these institutions were acceptable? This is the detail of the question I am asking.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I really do not know the exact details of the question or, indeed, if there is very much involved in it. For example, I would think there would be no problem with all of the banks that have been in this business in the past. They would all be designated, and presumably also all the credit unions that are large enough to handle the kind of business envisaged here. There are many of

those, although there are perhaps some small ones that could not make a contribution to this kind of lending.
The hon. member also asked why a certain maximum figure is guaranteed to the banks and a substantially lower figure to the other institutions. Up until a few months ago the banks handled all this business. There were no other insitutions involved. The sum of $300 million for the next three years seems to be a fairly large amount. I should not say it is generous because there is no generosity involved, but it is a big enough amount to see what is going to happen with these other institutions when they get involved in this kind of lending with a government guarantee. I feel fairly sure that the banks chartered under the Bank Act will be handling the majority of the business. As I say, up until a few months ago they handled all of it.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak briefly on a point raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot. I have never been a resident of Alberta but I have always had a good deal of approval if not affection, for the Alberta treasury branches. I think it is rather discriminatory on the part of the minister that he should exclude from this legislation a publicly owned money lending institution such as the Alberta treasury branch.
The minister did not say so definitely but he did reply to the hon. member for Crowfoot that one could assume that the Alberta treasury Branch would not be eligible to come under the provisions of this legislation. That is disappointing. The minister gave us to understand that there is some kind of constitutional problem in the government of Canada guaranteeing loans that might be made by a provincial public agency. Is there not some analogy with the arrangements that we have with respect to crop insurance? Crop insurance programs in the prairie provinces and in other provinces as well are arranged and administered by provincial agencies; yet under amending legislation passed two or three years ago they are allowed to re-insure them with the federal government. If it is possible to have that kind of an arrangement, a re-insurance by the province with the federal government against risk, why can we not have a similar arrangement with respect to a guarantee against risk in regard to money lending by financial institutions such as the Alberta treasury branches?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: To my knowledge, and I have been trying to check this, there has never been an application by the Alberta treasury
October 10, 1968	COMMONS
branches for a federal government guarantee for this type of loan. Indeed, I do not think they would appreciate our trying to apply the rules to them that we apply to private financial institutions. I do not think the question arises at all that they would even want this kind of thing. If hon. gentlemen opposite know that the Alberta provincial treasury would like the federal government to guarantee their operations and inspect their books, according to what the hon. member for Crowfoot says, I would point out that they have never drawn that to our attention.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is the minister saying that if they did make application they would qualify? Is this the interpretation that I can put on his remarks? He is saying they never have. I do not believe every credit union has applied.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The treasury branches in Alberta are completely independent of the Alberta treasury. Their books and their bookkeeping are separate. The minister shakes his head but I am certain they do not operate out of the same treasury. If they did apply would they qualify?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that the treasury branch service in Alberta does in fact operate a very good and useful service in those areas where it has branches, but for the hon. member to say they operate completely independent of the treasury just is not so. This is the only legal status on which they can provide that service, that they are in fact an extension of the treasury. Otherwise they would need a bank charter and they have not got one. I know that and I know that they know it.
The question of whether or not we offer to guarantee loans that are made by the treasury branches just does not come up because I do not think they are going to apply. I do not think they would want to be designated and subjected to the regulations that would qualify them for designation. The hon. member has mentioned that all credit unions did not apply. That is true but some of them from time to time have expressed interest, particularly in student loans. We are prepared to offer this service whether or not all of them accept it. There have been times in the past when credit unions have indicated a desire to lend money under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, but probably they have not done so recently considering the 5 per cent interest rate. That is why we need these amendments
DEBATES	1045
Farm Improvement Loans Act so that we can get not only the banks back into this business but also all other financial institutions that have experience in dealing with farm credit requirements.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Has there been any discussion between the minister or the Department of Finance and the head of the Alberta government treasury branches with regard to the feasibility of their coming under this legislation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not recently.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then the minister is not very interested in one of the major banking institutions in Alberta. I would say without a shadow of doubt that the treasury branches in Alberta have served a real purpose. They offer real competition to the chartered banks. They have done a tremendously good job in providing loans for farm machinery without a guarantee. For the past 23 years the chartered banks have had a guarantee but in fact the treasury branches have moved in and, to use the word in its polite sense, have even stolen business from the chartered banks.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
If discussions were carried on with the treasury branches I do not believe for one minute that they would not express an interest in a guarantee. I am very disappointed that the Minister of Agriculture has not prodded the Minister of Finance or his deputies to look at the feasibility of allowing greater competition in the banking field in the province of Alberta. I might add, that there has been plenty of competition with respect to loans for home builders and city developments. Farmers have recently taken advantage of the Industrial Development Bank, since its operations have been made available to them. The treasury branches were opened in the smaller communities where the farming industry does most of its borrowing. I am making this point. I can only say again that the Minister of Agriculture has not prodded the financial department of his government into attempting to make working arrangements with the treasury branches in Alberta.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sure the hon. member really does not altogether mean what he has said. Why would the federal government have guaranteed provincial government loans? We are trying to induce private institutions into providing this credit for farmers. My hon. friend knows very well that for a long period of time the treasury branches were, in fact,
October 10, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act providing loans of this type at 5 per cent without any federal government guarantee because they had the provincial government behind them. No federal government guarantee was needed. For a long time after the chartered banks moved their regular interest rate up to 6 per cent the treasury branches continued to lend money at 5 per cent.
I am convinced that the guarantee, or whatever you want to call it, of the province of Alberta standing behind these treasury branch agencies is sufficient. They could give exactly the kind of service they have given in the past whenever they wished to do so.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: It
seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is a little vague about the loan companies or associations that are going to be allowed to lend money under this measure. I am left with the definite impression that the minister does not seem very sure about this. I suggest to the government that when this measure is in force they think carefully about it. I should like to give an illustration. A short time ago, an insurance company in Ontario went bankrupt and this resulted in a messy situation. I believe some of the loans this company had made were farm loans. I certainly hope the government will check this type of corporation. Since the minister himself seems a little vague, I specifically want to warn the government about such a situation.
I am a little disturbed about the attitude of the government since it has introduced various measures under which interest rates are to be raised. I am disturbed particularly about the feeling of the backbenchers on the government side that you can borrow your way out of trouble. You can get by for a little while but you are like the fellow who fell out of a tenth storey window and who said when he passed the fifth floor, "I am all right so far". It is unfortunate that something has not been done to increase the volume of wheat sales or the prices of farm products, for this is where the basic problem really lies.
Since the government allowed interest rates to go up in other sectors of the economy I suppose they felt that the farm sector must also have higher interest rates. Things are tough all over, so they might as well be tough for the farmer. I should like to deal for a moment with the legislation. I understand that it is permissive legislation. Does this mean that the government will go hand in hand to the princes of finance to see what interest rate they are willing to accept? I am
[Mr. Olson.l
a little perturbed about this angle. I communicated with some managers of credit unions and managers of banks in my area to try to ascertain what the interest rate would be. I admit that I would be operating at the retail level, so to speak, and the minister would be in a more authoritative position to find out what the interest rate would be for loans of this nature.
The fact the minister seems to be unsure on this question disturbs me. We all know the interest rate is going to be a realistic one. People talk about realistic movies, and they mean you are going to see more. In this case, a realistic interest rate means the interest rate is going up. I am quite perturbed about this. The fact interest rates are going up in all sectors of the economy suggests that the government is in financial trouble and is attempting to do a little buck-passing. It is going to cost the farmers concerned quite a few bucks to pay higher interest rates. These farmers will have to be good managers to pay these higher interest rates or they are not going to be farming very long. This is the way I see it. We will be discussing the interest clause later so I shall make some comments at that time.


Edward Richard Schreyer: The minister may well be right when he suggests that the provincial administration in Alberta has shown no interest to date in having the treasury branches come under the provisions of this legislation. This is one thing, but surely it would seem logical to leave the option open to the province of Alberta and to those who administer the treasury branches to come under this legislation if they see fit or if they are persuaded to do so by the farmers of that province. I have the impression the minister really has it in mind to exclude them from participation in this legislation. I say it is an unnecessary kind of discrimination when one publicly owned lending institution is not mentioned in this provision. I feel that the idea of a public lending institution as set up in Alberta was one of the finest innovations of the late William Aberhart and Ernest Manning. I am surprised to learn that a former disciple of theirs appears to be so nonchalant about it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Actually, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture disappointed me when he said that the treasury branches in Alberta had not been consulted about this measure. He went on to say these institutions
October 10, 19S8	COMMONS
were lending government money and the purpose of this measure was to lend private capital. I should like to assure him and the house that the treasury branches in Alberta do operate a great deal on private capital. In fact, for a number of years these branches paid a higher rate on deposits than any of the chartered banks.
When I read clause 1 I cannot find where the minister has made provision to consult the treasury branches in the years ahead. Therefore I should like to move the following amendment:
To add alter the word "society", line 12 and before the word "that" in line 13, the words "and other financial institutions".
I fully understand that this amendment will not automatically bring in the treasury branches in the years ahead. However, I want to make certain that these banks which have served Alberta so well cannot be automatically excluded. The minister will not be able to say in a year or two that they do not qualify because of the way this provision was written.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
By adding these simple words "and other financial institutions" we will make the measure broad enough so that, if after consultation with the Alberta provincial authorities they want to qualify and rearrange their bookkeeping to satisfy the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance, there will be provision in the act to do so and they will not have to come back to parliament in search of a special provision. These financial institutions have done an excellent job in attempting to serve the rural areas of Alberta.
With those remarks, Mr. Chairman, I move this amendment.
I encourage the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues, and particularly the hon. member to my right who spoke about the need to provide money to farmers, to support this amendment. I am sure this extra competition in the province of Alberta would be welcomed by the farmer.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak to a point of order. I am wondering whether or not this amendment is in order inasmuch as it would appear to increase the possible financial obligations of the government. Perhaps Your Honour might give us some direction on whether an amendment of this type, not presented by the government, would be acceptable for the reason I have suggested.
DEBATES	1047
Farm Improvement Loans Act


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, there might be some merit to the point raised by the parliamentary secretary except for the fact that paragraph (ii) of subclause (1) of clause 1 refers to "a credit union, caisse populaire or other co-operative credit society". This is an open-ended definition and it leaves it to the discretion of the minister. There are a great number of credit associations and credit unions which might qualify. I hardly think the addition of the words "and other financial institutions" would in any substantial or definitive way add to the financial responsibilities of the government. If there was a limitation in respect of chartered banks, or specifically described institutions which were limited in number, there might be something to be said for the objection, but the eligibility provided by paragraph (ii) is so wide that the objection is not one that should be taken seriously.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, if I understood the parliamentary secretary correctly, he questioned the legality of the amendment because it might result in an increased cost to the government. He must realize that there will be no additional cost unless other institutions apply and qualify. There is nothing to stop the Minister of Agriculture or any other member of the cabinet, for that matter, turning down an application. The amendment does not suggest that all applications must be accepted. It makes provision for application. I fail to see any validity in the argument of the parliamentary secretary that the amendment is out of order.


Albert Béchard: Order. I thank the honourable members for their enlightening comments, however, in my opinion, the amendment suggested by the honourable member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) goes beyond the terms of the resolution. In point of fact, the resolution preceding the bill under consideration appeared on the order paper of September 16, 1968, and read as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act to provide for a further three-year loan period ending June 30, 1971; to substitute for the 5% rate of interest on guaranteed farm improvement loans made under the Act such rate or rates of interest as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council; to extend the purposes for which guaranteed loans may be made to include the purchase of land as an addition to an existing farm enterprise; to increase from $15,000 to $25,000 the maximum amount of any loan that may be made under the Act to a
1048	COMMONS
Farm Improvement Loans Act borrower together with any amount owing in respect of other guaranteed farm improvement loans; to authorize the Minister of Finance to designate certain trust and loan companies and insurance companies and certain credit unions, caisse populaire and other co-operative credit societies as authorized lenders under the Act;
Therefore, for this reason, I declare the amendment unacceptable.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I beg your pardon, sir, I did not hear your final words. Did you say the amendment was out of order?


Albert Béchard: I ruled it out of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I appeal your ruling to Mr. Speaker.
[DOT]	(5:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the deputy chairman of the committee made the following report:
Mr. Speaker, in committe of the whole on Bill C-lll, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Homer) proposed an amendment to clause 1 of the bill as follows:
"To add after the word 'society', line 12, and before the word 'that' in line 13 the words 'and other financial institutions.' "
[DOT]	(5:50 p.m.)
I ruled the proposed amendment out of order on the ground that it went beyond the provisions of the resolution preceding the bill in that the resolution listed specific institutions whereas the proposed amendment would include many institutions not covered by the resolution.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my participation in the argument will be very brief. I refer you to the resolution which appears at page 36 of Votes and Proceedings. In describing the institutions which may be susceptible of being designated by the Minister of Finance for the purpose of sharing in the capacity to make loans pursuant to this act the following words appear:
-to authorize the Minister of Finance to designate certain trust and loan companies-
Then it goes on to deal with insurance companies and certain credit unions. If it had been the intention of the government to limit or restrict the class of institution that would be susceptible of receiving these guarantees, the government would and should have said so. When we come to examine the bill we find in clause 1 that loan and trust companies are carefully defined, and the meaning of "loan company" as set out in the resolution is very carefully limited. The government has that
[The Deputy Chairman.]
DEBATES	October 10, 1968
right, but we are not compelled to look at the terms of the bill in order to decide whether or not that is so.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that you are not compelled to look at the bill to decide what should be the rights of a member to move an amendment and still come within the four corners of the resolution. I suggest that the words "loan company" must be given their widest possible interpretation. There is a general rule, as Your Honour well knows, that if you are on the horns of a dilemma and entertain any reasonable doubt, the benefit of that doubt must be given to the legality of the amendment placed before the house. On that basis I would ask Your Honour to rule that the amendment is in order.
I summarize by saying that if in the resolution the government had seen fit to limit loan companies to the type of companies set out in clause 1, then the point of objection raised by the chairman would have been completely correct and we would have not only accepted it but in that light I am sure no one from this party, which religiously abides by all of the rules, would have moved an amendment. On that basis I ask you to rule that this amendment is in order.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The chairman of the committee ruled that the amendment exceeded the terms of the resolution. Quite obviously it does because the kinds of institutions, such as credit unions, caisses populaires and loan companies, were spelled out. I could go into a long explanation of why that limitation was placed there. It involves reasons other than the ones raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot who moved the amendment, but I will not do so because I agree that the limitation of the resolution does in fact preclude such an amendment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I just add one more thought. I agree partly with the Minister of Agriculture. The legislation outlines certain financial institutions such as trust companies, loan companies, insurance companies and credit unions, and out of that group the minister can designate certain companies. But the chairman's ruling was that the amendment went outside the scope of the resolution.
It is my view that we are arguing about something that is quite simple because the minister can always designate the institutions, and all the hon. member for Crowfoot is adding to the clause are the words "and other
October 10. 1968	COMMONS
financial institutions". If the Minister of Finance did not want to have particular institutions included he would not designate them, and if the financial institutions did not want to be designated they could say they did not want to take part in this enterprise. So I do not think this would affect the bill very much. It may widen the provisions with reference to the kind of institutions the minister can choose. I overheard an hon. member over here say this might discriminate against the province of Alberta. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture, in his wisdom, would appreciate he is discriminating against the government controlled treasury branches in the province of Alberta.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There may be other institutions in the province of Quebec because in that province there are many kinds of credit unions. In view of the fact that the minister can always designate the financial institutions, and surely that was intended in the resolution, I would ask Your Honour to give my point serious consideration and upset the chairman's ruling.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question before the house is an appeal to Mr. Speaker from a decision given by the chairman of the committee of the whole pursuant to section 4 of standing order 59.
In the committee of the whole on Bill No. C-lll the hon. member for Crowfoot proposed an amendment to clause 1 of the bill as follows:
"To add after the word 'society', line 12, and before the word 'that' in line 13 the words 'and other financial institutions' ''.
The question is to determine whether the proposed words of the amendment go beyond the terms of the resolution. My view is that if the words proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot by way of amendment do not enlarge the words "financial institutions" used in clause 1 of this bill, then the amendment is redundant and superfluous. If they seek to enlarge the terms of these words, then we have to determine whether the amendment is consistent with the detailed provisions of the resolution preceding the bill. In my view, when a resolution preceding a money bill sets out in detail the terms of the bill, as this one does, we have to be very cautious about amendments which might enlarge upon these terms.
I have to refer hon. members to citation 246 in the fourth edition of Beauchesne at page
DEBATES	1049
Farm Improvement Loans Act 207 subparagraph (3), which reads as follows in part:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
I suggest to hon. members, with respect, that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot does affect the conditions and qualifications set out in detail in the resolution approved by the house and preceding the bill.
For this reason I feel I have to sustain the decision of the learned and wise chairman of the committee of the whole.
And the house having resumed in committee:
On clause 1-Bank.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


James Hugh Faulkner: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-lll. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schreyer)-Agriculture, biological effects on chickens of microwave tower radiation; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie)-Communications, co-operation with France in space and satellite research.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, public bills. As there are no private bills on today's order paper the house will proceed to the consideration of public bills.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-5, to amend the Criminal Code (company-censored housing).

October 10, 1968
Criminal Code
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious that it is public policy, both in the federal and provincial jurisdictions, that workers shall have the right to join trade unions and, having so joined and given proof as required under federal and provincial labour relations acts that the union represents a majority of the workers concerned, shall have the right to bargain collectively and in good faith with the management of the enterprise for whch they work.
The rights of workers to join unions have been spelled out in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and in various provincial labour relations acts. I want to quote a couple of sections from the federal act, the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. Section 3 (1) provides:
Every employee has the right to be a member of a trade union and to participate in the activities thereof.
Section 4 (1) provides:
Subject to subsection (2), no employer or employers' organization, and no person acting on behalf of an employer or employers' organization, shall participate in or interfere with the formation or administration of a trade union, or contribute financial or other support to it.
The number of workers both in private industry and in government enterprises in the latter part of 1968 who belong to trade unions of various types amounts to approximately two million. Relationships between labour and management are, in my opinion, on the whole quite satisfactory. It is true that on occasion there are strikes. It is also true that many people think there are too many strikes. All I can say is that the number of days lost in the course of any year, even in the course of this year when there has been a relatively large number of strikes, is very small compared with the number of days lost because of unemployment, over which workers have no control, accidents on the job and sickness.
I think that this is the direction in which most Canadians have wanted labour-management relations to develop. Proof of that can be found in the fact that recently in this parliament we introduced legislation giving those who work for the federal government the same right to belong to a union, indeed to strike if they so desire, that workers in private industry have enjoyed for many years.
The reason for this bill, which essentially proposes a very simple amendment to the section in the Criminal Code dealing with trespassing, is that in certain sectors of our industrial society management has been less

than ready to accept what I have indicated I believe to be the clear intent of parliament and the legislatures of Canada. I am referring to workers working in isolated areas, usually in the northern parts of Canada, who are engaged in the woods industry, the mining industry and the steel industry.
As far as I can tell, Mr. Speaker, in every province there have been instances where these workers have been forced, because they have no choice, to live in bunkhouses on company property, and the management has frequently exercised its right under the provisions of the section in the code dealing with trespassing to pick and choose who can and who cannot visit the workers in the company bunkhouses. I am sure the members of the house would be surprised to know that frequently managements have refused union organizers who wish to go on to company property, not to the work site but to visit the workers in their bunkhouses during their free time, access in order to speak to the workers. As a result, I suggest that the clear intent of the law has been violated by employers and management representatives.
I am sure the minister of forestry could tell us about many cases of this sort in the years when he was head of the Confederation of National Trade Unions in the province of Quebec, cases when he and other representatives of his union were forbidden access to various work sites in order to speak to workers there. I know that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) could spend hours telling the members of this house of the difficulties encountered by union representatives when they wanted to organize workers at the Kitimat plant of the Aluminum Company of Canada. I know that in northern Ontario mining and lumber camps have been declared out of bounds to union organizers. In some instances the unions have had to hire a helicopter to fly in their organizers and members because they could not use company-owned roads.
There has also been a number of such cases in the province of Manitoba. A power plant was built for the hydroelectric system of Manitoba at a place called Kelsey. It took almost three years to build this plant and there were anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 workers at the plant at any one time. Not until the plant was completed and turned over to Manitoba hydro were the construction unions able to talk to the workers at the plant and get them to become members of the union so that they could get certification and bargain collectively.
October 10, 1968

[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
What has happened as a result of this practice? I have in my files sworn affidavits from workers to the effect that in a period of six months they worked more hours than most workers who put in a 40-hour week work in a whole year. I have sworn affidavits saying that these workers worked an average of 100 hours a week, for seven days a week, six months at a time, and that they sometimes worked from 24 to 36 hours at a time without a rest. Why did they do that, Mr. Speaker? Not because they wanted to but because management said, "If you do not work these hours under these conditions, you will be fired." I suggest that any union would immediately have prevented that kind of exploitation. Yet union members simply were not permitted to enter that site.
Similar situations exist in the city of Thompson at the International Nickel Company's site. Because that company controls several hundred square miles of property in the area and because it had control for about two years of the railway link extending from the Hudson Bay line to the site of the company operation, it told the Canadian National to whom it could sell tickets to come to the property and to whom it could not sell tickets.
What was the result? For almost three years union officials from all unions were prohibited from entering the site and talking to workers. As a member of the legislature I was told I could not go to Thompson and talk to some of my constituents working there about the working conditions they had to endure. When at last I was able to go I was told I could not stay overnight because the local town administrator would not allow strangers to camp or otherwise stay on the site overnight. Not until I told the local administrator that he was free to call the R.C.M.P., that he was free to charge me with trespass, that I was willing to appear before the magistrate and if a fine were imposed I would refuse to pay it and go to jail instead, not until then was there positive action. The company permitted me to visit the site but not to move around on it. I was told that the company would send to me anyone I wished to see. Of course I knew, the company knew, and the workers knew that anyone visiting me would lose his job the next day.
That kind of thing has been going on and will continue to go on as long as employers have the right to abuse the provision of the
Criminal Code
Criminal Code dealing with trespass. I propose in this bill to introduce a simple amendment that will permit those living in rented accommodation on private property to receive visitors they want to receive. Such visitors might include union organizers who might wish to discuss with workers the question of joining a union.
I do not suggest that workers must join unions. I only suggest that existing federal and provincial legislation spells out the right of workers to join unions if they so wish. If this amendment to the Criminal Code were to obtain passage through the house, a long standing abuse of a section in the Criminal Code would be ended.


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilion-Wenlworih):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member rising for the first time in the house may I congratulate you sincerely on your appointment as permanent Speaker. It is obvious that Your Honour is especially well qualified for such a great task. I also congratulate Mr. Deputy Speaker on his appointment and compliment him for the fine manner in which he is carrying out his new responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to extend to you as well as to the Chairman of the committee of the whole my sincere congratulations.

The bill before the house today presents many problems. I suggest it creates more problems than it solves. In my opinion its effect would be to create confusion in a clear and concise section of the Criminal Code. The bill before the house seeks to amend section 41 of the code. Section 41, subsection 1, reads as follows:
Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling house or real property and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
Subsection 2 reads:
A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling house or real property or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.
The amendment reads as follows:
(3) Except where a landlord would be therein justified under a covenant with a tenant for quiet enjoyment, nothing in this section shall be deemed

October 10, 1968
Criminal Code
to justify an employer in using force to prevent any person from having ingress to, regress over, or egress from a dwelling house or real property in or upon which the employer houses an employee or to remove any person therefrom.
In the first place, the pith and substance of section 41 of the Criminal Code is protection from trespassers and control of trespassers by any person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling house or by any person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority. In short, the code provides an extension of normal rights to those against whom a trespass is committed. It extends the law of assault to include a trespasser who resists eviction.
The bill before the house makes an unnecessary exception to this sound law which is sensibly worded and suitably phrased. The intervention of an amendment like this would confound the courts; it would bring upon them utter confusion. There is no reason to limit the rights of employers, as a class, in assisting in the ejectment of trespassers. Employers, like all other citizens, are bound to obey the civil law of landlord and tenant. That law is a provincial matter under section 92 of the British North America Act.
If this bill were passed the law would prohibit an employer from assisting an employee who sought his aid in ejecting a trespasser. Surely nothing could be more absurd. I recognize the humanitarian motive of the hon. member for Winnipeg North in moving this amendment and I have some sympathy for those who have the problems he spoke of. But to translate the hon. member's desires into an amendment to the Criminal Code would, in my submission, cause much expense to be incurred and frustration to be felt. Many innocent people would suffer. The courts would dismiss charges and this part of the Criminal Code, as amended, would be considered void because of uncertainty and ruled out of order. It would give rise to endless cases. The dockets of magistrates throughout Canada would include subjects such as this which would raise difficult problems of interpretation.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
For example, the words "quiet enjoyment" have various meanings attached to them, but I have checked the Criminal Code and there is no definition of "quiet enjoyment" to be found in it. "Quiet enjoyment" is a term used in English common law, especially in real estate and landlord and tenant law. It has a long history, but I submit it has no relevancy in Quebec where landlord and tenant law is

governed by the Civil Code and other statutes. A magistrate struggling with words which are not applicable to that province would be lost for a definition. They have no meaning in Quebec. The object of the Criminal Code is to standardize the law throughout the country, not the reverse.
I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North is a humanitarian one and I do not quarrel with his thoughts and worth-while suggestions, but I submit the subject matter of his proposal ought properly to be placed before the legislatures of the various provinces.
At such a time in our constitutional development as the present enactment of a bill of this kind would invite the justifiable wrath of provincial legislatures. I am thinking in particular of the great province of Quebec. It would be considered an unwarranted invasion of a provincial sphere of legislation. In any event, it would probably be ruled out by any competent court as void for remoteness, or declared to be null and void for uncertainty.
Apart from the constitutional arguments against this bill, it appears to defeat its own purpose because it would prevent a helpful employer from assisting an employee to evict a trespasser. This could happen. It is not the case that employers and employees are always enemies. It is a notion which seems to be fostered by hon. members of this house who belong to the New Democratic party. But I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there are many happy and successful companies-I am thinking particularly of the Dominion Foundry and Steel Company in Hamilton-where relations between employees and management are extremely good and where there is no need to worry about interference with employees by employers, because they work in partnership. This is what we are striving for. We are not trying to isolate people by class groups and distinctions; nothing is further from the desire of this house, I am sure. I am also sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) did not realize the implications of his bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Oh, he is a fairly bright fellow.


Colin David Gibson: In the days when trespass is not an uncommon invasion of a citizen's rights, it is utterly unthinkable that such a garbled and incoherent amendment should be permitted to slip into the Criminal Code. The idea behind the bill is in the wrong context altogether and the bill itself is self-defeating.
October 10, 1968

It infringes on the employees' rights to have assistance from their own employer. Perhaps the bill itself is an example of the futility of careless words.
If this house were permitted during the private members' hour to spend one hour a week hearing speeches by six members of parliament lasting a maximum of ten minutes each on controversial subjects, I respectfully submit that a great deal of time would be saved, time which is now wasted, and that a more interesting debate would result. I suggest that rather than discuss bills of this nature in every private members' hour it would be better to allow more latitude for the discussion of current topics such as bilingualism and national unity, the procedural advancement of parliament from the outdated shackles of the past, or the thought behind the legislation which was under consideration earlier. If we were to proceed in this way I suggest that private members' hour would be far more interesting to hon. members and to the public and that the attendance in this house would increase.


Mr, Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would like to return to the subject under discussion and make his suggestion to the procedural committee.


Colin David Gibson: I will take the hint. Bills such as the one before the house today lead us nowhere. Ideas such as this are stale and out of context, and discussion of them is a senseless waste of time. The taxpayers are not paying us to deal with a bill which will never get through and which was never intended to get through, such as the one before us today. I therefore wish to express my sincere desire that this measure be defeated as a verbose and badly phrased mixture of words and phrases which would only create complete chaos. There is an old saying that an Englishman's home is his castle. It is certainly true that an Englishman's home is his home, whether it be a rented apartment, a trailer, a house, a tent or hotel room. In each case the occupant is given some protection by the Criminal Code, and the only result of the passing of this bill would be to restrict those rights and freedoms which are so precious to us all.
So let us reject this bill and, once again, resist the trend to cut down the individual's right to be protected from trespass in the just society. Let us guard against relaxing the law of trespass, a word which has changing meanings from generation to generation. With
Criminal Code
eavesdropping devices mushrooming in our technological age should we not consider a wider definition of trespass to include unwarranted invasion of privacy? We cannot discuss this fully today in the context of this debate but I feel we should be constantly on our guard to protect the individual's right to justice in a free society.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will permit a personal note. My father was a cabinet minister in the King and St. Laurent governments from 1940 to 1949.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Bell:: Who was King?


Colin David Gibson: I hope you will permit me to say how proud I am to follow in his footsteps in this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my friends are behind me tonight because it always gives one a good deal of comfort when one is still unaccustomed to these matters.
I was very interested in the maiden speech of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) and in the attitude he took toward these private bills. I think he will find after he has been here a while that private members' bills do provide an opportunity to express a point of view on things which are sometimes left undone by busy governments. In my experience very few private members' bills have passed the House of Commons, but many of them have greatly influenced public opinion and the attitude of the government of the day. Many changes have come about as a result of private members bringing in resolutions and bills. The hon. member said it was a waste of the taxpayers' money to discuss these measures. In the past we used to get a dinner break from six o'clock till eight. Now we sit until seven, so it really does not cost much more of the taxpayers' money. Members are paid the same salaries whether they stay here and listen to me or not, and I note that some have not stayed to listen.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
What the hon. member for Winnipeg North is saying, in a nutshell, is this. Many large companies in Canada, particularly mining and lumber companies, own the land upon which the homes of their employees are built. As I gather from the hon. member's argument in proposing this bill, whether he lives in an

October 10, 1968
Criminal Code
apartment or any other kind of home, every man believes his home is his castle. People who need employment with these big companies rent their homes on the employer's property, but they believe those homes are still their castles. The hon. member is complaining about the fact that companies have laid down certain rules and regulations which prevent union people who come on their property from visiting their employees in their homes, for the purpose of organizing unions.
I feel it is an inherent right of everybody to have any visitors he wishes in his home to discuss his personal and business problems, without interference from anyone else. That is an inherent right of every living Canadian. What the hon. member is saying, in a nutshell, is that section 41(1) and (2) of the code protects all but those who would be affected by this proposed measure. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) is really talking about a situation similar to that dealt with by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Eskimo case.
The hon. member says there is some discrimination with respect to property rights and the enjoyment of those rights in a case where a person working for a lumber company or a mining company has only one place to live, that is, in homes owned by the company. He is saying that if this is part of an employer-employee contract, then the employee should have the same rights as any other Canadian. With that I am in full accord.
Every man working in Canada has the right to strike and the right to arbitration. We have accepted that for a long time in Canada, and this party goes along with it; but I do believe we have come to a time in the industrial development of this nation when disruption in certain industries disrupts the whole economy of the country. That is why we were privileged in this house recently to have one of those love-in speeches by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), when he expressed his affection for all members on all sides of the house, and regretted the departure of some in the last election. He went on to point out he had taken all necessary steps in reference to the two strikes on the Great Lakes that held up shipments of grain, and cost this nation our grain markets, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) admitted.
Dealing with the question of the right to strike and its effect on the economy, I have been rather surprised to see certain members
[Mr. Woolliams.l
of the N.D.P. from the province of Saskatchewan, who represent farm ridings, remaining so silent of late in reference to those problems which held up shipments of grain. It may be that they are interested in a very important by-election in B.C. and do not want to disrupt or interrupt the thinking of the working people there, upon whom they are relying for support.


Mr. Perrault:: That is imputing motives.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not imputing motives; the fellow isn't in the House of Commons yet. I know your party appreciates having two leaders in the House of Commons; and now we have this third one, this rump leader, who is one of the greatest interrupters of all times. He is carrying on here as he did back among the rustics of the legislature of British Columbia. I believe that is why he has been placed at that end of the chamber.


Raymond J. Perrault: Away out west.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Away out west; that is right. But I want to hear what his position is, because I know that if it is left to him to tails until five minutes to seven it will be his job to talk out the bill.
Coming back to the bill itself, I support the amendment it proposes; I think it is good. Every man's home is his castle, and there is duress when an employer owns a man's home and prevents people coming to talk to him about union business or about organizing a union. The code lays down a pretty sound rule of law in reference to people in other circumstances. At page 87 of Crankshaw's Criminal Code of Canada, 1959 edition-I have checked it and there were no amendments so far as this section is concerned-it says:
There is nothing to prevent a man, who has not been forbidden the premises, from knocking at another's door, but the moment he is told to leave and fails to do so he becomes a trespasser. In such a case, however, the occupier must first require the trespasser to depart before he can justify laying his hands on him for the purpose of removing him and even after refusal he can only justify such force as is necessary to effect his removal.
What the hon. member for Winnipeg North is really saying is that if some union president or organizer comes to an employee's home on the company's property, then the company police or officials say, "You can't visit him for that purpose." That seems to me a discrimination, as far as the right of enjoyment of quiet possession of property is concerned. I congratulate the hon. member upon
October 10, 1968

proposing this amendment because I think it is a good one. It is constitutionally sound. I hope we have a vote on it, and that it passes.


Mr. Herbert Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on this bill, because I consider as important the future of this country and the relationship between employers and employees, and I think the substance of this bill deals with the relationship between employees and employers.
{.English]
I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) when he says that collective bargaining is a justified right of employees. I am not one of those who think it is a deterrent to society. It is true that we have had many strikes, some in industry and some in the public service, that have hurt the government and the public. But this serves to show the challenge in the field of industrial relations that lies before us in the years ahead.
We must not forget that collective bargaining preserves the rights of workers. An employer, usually a businessman, is interested in profits and higher productivity. He just may forget that his employees may not have the proper wages and conditions. I think it is essential that unions exist. I think it is also essential that union leaders and locals should be able to contact employees on the property of their employers. I will even suggest it would be practically acceptable for employers to encourage their employees to meet together on the employer's property.

Mr. Speaker, I admit that the collective association of employees is very important for our Canadian society. However, there is no need to go too far in giving rights to the labour unions, especially in the light of section 41 of the Criminal Code which reads as follows:
41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling house or real property and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling house or real property or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.
29180-67J
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this amendment, it is important to really understand the meaning of section 41 of the Criminal Code. We must keep in mind that, in carrying out this amendment, we open the door to anyone who wants to visit an employee on the employer's property. In fact, section 1 of the bill reads as follows:
-an employer in using force to prevent any person from having ingress to, regress over, or egress from a dwelling house or real property in or upon which the employer houses an employee-
It may happen that the property where the employer houses the employee is exactly on the site of the plant where mining operations or construction works are carried out. Now, the security factor and the employer's right to receive persons other than members of a trade union should be kept in mind. I wholly agree that union leaders may go and meet employees, especially in their apartment or in their bunk-house, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) said, but it must be remembered that persons other than trade unionists may go to these places. It could be people who want to make a disturbance or make trouble for the company for reasons having nothing to do with collective associations.
That is why I cannot support this amendment, because it should deal specifically with trade unions or collective associations.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I believe I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) that it is regrettable that an employee cannot receive a union leader on his employer's premises, especially when it has been proven that unions are indispensable to workers. However I feel this amendment does not specifically cover the point in connection with union leaders or union meetings on an employer's premises. I might be able to support the bill if it specifically covered the point, but this bill does not. One part of the bill reads:
-to justify an employer in using force to prevent any person from having ingress to, regress over, or egress from a dwelling house or real property-
This means that if an employer has a bunk-house right near the mill he will not be allowed to stop trespassers or people who may cause him trouble by entering on his property. I do not believe we would be justified in taking this position. For these reasons, I cannot support this bill.

Oclober 10, 1968
Criminal Code


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to make a few remarks on Bill No. C-5.
I must nevertheless admit that after listening to the speech of the honourable member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who moved this amendment, my approach to this bill-and this is perhaps normal-has somewhat changed.
The honourable member for Winnipeg North dealt chiefly with trade union rights, which are actual rights. He spoke of cases where, for instance, heads of companies unjustly decided that certain friends of their employees were not to enter into the temporary dwelling place of those employees.
He also gave examples of trade union heads who wished to meet a group of employees but could not do so and, in order to get over the gates of the company property, had to hire a helicopter to reach their destination.
Obviously, as the representative of a riding where many workers slave all day at various jobs, I cannot contradict the principles of the member for Winnipeg North.
On the contrary, I can only approve them wholeheartedly and say that, with all the other members of the house, I shall spare no effort to improve the fate of our labourers, workers, and low-wage earners, of those who work not only day in and day out, but year in and year out, in very poor working conditions.
However, it seems to me that this amendment, designed to protect the rights of workers and employees-an amendment which is understandable in principle-should, in fact, have been applied to an act which I would prefer to be more explicit than section 41 of the Criminal Code dealing generally with the right of ownership, which is sacred to all Canadian citizens.
On reading the explanatory notes in the bill-which notes must have been prepared by the hon. member for Winnipeg North-I see we are not dealing with houses-and that is what I based my opinion on before coming here today-nor of modern housing rented to employees, but rather of rudimentary sleeping quarters where the companies or general contractors provide accommodation for their employees.
Those notes also indicate that the employees cannot have guests, as do people who live in ordinary rental units.
On the other hand, if I refer to subsections 1 and 2 of section 41 of the Criminal Code,
IMr. Breau.l
which were quoted by two of the members who spoke before me, I realize that emphasis is placed on the expression or on the meaning of the word "landlord" on the one hand, and "tenant" on the other hand. Emphasis is also given the expression "quiet enjoyment" and, in addition, to "trespassing", or "trespasser" who, by resisting, is said to have committed an assault.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
It seems to me that before understanding or trying to understand the amendment, an attempt must be made to understand the spirit of this section, the spirit of that act or those acts which protect the right of ownership in our country. On the basis of the letter of the act, and of what I believe to be the spirit of the act, I have come to the conclusion that the amendment intended to protect the worker should appear elsewhere in the Criminal Code.
When we speak of "trespasser" or "trespassing", to come back to the spirit of section 41, one thinks of someone who introduces himself somewhere without authorization. However, when one thinks of intrusion, one thinks of unwarranted intrusion into a society, a job or a place. We also know that, in Canada, no one, unless he has a special warrant, has the right to trespass on the property of a citizen without the latter's permission.
Therefore, as I said earlier, I was struck by the fact that the spirit of the law seems to place a certain emphasis on the fact of intrusion.
In the explanatory notes, it is written that these dormitories are not rented-
-in the ordinary way.
I am thinking of companies that build small shacks, small camps, which can be comfortable for a period of time in the right season, and which are not rented. The people who live in them are neither landlords nor tennants. The landlord is the company, the contractor.
I think that we should normally respect private ownership which is a basic principle in our Canadian policy and philosophy.
We should also consider the point of view of the landlord. Usually, on these camp sites, there are dangers of all kinds, abuses of all kinds, for humans.
The security aspect also has to be considered.
That is why, in most cases, as we all know, the owner of buildings, the contractor or the
October 10. 1968

company, enforce some rules so as to ensure order on their property.
Furthermore, it is normal also for the contractor, the owner or the company, while respecting the rights of the workers, to be concerned with work efficiency, a smooth operation and results.
There are also sanitary and welfare reasons, but I shall dispense with them.
There is also the principle concerning order. The contractor must enforce regulations so that general order may prevail on his properties.
I think now of certain facts which I have witnessed and even experienced in the Quebec area from where I come and especially in northern Quebec.
I remember how, a few years ago, all our fellow-citizens looked with interest at the huge construction sites at Labrieville; they were managed by a landlord who was the Quebec government. The government was also a contractor who had to respect the rights of the workers. When the Bersimis river dam was built, severe rules were applied. Just any Quebec or Canadian citizens, just anybody, was not allowed across the barrier, even along the 85-mile road connecting Forestville and Labrieville.
I also remember the campsites during the construction of the dam at Lac Casse, somewhere in the same area, and all those clearing jobs that went on: clearing the land, the shores and the rivers, when the dam was built. The contractor built bunk-houses for a relatively short time, usually for the summer. Let me tell you that the rules have to be strict, and that order has to be maintained.
The same goes for logging contractors' campsites. Back home, in my area, every year we have several campsites which are really rudimentary bunk-houses. Those same camps are used by students, young people during the summer months when the weather is good, to do forestry work. When I read this bill, it brought to my mind those sites, that type of work.
But I also thought of the matter of jurisdiction, which is most important and which I do not feel clashes with the rights of workers and labourers. Does this not, I told myself, fall within provincial jurisdiction? I know full well that several provincial departments, of which those of Labour, Health, Forestry, prepared regulations and complied with special laws concerning the facilities in those camps, the protection of the worker and the
Criminal Code
labourer, and the condition of the bunk-houses of which mention is made in the explanatory notes.
There is something else everyone knows which I should like to mention here. When we speak of constitution, of jurisdiction, whether it be that of federal or provincial governments, we always think of the B.N.A. Act and of section 92 which stipulates that in every province, the legislature has the exclusive right to legislate in certain matters. Amongst others, I see that according to subsection 13 of section 92, "ownership and civil rights" fall within its jurisdiction. We are dealing here with criminal law, but in Quebec, as mentioned a while ago, special legislation applies relating to civil law.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time for private members business has expired. If there is consent we will resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.



FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-lll, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act-Mr. Olson (for Mr. Benson)-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
James Hugh Faulkner: As it is now seven o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks with respect to clause 1 of this bill, and some of the discussion that has taken place so far on this clause. I found it of some interest to note the performance of the government and the attitude of the government in dealing with the legislation now before us. Some of us are rather new to this house and to the ways of the house, but I must say that we are not so new that we could not see the pattern of some of the things that have been done, and the approach that has been used in dealing with some of the questions raised in connection with farm credit legislation.
The performance of the government with regard to some of these questions has been
1058	COMMONS
Farm Improvement Loans Act rather disappointing. I found it interesting that during the resolution stage the opposition were interested in a number of points with respect to the legislation to come, and we were told, "Let us get this resolution through, and then we will get to the bill and deal with all these things at that time." Then we came to second reading of the bill and virtually the same answer was given to our questions, "Let us give the bill second reading and get it into the committee stage, and then we will deal with some of these problems." Now we are at the committee stage and we are still asking questions and still have not the information we would like to have.
It may be that part of the reason we are not getting information with regard to matters in which we are interested is that the government simply does not know the answers. If the house was dealing with a completely new operation, a completely new bill, we could not expect the government to have all the administrative factors and details worked out, and we would have to allow them a little leeway to establish the operation. But in fact we have here an operation that has been in effect for some 23 years, namely since 1945, as the minister pointed out. It has been obvious since some time last winter that changes were required to the act and that amendments would be forthcoming, but it seems that a great many of the problems still have not been worked out.
After considerable prying the opposition has succeeded in getting some information from the government. If some government members are disturbed about the length of the debate on this question, I would simply note for them that if they had urged that more homework be done in the preparation of the bill, perhaps it would not be taking quite so long to deal with it. They should speak to the minister in this regard.
There has been a considerable amount of discussion with respect to the extension of the definition of the term "bank" which sets out those institutions which can qualify to act as lending agencies under this legislation. With respect to credit unions, caisses populaires, cooperative credit societies and trust and loan companies, the minister has indicated, if I understood him correctly, that all they would have to do would be to apply, and it would be just a matter of course for the minister to give the proper designation under which they could make loans under the act. I find this rather curious. Why should they not automatically qualify under the terms of this

DEBATES	October 10, 1968
act rather than having to go through this little extra procedure, if there is no reason for doing it? It seems to me there is good reason for taking a very close look at some of these institutions before they are qualified as lending agencies. That is why I have already asked questions in respect of this legislation. I find that consultation with these institutions has been very limited. I gave an example of an institution where I am acquainted with some of the officials, who told me they had absolutely no knowledge of what was happening in respect of this program, and there had been no consultation with them.
The minister suggested to the hon. member for Crowfoot that if the Alberta treasury branch was interested in acting as a lending agency, they would make this desire known. I find this rather curious. If there is no opportunity for consultation, how can one deal adequately with the situation? I also asked the question as to what criteria would be used in designating whether an organization could act as a lending agency. I find there are really no criteria to be used. I suggested earlier-and I refer the minister to my remarks-some of the reasons why criteria are needed. I think it can be shown quite easily that some institutions would qualify very well, from a managerial standpoint, to act as lending agencies; but I seriously question whether this is the case with regard to some of the other lending organizations which may apply for qualification. This is a matter that the minister should be prepared to discuss further.
I asked, also, whether there was going to be any co-ordination or integration of the entire lending program to be carried out under this act. I asked what approach will be used and whether any policy framework will be set up by which the lending agencies will have to live. There was certainly no indication that this would be the case. I believe this is a deficiency in the legislation. This is a very real question. What are some of the new agencies going to do? They will certainly protect their own interests in lending money, and they really do not have much to worry about as a result of being able to operate under a government guarantee.
The hon. member for Mackenzie this afternoon raised a very valid point when he suggested that an individual might apply to the Farm Credit Corporation, be turned down in respect of an application for a loan, and then submit an application to one of these lending agencies and obtain the loan with a full government guarantee and backing. This is the
October 10, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	1059
type of unco-ordinated program that I believe could have a serious effect upon the structure of the agricultural industry. Certainly I think this is a matter which has to concern hon. members in dealing with this bill.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Subclause (2) is in the area with which we are most concerned in this regard, the provision which extends the Farm Improvement Loans Act operations to land purchases where the purchases are an addition to an existing owner operated farm. The minister said, in answer to earlier inquiries by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, that it would be easier to handle these loans this way than through the Farm Credit Corporation. As the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar pointed out, it is no easier to handle such applications through one of the lending agencies. You have to deal with legal papers, and there are legal and appraisal costs, just the same as there would be for the Farm Credit Corporation. At the same time I think it would be acknowledged that there are some deficiencies in the Farm Credit Corporation Act in dealing with such applications at the present time. I would suggest to the minister, as I am sure has occurred to him, that these particular problems could very easily be remedied by making the necessary amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation Act when it comes up.
Possibly at first glance it may seem to some hon. members that the principle of extending the Farm Improvement Loans Act operations to land purchases is a good thing, but I would suggest that it raises some serious questions. First of all it undermines the Farm Credit Corporation operations, because that corporation has tried to deal with land transfers and with the development of farm units on a rational and economic basis. They may not have been successful in all cases, but nevertheless I think this has been the direction in which their policy and operations have pointed, and they are to be commended for what they have done in this regard. I suggest that the extension of the Farm Improvement Loans Act operations to land purchases will in effect nullify and counteract some of the good work that has been done by the Farm Credit Corporation in this regard.
I would also suggest that the extension of this particular feature of the act will result in more pressures on land prices, and I am sure hon. members realize some of the problems that this will create. It will also help those who are already better off, because I am
Farm Improvement Loans Act quite sure it is obvious to hon. members that the economics involved for a person who is adding a parcel of land to an existing farm unit are far different from the economics involved for a person who is establishing a farm unit on his own. It will further speed the trend toward rural depopulation, where in many cases this cannot be justified.
So I think that we in this house have to be concerned with the future of the agricultural industry, and we have to take note of just where this is going to take agriculture and the people who are engaged in this industry. I think it will have detrimental effects on the industry, I think that the necessary provision for the addition to farms could be made through the Farm Credit Corporation Act, and that this could be done when that bill is under discussion a little later on in the session.
Therefore I would like to move the following amendment:
That clause 1 be amended by striking out subclause (2) thereof.
Subclause (2) is that portion of clause 1 which appears at the top of page two of the printed bill. I want to assure the committee that it is not my desire in moving this amendment in any way to deny farmers the opportunity of adding to their farm units, because I realize that this is a desirable thing to do; but I would suggest that rather than doing it under this particular act which will have the detrimental effects I have pointed out, we should do it by amending the Farm Credit Corporation Act. Therefore I commend this amendment to the members of the house.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, we would like to see this amendment defeated because we believe that including as an additional purpose of this act the purchase of small parcels of land within the terms that have been laid down in other clauses, such as the $25,000 maximum limit, in other words providing an additional $10,000 for land, is a very valuable improvement to the act. Therefore we would like to see the amendment defeated.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if the minister could explain what the new amendment is. I did not follow it, but I am sure the hon. minister did because he was so definite about it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The amendment is really very simple. The hon. member moved that subclause (2) be struck from clause 1.
October 10, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Did the hon. member not suggest that something be substituted therefor?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The effect of it would be to remove the provision in the new act which would allow the banks to make loans guaranteed by the government for the purchase of small parcels of land. So we do not accept it.


Albert Béchard: Is the house ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Burton) negatived: Yeas, 4; nays, 82.


Albert Béchard: I declare the
amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word or two on clause 2. There has been a lengthy and very informative discussion on clause 1, and perhaps what could be said on clause 2 has already been said.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I am a little concerned about some aspects of clause 2, particularly in regard to interest rates. The new Bank Act and interest rates are now subject to competitive conditions. In the last six months or so we have seen the effect of competition on interest rates and general borrowings.
The treasury branches in Alberta have played a tremendous part, Mr. Chairman, in this aspect of competitive banking during the last few years. It seemed to me on reading the resolution that preceded the bill that the general intent of the minister was to widen the scope of lending institutions. If that was so, then I can only say I am disappointed that he excluded from the bill the treasury branches in the province of Alberta that played a prominent part in the maintenance of competitive banking in that province. I notice the Minister of Agriculture applauding that statement, which could perhaps be interpreted as complimentary to the treasury branches of Alberta. However, he is a little late clapping his hands now.
I have never been a particularly strong advocate of the Social Credit party to which he belonged, Mr. Chairman, but I would be the first to say that I am not so blind as to recognize good points made by those who have disagreed with me in the past. One of the best things that the present premier of


the province of Alberta, and his predecessor, did for that province was to exhort the treasury branches in Alberta to be competitive with the banks.
I was also terribly disappointed earlier today to hear the minister say that in recent months there has been no consultation with these treasury branches that played a great part in financing farmers in rural Alberta. I was all the more disappointed that this hon. gentleman, who had crossed the aisle-had stepped across an imaginary line, so to speak-had changed so quickly. He has cast aside his old ideals for the prestige of being Minister of Agriculture. He has cast aside all those things he cared about, such as the farmers with whom he campaigned in past elections in the province of Alberta. I feel sorry, Mr. Chairman, for those farmers.
All through this debate, Mr. Chairman, we on this side have attempted to peg down a formula for the setting of interest rates in years ahead. The reason we were so dedicated in our attempt to have a formula written into the bill was because we have seen this great transition on the part of a man who campaigned across the country on behalf of the farmers and said that a rate of 2 per cent was all that was required to lend money.
The loan sharks, the trust companies, are the ones who have adopted Social Credit policies, Mr. Chairman. They have fed this idea of debt free money. They have said that they would provide money at low interest rates so that the farmers can finance their operations. The members in the rump have questioned the intelligence of those of us in the opposition. Yet we have seen this minister cast aside his cares, his plea for low interest rates for the farmers, and say, in effect, that we should give the Minister of Finance or the Liberal government the right to set whatever rate they feel is justified.
The minister shakes his head. In the House of Commons the other evening the Minister of Finance happened to be present and I asked him what a charter to a bank means. I asked him whether it meant anything. The Minister of Finance quoted a former governor of the Bank of Canada; and I, Mr. Chairman, should like also to quote what a former governor of the Bank of Canada said with regard to whether or not a charter to a bank is not, in effect, putting a bank into position similar to that of a public utility. This is what Mr. Coyne had to say when questioned very closely in the finance, trade and economic affairs
October 10, 1968	COMMONS
committee on March 3, 1966, as reported at page 92 of the committee report:
A bank certainly cannot make every decision from the point of view of immediate profits. It has to look to the future development of its business, to the welfare of its customers. A bank cannot prosper unless its customers prosper. It has to have regard, I would think, for the welfare of the area-
I am speaking here of areas engaged in agriculture.
-in which it operates: and certainly this would be more true of a regional bank than of a bank spread all over the country without attachment to any one particular place.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, this former governor told the bank that it should pay close attention to the segment of the economy and the area that it was serving, that it must do this in accepting its charter.
I have some reservation about the near banks, the trust companies. The act refers to loan companies; I was tempted to say "loan sharks" but I would not want to say anything that was not in the act itself. These loan companies are going to be able to qualify for the purposes of the act and will be able to lend money. I have no hesitation in including the treasury branches in Alberta because they have already served a particular segment of our economy. The minister can smile smugly about this.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: He is ready to reply right now.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister has not really answered the question about the charter of a bank. I asked the Minister of Finance a few days ago what he believed a charter meant, and he said that a bank had to agree to whatever bank rate was set. In effect that was his answer.
Two nights ago in the house I said that the government is the seat of power. In our dealings with the banking institutions of this country we have been very scrupulous. We have prohibited the foreign ownership of a certain bank in this country solely because we wanted to assert that forever and a day the banks of Canada would work to the general advantage of Canadians. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance say that the interest rates cannot be set too low or the banks would not lend money. They say their hands are tied, that they have to agree to the rate set by the banks.
DEBATES	1061
Farm Improvement Loans Act [DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I admit that my interest in this matter may be swayed by my personal interest in agriculture. I am a dedicated farmer and concerned about the desperate plight the industry faces today. Our difficult harvest has not aroused in me feelings of enthusiasm with regard to this bill. I am participating in the debate on a piece of legislation that seeks to hoist interest rates the agricultural industry must pay. I am not happy at that prospect, as some are on the government benches. They have been smiling all night.


An hon. Member:: And laughing.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Banks must be told that their charters are privileges. Both Mr. James Coyne, the former governor of the Bank of Canada, and the inspector general of banks, have stated in committee that they consider banks to be quasi public utilities. If that is so, then I say that the government, which has the power, ought to say to the banks, "See that you co-operate whole-heartedly with the agricultural industry and make money available to it at the lowest possible rate of interest." Only then will our guarantee mean something. The minister nods his head. A couple of days ago he said that, so far as he was concerned, the government's guarantee to the banks meant that the farmers would have to pay 1 per cent less for their money. I then tried to learn from the Minister of Finance his conception of the meaning of a bank's charter, and whether banks were obligated to lend money at 1 per cent less than the going rate. I could not learn from him what he thought a charter meant to a bank. I could only conclude that he was in the hands of the banks.


An hon. Member:: No.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He had pretty well accepted their ideas.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would not say he was a pawn in the hands of the chartered banks, but if he was not, he came awfully close to that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is the impression he left. No doubt the Minister of Agriculture wants to say, "No, he was not." Perhaps we ought to hear from the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, because the Minister of Finance cannot be here. This is the end of the
October 10, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act week, and his day off. At the beginning of the week ministers responsible for financial matters are supposed to be in the house; the Minister of Agriculture is to be here at the end of the week. This cabinet operates on a three day basis. The Minister of Agriculture must know, as I know and as every farmer knows, that all across Canada, down to the remotest parts of Newfoundland, farmers put in seven days a week and 16 hours a day. Yet the Prime Minister had the gall to say that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who speaks for the wheat board, can only be in this house for three days a week. That is enough of a week for him. Also the Minister of Agriculture can be here for only three days a week. If one dares to ask a question to do with the agricultural industry before the Minister of Agriculture is to be in the house the Prime Minister will stand up and say, "Surely this question can wait until tomorrow. The minister may be here tomorrow." I call that contempt of the agricultural industry.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Or of any other industry.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The government has on the order paper four pieces of legislation that will increase interest rates for farmers. None of this legislation spells out just how rates are to be increased. We have asked many questions; we have asked the minister if he has a formula; but he has just hedged and squirmed. We thought we had him pinned down once, when he said the rate would not be more than 1 per cent above the prime government borrowing rate. That is what he said three or four nights ago. But since then he has not been so confident. A little while ago he suggested that the interest rate would fluctuate quarterly, or that there might be two interest rates. I suppose one will be based on the rate paid on long term government borrowings, and the other on the short term borrowings. I do not know, and he has not told us.
We have tried to co-operate and to push this bill through as quickly as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The other day we asked the government to bring forward as quickly as possible the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. I see the minister nods his head. And what are we to consider tomorrow? Estimates, and not agriculture.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have some time left tonight.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In so far as it lies within my power to do so, I shall do my best to see that the present bill passes tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Oh, yes. I see hon. members agree with me completely. They are pounding their desks.
With that thought in mind I would move the following amendment:
That clause (2) at line 42 he amended by striking out the words after "at" and inserting the following:
"a rate of interest half of 1 per cent above the quarterly average of short term government borrowings, not to exceed 7 per cent per annum."
As will be seen, we realize that interest rates have risen steadily since the government took the lid off them. Let no one call us ultra conservative. If the amendment is accepted the interest rate will fluctuate to a maximum of 7 per cent, a full 2 per cent above the old interest rate set under this act. No one can say our party is not generous to banks. If the minister rejects our amendment he will be saying, "I am not too concerned about the agricultural industry."
The report of the Economic Council says that our agricultural industry must have capital. We have given full vent to our imagination in our amendment in trying to recompense banks adequately for agricultural loans. For this bill to have practical application the banks must be entitled to charge the high interest rates brought on since this government removed the old 6 per cent bank rate ceiling.
According to statistics and from what I have learned from the Bank of Canada, the present rate on 182-day bills is per cent. That would mean that, under our amendment, the banks could charge a full 1} per cent more than they could charge when the act become null and void on June 30. The minister cannot therefore say that our amendment will not allow the bank to earn enough, and that therefore money will not be made available to agriculture.
He has sources of information not available to me. He knows what the banks want. He has talked to them, but he did not disclose that to us. He has talked to the financial institutions; he knows what they want. If he can stand up here and say that this amendment would, if adopted, bring about a higher rate of interest, then I would be the first to withdraw the amendment. We on this side
Ociober 10, 19S8	COMMONS
have felt that because of the recent about-face in connection with interest rates on the part of the minister we could not give him carte blanche in the absence of certain assurances. I tried to get an assurance from the Minister of Finance the other day, but I failed to draw him out. In the absence of any assurance from the minister or his colleague we felt we were obliged to place a ceiling on the amount which could be charged. We drew up this amendment carefully, bearing in mind that the ceiling ought to be set high enough to encourage the banks and other lending institutions to make loans to farmers.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I hope the minister will not take recourse to defensive arguments or points of order regarding the validity of the amendment. I hope he will deal with the question we have raised. As I say, if the interest rate he contemplates is lower than the one we suggest I shall be quick to withdraw the amendment and support the clause under review.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wish to say that this amendment is unacceptable for a number of reasons. First of all, it would change the concept of having a prescribed rate, so that we could make arrangements with the banks and other institutions under which there would be maximum availability of credit to the people who want to use it.
Then there is the ambiguity as to what "short term" means. Does it mean 90-day treasury bills? Does it mean 180-day treasury bills? Does it relate to bonds which have been issued? The hon. member for Crowfoot knows very well that if he means 90-day treasury bill-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to tell the minister I specifically referred to 180-day government bills. I referred specifically to these, and I believe I was speaking loudly enough for him to hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, with all respect to the intention of the hon. member, that is not what the amendment says. The amendment uses the phrase "short term" and we have no way of getting the hon. member's interpretation printed into the act, unless he puts down those words himself; and he has not done that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: 
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We are not questioning the good order-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I was not addressing the minister; I was addressing the Chair. Is the hon. gentleman speaking on a point of order or is he discussing the amendment itself?


Albert Béchard: I think the Chair should put the amendment, first, and then the Minister of Agriculture can take the floor. I might point out that the amendment contains a reference to the word "at". There is no "at" in line 42, but there is one at the end of line
41.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As I was saying, regardless of whether or not we can spell out the meaning of "short term" with enough precision, the government takes the position that we need a prescribed rate of simple interest, and that the amendment is therefore unacceptable.
I should like to say one or two words about the very long speech the hon. member made about the treasury branches in Alberta. I wonder whether he could take his tongue out of his cheek long enough to admit that he did not really mean what he was saying. The government of Alberta does not need any guarantee from the federal government of the nature referred to. It was just a red herring in the first place.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order. The hon. minister has imputed motives to me. I was not speaking with my tongue in my cheek. I was speaking with as much sincerity as anyone can address to this important subject. The minister can snigger all he likes. The government of Alberta asked for guarantees from the federal government in respect to crop insurance. I think my question was a legitimate one and the hon. gentleman should withdraw his suggestion.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is no point of order involved there.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There certainly is. The minister imputed motives.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, if the remarks I made were offensive to the hon. member for Crowfoot I should like to withdraw them. Anyway, he tried to make a case out of the fact that we were not guaranteeing loans made by the provincial governments. He knows that neither Alberta nor any of the other provinces would want the federal government to take action which would affect their treasury
October 10, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act departments. The provinces have the right in law to set up their own branches of government, to conduct inspections and carry out the investigation of their own branches as thought necessary, without any assistance from the federal government. In spite of the fact that the act has been in existence since 1945, the treasury branch in Alberta has never applied to the federal government for guarantees. Indeed, even if these were offered I am sure they would not be accepted.
The hon. member also knows that the treasury branches can make these loans to farmers whenever they like. Under section 95 of the British North America Act the provincial governments have almost equal power as far as providing services to agriculture are concerned. In fact, they have made such services available. Not only Alberta but other provincial governments have done so in this field. I do not accept the argument that the province of Alberta wants the federal government to guarantee these loans to farmers. I can recall many times during the 'fifties and early 'sixties when the treasury branches did in fact make many loans to farmers for the purchase of equipment.


Donald MacInnis: That was in the free money days.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: They lent it at 5 per cent when the chartered banks were charging 6 per cent on most of their loans. As I say, there is no need for this kind of guarantee and I do not think it would be appreciated by the province of Alberta.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, so far I have taken no part in the debate on this measure but the remarks which the minister has just made, which I think were quibbing, concerning the difficulty in determining interest with respect to short term loans raised by the dominion government, have caused me to rise to my feet. There should be no difficulty whatever for the federal government to compute on a three month or six month basis the cost to it of short term money. That would be on three month and six month treasury bills. These are issued every week and, as I say, there should be no difficulty determining the rate of interest. From that point of view the amendment moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot is absolutely in order.
What concerns me more is that this clause gives a blank cheque to either the Minister of

Finance or the cabinet, I do not know which, to set the interest rate at any figure he or they wish. The House of Commons has always been loath, indeed very chary, in giving blank cheques to the government in office. It is a bad practice to do so. It is particularly dangerous in view of the fact the present government is one which does not to any large extent represent the agricultural interests of the country. It is chiefly representative of urban areas. It is a government which has probably less consciousness of the needs of agriculture, and of what can be done to agriculture by acts of government, than any other government that has been in office in Canada.
The reason for that is not the fault of the government. The reason is that this is more and more becoming an urbanized country, and it so happens that the number of members on the government benches coming from rural areas is the smallest, percentagewise, of any government we have had in this country. That is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to put into the hands of the minister, or the government, the power to set these interest rates. And so, Mr. Chairman, in accordance with what has been past precedent so far as parliament is concerned, the government should not be given a blank cheque in this regard. Therefore there should be some saving provision such as the one provided in this amendment. If there is any real objection, and I do not think there can be, to placing the figure at one quarter per cent above the cost of short term money to the government, then a definite maximum should be stated, such as 7 per cent or something along that line.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot is probably acceptable, except that I do not agree with the principle that the interest rate on farm loans should fluctuate with the general market interest rate. If farmers must receive assistance on the matter of the interest rate it should be through the form of subsidization.
Farm economy is so dependant on the borrowing of money that I believe we must think of this matter, not in terms of the banks and other lending institutions but in terms of the agricultural industry. Since this amending bill will cover borrowing for the acquisition of land it has a long term aspect, and for that reason we should be careful about freeing the interest rate and allowing it to fluctuate according to the market rate.
October 10, 1968	COMMONS
The provisions of the amendment suggesting a prime borrowing rate and establishing a ceiling are probably not unrealistic. The result would probably be more than we could expect from the banks if they were given a free rein. Previously I pointed out that on a total of $200 million provided for farm improvement loans our subsidization cost was something like $3 million, which is not much greater than the prime rate at which the government can borrow money.
The net effect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member will probably be the same as that arising from the government's proposal. For that reason, and since I am opposed to the idea of a fluctuating interest rate, I find his amendment unworthy of support.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman from Calgary South-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Centre.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -from Calgary Centre asked whether the interest rate would be prescribed by the minister or by the governor in council. This is something which might more appropriately be dealt with on clause 5. The provisions of that clause will make it possible for the interest rate to be prescribed by regulation. That clause is an amendment to section 6 of the act which confers the power on the governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister, to make regulations covering a number of matters. If the appropriate amendment is carried it will mean that the governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister responsible for the act, will be able to prescribe the rate of interest payable by a borrower.
As the Minister of Agriculture has pointed out, it is intended to lay down a formula covering the various aspects that he touched on in his remarks the other day, a flexible formula that will make it possible for the banks to have a reasonable return and at the same time provide an incentive to them to make these important and necessary loans, that they are not making under the present interest rate. As the Minister of Agriculture has pointed out, if the house should adopt this bill as proposed by the government, farmers will be able to get loans of this type at lower interest rates than they are able to get them at now, and there will be greater availability of this necessary form of credit.
Let me conclude on the other point made by the hon. member for Calgary South-
DEBATES	1065
Farm Improvement Loans Act


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Calgary Centre. Calgary South is your member.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That shows that there are a number of distinguished members in this house from Calgary. It is true that as a result of changes in population trends in this country, more and more members represent urban areas. I think it should be clear that on the government side of the house, and in the government portion of the other side of the house there are a number of very capable members representing the rural areas, not the least of which is of course is the Minister of Agriculture himself.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Put a flower in his teeth.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I think we should recognize, all of us, whether we represent rural areas, urban areas or both, it is our duty to legislate to the best of our ability in the interests of all the people in this country. We have this obligation whether we represent rural areas or urban areas. The hon. member for Crowfoot has an obligation to try to join in legislating in the best interests of the people in urban areas, and those of us who come from urban or semi-urban areas have a similar responsibility in respect of the people in the rural parts of this country.
We have often criticized in this house various forms of separatism in this country. Surely a form of separatism as nefarious as any other is one which attempts to divide Canadians in urban areas from rural areas.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We have an obligation, therefore, to support legislation of this type whether we come from the cities, towns, villages or farms in this country. We have an obligation to work together in the best interests of our country.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would answer this question? He has suggested the rate of interest would be a reasonable one. Suppose this measure were passed now, just as the government has drafted it, what would be the rate of interest charged to western farmers?


Mr. Whelan:: How about the eastern
farmers?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The hon. member for Essex makes a good point.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, answer the question.
October 10, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am answering the question. You may not want to hear the answer, and that is why you are interrupting. The Minister of Agriculture has already pointed out in detail that the formula is being worked out along the lines of the general principles he mentioned when he spoke the other day. Certainly this rate, to which I alluded as well, will be the one which is accepted as being proper-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: By the banks.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -by all concerned.


Edward Richard Schreyer: May I ask a question? I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he was serious when he said the details are just being worked out. Does he mean that this legislation has been before us for three weeks, and the government is still working out the details?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would say to the hon. member that I think he has added a meaning to the words I used which certainly was not intended. I was attempting, in making the answer, to say that the Minister of Agriculture felt he was not in a position to announce a definite formula on which the interest rate would be based. I did not intend my words to go any further than that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He does not know the rate of interest, yet he talks with great verbosity.


Mr. McCleave:: May I ask a simple question? Who is working out this rate of interest? Is it a computer, the just society, the government, or who?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The banks.


Mr. Slcoberg:: In rising to speak to the amendment, I should like to say that it is clear to me at this time the government is allowing the money markets to manipulate the rate of interest as they see fit. I believe a perfect example of this fact is exactly what was said a while ago, in the attempt to set one part of the country against the other. Agriculture is agriculture from one end of the nation to the other. There is no way the minister or his assistant can possibly distort that picture. We know very well that the economy must now have money poured into it.
I have reservations about the amendment before us because I am firmly convinced the interest rate should be pegged at 5 per cent, with subsidies in addition. However I realize that half a loaf is better than none. Surely

this government will realize it is imperative that the people in this nation who need assistance receive that assistance. However, they cannot accept assistance when the interest rate attached to that assistance is left to the discretion of the governor in council. I suggest the government is remiss in its duty to the people of this country if they do not take immediate action to peg the interest at a rate the people of this country can afford.
I am sure the minister is aware of the fact that the farmers union has gone on record as indicating that the farmers are in urgent need for money at this time. However the letter states, and I am sure the minister received a copy of it, that the union is definitely against an open end interest rate. The amendment we have before us permits the interest rate to rise to 7 per cent under the guarantee. I am sure the young farmers in this country cannot make use of money borrowed at that rate.
The farmers cannot make use of loans that will have an open end interest rate. There has to be some provision for the young farmers of this country. So far as I am concerned, there has to be a three year interest free provision, if we expect our farm units to be able to work. We all know that good sales at a good price would be sufficient to remedy the situation. Right now these farmers cannot sell their grain and they must have money made available to them. We know very well, Mr. Chairman, if the bill before us is passed without amendment, then the rate of interest will constitute usury. I am positive this government will stand accused and convicted in the eyes of the entire nation including the entire agricultural population. I am in favour of the motion, but I feel the interest rate should be pegged at 5 per cent.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Chairman, it appears quite obvious to me that the reason the minister is not prepared to announce the interest rate is that he knows the rate would not be acceptable to the opposition or to the agricultural community. Otherwise there is no reason the rate could not be announced at the moment.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I have said many times that I was not hedging, I was not keeping any secrets. I do not know precisely what the optimum interest rate will be, but it has to be at a point at which the banks and other institutions will make credit available in a sufficiently large volume. I have said that over and over again.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a question?
Ociober 10, 1968	COMMONS


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have just one other point. I cannot understand my friends in the official opposition opposing the wording of this provision, because in 1960 they did bring in the Small Businesses Loans Act, and they wrote into that bill at that time precisely the same wording that is here.


Mr. Skoreyko:: That is a different thing.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If my hon. friend tells me the small businessmen in this country are not deserving of any consideration, then he is stating the opposite of what the opposition said.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask the minister a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You do not have the floor.


Albert Béchard: The minister has the floor.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: When the opposition were introducing this concept into the Small Businesses Loans Act, they spoke about giving it the kind of flexibility that was needed. This is precisely what we are doing here, so I do not understand the objection to it now.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, as a member who represents a fishing area on the east coast I do not profess to be an expert on farming operations. However, let me assure hon. members that we are interested in the affairs of the farmers in the western part of Canada. Surely the members representing western Canada will not agree to any legislation which precludes the establishment of an interest rate which is reasonable, and in accordance with the terms of this legislation.
My colleagues have said that unless the minister can come to some agreement respecting the rate of interest, or at least a formula for setting the maximum, this will not be acceptable to almost every member in this portion of the house. I endorse this feeling. In spite of my background and the location of my riding I am concerned about the farmers of western Canada. These people should be given some indication of the government's plan, and I think the minister should answer some of the questions asked.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Surely we cannot leave unexplained what the Minister of Agriculture has said about approved loan administration. Nor can we let go unquestioned, what he has said about the introduction of this farm improve-
DEBATES	1067
Farm Improvement Loans Act ment loans program which was introduced by the Conservative government in the 1960's. At that time the rate was fixed at 6 per cent. What we now face is an entirely different situation. The banks can now make these loans without a ceiling on interest. Surely we will find ourselves in a difficult situation, with the bankers on the one hand raising the interest rates and the farmers on the other hand unable to pay.
Let me say to the parliamentary secretary that the should talk with the people from the rural parts of this country and ask their support in approval of what the Minister of Agriculture is now trying to accomplish. I am sure that he would be supplied with information that is contrary to the information he apparently has in his possession. If he met with any bank manager in the area of the country I represent I am sure he would be told that this floating interest rate will create great difficulties, not only for the farmers but for the management of these financial institutions which will qualify under the provisions of this bill.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take exception to the minister's recollection of what happened between 1958 and 1960 under the government of the Conservative party. At that time the minister of agriculture advocated many things this government, supported by the Liberal party, opposed. The government of today is supporting many of the things that members of the Liberal opposition of that day rejected.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance that I come from a combined rural and urban constituency. Let me assure him that we do not need the assurance from the government to indicate that things are different, or that the situation is otherwise than as the people of the city of Regina realize about the farm situation in this country. These people want to see a prosperous farm community.
It is certain that the majority of the people in my constituency will support a low level interest rate for farmers, namely the 5 per cent level. We now have this proposal before us which will allow by legislation a higher interest level. This will allow an interest rate higher than the farmers are at this present time paying. The new rate will be much higher than the farmers can pay at the present time, in view of the returns they obtain on their produce.
October 10, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act farmers who operate on a small scale. This might be the situation at the present time; but surely no one will agree that as a result of the provisions of the government measure these farmers will be better off than they were under the old legislation. Surely no one believes that they will be able to obtain larger loans any easier than in the past, or before the government lifted the bank interest rate.
I found it very interesting to listen to the minister, who used as a basis of his contribution to this debate made by Hon. J. L. Isley who was then minister of finance. There was some suggestion that this measure would do as much for the farmer as the legislation which was passed in 1945. I do not know what more unorthodox source he could have chosen. Let us consider what has happened since 1945. What has happened to the interest rate on farm loans since that time, in spite of the prescribed rate in the act? What has taken place since then? The situation has become more serious and the problems have become more difficult. These must be taken into account.
The government seems to rely on a framework of our present monetary institutions with particular reference to the banks. There has been no consideration on the part of the government regarding the relationship between returns from agriculture and interest rates. There has been no suggestion that intermediate credit provided under this act could be provided by government funds. There has been no consideration or suggestion that we might introduce the element of subsidization to stabilize the agricultural capitalization. This has not been the basis of recent governmental moves. We must be sure there is enough money to provide for the continued and successful operation of the agricultural industry. This is a major need.
The minister has indicated that he has been negotiating with bankers and has been encountering difficulties. The question is whether the government is going to allow financial institutions to dictate their terms. Would it not strengthen the minister's hand if the provisions of this legislation were more specific? Then he could obtain a firm undertaking from the banks requiring them to abide by this legislation once it has been passed by this house.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I posed a question earlier and I should now like to pose it again. What is the proposed composition of the new interest rate that farmers will be

charged under this legislation? This seems to be the guts of the issue. I am entitled, as a city boy-perhaps somewhat alarmed by this rural uprising-to know something about the mechanism to be adopted in this regard. Perhaps the people who advised the government on former occasions are the people who are advising them on this occasion; I do not know. But I think, as a courtesy to the house, that all of us are entitled to know on what basis the interest formula will be arrived at. The farmers of Canada are also entitled to know this. I think it is a simple request and I hope the minister will answer.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Albert Béchard: Is the committee ready for the question?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, we want to know what factors will be used by the minister in setting this interest rate formula.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I made a statement two or three days ago that spelled out in as much detail as is available the formula and criteria that will be used in establishing this interest rate. I think hon. members are missing the whole purpose of this bill. We had an act, until it expired on June 30, that set down a statutory 5 per cent limit.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. My point of order arises from the statement just made by the Minister of Agriculture, who said that a few days ago he explained in detail, as best he could, the formula that will be used to establish this interest rate. But the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance said a few minutes ago that the details were being worked out. Can these ministers not get together, and can we not get some straightforward information from the treasury benches?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, there is no point of order in what the hon. member has said. It may be a debatable point as to what the hon. member understood the parliamentary secretary and I to say. There are details, and there are other details.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a further point of order. If I rise on a point of order, it is the duty of the Chairman to decide whether I am in order. I would remind hon. members that the Chair failed to call me to order, and it is not the minister's place to rise and say there was not any point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
October 10, 1968


Albert Béchard: Order. I now rule that the hon. member is out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald MacInnis: I am glad to remind you of your duty, Mr. Chairman.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Halifax asked what criteria would be used. I spelled it out in as much detail as I could the other night. As I said, we do not at this point have the exact amount that will be set down as the rate of interest under which the government guarantee will be made available. Hon. gentlemen opposite know that we had an act that had a statutory limit of 5 per cent in it. We had that act until June 30 this year. But long before the expiry of that act the banks stopped lending money.
Therefore, if we set down a fixed rate that is so low-let us say 5 per cent, if hon. gentlemen opposite want to use that figure-the act would be of no practical value because the banks demonstrated for several months that at the current rates of interest in the economy they are not willing to lend money at 5 per cent, even with a government guarantee.
The whole purpose of the exercise is to amend the act so that the governor in council will have the authority to prescribe from time to time what that interest rate will be, bearing in mind that it needs to be high enough so that it will be supported and funds will be made available by the lending institutions in sufficiently large quantities, yet low enough so that it is of benefit in the cost factors which affect our farmers, who even today are paying much higher rates than some percentage point above the term loans about which I have spoken.
Hon. gentlemen opposite know that this provision has been written into other acts, and those acts have worked. Therefore I fail to see the rationale of trying to make this interest rate hard and fast when they know that a rate of 6 per cent, 7 per cent, 9 per cent, and so on, unless it is made so high that it is not realistic, means that we will not be sure what the response will be from the people who have the funds. We want the optimum rate in this measure, and we need some flexibility in setting it.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, we want to know what formula the minister intends to use to work out the rate of interest that will be effective. He not only will not tell us the rate of interest, but he will not tell us the formula.

Farm Improvement Loans Act He is trying to jam down our throats a piece of legislation that we, representing our constituents, have no right to agree to. This happened a number of years ago with another Liberal government when they refused to give us information to which we were entitled. That was the famous pipe line debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Yes, you bet your hat it was. Many of you were not here at the time, but I was. That was when Mr. Howe would not tell the Canadian people the implications of that bill and what Mr. Clint Murchison intended to do. That was the pipe line debate.
It did not take the Liberal party very long when in power to get back to the same arrogant attitude. The first time they once again have an over-all majority they are trying to jam legislation down the throats of the opposition. Just because they have a voting majority they have no right to try to do this. We as members of parliament have no right to accept a piece of legislation like this when the government will not tell us what kind of formula will be used. The minister could bring in any kind of interest rate and we would be accused by our constituents of having passed this bill and letting the government set an exorbitant interest rate. The minister knows that perfectly well. He cannot deny it, because he knows it is perfectly true.
We have a right to ask, on behalf of the farmers of this country, what formula will be used in working out the interest rate that farmers will have to pay. I say to the minister again, stand up in your place and tell us how you are going to work out this interest rate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, if the government has no right to propose this kind of legislation, and parliament has no right to pass this kind of legislation, then all the exercise that the Conservative government went through with the Small Businesses Loans Act must have been out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is a complete red herring.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister, tell us what information we refused to give at that time. Can the minister tell us that?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Farm Improvement Loans Act


Albert Béchard: Order.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to do that and irritate hon. gentlemen opposite; but the fact is that under the Small Businesses Loans Act the government of that day asked for powers to be given the governor in council to set the terms and conditions under which loans could be made.


George Harris Hees: And we outlined the formula that we would use.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In 1964 the government came before this house asking for authority to make loans to students, and the rates there were to be flexible enough so that the governor in council could prescribe them from time to time.


George Harris Hees: But the formula that was to be used was announced.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act has similar wording in it. That portion of the Farm Credit Corporation Act has been in operation for years. That portion of the loan above $20,000 under one part of the act, and above $27,500 under another part, is a flexible interest rate. That is really all we are asking. There are many precedents for it, but we want to be in a position to discuss this with the institutions. Surely hon. members do not want us to come here with laws which will force the banks or other institutions-


Some hon. Members:: Yes, we do.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1 know some of my friends over there might like those kinds of laws; but I do not think hon. members directly opposite would like such laws because that would be tantamount to confiscating the funds of the institutions, to telling them how much they should lend, to whom and for how much. I am not prepared to propose such legislation.


Mr. Moore:: Since the minister told us he had some discussions with the institutions before the end of June, may I suggest that the government has had ample time to work on these details. If they have not, I would ask the minister whether he could tell us how much longer it would take to work out these details.
October 10, 1968


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It will not take very long, once parliament has passed the legislation and has given us the necessary authority.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, there is just one question I would like to put to the minister. All of us want to be helpful to him in seeking information, but I notice that a number of institutions mentioned in the legislation have raised their rates. In the last few days a number of farmers in my constituency have spoken to me, as well as farmers from other areas who are very concerned about this, because they feel that the rates are going up. It is a common practice-and this is certainly so in the province of Ontario-for credit unions, for instance, to charge 12 per cent on loans, and 1 per cent a month on the unpaid balance. This is what has caused suspicion among the farmers and uncertainty in many people's minds. Inasmuch as the minister and his colleagues will not give us the formula to allay these suspicions, I should like to ask the minister a very straightforward question: Would he tell us whether or not the interest rate on these loans is likely to rise as high as 10 or 12 per cent?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not think so; in fact, I am very sure it will not.


George Harris Hees: But the minister does not know.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister did not answer my question. He said he does not think so. This is the kind of answer that worries people in the agricultural areas. That is why we want to have a formula. Can the minister give us a straight yes or no?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister were to compare the provisions under this legislation, so far as setting down the rate of interest is concerned, with certain other acts which were brought in under the Conservative administration, he would be comparing oranges with turnips. The comparison would be invalid, because in that period and up to the time when the Liberal government came into office and changed the act some two years ago, there was an automatic ceiling on loans of 6 per cent. The provisions under the Small Loans Act were such that the governor in council could set the rate of interest, but the maximum rate he could set was 6 per cent. That provision is no longer applicable under this legislation. Now the rate of interest can go up as high as 10 or 12 per cent. I am surprised by the argument


October 10, 1968

advanced by the minister, that under the Bank Act, up to the time it was amended, there was an automatic ceiling of 6 per cent. This is a different situation altogether.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, since I
raised my original question a few minutes ago we have heard the minister's answer to a question put to him by the hon. member for Oxford in which the minister said the rate would not go up to 10 per cent. Therefore it seems to me the minister admitted that a formula does exist. Could we now ascertain from the minister with more exactitude what the formula for borrowing by our Canadian farmers would be? This is a request from a very reasonable person, a city boy somewhat cowed by these country problems, although I do have a farm area, now, which I did not have before.
I think I have a legitimate question. Could the minister tell us on what basis this formula is being arrived at, so that we could possibly pass this legislation in the next 22 minutes and go on to something else. The minister gives us very bland answers. First he waffled with regard to the question of the hon. member for Oxford, and then he said very definitely that the rate would not exceed 10 per cent. But we do not know on what basis he arrived at that answer, and I think we are entitled to know it. I have seen him moving 22 or 25 feet from his previous position in this chamber to where he is now, and I have also seen some changes in his economic ideas over every one of those 25 feet. But, political sparring aside, I hope he will give us an answer to what I regard as a basic question on the bill before us.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. gentleman is entitled to as near an answer as I can give him. I am sorry, but I do not think he has read the explanation that I gave the other night. I said that I fully expected-and the Minister of Finance was here at that time-that we could perhaps under the government guarantee reduce the interest rate that farmers are paying on some of these loans. I know that on some of the loans the rate goes up to 10 per cent and over, but the average rate is substantially below 10 per cent, even now that farmers are borrowing without a government guarantee. What is more, we think it will be even more attractive with the government guarantee. Otherwise there is no purpose to the act. This is the only reason I could give a categorical answer that it will not be 10 per cent.
Farm Improvement Loans Act


Mr. McCutcheon:: Can I infer from the minister's remarks that the current interest rate is between 7 and 10 per cent?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This is not a guarantee. At any rate my hon. friend knows that there are various interest rates. A successful farmer with a good credit rating, who has made his payments to the bank on time-and there are many of them-and who has not borrowed more than was reasonable to meet the amortization, can receive favourable interest rates even now. But there are others under different conditions who pay substantially more. Therefore what we want to do is to set a guarantee at a rate somewhere below the average now, so that the banks will give the same rate to all customers who apply for it under the act.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Chairman, would the minister answer the question of an ordinary country boy who is trying to get a look at this just society?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am also an ordinary country boy and I do not know all the various interest rates that are being paid by farmers all over the country. If I were to tell hon. members, I would be only guessing. I know what the bank charges me, but I do not know whether it charges my neighbour any more, when there is no guarantee.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct the minister's impression with regard to previous legislation. He has already been corrected on the matter of small business loans. Now I would like to correct the very misguided impression he has with respect to student loans. Is the minister not aware that that legislation provided interest free loans for at least three and a half to four and a half years?
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is right. A student does not pay the interest. But my hon. friend knows that the government does.


Donald MacInnis: Why does the government not pay the farmers' interest, too?
Amendment (Mr. Horner) negatived: Yeas, 56; nays, 76.


Albert Béchard: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 2 carry?


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman, a lot of the
arguments which have been advanced in support of the preceding amendment might satisfy me, but I am very disturbed that, for some
1072	COMMONS DEBATES	October 10. 1968
Farm Improvement Loans Act reason or other, the minister has stated, that the method to be used by the government in setting interest rates will be determined by the amount that is required. While I appreciate that this formula, or something like it, might be functional in the case of the Farm Credit Corporation, I cannot see its purpose here.
If the government is going to be wasteful and chooses in its stupidity to proceed with projects which are not in the interests of the country, then I think it should pay the penalty. For example, let me refer to the building of the arts centre in Ottawa. The contract was originally let for something under $15 million. Now we understand that the final cost will be of the order of $45 million. In this particular case the final cost has tripled.
If our farmers have to start paying high interest rates because of the stupidity of this government, then the government has the responsibility for setting an interest rate that is directly proportional to its own stupidity. There is no reason why an industry such as the farming industry should have to pay an interest rate that has been inflated as a result of the stupidity of the government. The government have chosen to embark upon such schemes as medicare, but just because they have to raise a bond issue to capitalize the expenditure I see no reason why the farming industry should be penalized. This is exactly what is going to happen, Mr. Chairman.
If the government spent its money wisely and cut back its expenditure, it would not have to raise so much money. As a result the rate of interest would not be so high. This seems to me to be logical. The government has been buying up spittoons or wastepaper baskets at something like $35 a piece. This sort of expenditure is not conducive to lower interest rates. At the whim of a minister, the farming economy is being made to suffer because of wasteful expenditure by various government departments.
I am going to be brief and sit down in a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, but we cannot vote for this measure. The minister has been talking about an interest rate of 10 per cent. I have had loans from the bank at less than 10 per cent, and I am not necessarily the best risk. The minister is trying to tell the country that the rate will have to be 9 or 10 per cent, and that if he is able to bring the rate down to 8 per cent then everything will be hunky-dory. It will not be hunky-dory with me and it will not be hunky-dory with the rest of the country.

There is another way out, Mr. Chairman. The money lent over the years to our farmers has been repaid. I do not know how many times this has been said, but only one tenth of one per cent is the risk involved. These loans are repeat business. It is business that will increase. The farm machinery companies are increasing the price of their machinery, and that is a business that repeats itself over and over again. The government's guarantee about which so much is said must mean something.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Farmers are entitled to premium rates because little risk is involved in their loans. I do not know whether the minister knows the risk rate with respect to loans made to small businesses; I submit it must be higher than the risk rate involved in farm loans. Farm loans carry a nominal, almost non-existent risk rate of one tenth of one per cent. That is, very, very few loans are not paid back. Surely, considering the infinitesimal risk involved in $200 million worth of business, much of it repeat business, which the banks will enjoy, consideration ought to be given to making loans available at low interest rates. Accordingly I wish to move the following amendment. I move:
That in clause 2, paragraph (f), all the words after the word "prescribed" in line 42 be deleted and that the clause be amended by adding the following words:
"and such rates being not higher than those available to schools, hospitals, municipalities and other such institutions, and such charge for insurance as may be authorized by the regulations, was, by the terms of the loan, payable to the bank in respect of the loan as long as the borrower is not in default;"


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I see no useful purpose in this amendment. The rate will not be higher than that available to schools, hospitals or municipalities.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But we do not know that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: My hon. friend knows that there are many different rates for schools in different parts of the country. It could well be, if the rate were tied to that available for schools and so on, that the farm rate would be higher than my hon. friend intended it to be. The amendment therefore is of no value and is superfluous.


Stanley James Korchinski: If the rate is to be no
higher than that charged with respect to schools, hospitals, municipalities and the like, there is no harm, surely, in adopting this
October 10, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	1073
Farm Improvement Loans Act
amendment. The rate would be within the agree to continue until 10.30 for the purpose confines set in the bill.	of completing this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Is the
committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Korchinski) negatived: Yeas, 56; nays, 78.
The	Acting	Chairman	(Mr.	Richard):	I
declare the amendment lost.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am reasonably certain that the hon. member for York North came in after the vote was called.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
The	Acting	Chairman	(Mr.	Richard):	I
remind hon. members that no one is to come into the chamber after the question has been put. I am not aware that anybody broke the rules but I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, may I ask whether the President of the Privy Council would ask Mr. Speaker and the house for unanimous consent to sit for another half hour, so that this legislation may be passed. Tomorrow estimates are to be called and we want to pass this legislation. Since we have nearly finished with the contentious clause concerning interest rates, I am sure that the other four short clause could be disposed of hastily.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member took the words from my mouth. I think the proper procedure would be to rise, report progress and seek consent to continue sitting.


Mr. Monleiih:: Do not see the clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The time being ten o'clock it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Or later this day.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In the light of the remarks exchanged across the floor so recently, I wonder whether the house will


Gerald William Baldwin: Perhaps some thought might be given by the house to continuing, not for half an hour but for an hour, with an order made that there then be put all questions necessary to complete this legislation, in all stages. The house might be prepared to do that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would be most agreeable to having an order made to that effect.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the proposal of the hon. member for Peace River. Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I thought I would have the opportunity, before 10 o'clock, to make representations and express certain points of view on the bill. Consequently, I should like to call it 10 o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Before he goes, could the leader of the house give us some idea of the business for tomorrow? I know he did indicate it earlier, but in view of what has happened tonight perhaps he has had some change of mind.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The business is as indicated earlier.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Edward Richard Schreyer: The adjournment motion gives me a good opportunity to bring to the attention of the house and of the appropriate minister a subject matter which is quite serious in its implications. I know that publicity has recently gone out to the effect that I intend to raise the subject of microwave radiation energy and its possible biological effect on chickens. In fact, what is involved goes far beyond that. What is involved is an incomplete understanding on our part and on the part of our scientific

October 10, 1968
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion community of the full effects of microwave energy on plant and animal life in general.
I can begin, Mr. Speaker, by indicating that recently I received a petition from approximately 500 residents of an area in central Manitoba, stating that due to recent releases of information concerning the possible effects of radiation on humans, livestock and vegetation, they requested that a thorough on site investigation be made of all surrounding areas adjacent to microwave towers.
As I say, this was signed by just slightly less than 500 farmers, hatchery operators and poultry farm operators from a central area of Manitoba. A few days ago I addressed a letter to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) bringing this petition and the concern expressed by these people to his attention, and giving him some slight background information on a particular case in point where the operator of one of the largest poultry farms in Manitoba, who had operated his farm with great success over a period of six or seven years, in late 1962 experienced very mysterious symptoms in his poultry flocks. All through the course of 1963 to 1966 inclusive these symptoms persisted. The minister is an experienced agriculturist and he must know something is drastic when feed conversion ratios are cut in half, when the mortality rate rises to 60 per cent in a flock of 10,000 to 15,000 birds, and when chickens and turkeys lose their feathers in a very obvious way.
All manner of experts were brought into the picture, including veterinarians from the central midwestern United States, from eastern Canada and western Canada, from the Department of Transport and from other government departments provincial and federal, and no one could give a diagnosis as to the probable cause. It was by a process of elimination that some of them suggested that perhaps there was some mysterious, if not mysterious at least unknown, relationship between the biological condition of these flocks of poultry and the presence of a microwave relay tower in the very near proximity of the farm.
From 1964 onward this particular poultry farm operator and others tried to solicit the advice of different government departments, at both the federal and provincial levels, and they really did not get very much co-operation. I hesitate to say this, but what is involved here may be on the frontier of human scientific knowledge and, because many of these people were reluctant to give

any firm opinion, that poultry farm operator was left on his own to sink or swim.
The net result was that he was pushed into complete bankruptcy in the fall of 1966, and the role played by the Industrial Development Bank certainly left a great deal to be desired. It was prepared to take a $25,000 loss rather than get in and try to help this individual get all the support and advice necessary to cope with the problem.
I know the minister is going to get up and say, in his reassuring tone, that a grant has been given to the University of Manitoba. So it has, I understand-an initial grant of $3,800. Mr. Speaker, that amount of money will hardly even begin to do an adequate job of research.
I may say that I have asked the opinion of experts, and we believe it would be much more helpful if a field study, rather than any laboratory experiment, were made. We would like on-site research under actual field conditions. We are given to understand that we are getting more and more information as we go along. This problem could result from a combination of factors, such as leakage from this microwave tower, improper instalation of some part or another, plus atmospheric conditions at the site. Without going into the technical details, I would urge the minister to take a personal interest in this case.
As I say, evidence would seem to indicate we are just on the frontiers of scientific knowledge in this respect. It would be a pity if the appropriate government departments did not bother to concern themselves a little more directly. I do not think-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Edward Richard Schreyer: May I just finish this sentence? I do not believe our society would want to be so callous as to leave an individual on his own in a situation where there is so much yet to be done.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wrote to me several days ago and I answered his letter at that time. I outlined what the Department of Agriculture has done up to this time. With regard to the complaints of alleged biological effects on poultry by microwave power radiation, I may say that this was brought to our attention in the fall of 1967 by the president of the Manitoba farmers union. On inquiring into the matter, we were advised that these complaints had originally been
October 10, 1968	COMMONS
brought to the attention of the provincial authorities and the University of Manitoba, and that the university had already started an investigation into the possibility of adverse effects of microwave radiation.
Since an investigation was already under way by the University of Manitoba, it was decided that we should assist and support them, rather than undertake a separate study. We are assisting in obtaining information from other agencies studying the effects of microwave information on humans, animals and vegetation; and of contributing financial assistance toward the research studies being made by the universities on the effect of low levels of radiant energy on poultry. The dean of faculty of agriculture of the University of Manitoba has kept us fully informed There is no evidence to date to support the hypothesis that a microwave tower is responsible for unthriftiness or losses of agricultural plants or animals. The university, with our support, is continuing its investigation.
So far as the other allegation made by the hon. member is concerned, that we are on the frontiers of new information, and so on, I think there again we have to say no one can guarantee that some additional scientific discovery will not turn up some time that will give a positive diagnosis of the problem that this man is having with his poultry. Certainly we were doing everything within reason to attempt an analysis of the problem and, within the bounds of reasonableness, I think the government has done everything that could be expected of it. The same remark applies to the university, the provincial government and the federal government.



COMMUNICATIONS-CO-OPERATION WITH FRANCE IN SPACE AND SATELLITE RESEARCH

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, my question is an important one. I know we live in an electronic age, but I wanted to talk about communications. I have read, if not understood, Marshall McLuhan, and I realize the importance of the whole communications field. I thought perhaps the minister designate of communications might be here tonight. I realize the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has to attend a committee meeting, which I just left, so I do not know who will be responding to this question.
I wonder whether there have not been important developments taking place with which this house is unfamiliar, and of which the
DEBATES	1075
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion country is unaware. It is for this reason I have been trying to ask questions on this subject matter for the last week or two. I have asked for a statement from the minister designate for communications, but so far on the records of this house we find little about telecommunications. We do however find considerable in the media. The Montreal Star for October 5 has an article by Robert Reford, under the date line of the United Nations, which reads:
External Affairs Minister Mitchell Sharp proposed yesterday that Canada and France co-operate in the field of space research and technology, including satellite communications.
Sharp made the proposal when he met here with French foreign minister Michel Debre. The two men spent nearly an hour together in a secluded corner of one of the delegates lounges after they had listened to the acting foreign minister of Czechoslovakia address the General Assembly.
Debre took note of the proposal and said it would be considered by his government.
They talked about three things: the implications of the Czech crisis, the Middle East and scientific co-operation in space research. The first two were general exchanges of views. The third was a specific Canadian proposal.
The article then continued:
The space proposal was the unusual topic of their conversation. Obviously it represented the federal government's reaction to talk of a communications satellite to be operated jointly by France and Quebec.
Sharp pointed out to Debre that there are many areas where Canada and France could help each. They include technical facilities, scientific research and technology.
I should like one of the ministers to tell us at least as much as was presumably told to Robert Reford.
Another interesting reference to the Paris press under the byline of Bernard Kaplan can be found in the Ottawa Citizen of October 8, 1968. Let me emphasize here that another minister has the responsibility for this, but I introduce it now as an indication of the increasing importance of this subject matter and the interest surrounding it. This article says:
Thwarted on all these fronts, de Gaulle seems to be concentrating his thinned-out legions on pushing French culture on a worldwide scale.
I realize that this is not a governmental operation. The article continues:
The first shot was sounded at the initial conference here of the international association of French speaking parliamentarians.
October 10, 1968


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my response is really one of procedure rather than of substance. The hon. member knows that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has taken an active part in these discussions. The hon. member has talked about other questions to which the minister has provided, answers, but the hon. member refuses to accept them. I would only say that if the hon. member had really been seeking information, I presume he would have been agreeable to putting this over until Tuesday. I regret that he did not have the courtesy to do so.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, may I, on a question of privilege, refute the implications of poor manners and remind the hon. gentleman that just minutes ago the minister advised me of his predicament. He could easily have let me know before. And surely there are enough acting ministers and parliamentary secretaries to deal with this matter. I do not like this charge of poor manners.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that the minister was appearing before the committee.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: So was I.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the minister, as I have other hon. members in the past, that it is not according to the rules to impute improper motives.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.23 p.m.
October 10, 1968