1968-10-15

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 15, 1968


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all hon. member of the house with reference to their efforts to obtain information from the government benches. It deals also with the question of the schedule for the attendance of ministers as provided by the government and the question of who is an acting minister and when he is an acting minister; because we have had an acting minister of public works while the actual minister was in his office on the third floor, and we have had an acting minister when the President of the Treasury Board was in his office on the floor below. It also involves the question of whether members are entitled to direct questions to ministers in capacities other than of departments they represent.
Here I would refer to a previous ruling in this house by Mr. Speaker on April 1, 1966. I quote from the fourth paragraph, second column, at page 3756 of Hansard for that date:
I still feel today just as strongly as I did a few days ago that it should not be the policy in the house that ministers be asked to answer questions, whether written questions or verbal questions, in any capacity other than in their official capacities.
It would follow, Mr. Speaker, that if members are denied the privilege of asking such questions, then no minister should be entitled to answer in any other capacity than in that of the department for which he is responsible.
On the question of acting ministers Mr. Speaker's ruling on April 1, 1966 went on to say:
While considering this matter in recent days it was brought to my attention-and I must say I understood this-that in some instances certain ministers are given areas of responsibility. For example, I might say that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner) in the present government is given, by acknowledgement on the part of the government, that portion of government responsibility in the realm of transport, is asked questions
in that regard, and is expected to answer questions about the Department of Transport although he is not the Minister of Transport.
It would follow, Mr. Speaker, that rather than what happened on Friday last, when eight ministers were trying to answer questions that were correctly the responsibility of 29 ministers, acting ministers should be predesignated by the government. That, sir, is the interpretation, and rightly or wrongly I do not see any other possible interpretation that could be taken from Mr. Speaker's ruling of April 1, 1966.
With respect to the scheduling of the attendance of ministers, we all realize that this is an experiment which the government is conducting. But surely, Mr. Speaker, members of the government should acknowledge the fact that the experiment is not working. Today members received a release dated October 11, 1968, giving a revised schedule of attendance. But, Mr. Speaker, errors can clearly be seen in it which will make it very difficult for members of the opposition to obtain the information they may be seeking.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I wish to call the attention of the government to the fact that on Mondays the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Benson), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) are all absent.
I would think that normally in the absence of one of these ministers any one of the other three would be able to take his place in an acting capacity. Nevertheless all four are to be absent on Mondays. This means that questions in the realm of trade and commerce and finance would have to be taken by the government as notice for reply on another day. In this event it would not be possible to treat the questions as matters of urgency.
I referred to this matter of urgency previously. If any given member should have a question of urgent importance he could have to wait from Wednesday until Tuesday in order to have the question answered because the minister concerned would be absent on Thursday and Friday, This, as I say, again would remove it from the urgency bracket.
1134	COMMONS
Attendance of Ministers in House
I might point out also in respect of the rescheduling that on Fridays the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) are absent, and this at a time when we have set up a committee involving both these departments. In respect of departments which relate closely one to another I might say that also on Fridays the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) are absent.
Mr. Speaker, I move this motion in order to bring about a more consistent approach by the government to its responsibility to the house, as has been the practice of past governments throughout the years.
I, therefore, move seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken):
That the matter of scheduling of ministers in the house and the general conditions affecting the daily question period be referred to the special committee on procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Chair can even consider putting the motion before the house there are a number of conditions which must be fulfilled. One is that the Chair must be satisfied that in the matter brought up by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) there is a prima facie question of privilege. Perhaps hon. members might like to enlighten the Chair on this particular point.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter raised by the hon. member received a good deal of attention on Friday during consideration of the estimates of the Privy Council. I do not believe we need repeat the arguments today.
However, two situations have arisen which affect the whole question. First, we no longer appear to have acting ministers in the house to replace those who are absent. On several occasions when a question was asked of the Prime Minister he consulted his roster and requested that the question be asked when the minister was present. This would indicate that no acting minister had been designated on that occasion. Likewise it has always been the practice, or at least the understanding, that when a minister is absent from Ottawa there would be an acting minister to take over his duties. The question the hon. member has raised is whether the absence of a minister from the chamber when he is actually within the precincts of the building is sufficient to necessitate having an acting minister in the chamber during the question period.

DEBATES	October 15, 1968
There is also a question in respect of amending the duty roster which provides for a programmed absence by ministers who might logically be acting for others who are absent. For example, on Mondays the roster which has been distributed to us indicates that the ministers of finance, national revenue, industry and trade and commerce and the President of the Treasury Board will all be absent. Any one of those might logically be the acting minister prepared to accept questions in the general area of their responsibility. Likewise on Fridays the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General will be absent. Again the person who might logically be the acting minister will also be absent.
This whole question of acting ministers and their presence in the house is one that deserves scrutiny by the committee on procedure, in that there is a new situation which affects the rights of all members to direct questions to the members of the ministry. While this is not really part of the program, we have a special committee on procedure with the task at the moment of reviewing various reforms in our procedures. I believe we must take a much different approach to this whole matter of the question period. These are matters which are of concern to that committee. I think the motion which has been made is logical and fair under the circumstances.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the only question which I believe you are asked to deal with now is whether there is a matter of privilege involved. I think the simplest answer is that this whole matter is not dealt with specifically in the standing rules; hon. members are not deprived of any privilege in view of the fact that we have not altered any standing order which affects their privileges or rights.
Let me repeat once more that we are merely trying an experiment to find a solution to a situation which exists in fact. Ministers are bound to be away during a parliamentary session on matters pertaining to the administration and in discharge of their duties throughout the country. The purpose of this innovation is to ensure that there will always be ministers, acting ministers or parliamentary secretaries in the house on specific days who are able to answer in respect of subject matters falling within the jurisdiction and administration of those departments.
If while dealing with the substance of the matter, sir, you want to cut me short I will accept your suggestion, but perhaps I might
October 15, 1968

be permitted to say on the substance of the matter, however, that members of the opposition have not all understood the intention of this change. The two hon. members opposite argued that we were in a difficult and untenable position because ministers might be in their offices upstairs and there would be no acting minister to answer for them. My reply is that it is not our intention, if a minister is in his office upstairs or attending a cabinet committee, which is more likely, to have an acting minister answer questions on the specific days when it is not intended that questions on departmental matters under the jurisdiction of that minister be answered during the question period. There would be no acting minister or parliamentary secretary speaking for that minister on specific days.
When a minister is away from Ottawa, or unable to attend for reasons of business or ill health on the days which have been attributed to that minister, members of the opposition know there will be an acting minister or a parliamentary secretary here to answer questions. Therefore the argument that it is improper to have an acting minister here if the minister is in his office does not really apply.
We do not intend to have an acting minister here on a day that is not a day set for a minister to answer questions in respect of his department or his responsibilities. Having regard to the suggestion that there might not be the right combination of ministers here on Mondays, for example, I can only say that we are prepared to discuss this with the opposition. If hon. members desire a different type of roster, so that on some days the Minister of Finance will be here whereas on other days the President of the Treasury Board will be here, we are prepared to be as accommodating as possible. The system is based upon a desire to ensure that the members of the opposition will have days on which they know they can obtain answers from the minister, if he is in Ottawa, and from an acting minister if the minister has been called away from Ottawa.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
This is the basis of the proposed reform. I can only suggest again that we have not actually tried it for very long; therefore I would plead with members of the opposition not to oppose this system before they understand how it works. It is apparent from the two statements just made that they do not understand how we intend making it work.
Attendance of Ministers in House


Mr. Bell:: No one does.


Mr. Trudeau:: Well, certainly you do not. Perhaps the system is a bit complicated, but it should not be beyond the ingenuity of members of the opposition to realize that to have 29 ministers here every day of the week just in case a question might happen to come their way, when they could be in their department or speaking to a cabinet committee-


Mr. Forrestall:: Or golfing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -would be an inefficient use of parliamentary resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Just because it has been done in that way for hundreds of years does not mean that we have to continue doing it in that way for hundreds of years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think any type of profession, business or enterprise which every day of the week would require 29 members of a board of administration present when perhaps an average of only 10 or 12 were needed, would be an inefficient way of employing these people. It is also an inefficient way of employing the people the electors of Canada sent here to work for them. That is why we are proposing a more efficient use of these resources.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the question that arises is, have our privileges been interfered with? There can be no question of that. The Prime Minister unilaterally declared that the rules of parliament, as they now are, are not what he would like them to be, and therefore made a decision binding upon the house. This to me is an extraordinary position. I have not the reference before me, but I seem to recollect that the first prime minister of the United Kingdom, Sir Robert Walpole, took the stand that questions were out of order. That has not been parliamentary procedure in that country since the days of the Pitts, nor has it been in Canada from the earliest days of our parliamentary system.
What has happened? The Prime Minister says they have 29 ministers now, and that is so. There is a multiplicity of ministers. They are growing faster than rabbits. At the rate of increase we have seen in recent months I can
1136	COMMONS
Attendance of Ministers in House see the day when they will practically all be ministers over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad the Prime Minister applauds, because that is what I had in mind as being a reason for the increase. So they will all be placed in two categories; those who have achieved, and those who hope to achieve, having started as parliamentary secretaries.
What has happened in the last week or ten days? Simply the government has decided that we shall not have our rights under the rules except as the Prime Minister may designate. It is natural that ministers will be absent. It is expected that from time to time they will be away on business and will not be able to be here. But, sir, when they are in Ottawa and this house is in session, during the period that is called the period of the orders of the day they should be here. Already the roster of ministers has had to be altered. What has happened in the last week or ten days has made a nightmare of the parliamentary rules in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to hear the backbenchers jeer, but this is a fact. I have sat on both sides of the house, and I know there is nothing more trying than wondering day after day what the opposition is going to raise that day. I had that experience when the opposition was very small in number, but we did not try to throttle them. I can recall certain members whom I can call by name now, such as Mr. Pearson, Mr. Martin and Mr. Pickersgill, who made our lives far from enjoyable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The applause from the back benches indicates that what was right when we were in government is wrong now that they are in government. I appreciate their assistance in clarifying the situation.
This system is wrong. I think in his heart of hearts, as he realizes the responsibility of the prime ministership and what it entails, the Prime Minister is beginning to realize that this system makes a caricature of the rules. It should certainly be referred to a committee. I would not have supported this in the beginning. I would have said that we as members have the right to demand that such

DEBATES	Oclober 15. 1968
matters be decided by the House of Commons, not by a coterie within the government. But the hon. member who made the motion and the seconder of the motion want to refer the matter to the committee on procedure. I say this has all the earmarks of translation into actuality of the immortal words of the Prime Minister last February following the defeat of the government when he said in effect, "We are your masters". Sir, we do not intend to be the government's servants.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made one point quite clear to us. He has made it in two ways. First, when he submitted to us the revised roster of attendance he made it clear that on certain days there is to be in the house no minister for certain departments, as for example when the Minister of Transport and the Minister without Portfolio from Winnipeg are both absent on the same days. Second, he has made it clear in his statement today that the intention is that questions may be directed respecting certain departments only on certain days. I see the Prime Minister nodding his head that I am stating correctly what he is trying to do.
I	will not repeat the things I have said before about what I think this does to the question period, but rather will simply refer in these few remarks to the kind of facts that you, Mr. Speaker, have to deal with in ruling on this question of privilege. The question which faces Your Honour is whether the government by itself, unilaterally, has the right to make this kind of change, to tell the house that for whatever period of time this system is in effect we may ask questions of certain ministers only on certain days.
6 (3:00 p.m.)
The Prime Minister says no rule is being changed, and in a technical sense he could substantiate that point. The rule which I must cite, I must admit, is not as clear as we thought it was when we drafted it. I say "we" because it is a contemporary rule that has been introduced in our generation. I refer to standing order 39(5), which reads:
Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, questions on matters of urgency may be addressed orally to ministers of the crown-
There are many more words in addition about what Mr. Speaker may do if he feels the questions are not urgent, and so on. However, the pith of this order, so far as this
October 15, 1968

discussion is concerned, relates to the right of members to address questions orally to ministers of the crown.
I	suppose we will have to consult language specialists, lawyers, and all the other experts as to what that means. Certainly this rule does not refer to some ministers of the crown. It does not say a few ministers of the crown. It does not say those ministers of the crown that the Prime Minister permits to be here. It says that before the orders of the day are proceeded with, and this is under the routine proceedings for every day of the week, members may address questions orally to ministers of the crown.
As I have already said, Mr. Speaker, this is not an old rule. For 95 years or more in this parliament's history we did not have any rule that provided for questions before orders of the day. The practice or tradition of asking questions at this time had become so imbedded in our parliamentary way of life that we regularized it by this temporary rule which was introduced three or four years ago. When we drafted it we certainly had no thought that we were drafting a rule covering certain ministers only on certain days. During the few years the rule has been in effect we have had the right to ask questions every day of any minister of the crown.
I	submit that for the government to decree that on certain days certain ministers are not going to be here is to deny to members of the house a right that is theirs by practice, a right that is theirs by direction of this standing order. I must admit that the standing order does not say "any and all" ministers of the crown. I suppose that is the sort of argument that will be used. However, the rule does not say, either, that we can ask questions only of those ministers who happen to be here, only of those ministers the Prime Minister permits to be here, or only of certain ministers on certain days. The standing order says that on every day we have a right to address questions to ministers of the crown. I submit that if the government is cutting down on that right, taking away from that right to any extent at all, it is interfering with the privileges of the house.
As Your Honour knows, this whole question of defining privileges is as difficult a one as you have to deal with in the chair. However, there are some interesting words in citation 108(1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads:
Anything which may be considered a contempt of court by a tribunal, is a breach of privilege if
Attendance of Ministers in House perpetrated against parliament, such as wilful disobedience to, or open disrespect of, the valid rules, orders or process-
I submit that this action of the government in saying that some of its ministers will not be here on certain days of the week, whether or not we want them, is open disrespect of the valid rules, orders or process of this house. The citation continues:
-or the dignity and authority of the house-
There is no doubt that the dignity of the house has suffered as a result of this action.
I continue reading:
-whether by disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent language, or behaviour, or other disturbing conduct, or by a mere failure to obey this order.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the clear meaning of standing order 39(5) is that this whole house has decreed that members have a right to ask questions of ministers of the crown, and that means all the ministers. I submit that if this right is being curtailed or interfered with by fiat by the Prime Minister, then it is a matter of privilege; that something is being perpetrated against this house that we ought not to have to take.
It seems to me that in this discussion, comments about the merits of the proposal are irrelevant. Having said that, however, I do want to echo the sentiment that has been expressed a good many times, namely that it seems strange for this to be done unilaterally the day after the house agreed to setting up the procedure committee. I think a good deal of the trouble we have had has come from the way this action has been taken.
What Your Honour is faced with right now is the problem, have the privileges of the house been interfered with? The rule under which we operate is a modern rule, not something 100 years old. It is a rule which was established only three or four years ago. Those clearly defined rights are being interfered with, and in that sense action has been taken which is against the privileges of this house.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Solicitor General):: The sole question before the house at the moment, Mr. Speaker, is whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. I respectfully submit that the matter which has been discussed since the opening of the sitting today is not a matter of privilege but rather a matter of the opposition indicating it does not like a practice that has been started in the house. If their view is correct, then it is arguable by them as a matter of confidence
1138	COMMONS
Attendance of Ministers in House which would warrant them taking appropriate action by way of a want of confidence motion at the appropriate time. This is the system of government we have. Whether the non-attendance of certain ministers on certain days is desirable is for the members of parliament, and ultimately for the electorate to decide. It is not right to argue that it is a question of privilege affecting hon. members. It is a matter of the government using the time of its ministers in the most efficient way in the interests of the government and the country.
It is not so many years ago that we had a government, which members of the official opposition should remember or at least read about, which appointed ministers from the other place. Those ministers not only were not in this chamber to answer questions, but were not able to come into this chamber at all.
Hon. members opposite are arguing that the rules should provide what the internal distribution of ministers should be in relation to their duties. With great deference I say that is not our parliamentary system. The Prime Minister may well wish to have certain of his ministers in another part of the country today at some very important national function. If the argument of hon. members prevailed, that would be a breach of the privileges of the house; they could not go. They would have to be here to answer questions. Surely the Prime Minister and the government must have control of the attendance of ministers, and if those ministers do not appear in the chamber of the house when it is thought proper they should, that is a matter for the commons to indicate by way of a lack of confidence motion. It is something which, if it were pursued, would be a matter concerning lack of confidence, and the way to indicate this disapproval would be by a want of confidence motion.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I also want to address myself for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to the argument about rule 39. Rule 39 has no bearing on the question one way or the other. Rule 39 (5) which was quoted by the hon. gentleman was put in at his instigation in order to provide the point of time during our daily proceedings for the asking of oral questions. The rule goes on to provide that if in certain circumstances the answers received are not satisfactory, an hon. member may take action by way of what we now call in the vernacular the late show, the proceedings on the motion for adjournment.

DEBATES	October 15. 1968
That is the effect of rule 39. The significance of the words "at this stage" to be found throughout rule 39 is that it is the point in time at which oral questions may be asked. The rule does not deal with or attempt to designate the individual ministers who will be available in the house to answer questions. Hon. members are still free to put such questions as they wish at any time they wish provided it is at this period in the day.
There is one other question, Mr. Speaker. Surely the efficiency of parliament, its reputation and its acceptance in the country, are not to be improved by the commons seeking to turn itself into an administrative body to manage the internal affairs of the government. Surely the efficiency of parliament is something for which the government must answer. The requirements of our time demand that the government seek to use the time of its ministers to the best advantage of the country and of parliament itself. Using its time to the best advantage of parliament is not, I submit, to demand that the 29 ministers be here during the question hour each day of each week. At a rate of questioning of two questions per month it is neither necessary nor desirable in the interests of the country or in the interests of the government of the country to keep a minister in this chamber during every one of the 23 sitting days we have had so far.
The proposition, Mr. Speaker, with deference to the argument of the opposition, is not only ridiculous on its merits but clearly illustrates that the matter is not one of privilege but one of the internal administration of government, for which of course the government is always answerable to the house and ultimately to the voters.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the government could have avoided all our criticisms today and last week, and those in the newspapers, about the new proposal of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) dealing with the schedule of attendance of ministers in the house. Since that procedure was imposed on us, it has been obvious that the house, except for some government members, is not happy.
In the past, the poor attendance of hon. members in the opposition as well as on the side of the government in office was criticized on various occasions, and today the adoption of a schedule according to which ministers will automatically be absent from the house is deplored. Looking at the revised list given us
October 15, 1968

this morning, I notice that on Monday, 11 out of 29 ministers will be in the house, on Tuesday, there will be 13, on Thursday, 18, and on Friday, 14; an average of 14 ministers for these four days.


An hon. Member:: And Wednesday?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: On Wednesday, all ministers are supposed to be in the house. But last week, we noticed that many ministers whose names were on the list for Wednesday were absent; that is why I say that within a few weeks, when we will be used to this timetable, the average will not be 14 ministers out of 29 in the house, but there will be fewer than 10 of them, so that we will have an average of one minister out of 3 in the house every day. This means a very weak representation of those responsible for the various departments.
Mr. Speaker, in this connection, I should like to quote an article published in the newspaper Dimanche-Matin, of October 13:
The case of the Minister of Transport, Mr. Paul Hellyer, is typical. This minister administers the largest department in the country. Furthermore, he is responsible for the housing policy. To that end, he conducts personally an inquiry across the country.
Half of the questions asked in the house deal with transportation problems or housing problems. At the present time, the minister is unable to sit in the house the three days assigned to him. Several Liberals are quite unhappy with the Prime Minister's decision.
I think that the motion to refer that decision to the committee on procedure should be passed, because had that decision not been taken unilaterally by the right hon. Prime Minister, he might have avoided all the criticisms put forward up to now, or in the future. We would thus have saved the house considerable time to end up probably with the same results, while the committee on procedure will have to decide in the last resort upon a procedure with regard to the attendance of the ministers in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not my desire to limit the contributions to this debate, but I have the impression that I have heard most of the arguments for and against the motion, be they valid, invalid, relevant or irrelevant. However, I am pleased to hear hon. members who feel they may have something new to add to the debate.
Attendance of Ministers in House


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to prolong the discussion of this important question of privilege, but there is one matter that I think has not been brought to Your Honour's attention. It is this. This afternoon, if I heard the right hon. gentleman correctly, the Prime Minister clarified the position of the government inasmuch as he pointed out in his remarks that it was not the intention of the government to have questions directed to certain departments of government on certain sitting days of this house, something which perhaps was not clear before.
Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that this creates a dilemma under our rules. It has always been my understanding in the years I have been in this house that questions on the orders of the day must have two basic qualifications: first, they must be urgent; second, they must be of national importance. '
The schedule that has been distributed by the government house leader to all hon. members of the house indicates that on Mondays and Tuesdays of each week the Minister of Agriculture and his parliamentary secretary will not be present to answer questions. As a result, Mr. Speaker, an anomaly is created. For example, following the rule of urgency, recently a number of questions were asked in the house of the Minister of Agriculture in connection with imports of corn from the United States and their effect on the Canadian market. This, Mr. Speaker, is an urgent matter; the price of corn in this country fluctuates daily and affects the livelihood of many people in Canada.
Last Friday the Minister of Agriculture was asked what remedies were being proposed to meet this problem and the minister replied to the effect that discussions were taking place with the government of the United States of America and that he hoped some recommendations would be ready very soon.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Well, Your Honour, that was last Friday. It is now Tuesday and the Minister of Agriculture is not in the house, nor would he have been in the house yesterday, according to the rota, if we had been sitting. It is true he will be here tomorrow unless, of course, he is prevented by government duties elsewhere.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He will be here later today to deal with his legislation.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: We have seen that other ministers who are supposed to be here do not
October 15, 1968

Attendance of Ministers in House attend. My point is that here is a matter of urgent national importance involving imports of grain. It affects not only corn but other varieties of grain, yet no question can be put to the minister from Friday until the following Wednesday, at least. This situation could lead to a great deal of disturbance and uncertainty in markets affecting the livelihood of Canadian farmers.
Then again, by the time the minister returns, if he is not permitted to answer for a number of days, a great many developments may have taken place and the element of urgency may have gone. Indeed, it might be easier and faster to get an answer by placing a question on the order paper than by raising it in the house.
While I am on my feet there are one or two other items on which I should like to comment, since they were mentioned by the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General pointed out that a few years ago in the days of another government, not of his party, members of the other place took part in the administration and could not, therefore, answer questions in this house. I can only reply that I was a member of this house in 1954 when Hon. Mr. Marler was minister of transport and served in that capacity for a long time before the government of the day was able to find him a seat in this chamber.
The Solicitor General then told us it was not reasonable that 29 ministers should be required to be here every day when they might well be needed to attend to urgent government business elsewhere. No one would suggest that all ministers should be present every day. It was my understanding several years ago when the post of parliamentary secretary was created and, prior to that, when the position of parliamentary assistant was established, that hon. members so designated were appointed for the very purpose of answering questions in this house on behalf of their ministers when their ministers were engaged on business elsewhere. I pass this on for Your Honour's consideration.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: I shall be very brief. If I say this change is unpopular with the opposition I may be right, but the question before Your Honour is not to decide whether it is popular, but whether it is an interference with privilege. If the opposition could point to a rule which says that all ministers shall be present in the house during the question period, then Your Honour might

have some justification for saying that it constitutes an interference with privilege. But there is no such rule.
Nor is there a rule that any minister must answer questions addressed to him. A question may be directed to a minister, but he need not answer it.


Mr. Baldwin:: Don't tell us that.


Mr.   Olfo@: In these two brief comments I have made I believe lie the answers to the motion which is proposed.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), who has just resumed his seat, reminds us that nothing in our rules states that a minister must be in the house. In that case, could the hon. member also point out that no section in the standing orders makes it compulsory for a member to be in the house? A member might be in his office as well as a minister, but that is not the point.
The motion before us wants to refer this matter to the committee on procedure. Now, before this approach was introduced or imposed on us by the new Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) everyone had noticed that all the ministers were not necessarily in the house, but that when a minister was absent, his acting minister or his parliamentary secretary could answer questions.
Now, with the new rule, in the minister's absence, the whole department disappears. If the minister is not in the house but in his office in Ottawa, then his parliamentary secretary or the acting minister has the right to answer. Why do we not follow the same procedure as before? This would not require that all ministers be present at the same time. When a minister had to be away, outside the house, somebody else could answer us. But today, even though the Prime Minister has told us that the rules have not changed, I say that they have. What happens is that there is only one day in the week, on Wednesday, when we can ask questions of any minister. Even if a minister is not in the house, we are allowed to ask him questions, because he is supposed to be present, and in his absence, our questions will be answered by his parliamentary secretary or the acting minister.
But if the minister is absent on a day when he is allowed to be, the acting minister can sit in his place and stay as mute as a fish. Indeed, his parliamentary secretary can also stay as mute as a fish, while holding all the
October 15. 1968

information. That is what we want to change or not change. Very well, let the minister be absent; but let the acting minister or his parliamentary secretary answer the questions of the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, to my mind, the government, which feels that it holds the majority is not acting according to usage. A while ago, the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) said: Let us have a vote of confidence. A majority government can exist for three years but we have no guarantee that the situation will be the same in three years. Furthermore, that pretext must not be used to reply arrogantly to the opposition, for we are the representatives of the people. As members of the opposition, we have the right to put questions to the ministers-whether they are in the house or not-but the questions of the opposition should be answered.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their assistance in connection with the motion proposed by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. I may say it would have been easier for me to have reached a decision nearly an hour ago, but having heard the sound arguments presented by hon. members both in favour of the motion and in opposition to it I am wondering whether it would not be wise for me to give the matter some additional thought and postpone a decision.
I may say that the provisions of citation 104 of Beauchesne, paragraph 5, occurred to me immediately. I read as follows:
As a motion taken at the time for matters of privilege is thereby given precedence over the prearranged program of public business, the Speaker requires to be satisfied, both that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed, and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity.
The question of raising the matter at the first opportunity is defined further in subparagraph 3 of the same citation. The allusion there is to a matter which occurred during a recess; it was refused precedence because it was not raised on the first day of the session. If hon. members study the precedents they will find that Speakers have always enforced this aspect of a motion on a question of privilege rather stringently, and I am somewhat concerned about this procedural aspect in determining whether this motion should be allowed.
Another difficulty I find arises in connection with the motion itself. The motion moved by the hon. member is an essential part of the
Atomic Energy
question of privilege, and I have the impression that perhaps the wording as submitted to the house, inasmuch as the hon. member and those who supported him have suggested that this matter be referred to the special committee on procedure, makes it a substantive motion and therefore subject to the limitations of standing order 41. This is another difficulty with which I am faced.
In any event, if hon. members will allow me I will take the matter under advisement, seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and render a decision.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



ATOMIC ENERGY


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are aware of the close and cordial association that has existed for many years between the national atomic energy agencies of France and of Canada, the Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique, and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. I am pleased to inform the house that this association has now moved a further step forward with the conclusion by the C.E.A. and A.E.C.L. of an agreement to extend the co-operation between them in research and development and in information exchanges relating to water cooled, heavy water moderated nuclear power reactors.
The agreement provides for the exchange of existing technical information in this field and that which will be obtained during the next five years from A.E.C.L. and C.E.A. programs. The parties will also assist each other in the development of nuclear power reactor systems of this type. The exchange does not include full design details of specific nuclear power stations such as the Douglas Point, Pickering and Gentilly nuclear power stations in Canada and the EL-4 power station in France.
The agreement includes the exchange of information of commercial value and, as a consequence, provides a payment by the C.E.A. to A.E.C.L. to balance the agreed difference in value of the initial exchange of technology.
Co-operation between A.E.C.L. and the C.E.A. dates from the second world war, when French, British and Canadian scientists worked together in Canada to launch what evolved into the Canadian atomic energy program. The first heavy water for the early

October 15, 1968
Atomic Energy
Canadian reactor experiments was brought to Canada by French scientists.
Although close scientific ties have been maintained between the two organizations since that time, the extent of technical cooperation was limited primarily because the French had concentrated on the development of the gas-cooled type of nuclear power system, a system that is not in the Canadian program. However, with a growing interest on the part of C.E.A. in the water cooled, heavy water moderated reactor systems, coupled with an extensive C.E.A. development program, particularly in materials research, it became clear that expanded technical cooperation between A.E.C.L. and C.E.A. would be of mutual benefit. Both parties are looking forward to an active program and closer ties involving exchanges of technical personnel as well as information and technical data.
The Canadian nuclear power system-we call it CANDU, short for Canada Deuterium Uranium-has a number of important features, foremost of which is its efficient use of uranium as fuel. For a natural uranium, heavy water reactor of the CANDU type, the fuel cost is far below-by as much as 50 per cent or more-that of reactors of comparable size burning enriched uranium.
Should the price of uranium increase, the fuel cost differential becomes even greater, for the CANDU reactor requires only about one-third as much uranium for its initial charge as does an enriched reactor and from one-half to two-thirds as much fuel in the course of its lifetime.
Another important feature of the natural uranium system is that it does not tie the user to a specific source of fuel, as is the case with enriched uranium reactors where the U.S.A. is the only practical source today for most of the world. Many countries have indigenous supplies of uranium on which they can draw; for others uranium is widely available, at competitive prices, on the world market.
So efficient is the CANDU system that the spent fuel can be simply and safely consigned to storage and treated as waste. However, it does contain a by-product-plutonium-which very definitely is an asset and, when conditions warrant, can be reprocessed and burned as fuel in CANDU reactors, or can be sold if it is more profitable to do so. The fact that the CANDU type of reactor produces a substantial amount of plutonium and can make *efficient use of plutonium on a recycle basis is another attractive feature of the system. In addition, because of the characteristics of heavy water, thorium-another potential
IMr. Greene.]
nuclear fuel-can be economically introduced as uranium resources diminish or become more expensive, thus ensuring adequate energy reserves far into the future.
Competitive electric power costs from the CANDU system, coupled with the very low fuel costs of the natural uranium reactor, the independence of fuel supply through the life of the plant and the flexibility of the fuel cycle which allows efficient burning of not only the initial uranium but later the plutonium produced and eventually the abundant reserves of thorium, have made this system appear attractive to many areas of the world.
A.	E.C.L. has a vigorous international power reactor marketing program under way and prospects of sales in several areas of the world are very promising.
Canada has long been acknowledged as a world leader in the development of heavy water moderated reactors. Other countries, however-notably Britain, the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, Japan and Italy-have embarked on significant heavy water reactor programs. The British have developed for domestic and export use a reactor concept which uses boiling light water as the coolant and slightly enriched uranium as the fuel and has, I understand, a natural uranium fuel version now in the final design stage.
Japan is developing its own heavy water moderated reactor which may, in its final form, be similar to Gentilly, the CANDU/
B.	L.W. station under construction in the province of Quebec.
The Federal Republic of Germany has successfully offered a heavy water moderated, natural uranium fuelled reactor for sale in Argentina and is vigorously trying to market similar units in other countries.
In Italy a concept similar to the Gentilly station is under development, and co-operative programs between Canada and Italy in this specific field are being considered. A.E.C.L. will be bidding next year on a large nuclear station for installation in Italy, using a reactor similar to the Pickering units.
In the light of these developments abroad, I am sure the house will recognize the significance of French interest in the Canadian nuclear power system, and of the agreement to extend appreciably the co-operation between Canada and France in the field of nuclear power. I am therefore taking this first opportunity of making this announcement in the house, this announcement being made at the same moment in France.
October 15. 1968


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement has indicated that an agreement has been made for the exchange of information on atomic energy between France and Canada. Beyond that his statement was a nice lecture on the basics of our nuclear reactor power program, and for the life of me I could not see the purpose of most of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I felt that the minister was trying to build up a case for something, but the action never came. While the announcement itself may be very significant it was not expanded upon in any way by which we could understand what the agreement really is.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In view of our admitted superiority in water cooled, heavy water moderated reactors I am sure there will be a good deal of information passed from Canada to France. Presumably this is a business arrangement, but the statement leaves several things unanswered. First, what information will come from France to Canada in this exchange? France, apparently, has no technology in the field of heavy water moderated reactors. Second, are we in Canada considering a gas cooled type of reactor such as France has developed? The statement would seem to indicate that that is not the case. Third, what is the basis of payment for information we will provide to France? The statement has been made that there will be some adjustment. It seems most difficult to calculate what would be the basis of payment for such an exchange of information. We have sold 20 years of development research in the heavy water reactor field and it would seem to me to be very difficult to calculate a financial return. This is unexplained in the long statement the minister has made. A number of other things have been explained, but they did not go to the real meat of the issue.
Finally, I should like to know whether the government has some real prospect of selling natural uranium heavy water power units to France or is this merely a service to accompany our sales of uranium? To the extent that the exchange may improve our opportunity for sales of nuclear power units and the fuel for them we welcome the statement. If this exchange will assist in the development of peaceful uses for atomic energy it is also a useful step. However, no such objectives were set forth in the statement and we can merely
Atomic Energy
wait for an explanation concerning what exchange of information will develop and what prices will be paid for it.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, what is strange about this ministerial statement is that although it is quite long it does not elaborate or define with any precision the nature of the agreement governing this exchange of information. It would seem that the greater part of the statement was given over to an explanation concerning the ways in which the Canadian nuclear power system is better in terms of cost and cost efficiency than the nuclear power systems of others countries. That would seem to be rather aside from the point in respect of the subject matter of which we are being asked to take note today.
I have two brief comments I should like to make in connection with the substance of this statement. The first is a comment of approval of what is being done. The other is a comment of disapproval. In a general way what the minister has announced today is a welcome development, not only in terms of its prospects with regard to the advancement of scientific knowledge in this field but also perhaps in terms of diplomatic relations between the two countries involved. This might enable both countries, without sacrificing any of the quality or quantity of their science research, to realize savings by avoiding in some way some duplication of effort.
I believe hon. members must bear in mind that over the past decade or more there has been some criticism voiced to the effect that Canada has been spending a disproportionate amount of time, effort and money on research in high energy physics. Any step we can take, without sacrificing the quality of this research, to minimize or reduce expenditures in this field should be welcomed.
The second element of the statement on which I wish to comment has to do with the reference to the fact that some monetary consideration is involved. There is a provision in the agreement for a payment by the atomic energy authority in France to our atomic energy commission. In this connection I should like to say that the fact that up until now there has been a non-availability of information relative to cost or financing as between Canada and other countries is a matter of regret. I noticed a few days ago that one of the metropolitan newspapers in this country commented editorially on the fact that members of this house were refused

October 15, 1968
Atomic Energy
information concerning the financial transaction involved in the sale of plutonium by Canada to France. In a like manner, when there is to be an agreement for the exchange of technical scientific information with an accompanying financial transaction, apparently we are not to receive any information concerning how much is involved.
I wish to take this opportunity to say that this is an undesirable development in respect of which the battle will have to be joined some time soon. The government can have no excuse, unless security or the defence of the state is involved, for withholding mundane information like the amount of money that is to change hands.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement is causing confusion rather than making matters clear.
First, he says, towards the end of his statement:
In the light of these developments abroad, I am sure the house will recognize the significance of French interest in the Canadian nuclear power system, and of the agreement to extend appreciably the co-operation between Canada and France in the field of nuclear power.
As the spokesman for the official opposition party pointed out a while ago, what do we get from France in return for the information we are giving her on atomic energy?
At the outset of his statement the minister states and I quote:
The first heavy water for the early Canadian reactor experiments was brought to Canada by French scientists.
The fact remains that France never used such a method and the statement says that the French had primarily concentrated on the development of the gas-cooled type system, which costs twice as much as the Canadian cooling system. In fact, it says here:
-a system that is not in the Canadian program.
-as regards the French system.
Then instead of reading us a five-page document to tell us that there are unilateral exchanges, that we are going to supply information being unaware of what we will receive, the minister should consult his experts and tell us what France is offering us in return for what we have to offer her. We are going to help her. Mind you, I have no objection to helping France, far from it-however, we ought to know what we will get in return. Can French technicians supply us with better information than that we have had up to now, in Canada, in the electronuclear field, or

shall we simply be satisfied to supply information, even if we get nothing in return. It would be advisable, in my opinion, for the minister to consult his experts, as I said earlier, and to make a clearer, more specific, more intelligible statement for the benefit of the house. Mr. Speaker, rhetorical statements, are all very well, but they do not help to get things done.
If there are any exchanges, what are they?
I think that Canada has the right to know.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)



HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey) moved: the first reading of Bill No. C-118, concerning the labelling of hazardous household products.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is simply to require the labelling of hazardous products, particularly detergents, as being potentially dangerous to the health of those who may accidentally ingest or inhale them, notably children and housewives.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL TRADE MARK AND TRUE LABELLING ACT


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich) moved: the first reading of Bill No. C-119, to amend the National Trade Mark and True Labelling Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require garment manufacturers to clearly label their products with the true fibre content. This is important for two reasons, first, in respect of dry cleaning. Unless garments are properly marked dry cleaners do not know how they should be handled having regard to fibre content. The second reason is inflammability. It is a scandal that in Canada children's garments are being sold which are inflammable when there is no indication of this on the labels.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
October 15, 1968



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


George James McIlraith: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway to make capital expenditures including investment in securities of affiliated companies in the calendar year 1968 not exceeding in the aggregate $264,400,000, to make capital expenditures in the first six months of the calendar year 1969 not exceeding in the aggregate $75,000,000 for discharging obligations incurred prior to the 1st day of January, 1969, to enter into contracts prior to the 1st day of July, 1969, for equipment, additions and conversions requiring payments after the calendar year 1968 not exceeding $90,000,000, to borrow either from Her Majesty or by means of issues of securities guaranteed by Her Majesty an amount not exceeding $75,000,000 for investing in securities of Air Canada and a further amount not exceeding $16,000,000 for construction of branch lines; to authorize Her Majesty to make loans directly to Air Canada or to guarantee issues of securities of Air Canada not exceeding $130,000,000 for discharging obligations of the airline that become due and payable prior to the 1st day of July 1969; to authorize Her Majesty to continue to purchase until December 31st, 1969, Canadian National Railway Company 4 per cent preferred stock in an annual amount not exceeding 3 per cent of the gross revenues of the company: to extend until December 31, 1969, the moratorium on interest on the loan of $100,000,000 to the company authorized by the Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act of 1952; to authorize Her Majesty to make loans to the Canadian National Railway Company and Air Canada to meet deficiencies in operating revenues to June 30, 1969, any such loans to be repaid from revenues of the railway company and Air Canada or, if revenues prove insufficient, by subsequent deficit appropriation by Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


George James McIlraith: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act so as to enable Canada to participate in a new arrangement in the International Monetary Fund to create new reserve assets that would supplement gold and reserve currencies in the participating countries foreign exchange reserves and would effect certain administrative and operational changes
Inquiries of the Ministry in the existing structure of the fund; and to permit the exchange fund account to receive, hold and sell the new reserve assets.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in order to clarify a number of urgent matters of national importance surrounding the Roberts Bank port development, is the Prime Minister in a position today to tell the house in what respects of this development the federal government proposes to exercise jurisdiction and what respects it proposes to leave to provincial control?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, this is an area of joint jurisdiction, as the hon. member has suggested. We propose to exercise jurisdiction in all areas coming under federal jurisdiction and leave to provincial control those matters under provincial jurisdiction.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister or the Minister of Transport prepared to make a full statement this week indicating where the government of Canada proposes to exercise jurisdiction? In particular, could the Prime Minister or the responsible minister indicate whether the government of Canada has agreed with the province of British Columbia that the province shall have jurisdiction over the proposed railway link from the port to existing railways under federal jurisdiction and, if so, what assurance has the government of Canada received from the provincial government in respect of access to this port over a provincially controlled railway? This is of obvious national concern.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure the Minister of Transport is prepared to consider making a statement in this regard on a day he is in the house.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government, when considering the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, will also take into consideration that under section 92(10)(c) of the British North America Act there is provision for federal intervention in this field?
October IS, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry
TRADE	HEALTH AND WELFARE



WHEAT-NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING SALES TO CHINA AND RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. If some incident has come to light which would indicate this is not the case and the Leader of the Opposition would point it out, I would look into it right away.']
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport will the Prime Minister tell the house when negotiations will commence in regard to sales of wheat to China and Russia?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be in the house on one of the following days.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Will the Prime Minister also ask the minister to make a statement on motions as to the outcome of the recent deliberations of the international wheat council in regard to maintenance of minimum prices under the international grains arrangement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would prefer to let the hon. member ask the minister.



[Stage Direction]
NIGERIA-SALE OF ARMS BY GREAT BRITAIN On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he tell us whether his government has made representations to Great Britain asking her to stop its sales of offensive weapons to the federal Nigerian troops?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister answered the same question the other day.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Has the minister protested to Russia against the sale of offensive weapons to Nigerian troops?
[English}


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this question was also answered by the Prime Minister.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, what action does the Minister of National Health and Welfare plan to improve drug dispensing to Indians, in view of the very inadequate knowledge exhibited by these people on a television program last Sunday night?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as I
indicated in a statement I made earlier in the house, this whole program is under review. More resources are being made available for the dispensing of drugs to Indians, and we hope the situation will improve in the future.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, does the minister have cause now to reflect on the assurance he gave in the house on October 2 that lay dispensers are operating only under the effective direction of qualified nurses with whom they can be in easy communication?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition will check my statement I am sure he will realize I did not say that. I did say that lay dispensers were to be ministers' wives, certain Indians, and school teachers as well as nurses. That was clearly my statement. I also indicated that in some of these isolated communities where there are very few people the quality of these services being provided to Indians are not even made available to white communities, in similar circumstances, so there can be no suggestion of discrimination. I might add that the services in this regard are often superior to those offered other people in some communities.
We are looking into the allegation on Sunday night to the effect that there were lay dispensers who could not even read, to which I believe the Leader of the Opposition has referred. The dispensing program has been going on for about 50 years and in the overall picture it is working out very well.


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mouniain):: Mr. Speaker, in order to arrest the deaths and suffering now occurring will the minister introduce special emergency measures to improve the lay dispensers program while this review is in progress?


John Carr Munro: We are both extending and improving this program at the same time.
Ociober 15, 1968


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A few minutes ago I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he had cause to retract the assurance he gave the house on October 2 that lay dispensers were operating as qualified nurses. He suggested to the house he had said something different. I direct the minister's attention to the following sentence on page 693 of Hansard, and I relate my question to it:
The dispensers are trained to give first aid and may dispense simple drugs only on the directions of the nurses in the area with whom they get in contact by telephone to have prescriptions given. If the case is serious the nurse has the patient sent in to the nearest nursing station.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition. I thought he was referring to the lay dispensers themselves being registered nurses.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister now state whether he has cause to retract this statement?


John Carr Munro: I have no cause to retract because I do not know to what incident the Leader of the Opposition is referring. If he is saying that lay dispensers have dispensed drugs without such direction, I wish he would cite a specific instance and I will look into it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister gave an assurance to the house on October 2. Is he standing by that assurance?


John Carr Munro: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. If some incident has come to light which would indicate this is not the case and the Leader of the Opposition would point it out, I would look into it right away.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence, in the ministerial charade, of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the very serious situation on the prairies, brought about as a result of climatic conditions, is an investigation or assessment by the Department of Agriculture or other departments now taking place to ascertain what action can be taken in order to assist the western farmers in a situation that has assumed almost catastrophic proportions?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Agriculture would be delighted to answer this question when he is in the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is here, and my question covered two departments. I ask the Prime Minister, is he not in a position to let the house know something about this question, in the absence of the two ministers? Surely parliament is entitled to a better attempt at an answer than that. I say with great respect to the Prime Minister that he is playing with parliament by answering in this way.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will make an attempt at a better answer, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. gentleman asked a question about what was happening in the Department of Agriculture.


John George Diefenbaker: And in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I am sure the right hon. gentleman knows there are two ministers who know what is going on in those departments better than I do.


John George Diefenbaker: If that is the best answer the Prime Minister can give, it shows the wrongness of what he has done.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Everyone knows-and he must, too-that two important conventions took place in the province of Quebec last week-end: that which saw the creation of a new provincial political party and that of the Ralliement Creditiste.
Since the C.B.C. gave twice as much broadcast time to those who want to destroy Canada than to those who want to build it up and unite it, could the Prime Minister tell us whether he will order an investigation to find out the reason for this behaviour on the part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I am not responsible for C.B.C. programming and the powers of the minister responsible for

October 15, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry this crown corporation are limited as concerns his intervention in matters of programming. I am convinced the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) will be glad to read the member's representation in Hansard and to make report, if he deems it advisable.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the minister-designate for communications. Will he advise whether officials of the Canadian government are now in Paris holding discussions with French government officials on the question of Franco-Canadian co-operation in space and satellite telecommunications research? If so, can he indicate the specific area to which the discussions are being directed?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, there is a mission, including some members of the department of communications, which is exploring sources of supply for the buying of the various components needed for the construction of satellites. We are exploring all possible markets and at the present time are concentrating on the European market.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question seeks information. How has the government cut down on private and official exchanges of a political nature with Warsaw pact countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have made a couple of statements on this question. I am not quite sure whether some of them were made in the house, but I have made them freely available to organizations.


Mr. Fairweather:: Could the minister mention them to the members of parliament?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yesterday and on Sunday in Winnipeg I spoke about this subject particularly, but I do not know whether Your


Honour would want me at this time to make a general statement on the question. It would take me more than a couple of minutes. Perhaps I might make a statement on motions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister will make a statement to the house on these matters, and when he does he might reveal to the house the means by which the government of Canada proposes to discourage private exchanges between groups in Canada and groups in Warsaw pact countries.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, now that I have been asked a question in the house I shall be very happy to make a statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the minister to do this?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mitchell William Sharp: Not now, Mr. Speaker, but tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is not unanimous agreement.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation regulating the sale of harmful substances such as glue for model aeroplanes, which caused an unfortunate death in Ottawa recently?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, legislation of this nature will be introduced. We will decide at that time whether this type of product should be placed within the ambit of the legislation. I would like to point out that perhaps this is one area in which legislation is not the over-all cure. Not only glue sniffing but, as has been indicated, fingernail polish, gasoline and cleaning fluids as well, are involved in this question. There are several products in this area where the government must consider whether legislation is an appropriate remedy.
October IS, 1968


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Solicitor General. In view of the growing incidence of glue sniffing and its serious effects, will he introduce amendments to the Criminal Code making glue sniffing an unlawful act subject to control by law enforcement agencies?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. gentleman's suggestion under consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General which is supplementary to the questions asked earlier today regarding matters affecting juveniles, questions having to do with glue sniffing, and so on. Is the government considering the introduction at this session of legislation along the lines of a juvenile act similar to the draft that was presented to us in the last session by the minister's predecessor, the hon. Mr. Pennell?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, new legislation is in the course of preparation, though I do not think the bill will be called the juvenile act; at least, I do not expect it will. Owing to the amount of business before the house I doubt very much that we will be able to receive it at this session. The matter is progressing quite well.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It arises from an answer given previously in the house and the fact that today, October 15, is the deadline for Canada to join the European fighter aircraft consortium. Will the Minister of National Defence say what decision has been made by the government in this respect?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: There is no decision yet, Mr. Speaker. The extension to October 15 has been further extended to November 1.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister expect to make a statement in this regard in the house prior to November 1?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I expect so, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



NIGERIA-TERMS OF REFERENCE OF OBSERVER TEAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: .Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the suggestion made in the most recent report of the observers' team in Nigeria that the organization of their operation leaves something to be desired in respect of the efficacy of the operation, will the government give consideration to changing the terms of reference of the observer team?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I read this morning the report of the visit of the observers team to the third Nigerian marine commando division. As soon as I read the remarks in which the observers themselves suggested that their operation should be extended in this way I gave instructions that we should send a message to the Nigerian government supporting the suggestion and saying that we were ready to supply additional observers.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Since Bill No. C-116 will have a direct effect on the distribution of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald and its 33,000 readers who receive their paper by mail each day, will the minister postpone second reading of the bill until this Canadian newspaper and others drastically affected have an opportunity to present their case?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the question although its basis is perhaps not correct. I understand that a number of hon. members have made similar representations. I do not think the basis of the question is in order but in any event I will allow the minister to reply.


Eric William Kierans: No, Mr. Speaker. As soon as the matter can be brought before the house I would welcome a debate. At the present time, of course, newspapers across the country are greatly exercised by the increases proposed for second class mail. I might remind hon. members that
October 15, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry our present subsidy to newspaper publishers amounts to approximately $37 million. Some weeks ago when the Post Office Department announced that it had every intention of trying to bring its budget into balance we were happy to receive the almost universal editorial approval of the newspapers across the country. Now apparently the question is, who pays for it? Me?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question. Would the minister review his decision not to have this bill sent to a committee, so that thousands of people all over Canada who want to express their dissent will have a forum in which to do so?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, they will have the forum in this house. I think all the briefs that have been presented have also been presented to previous governments. Everyone wants to see the government and the Post Office Department reduce their deficits, but it is also true that everyone wants everybody else to be the victim of any such measures rather than themselves.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-Easi Richmond):: I have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General concerning his reference to the $37 million deficit. What portion of that sum is made up by so-called Canadian editions of U.S. magazines?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think this is a point of debate.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question to the Postmaster General. Can he say whether representations have been made to him objecting to the five day delivery rather than to the increase in rates?


Eric William Kierans: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal caucus has formed a group of 35 people who are studying this matter, not just protesting against it, and I am having meetings with them and listening to arguments, not to emotion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Why not send it to a house committee?


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary and unemotional question. Will the minister say what plans he has to see that daily newspapers are received by people six days of the week?


Eric William Kierans: I think I would be prepared to answer that after two or three more discussions with members of the Liberal caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Barry Mather: I have a supplementary question. Would the minister give consideration to exempting from the increases on second class profit oriented mail those publications which are not profit oriented, such as educational newspapers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind hon. members that we are now discussing a matter which is on the order paper and is already before the house. It is certainly irregular to be spending the time of the house in asking questions of the minister about a legislative proposal which is before the house and which I assume, will in due course come before hon. members for study and consideration. It seems to me that that would be the normal time to submit representations to the minister.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister arising out of the answers given by the Postmaster General. In the light of these answers could he indicate of what value parliament is?


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer of the Postmaster General, which was most interesting and illuminating, certainly members of this house will carry on an unemotional debate on a bill which will affect most people in Canada rather severely if it goes through unamended. My original intention was to put a question to the Postmaster General but since you, Mr. Speaker, will not allow any more supplementary questions I rise on a point of order to say to the Postmaster General that if the house is to continue an unemotional debate on the bill and if the Postmaster General will be absent from the house on the two or three days when he is not scheduled to be here in the question period so as to enable him to meet with the Liberal caucus, could he also take into his confidence in an unemotional way some hon. members on this side who will be debating the merits of this bill and present to the house some of the surveys and reports from his officials which have gone into his decisions in drafting the bill he has presented to the house? This would certainly make for a
October 15. 1968

more logical, unemotional and rational debate on legislation which is pretty drastic.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I was trying to make my point on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made his point but I doubt that it was a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I appreciate the limits of a point of order. My question is directed to the Postmaster General. In order to provide as much information as possible on this rather drastic bill, could he table the reports or the surveys of his department which were partly the basis of the bill?


Eric William Kierans: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Last Friday we prepared a series of financial statements and supporting documents which I hope will be ready for distribution to all members of this house no later than Thursday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the Postmaster General's recognition of the desirability of this bill being studied by a selected group of members of this house, does he not feel that that group should include members of all parties and should it not therefore go to a standing committee of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric William Kierans: I referred to a particular initiative on the part of some members of the Liberal caucus. I would be quite glad to be invited to any other group or caucus in this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
there not such a thing as parliament around here?


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
A while ago a member asked the honourable minister whether or not he had received complaints from the public or from some groups in connection with the bill he intends to introduce in the house.
I also received a telegram today which is quite interesting from the Quebec newspaper Le Soleil. May I ask him whether or not he has received a copy of same and, if so, whether or not he considers it to be a complaint.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked by the hon. member for Lotbiniere indicates that perhaps I was right in my fears about the question as it was posed originally.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I will be a little less emotional in my supplementary question than was the Postmaster General. When can we expect a statement emanating from the discussions being held presently among the 35 Liberal members? I am receiving quite a number of telegrams from people who are anxious to hear a statement resulting from the deliberations of the Liberal members. When can we expect the statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The question of the hon. member is not in order but I will hear him on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact that I am receiving quite a number of requests I wish to ask the Postmaster General when we can expect a statement resulting from the deliberations taking place right now?


Mr. Speaker:: That was the question the hon. member asked in the first instance.


Donald MacInnis: Since the Postmaster General expressed a willingness to meet with any hon. members who represent constituencies faced with post office problems, and since a number of members have expressed an interest in this offer, will the minister make himself available at five o'clock in my office and, if not, when?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. Recalling his willingness to take a second look I ask him whether, upon reflecting that the rights of parliament transcend the rights of any party, he will not agree that the standing committee might be a more suitable and appropriate forum to discuss Bill No. C-116 than the committee of the whole house?
1152	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



BIAFRA-ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to change this most interesting area of questioning but I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of the minister's repeated statements that Canada will not interfere or comment on the political aspects of the Nigeria-Biafra war, will the minister tell the house if his remarks on the nature of the Biafran information services on the C.B.C. news last night reflect a change in his public position or in the government's policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I was simply referring to what is well known; that is, that the information services of the Biafran authorities are extremely well organized.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Can he tell us if he will soon hold talks with	the	Quebec	Minister	of	Natural
Resources about the management of Indian affairs in Quebec? Can he tell us also if the transfer of certain powers to Quebec will be discussed?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to meet immediately with	the	Quebec	Minister	of	Natural
Resources because he has not asked to meet me, but should he want to do so, I would be most happy to discuss with him all aspects of Indian affairs in the province of Quebec.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Can the hon.

DEBATES	October IS, 1968
gentleman advise whether pay increases for the Canadian armed forces will be announced before the budget next week and, if not, when?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the increases will not be announced before the budget. I expect that we might have an announcement some time in the course of the next three or four weeks. It should be emphasized, however, that whenever the announcement is made the increases will be retroactive to October 1.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence supplementary to the one he answered a few minutes ago in relation to the statement he would make concerning service pay. Will this statement also include a statement with regard to a possible increase in the service pensions of retired military personnel who retired when rates of pay were much lower than they are at present, with special consideration for those in the lower ranks?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: First of all, I must say I did not undertake to make a statement. I said that the pay increases would be announced. I undertook to make a statement about the multi-role aircraft. It is not expected we are going to study at the same time both the pensions and the pay increases. What we are trying to do is to adjust the salaries of service personnel and also to do some catching up.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He was here a few minutes ago and I took it for granted this was his day in the house. However, perhaps one of the other ministers will take the question as notice. Has the minister had any discussions with the government of Manitoba concerning the Pembina river development recommended by the International Joint Commission in its submission to the governments of Canada and the United States?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
October 15, 1968



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In the review of the various social security and allowance programs which the government is carrying out, will the principle be adopted of basing federal pensions and allowances on the actual cost of living?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member would not agree that the question as asked is very wide in scope and should not be asked in those terms at this time.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the plans being made relating to consultations in connection with the Indian Act, would the Prime Minister make arrangements to ensure the organization of the appropriate standing committee of the house on Indian affairs and northern development and, particularly, would he use his good offices to see that a draft of the proposed amendments to the Indian Act is placed before the committee for consideration so that the committee could give full consideration to the members of the house participating in these consultations?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take that up with the house leader.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the government any plans to do the necessary research so an estimate can be made of the damage being done to great lakes fisheries by pollution?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, we have some information in the Department of Fisheries and more is being collected in co-operation with other departments of the federal government.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Percy Verner Noble: May I ask a supplementary question? When can we expect a report to the house on this matter? It is assuming quite serious proportions.


John (Jack) Davis: Soon, I hope, Mr. Speaker.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the statement made by him in Yellowknife recently, can he tell the house whether the government has now changed its policy and abandoned the idea of tabling a white paper on the development of responsible government for the Yukon and Northwest Territories?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, during my visit to Yellowknife, after discussing with members of the Territories council, I told them that it might not be necessary to prepare a White Paper on the constitutional future of the Northwest Territories. I have not discussed the same problem concerning the Yukon Territory, and I intend to meet the Yukon Territorial council during the week end to find out about their particular problem.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask a supplementary question? Is it, then, government policy that the idea of the white paper has been abandoned?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: My supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the communication he has received from members or a member of the Yukon legislative council with regard to participation of the elected representatives in the federal-provincial conference, can he say whether or not government policy will allow such representation at the forthcoming conference?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the minister just indicated there would be a white paper on this matter.
October 15, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry DRUGS



PROTECTION AGAINST COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS-CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouih-Halifax
East): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he can enlighten the house further on the replies he gave two or three weeks ago about the existence of counterfeit drugs on the Canadian market? Can he say whether or not they have been all located and collected so that these drugs are no longer available to the public? Has the food and drug directorate taken any action with regard to laying charges in this connection?
John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I
advised earlier, the department is satisfied that there are no more counterfeit drugs on the market available to the Canadian public. In so far as any charges are concerned, these are under investigation now. However, no conclusions have been reached on whether there is sufficient evidence for laying charges.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, perhaps my question can be taken as notice. Will the government reconsider its decision to extend $20 million in aid to a company known as Melville Pulp and Paper Company, inasmuch as this company is owned principally by a fugitive from United States justice?


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be
placed on the order paper.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, related to the minister's statement last Thursday to the national parks conference at Calgary to the effect that the government has set a goal of 40 to 60 new national parks by 1985. Can the minister indicate whether the second national park for Saskatchewan, which was promised by his

predecessor on April 22, 1965, will be developed at an early date?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot ask the question in this way since it relates to a statement made outside the house. I must recognize that when the hon. member for Yukon asked a question that perhaps was not in order I was a bit late in rising to the occasion to remind him that the question as asked was not in order. I have to remind the hon. member that the only way this type of question can be asked is by posing it to the Prime Minister and asking whether the statement made outside the house represents government policy.



FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, October 10, 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.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-lll, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act. When the committee rose on Thursday, October 10, clause 2 was under consideration. Shall clause 2 carry?
On clause 2-


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, we could not let clause 2 of Bill No. C-lll go through without saying what we really think about that clause which we consider as the most important.
I do not need, at this point, to dwell on the importance of agriculture in Canada, in the province of Quebec or in eastern Canada. That would be unnecessary, since all members are well aware of that.
Consideration of Bill No. C-lll leads us to discuss the importance of the financing of agriculture in Canada. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Finance, (Mr. Benson) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), with the first bill he introduces in this house, ask us to increase the maximum rate of interest from 5 per cent to a level which they cannot disclose. The Minister of Agriculture told us the other day in this house that he did not know this interest rate, but that this would be the normal interest rate on the market.
October 15, 1968	COMMONS
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, if this clause is passed and the interest rate on farm loans is left to the whim of financiers or chartered banks, we will not be able to support it. We are sorry to see the difficulties facing our Canadian farmers and, at the same time, to see that the first legislation dealing with farmers is intended to abolish the present interest rate in such a way that it may double within two years. That is why it was impossible for us to swallow the whole without saying a word.
However, the hon. Minister of Agriculture tells us that if the 5 per cent maximum interest rate on farm loans is not raised, financial sources will be all the more restricted and the financiers will refuse to lend any money at all. Even though the income of Canadian farmers has been decreasing for several years, they have not stopped feeding the Canadian people. However, financiers refuse to put money at the disposal of Canadian agriculture. It is strange to realize that, during the farmers' march on the hill last year, as well as during the marches on Quebec and other provincial legislatures, the hon. Minister of Agriculture was able to say no to the farmers when they asked for new subsidies or for the increase of subsidies to the dairy industry, for example. We are able to say no to the Canadian farmers when it is a question of selling their products with a reasonable profit. But when it comes to financing agriculture or to say no to those who have provided farmers or other professional groups, with money, we have not yet learned to do so.
It is unfortunate to note that our governments, whatever they may be are on hands and knees before the farmers on the eve of an election to beg for votes, but the following day or 3 or 4 months later, they already have both hands in the farmers' pockets to take their money away and repay financiers for their contributions to the election fund during the last six months. It is distasteful for me today to have to blame our Minister of Agriculture.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In my opinion, the present minister of Agriculture has more knowledge than any other of his predecessors, in the fields of both agriculture and financial administration. We find it hard to believe that today he should be forced to introduce a bill to abolish the 5 per cent interest rate, when he knows of other solutions. I shall be pleased to suggest a few solutions in a moment or two.
DEBATES	H55
Farm, Improvement Loans Act
Why increase the interest rate for our farmers? Are past and present lenders bankrupt or short on profits? Before increasing the revenue of those who lend to farmers, we should really establish who makes profits and who does not.
When we see the relevant figures, we realize that past or present lenders are not those who had to suffer from a reduction of their interest rate. On the contrary, it is the farmers' margin of profits which decreases constantly, whereas that of finance companies and banks keeps rising. But instead of being discouraged, the finance companies and the banks are encouraged, while farmers are not.
If we consider the effects of a loan for example of $25,000, at an interest rate of 5 per cent for 30 years, it represents a total interest cost of $15,315. On the other hand, if we examine Bill No. C-lll, where the future rate of interest for farming investments is not indicated, we can easily assume that the rate of interest will before long be set at least at 9 per cent on $25,000 for a 30 year period, which means a total of $27,565.50 for the interest alone. Therefore, the surplus of interest which farmers will have to pay on a farming investment of $25,000 in six months or a year, according to the loan which they will have been granted, will be exactly $12,250.50, as compared with what they previously paid on a farming loan of $25,000 for a 25 year period.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that is $12,250 more in interest only on his investments. According to the newspaper La Terre de chez nous for the month of June, a farmer, with agricultural investments of $25,000 a year, does not net a profit of more than $450 a year; that is the return on his work and his investments. He makes a salary of $450 on investments of $25,000; and now we are on the point of asking him $600 to $700 more in interest each year.
Mr. Chairman, that is why we cannot support this bill, because we have our say in the matter of interest rates. When the rate of interest is being discussed in this house, we are discussing something which falls within our responsibility.
At this point, I wish to refer to three official documents of the House of Commons, in support of my argument.
First, in the famous B.N.A. Act of 1867, which is considered to be the charter of the Canadian Constitution, in connection with the distribution of powers between the federal
October 15, 1968

at the present time, the total amount paid up by shareholders reached $293 million. However, with a $6 million increase of the paid-up capital they had capital gains. The assets increased, in a period of ten months, by more than $3 billion, while the subscribed capital was more than $6 million.
Mr. Chairman, I say all this to prove that today finance companies and banks particularly cannot claim that they do not make profits. It is strange however that the cost of living should increase in the same proportion as banks pile up benefits.
On page 312 of the book entitled Le Canada au XXe siecle, there is a passage dealing with Alberta, home province of the honourable Minister of Agriculture, and it is stated that the government of that province reduced the rate on its bonds in order to pay off its provincial indebtedness. I quote:
Alberta reduced the rate of interest on its bonds from 7 per cent to 3 per cent and the Alberta government is now clear of any debt.
In order to pay its debts, the Alberta government has lowered the rate on its bonds, whereas in Ottawa we are about to increase the rate of the bonds and of the interest on farm loans. The situation has been more acute since October 30, 1967. The total bank assets exceed $31 billion. The total public deposits amount to $21,226 million with the chartered banks, but there is only $350 million in coinage and $2,850 million in banknotes. That makes a total of about $3,400 million in money visible to the naked eye, palpable and transportable, made of metal or paper, however deposits in the banks were still over $21 billion. Therefore-and the Minister of Agriculture knows the answer-where does the difference of $18 billion come from? This is the big question the people have been asking themselves for a long time. If, at the present time, there is only $3 billion in circulation, in Canada coinage and paper money, can we say who created the other $18 billion which are deposited in the banks? That question was already asked in the committee on finance, trade and commerce and economic matters by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) on February 6, 1967 and it appears on page 3012 of the proceedings of the committee. The question was put to the then Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), and here is his answer:


Mitchell William Sharp: The system used to create credit is well known. Banks grant loans; the money is deposited in banks and becomes part of the money supply. This is a way to create it. This is a widely
Farm Improvement Loans Act
known method. I think this is one of the methods assailed by the Social Credit members who call it not very natural.
So, Mr. Chairman, even with low investments, the banks can, thanks to the reserve they are bound by law to keep-which is 6% nowadays-with $6 in hand, grant loans up to $100.
I have here another article which was published in the Montreal Gazette of September 30, 1958, which the Minister of Agriculture will surely find well thought out, and I quote:

Why Does the Government Borrow Private Money?
Sir-Why have all three of the major political parties remained completely silent on what is by far the most important economic problem facing Canada today? I refer to the private control of the nation's money system.
The constitution already gives to the federal government complete authority to use the Bank of Canada to issue interest-free loans for public projects and for housing. Instead of doing so, the government allows the private banks to create about 95 per cent of our entire money supply and to lend it out at interest, for their own profit, regardless of the primary needs of the people. Even the government itself goes hand in hand to borrow from the private money lenders.
The government's incredibly stupid and utterly needless practice of borrowing Canadian money, at interest, means that the taxpayers are saddled with the burden of paying about $1,500 millions in interest, each year, for which they receive virtually nothing whatever in return. This payment of huge amounts of unearned interest, which represents no corresponding new production, is a major cause of the present inflation and is largely responsible for our excessive taxes.
The problems of inflation, excessive taxation, unemployment and exorbitant cost of housing will be solved when the federal government decies to use the Bank of Canada to issue interest-free loans for a construction program of needed public projects, also for housing (up to an available standard), just sufficient to provide and maintain full employment opportunities for all who desire to work and earn.
Let the money lenders get their profits by investing in private productive enterprise, instead of in public projects and housing which should be made available to the people at the actual cost of construction (labour and materials).
Can any person, anywhere, suggest even one good reason why the government should continue to borrow Canadian money, at interest? The people of Canada are being made the victims of the worst racket the world has ever known, the bankers' private money monopoly. What is Prime Minister Trudeau going to do about it?

Mr. Chairman, it is all very well to speak of a just society, but when we consider Bill C-lll and particularly clause 2 of that bill, we cannot see how we can possibly establish
Oclober 15, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act a just society and allow the financiers to increase or double their profits when they already have a very good profit margin.
If it had been proved to us that the banks really show a deficit or are moving towards one, that they make no profits and have reason to complain of their existing interest rate, we would perhaps be more understanding and amenable. However, nothing of the sort has been proved.
On the other hand, in view of the very small profits of the farmers, of the existing situation in our rural regions and of the difficulties which they have to face with regard to obtaining a farm loan, it is obvious that our farmers cannot stay on their farms.
Last night, I received in my office a farmer who wanted to get a farm loan. He asked me where to apply, and so on, and he is solvent. But when I told him that, if the bill passed, the interest rate might be-the hon. minister does not know and I do not know either-8 or 9 per cent, according to the whims of the bankers and money handlers, he did not feel encouraged to buy the land he wanted.
In view of these considerations and because it has not been proved to us that those who lend money have to face financial difficulties, the hon. minister would have three solutions.
First of all, maintain the present interest rate on farm loans. Secondly, take from the consolidated revenue fund the surplus interest demanded by finance companies or banks. Thirdly, the most logical solution would be for the Minister of Finance to allow a Bank of Canada loan-as is done in other countries-without interest, to the Farm Credit Corporation.
If, tomorrow morning, the Bank of Canada were to grant a loan of about $9 billion to the Farm Credit Corporation as mentioned in Bill No. C-lll, and if that loan were granted without interest, we would stop talking in this house about interest rate increases to the farmers. We would also stop talking about the rising cost of living, and our farmers could keep on being real farmers and stay on their farms.
Therefore, since no solution is offered except an increase in the interest rate, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), that in subparagraph (e) of clause 2 be added after the words "by the terms thereof" the following words:
"That the rate of interest charged by the bank on the loan did not exceed 5 per cent per annum simple interest;"


Mr. Chairman, this would simply mean that the farm loan would be left as it was in the past pending a more serious study of the farm problem by the Minister of Agriculture. In the meantime, the honourable minister should consider two other suggestions which I made. As for the latter, I think that he understands me and there is no need for me to explain it to him.
Let the Bank of Canada grant to the Farm Credit Corporation an interest free loan and then our farmers will be happier. I think that the hon. Minister of Agriculture would also be happier and a better Minister of Agriculture.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to advise the hon. member that there would be no purpose in bringing in this act for amendment at all if we were to accept his amendment because the rate of interest was 5 per cent up until the end of June, 1968, but several months before that the banks had stopped making loans to farmers at that rate of interest. The whole purpose of bringing in these amendments is to make adjustments so that the banks and other financial institutions will in fact lend their money to the farmers at a government guaranteed rate something below the going commercial rate at the present time. For that reason, therefore, we could not accept this amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, we believe that the amendment is in order. This goes without saying, since we believe that now is the time to give farmers the opportunity to make profits rather than always give the chance to bankers.
I would like to make a remark to the minister and that is why I am pleased to second the motion of the member for Shefford.
We know for a fact that the six biggest banks in Canada have made greater profits in the last six months ended on April 30, 1968 than ever before in their history and the minister asks us permission to beg that high finance, which grows at the expense of the little people, to condescend to make excessive profits at the expense of small farmers. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we find that a 5 per cent interest rate would be a mitigated solution, between the excessive rate he wants
October 15, 1968
commons
to give to chartered banks and a 3 per cent interest rate, as proposed by the Creditiste program, which the minister keeps refusing.
We feel that our mitigated amendment should be acceptable to the members of the opposition and the government.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Chairman, we are going around in a vicious circle. An attempt is being made to increase the interest rate so that money lenders can make added profits.
Farmers are asking for more reasonable prices for their produce. In those circumstances, and since the trade is unable to meet our legitimate requests, we turn to the government which seldom meets those requests.
Last year, I came with all the other farmers to ask the then Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) and the government for more reasonable prices, especially in the dairy industry. We spent the day negotiating, trying to convince the authorities of the merits of our requests. We went to them at 7 o'clock that night to get the promise that the government would continue to study the matter and that, later on, a longterm legislative measure would be introduced to comply with the legitimate requests of manufacturing and fluid milk producers. We have been waiting ever since. The situation has not improved or barely. Although a higher price was guaranteed, the cost of production has increased.
Now, today, in order to be able to meet the money lenders' request for higher rates on their dollars, we should take the necessary steps to enable the borrowers to have additional income that it might be possible for them to pay the higher rate of interest and to pay back their loans.
Mr. Chairman, it may be that in some quarters the Canadian farmer is accused of always making the same requests, of always repeating the same thing. That is completely in order.
When we have children, they always ask us the same questions and always come with the same requests until such time as their requests are met and their legitimate needs are satisfied.
We will keep at it as long as the government does not take the necessary steps to assure the producers of a reasonable income as a reward for their work and their untiring efforts. The Canadian farming community has always worked hard to supply the products needed by the whole population. We must

Farm Improvement Loans Act keep at it of course and repeat our demands. That is why we are here in this house.
In some circles people found it hard to understand why the rural ridings voted for the Ralliement Creditiste. Here is one of the reasons, Mr. Chairman. It is because the voice of agriculture was not sufficiently heard in our parliament, because our demands were left unanswered. That is one of the main reasons why the rural population sent to this parliament people who will make their demands heard.
I commend those who promote the interests of banks and other lending institutions. They have the right to do so. But it is our right to demand fair prices for farmers.
Some time ago, I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to tell us whether steps would be taken to increase the price of industrial milk during the next fiscal year. His answer was extremely short; it was no. Then, no increase can be expected for that production; so, having no assurance of receiving more, no more can be given. It is for that reason that the amendment moved by the member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) is in order.
If one is not capable to receive more, one is not capable to give more, and this is the reason why one objects, logically I think, to the increase of the interest rate when it is not known how much it will be increased.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Danforth:: Mr. Chairman, we in the official opposition are in sympathy with the amendment proposed by the hon. member to our left. His amendment suggests that the interest rate should remain at 5 per cent. During this debate we in this party have made several attempts to get the minister to set a definite interest rate or outline the formula he intends to use for this purpose.
The members of this party are trying to look after the interests of the farmers. It has been shown quite adequately that farmers are unable to obtain money at 5 per cent. Unless the terms of the bills are changed in such a way that pressure can be brought to bear on the banks and lending institutions to make money available at 5 per cent the farmers will not get it. Under economic conditions today money is an essential requirement of farmers in order to make their farming operations successful. For this reason we in this party cannot support the amendment moved by the Ralliement Creditiste.
October 15, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act [Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a tew remarks to the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and ask him a question.
Why does the minister want to suppress the 5 per cent interest rate that now exists? Is it because the farmers implored him to increase it so as to pay more? I answer no, and he knows why. Is it because the chartered banks and the finance companies discover that they could make profits and that, consequently, they have ordered the minister-the member of a government that is not only a majority government but also an authoritarian one-to change the existing legislation to enable them to make more profits? Let the government take its responsibilities.
I now ask my question. Does the minister intend to assume his responsibilities during the next four years in the agricultural field as far as eastern farmers are concerned?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, I will
undoubtedly be allowed to point out to the Minister of Agriculture that I cannot understand that being an expert on western farming, he has not any more consideration for eastern farmers.
We have mentioned in this corner of the house on several occasions that farming is in a terrible state of stagnation at the present time. Now, through interest rates which may reach 8| and 9 per cent-we will never know-an attempt is being made to exploit even more a class which is already overly exploited. Now is the time to look more fully into this problem. I deeply regret that the Conservative party does not support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), a very timely amendment justified by the explanations he gave about the excessive profits now being made by chartered banks.
There is no question at this time, of demanding a preferential treatment but at least a fair treatment. We demand that justice be done also, with respect to agriculture in eastern Canada through helpful legislation. However, instead of helping eastern farmers, we are trying to exploit them.
I think it would be time for the hon. minister of Agriculture to have real farmers as assistants, as we find in this part of the
[Mr. Danforth.)
house, so that eastern farmers would be well understood, and would be helped by understanding men, as the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert) made it so clear earlier.
That is why I fully support the amendment of the hon. member for Shefford, because I know that if the farmers were all here as they were a few years ago, they would demand that this measure establishing a predetermined interest rate be withdrawn, because once again there will be a shameful exploitation on the part of those who do not allow others to breathe.
We therefore feel the amendment is in order, and we ask that justice be done to eastern farmers.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Rondeau) negatived: Yeas, 13; nays, 69.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-
James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 5 carry?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: No.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 5 carry?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I called out "no" on clause 5. We would prefer to have a standing vote.


James Hugh Faulkner: Those in favour of clause 5 will please stand. Those opposed to clause 5 will please stand.
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 59; nays, 24.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


James Hugh Faulkner: I declare the clause adopted.
Clause 6 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be
read a third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Oclober 15, 19S8



FARM CREDIT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture moved the second reading of Bill No. C-110, to amend the Farm Credit Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have here a fairly extensive explanation in connection with this bill. I am prepared to make that explanation at this stage but would prefer that the bill be given second reading and at the committee stage I could deal with the details of the various clauses. I am sure hon. members on both sides of the house realize that there has been a fairly extensive discussion regarding the amendments contained in Bill No. C-110, to amend the Farm Credit Act.
The government is extremely anxious that we pass the bill as quickly as possible. This additional capitalization is needed so that the Farm Credit Corporation may continue its service to the farmers of Canada. In addition, immediately following the passage of Bill No. C-110 we want to bring in the next but one item on the order paper, Bill No. C-113 concerning cash advances on farm stored grain. It is essential that this measure also be passed as soon as possible.
Honourable members will realize that we have spent almost all this session, with the exception of housekeeping measures with which we have to deal such as supply and one or two other minor pieces of legislation, on agricultural bills. I am sure hon. members appreciate that the government has, therefore, given very high and in fact top priority to amending the Farm Credit legislation and the cash advances act in order that the facilities and services under these measures will be immediately available to the farmers.
So much time has gone by that we have now reached the stage where it is extremely important, in fact essential, that we get on to other pieces of legislation. Hon. members realize that the budget will be introduced in a few days and there are before parliament other bills, resolutions and so on that are equally urgent. Therefore I shall confine my remarks to these few words so we will have time today to pass Bill No. C-110 and continue the operations of the corporation without any interruption and, second, so we will have an opportunity to pass Bill No. C-113 in order that the increase in cash advances on farm stored grain will be available to the agricultural industry. We want to do this in view of
Farm Credit Act
the very severe weather conditions that have prevented a reasonable harvest, which has meant that there is an increased need for the facilities to be provided under the amendments to this bill.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while I could give an explanation of the bill at this time, in view of the fact that we have had a reasonably long debate on the general principles involved in the Farm Credit Corporation I shall resume my seat now in the hope that we may pass these two bills before ten o'clock tonight.
Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's great concern in having these bills pass the house in double-quick time. It is very interesting to note that he now believes there is a necessity to provide money with which to fill the coffers of the Farm Credit Corporation because its funds are rapidly dissipating. However, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that early in the spring we continually brought to the attention of the government the fact that this situation existed, but the government in its wisdom felt that the problem did not need to be dealt with at that time. They offered to deal with this legislation provided that we in the opposition would confine the debate to one day. Knowing that some major changes would be included in the bill, we could not at that time agree to that proposition.
Your Honour will also recall that through our leader we pleaded for parliament to be reconvened almost 30 days before the government in fact called parliament. We said at that time we were well aware that the farm picture was deteriorating from coast to coast. However, we found it impossible to prevail upon the government to accept our plea. Now, at this late date, the minister stands in his place and pleads with the opposition to pass this measure in double-quick time because the government in its wisdom feels it is convenient to them, not the farmers, to pass the measure now. The government will do this provided, once again, the opposition agrees to passing the legislation in doublequick time without having time to peruse the various clauses which incorporate rather drastic changes in the basic form of this legislation.
I do not propose to speak at any length at this time, but I assure the minister that we shall have quite a bit to say on the various clauses of the bill. We shall try to amend some of its provisions in order to make it what we consider to be a better bill and one

October 15, 1968
Farm Credit Act
in the best interests of the farmers of this country.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker I do not intend to take a great deal of the time of the house at this stage of the bill. When the measure was first discussed I pointed out the advisability of referring it to a standing committee in order that its provisions could be fully discussed and updated. I asked that this be done in order that farm organizations could come before the committee and give the government the benefit of their advice and the position they take in regard to farm credit. I pointed out that advice was available to the government from at least one consultative body for which they have paid and which was being largely disregarded.
The government says there is urgency. Undoubtedly there is urgency. There is urgency of a real nature, as described by hon. members to my left and as described in the Globe and Mail which says there is a dark year ahead for the wheat farmers. It says that many small operators may fail. This appeared in a publication which is not noted for its exaggeration of the circumstances. I may say that very likely it is right. This is unfortunate, as I know because I happen to farm in that area and so do some of my colleagues. Any credit legislation that we pass should take into account these circumstances. What concerns me is that I do not think we can do justice in a hurry, particularly in the farm credit legislation before us, to the circumstances which farming faces in the long haul. We can rush in and make more money available at a higher rate of interest, but this will not meet the real needs.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Despite the continuous questioning from this side of the house we have not been able to elicit from the minister any information on the exact rate of interest which farmers will be expected to pay. I can understand the minister's urgent pleas for immediate passage of this legislation and I recognize the fact that he is justified. But we who respres-ent the farmers are also justified in our position, and what will we say to our constituents if we agree to what the minister has put before us? We should know what the rate of interest will be, more so in the long term lending program envisaged in this bill that in the short term lending program. In the short term the outlook is bad enough. We face a
[Mr. Danforth.l
dark future immediately ahead, but what circumstances will we be facing in the long term? We do not know.
The government has not been able since this session started to say confidently that it will move the production of these farms. It is hedging on this matter, and I can understand it. Are we going to have to retool some of the farms, will we have to switch production and, if we do, will credit not be necessary? The farmer will have to pay for that credit out of his production. He will have to meet the credit terms. This is why I say to the minister he should be prepared to refer this legislation to the standing committee. It is true that the farmers will have to wait. He says so, and he should know. They will have to wait until more money is made available to the Farm Credit Corporation. Once a farmer signs an agreement with the Farm Credit Corporation his waiting period will not last a few months but 20 or 30 years during which he will carry that burden. I agree with the minister it is urgent that we pass the cash advances bill. I suggest we could leapfrog ahead of the legislation before us to pass the bill on the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, if it is so desired.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that a more important package of legislation so far as the farmer is concerned has come before the house for some time. Not only is it important to the farmer but it is probably more important to the general economy of the country and in particular to the various manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers who supply farm products and the other necessities which a farmer requires from time to time in order to upgrade his facilities or increase production with the intention of creating an economic and viable farm unit.
I would like to commend the minister for broadening the act to provide for a father and son business relationship whereby young men may become active participants in the business of farming with their fathers with the idea of creating an economic unit.
I welcome the amendment which deals with Indian farmers situated on reserves, under which they too may have the opportunity of becoming actively engaged in farming and in the creation of viable farm units. 1 do hope, however, that the red tape which is likely to occur in negotiating such a measure between the department of Indian affairs and the Farm Credit Corporation will not be so
October 15, 1968

complicated as to impair the full implementation of such an important provision. In this regard I hope that the minister in charge of Indian affairs will see that this measure becomes operative and thereby place people before policy.
There is one provision, however, with which I am not in complete agreement because it violates the principle under which the Farm Credit Corporation was to operate. The fact that two individuals carrying on a single farming operation may borrow up to $100,000 as I am led to believe, would reveal that we are moving a further step toward the elimination of small farm units. What we are doing in essence is to expand successful farm units rather than to assist small economic units in becoming viable economic ventures. I do not believe this was the original intention of the act.
Perhaps it is difficult for some people to realize why credit should play such an important part in farming operations. The reason is that we now live in a cash society, and if the farmer is to be able to acquire those things which he needs, both to operate efficiently and to enjoy the benefits of the society to which he is still a major contributor, he too must acquire credit. In that sense he is like many businessmen, both in large and small ventures, who are required to finance present operations out of future profits.
Perhaps the situation becomes clearer when one compares what has been happening to farm income in the last year with what has been happening to corporation income.
According to the Canadian Statistical Review, September, 1968, farm income for 1966 stood at $2,204 million. For 1967 the figure for farm income was $1,698 million. Corporation income in 1966 was $2,949 million, while corporation income in 1967 was $3,194 million.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This is certainly not an encouraging picture for Canada's farmers and for those who believe as I do, that farming remains a basic necessity for the economic prosperity of this nation and that the continuing deterioration of farm income represents a threat to our national economy. I know that there are some economists-and they are very close to the present government-who regard farming as simply another collection of statistics. It is more than that to me; it is a way of life. There are some in government who hold the principle that the cure for the farm problem
Farm Credit Act
is to remove the farmers, to take them off the farm. Let me suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you do not cure rural poverty by importing it into the city; you merely create urban poverty. I was born and raised on a farm in Alberta. So far as I am concerned, that is the greatest heritage I have. Those were the happiest days of my life, the most carefree. Today I see a decrease in our rural population. I see the rundown, decayed condition of our small towns. I have talked to many young people who would like to go back to farming but because of the great amount of capital involved in starting a farm operation and because of the uncertainty that exists in this industry, these young people are working in our big cities.
The solutions to these problems are not easy, but I submit that if this government were really dedicated to preserving the traditional family farm unit and the normal life of such families, solutions could be found. Some say the farmer is not efficient or that some farmers are not efficient. According to the fifth report of the Economic Council of Canada, page 82, the average output of agricultural workers has trebled in the past 20 years. What other industry can show the same results? There are those who say that because employment in agriculture is down to less than 10 per cent of the labour force, agriculture is no longer a major factor. I submit this is a dangerous philosophy. When agriculture can bring into the economy of this nation an income in the neighbourhood of $2 billion per year, that is a major factor in our economic well-being. Agriculture is the only area in which income has not kept pace with rising productivity. The economic council, page 82 of its report, says:
However, average farm incomes have remained significantly lower than average non-farm incomes.
The sad fact remains that the fate of this report will probably be the same as the others which preceded it. It will be shoved to one side by the government and placed on a shelf. In spite of the fact that agriculture is a major contributor to the economic welfare of this nation and to the gross national product, despite the fact that the prices farmers have to pay for the things they must buy have more than doubled while the prices of the things they sell have remained stationary, and despite constantly increasing taxes, we now have a government which comes along at a time when it cannot move wheat and tells the farmer he must accept higher interest rates for farm credit. The imposition of higher interest rates on the farmer at this time, as

October 15, 1968
Farm Credit Act
these bills propose, shows a complete disregard for the efforts the farmers put forth. At the same time it indicates a complete disregard for both the economic factors and the importance of agriculture to the economy of this nation.
At a time when our wheat carryover is nearly 700 million bushels, and when there is no indication from the government of any likelihood of a sale to Russia or China, no sign of active interest by the minister and no realization by the government of the serious economic situation which will result from the failure to sell our wheat, the government comes along with this solution to soak the farmer. This is a rather easy way of dealing with the problem. Shortly we will have a budget in which, no doubt, everyone will be soaked. It will be a sort of stormy weather budget. However, the government is not waiting for that budget; it is going to soak the farmer now.
We all know that when there is a Liberal government in power the western farmers suffer, the east coast fishermen suffer and the urban poor suffer. We know also that under the Liberal government in 1957 wheat piled up so high it could have been used for the Olympic games. We are back in that situation now. I invite the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) to come with me to Alberta, or anywhere in western Canada, and view the situation at first hand. The problem is urgent and something must be done to move our wheat or to see that our farmers are provided with cash in order to meet their obligations, rather than being prosecuted for delivering grain over their quota. This indicates the desperation of these farmers at this time. Let me illustrate. The Wheat Pool Budget of October 4, under the heading "Quota Situation", reports:
The grain delivery quota situation across the prairies as at September 30, showed a large number of stations still on initial unit quotas. No stations had yet reached 2 bushels per specific acre.
Let me turn now to farm stored grain. This report resds:
Stocks of wheat held on Alberta farms at July 31 were considerably above levels of the past three years, and the 1957-68 average.
For example, referring to wheat specifically, I point out that the average amount in farm storage between the years 1958-67 was 28.5 million bushels. This year it is 52 million bushels. Turning to barley, the average amount in farm storage during 1958-67 was

20.8 million bushels. Today it stands at 29 million bushels. We are further warned by the president of United Grain Growers that there is little likelihood of the 1968-69 crop year delivery quota exceeding five bushels per specified acre. The best wheat growers can hope to realize by next May, he said, is $10 an acre, out of which the farmer has to pay his food and clothing bills, this fall's taxes, his machinery repairs, his fuel and fertilizer bills, and in many cases his Farm Credit Corporation mortgage.
May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that it is the duty of the government to provide the climate and the opportunity which will ensure profitable markets for the crops this country's farmers produce. In 1966 we were told by the wheat experts that the Canadian farmer could look forward with a degree of optimism to a strong market for high quality Canadian wheat. At the same time the Dominion Bureau of Statistics was forecasting wheat exports in the neighbourhood of 475 million to 550 million bushels through to 1970. We were further told that Canada's future problem would not be a lack of grain markets abroad but rather an inability to meet export demands. As a matter of fact, a well known agricultural economist said that Canada, in order to meet its share of world markets, would be required to produce some 700 million bushels in 1970, 850 million in 1975 and 1 billion by 1980.
But what has happened? The latest figures from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicate that our wheat exports in 1967-68 have fallen to 335 million bushels. This is almost the lowest level in the past ten years. Why has this happened? It has happened because this government lacked imagination and foresight in developing an active, aggressive wheat selling campaign. They have failed to expand the sales force to meet the challenge of available markets and have lost a good portion of our traditional markets. They have failed to face up to aggressive competition from other countries and react in a businesslike manner.
United States wheat producers, through a market developing organization, are developing and servicing markets for their wheat in Asia. They have been active in Japan for ten years and have several Japanese firms working for them. The program of this organization includes training in the latest techniques of bread and pastry production, exchange visits of industry and government personnel, campaigns to improve nutritional standards
October 15, 1968

and, in general, an all-out promotional campaign designed to increase the usage of wheat products. As a result of this and other aggressive sales efforts, United States commercial wheat exports for the year 1966-67 increased by some 28 per cent over the preceding year. This took place during a period in which an overall decrease in world demand was experienced. In comparison, I am told that we have only two agencies actively engaged in soliciting markets for our wheat in Europe and Asia, they being in Tokyo and London, both covering large areas. The selling of wheat is a competitive and challenging field and to meet this challenge we must have a force which must be aggressive, flexible and thorough.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member in his very interesting and informative speech but it seems to me that an effort should be made by him, and also by other hon. members taking part in this debate, to relate his remarks to the principle of the bill now before us, which is to amend the Farm Credit Act. I recognize that the remarks now being made by the hon. member are of importance, but I have some qualms whether they relate as closely as they ought to the principle of the bill now before us.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When you examine the philosophy behind the Farm Credit Corporation you find that it was established under a Conservative government in 1959, not to make a profit for the government, not to provide handouts for the farmers, but as a stimulus to the economy. It is not necessary to go back to 1959. One has only to look at the minister's words in introducing this bill on September 30, when with that eloquence and feeling for which he is noted he spoke in the following words, as reported on page 599 of Hansard:
The objectives of the program are to provide the capital to facilitate the organization of Canadian agriculture into viable farm units in the hands of our competent farmers so that agriculture may make the greatest possible contribution to the Canadian economy and provide farmers with equitable returns for their investment of capital, work and skills.
In those remarks the minister showed a good grasp of the philosophy behind this measure which was brought in by the Conservative government. But one must ask at this point, how can agriculture make the greatest possible contribution to the economy if the
Farm Credit Act
farmer once again is going to be penalized? The minister knows, as everyone in this house knows, that his complaint about interest rates and the Farm Credit Corporation being required to recoup its loss to the finance department is just a matter of bookkeeping between the departments. If the finance department does not charge a rate of interest to the Farm Credit Corporation, then the Farm Credit Corporation does not have to increase its charge to the farmer. On that basis there is a very good argument for farm credit being provided to the farmer absolutely interest free. It was never the intention of the legislation that the government should make a profit out of the farmer, and the corporation is only subject to loss when the finance department charges the going rate of interest, as it does now.
I am not going to insist at this time that loans should be made to the farmers interest free, but I am certainly suggesting that the minister carefully examine that possibility. The farmer has been paying 5 per cent, and he may be willing to continue to pay that amount on the rather flimsy argument that land prices will go up if there is no interest whatsoever. The fact of the matter is that land prices are going up anyway, and the minister is quite well aware of that too. Therefore it is a bit of a fairy tale for the minister to tell the house and the farmers that because the finance department lends money to the corporation at the going rate of interest the corporation must now turn round and lend to the farmers at an increased rate in order to show a profit, particularly when the going rate was increased in the first place directly as a result of the action of the government.
It was not the farmer who raised the interest rate on government borrowing, it was the Minister of Finance. Now the farmer is expected to pay. The farmer is paying too many people now and has very little prospect, as a result of this government's failure to sell his products, of acquiring the income to pay his present debts. Therefore this measure should not be allowed to pass at this time. If it does, one can only conclude that this government's "just society" just is not for farmers.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I shall only say a few words.
I have just heard the previous speaker oppose the increase of the interest rate to be paid by farmers who will need to borrow

October 15, 1968
Farm Credit Act
money in order to buy farm machinery or to help farm units, family or social units, or others.
When it is suggested that the interest rate be fixed at 5 per cent, these same people vote against the suggestion. That means that we have some professional hypocrites in the house. They are ready to blame the government when it introduces legislation increasing the interest rate, and when the matter is put to a vote, they vote against it. It seems to me that we should set the record straight.
As for us, we continue to say to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) that he knows the solution to the problem and that he can help the farmer. It is not by running him further into debt, that we will save agriculture.
When the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) suggested to the Minister of Agriculture to borrow or to allow the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to borrow from the Bank of Canada the necessary funds or appropriations to help farmers, the Cre-ditistes today are as justified as the former Social Credit member, now the Minister of Agriculture, was when he spoke likewise.
Mr. Speaker, those are the points which I wanted to draw to the minister's attention, because he knows that the draft of Bill No. C-110 leaves much to be desired. It is not the solution to the farming problems of Canada, and he should, since he is the minister, ensure the application in this house of what he has been advocating for some ten years.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bechard in the chair.
On clause 1-Farmer.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-110, to amend the Farm Credit Act. Shall clause 1 carry? It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. 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 Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin)-Canadian National Railways-Victoria-ville, Quebec-Discontinuance of passenger service; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)-Agriculture-deterioration of situation on the prairies; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) -Industry-Newfoundland-Proposed assistance for lumbering.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. As there are no private bills on today's order paper, the house will proceed to the consideration of public bills.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Barry Mather: the second reading of Bill No. C-6, to better assure the public's rights to freedom of access to public documents and information about government administration (administrative disclosure).
He said: Mr. Speaker, after I introduced this bill into the house in the last parliament it was a matter of some regret to me that it never got high enough on the list of private members' bills to be given consideration on second reading. However, I feel it may be even more timely for us to be concerned now with the general ideas and principles which are set forth in this measure. On one hand we have heard statements from a high official source in the government to the effect that it is desirable for the public to become more and more involved in public affairs. Since then we have heard statements from representatives of the press to the effect that they find more and more difficulty in obtaining access to public information on behalf of the public. So it may be that tonight is a good time to take a good look at this proposal.
As the bill states, this would be an act to better assure the public's rights to freedom of access to public documents and information about government administration of public business. The bill is a short one, containing only four clauses. But it does embody the main elements of the legislation which has for so long been in effect in Sweden in this area. The first clause states:
Every administrative or ministerial commission, power, and authority shall make its records and information concerning its doings available to any person at his request in reasonable manner and time.
October 15, 1968

The second clause provides the basic exceptions to the rule by saying that clause 1 does not apply to records and information affecting national security, or to matters which are exempted by statute from disclosure, or to trade secrets, or to matters which concern private interest to the degree that the right to personal privacy excludes the public interest. Clause 3 contains an important principle that the courts should determine whether any particular record or information is to be made public on application for the same.
I referred a few moments ago to what has long been the rule in Sweden, a country with a long record of freedom of access by the public to public business. In that country the kind of thing we are considering here has been provided for by legislation for a great many years. In brief, whereas in this country we follow the general rule that whatever is not specifically said to be public is secret, the Swedes do exactly the opposite and make it work. They say that whatever is not specifically stated to be secret is public. The courts are there to see that this idea is carried out in practice, and they take this obligation most seriously in accordance with the legislation.
In addition to making documents and records public, the Swedes publish the great bulk of the documents and submissions received by their departments and agencies. I am informed that every day in the great buildings of Stockholm the documents or submissions received by the administration are laid out for inspection. From these a wave of information goes out across the country. Thus the Swedish public is kept closely in touch with the way in which the administration is handling public business and the nature of the submissions to the administration which the public is making.
In bringing forward this bill I have been inspired and encouraged by the work and studies of a notable Canadian, Professor Donald Rowat of Carleton University, who has for years conducted a one-man campaign to make more documents available to the Canadian people to indicate how their affairs are being handled. Dr. Rowat is the professor who has done so much to help popularize in this country the idea of establishing an ombudsman service. Both he and I share the idea that there should be some intermediate steps taken toward what would ultimately be accomplished. These steps are, first, that the government should be far less hush, hush about its security and secrecy classification procedures. It should make its procedures in
Government Administration
this field more fully known, perhaps in the form of a white paper, or possibly a task force could be established to look into this matter. Second, immediate steps should be taken to make documents more readily available to scholars. Until now the government has followed the practice of departmental discretion, with trusted favourites and no rules except meticulous adherence to the rules of other countries.
I recommend that there should be a much shorter time before classified documents are released, say 12 years instead of 35 years or 48 years. A very few documents might be held for 48 years in exceptional cases.
My third point is that there should be a limit on the government's unfettered right to withhold documents from the courts. A decision in this area should not be left to the sole discretion of a minister of the crown. It should be left to a judge.
I conclude with a quotation from what I consider to be a good source in support of my bill. It is from an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail. I have condensed it but it is all favourable to the introduction and passage of this measure. This is what it says:
A private bill has been presented to the House of Commons which could do much to open closed doors and keep the public informed about what is, after all, its own business.
It is proposed that the Exchequer Court be empowered to force the federal government to disclose any unclassified records and information to interested persons. The bill would require that "every administrative or ministerial commission, power and authority shall make its records and information available to any person at his request in reasonable manner and time".
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Exceptions would be made for matters of national security-
As I have indicated, as well as private matters.
It could be assumed that the court would exercise its discretion to prevent witch hunts, and that in general the effect of the bill would be to ensure the public's access to information which properly belongs to it, as well as the access of interested persons to historical material that ought to be in the public domain but has been withheld.
It is entirely probable that the court would not often be called upon to act, for the very existence of such legislation would dispose government officials and bureaucrats to overcome their habits of secrecy, since they would know that if they did not yield willingly they could be compelled. It would also tend to restrain them from arbitrary acts which they would not care to have become the subject of public discussion. There is nothing like the spotlight of publicity to improve a man's democratic manners.
1163	COMMONS
Government Administration
-the bill would enact "the basic parliamentary rule that public affairs must be conducted publicly." The government should put its blessing on the bill and ensure its passage.
As a member of this assembly who has been here long enough to know that 99%0 of the private members' bills presented over the last seven to ten years have been talked out without any decision having been made on them, I regret this procedure, as do all hon. members. I urge upon the government the idea that private members' bills should be brought to some decision, either accepted or rejected or, what I think would be better, referred to a committee for further study. I think that the idea in this bill should be sent to the committee that has already been established to deal with the procedures of this house. I hope hon. members will see to it that this proposal does not die and that at least it is referred to a committee for further consideration.


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Barry Mather: Certainly.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Does clause 1 include such emanations from parliament as the C.B.C. and the C.N.R., and in another category does it include such emanations from parliament as the National Energy Board?


Barry Mather: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. The bill says that information shall be made public except for those parts of public information which are classified under national defence or where the private concern takes precedence over the public concern. In the case of the agencies which the hon. member mentioned I would certainly hope that they would be included in the over-all effect of the bill.

Mr. Yves Fores! (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):	Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is certainly worthwhile and I congratulate the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) for giving us the opportunity of discussing the problem.
The matter is most important at the present time. It has been discussed in the public forum, particularly during the last election. I trust that perhaps in the near future the government can improve the present system; for there certainly is room for improvement in our present system of keeping the public informed on the various operations in the

DEBATES	October 15. 1968
departments of the government as well as throughout its corporations and agencies.
Besides, I believe the Glassco commission had pointed out the seriousness of the problem, which was also recognized by both the former and the present governments.
The former prime minister, the right honourable Lester B. Pearson, had ordered that an inquiry be made into the matter. This was started but, unfortunately the person in charge of the committee was the victim of a fatal accident before having had time to present preliminary reports. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), also aware of the importance of improving communications between the governing and governed, appointed, shortly after he was elected, a commission or a task force composed of three competent persons who were joined by others familiar with the matter under study. This group is to report within a few months after having looked into the work and the structure of the government information services, both in Canada and abroad.
In my opinion, our government is aware that the public must be better informed beforehand, at least in general, about the government's programs and policies. The public must be able also to express his ideas, opinions to the right people before the policy is elaborated and put into force.
An active modern democracy certainly requires the best communications possible between the governments and the voters while taking into account, of course, as mentioned by the hon. member, several exceptions, in particular with regard to security, efficiency, etc. because it will always be difficult to draw a clear dividing line between a government's need to hold discussions and deliberations in a confidential manner and, on the other hand, the public's need for information.
This bill entitled: An act to better assure the public's rights to freedom of access to public documents and information about government administration is an effort to clarify, to ask or even to codify, as it were, the conditions regulating the production of documents. In my opinion, however, it is far from being precise or clear enough and it is not precise enough to be applicable.
Indeed, according to section 1 of Bill No. C-6, its scope seems very broad, for it stipulates, and I quote:
1. Every administrative or ministerial commission, power, and authority shall make its records and information concerning its doings available to any person at his request in reasonable manner and time.
October IS, 1968

Government Administration
This is indeed a very broad scope especially when referring to the activity of a commission or some administrative or departmental authority. That would appear to include departments, commissions, agencies or corporations of federal, provincial or even municipal governments. It could also include authorities of professional organizations, trade union or others. For that particular reason, it appears that we would not have constitutional or legislative power to pass such a legislation, at least as soon as this bill would propose.
I refer to the text of the bill:
-records and information concerning its doings-
-and I insist on "doings" of administrative and or ministerial authorities. Such a vocabulary, in my opinion, can have several different interpretations.
Considering that this clause deals with organizations, specific bodies, one may venture to ask if there are activities or documents of the organization itself as opposed to those of the officials or the staff? Or still, a quite broad interpretation can be given and it is possible to conclude that it must include any document available to the organization or to the executive body concerned.
Allow me also to point out, by the way, that this clause provides that the information or the records must be made and I quote:
-available to any person at his request in a reasonable manner and time.
Now, I suppose that the individual would not even show a certain interest in obtaining the information and I suppose that those words were wilfully used by the hon. member, because public right-the public at large I suppose-to obtain publication of the required information is referred to in the bill and the interest in such a case would not be a criteria.
And evidently, all provisions are subject to the reservations mentioned in clause 2 of the bill. I feel that subclauses (a) and (b) of clause 2 are clear enough and do not lend to much discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must call the parliamentary secretary to order and point out to him that when on the second reading of a bill, it is not usually allowed to refer to specific provisions of the bill.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Mr. Forest:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will keep to more general considerations. I submit that when the bill speaks of:
-trade secrets and commercial or financial matters of a privileged or confidential nature, obtained from private persons-
-it would be rather difficult to determine the extent of the privileged or confidential nature of the secrets or matters concerned. It would not be easy either to determine to what extent the public interest must exceed the private interest of the individuals who could finally be affected in various ways if certain information or actions were made public.
And, as mentioned by the hon. member, it is possible of course to answer that the court-that is the exchequer court in this case-would decide whether the requested information should be published. But one can wonder on what basis and in the light of what information the court could render judgment when it would not have at its disposal all the information needed to render a decision, especially in a private matter.
The present bill does not exclude the production before the court of files or documents affecting national security because it seems that the bill does not provide for any exception. It is easy of course to realize all the danger that such a procedure would entail. It would be a new and rather unusual procedure, Mr. Speaker, when without any special reason or cause one could simply refer, in a way which is not clearly stated, to the exchequer court in this case, any refusal by any commission or authority to hand over documents or divulge information to any person requesting it.
If Bill No. C-6 were passed in its present form, a special administrative court would have to be established, to consider the countless requests submitted and to decide whether or not the documents requested should be made public.
In the context of administrative law, judicial institutions necessarily play an incidental and subordinate role. The administrative system must be more than a compilation of judicial decisions, and evidently, government authorities' role is to rule and administer. If every decision made by the administration has to be reviewed and considered, without
October 15. 1968

Government Administration any limitation, by any court, whatever its importance or competence, it is clear to me that the administrative process could then be crippled.
Finally, this bill does not give enough importance to a generally accepted principle according to which the efficient operation of a public service necessitates complete freedom of expression and also of communication between the members of the administration at the various levels, and particularly from lower to senior officials. In my opinion, the contrary could reduce the efficiency of our whole administrative system as we know it.
It is up to the executive power, which has all the relevant data, to decide if national interest or public safety require that certain documents or acts be not made public.
Moreover, I believe that it would be neither legitimate, practical, nor even rational to transfer this decision, in all cases, to any court whatsoever, in spite of the great respect I feel for our courts of law.
It is only logical to believe that a person, a citizen and a taxpayer, can have the right of freedom of access to documents of particular concern to him, but between that and disclosing without discretion to him some information concerning other people, the disclosure of which could be prejudiciable to the latter, I believe there is a rule of caution that ought to be respected while considering this bill.
This bill would give the public more extensive rights than those exercised by parliament itself, according to a long standing custom and tradition.
Mr. Speaker, for all these various reasons and in spite of the commendable purpose pursued by the hon. member, I believe it would be very dangerous to pass this bill, especially in its present form I hope the hon. member may be able during the next session, to introduce another bill, that will be more appropriate, and also that the commission appointed by the government, by the right non. Prime Minister, will present their report; the hon. members will then be more able to come to a conclusion on that important question of the relations and communications that should exist between the government and the general public.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? He has indicated agreement in principle with regard to the bill but has criticized the structure and procedure outlined in it. I am wondering whether he would agree to have 

the bill referred to the appropriate committee for study concerning the structure and procedure.


Yves Forest: I do not think that it is up to me to decide. Furthermore, I think that we should wait, as I have already mentioned in closing my remarks for the report which should be submitted, as was mentioned by the right hon. Prime Minister, within a few months, by experts in the field, who will be able to make relevant suggestions as to how to improve communications and information which must exist between the government and the public in general.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate, even if only briefly, to support the proposal of the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather). Like myself he has a journalistic background. I suspect he has spent many difficult hours beating his head against massive stone walls, erected by establishments in this country, in an effort to ascertain what in fact is going on. It is a very commendable effort on his part to attempt to include the natural journalistic capacity for trying to find out what is going on in a measure such as this. Furthermore, I was intrigued when I saw in my hon. friend's explanatory note that the bill enacts Bentham's basic parliamentary rule that public affairs must be conducted publicly. For the enlightenment of my hon. friends opposite the Bentham referred to is Jeremy Bentham who was one of the great philosophers of liberalism. Upon his death he made the rather curious provision that his body should be preserved, stuffed and put on public display for a good number of years. I much prefer the philosophy of the stuffed Bentham and its relation to liberalism to that of the speech we have just heard in this chamber.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I think the rule that public affairs must be conducted publicly is a fair and just one, and it should find its adherents in those who support the so-called just society. I noticed that the house leader was in for a while during at least the opening of the debate. During these curious times he does not have to be with us at all times, but at least he was here to listen to the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) present what I thought was a fair and eloquent plea on behalf of his bill. I would ask the hon. member for Surrey whether the provisions of this bill would apply also to
October 15, 1968

our own House of Commons to provide rules which will make information readily available. I submit that prodding by hon. members, such as the one who proposed this bill, would bring about an improvement in the practice in this house, and that before long we would have rules that are much more in keeping with twentieth century ideals and procedures.
These ideals and practices can be introduced in many different ways; but I submit the one suggested by the hon. member for Surrey is a very cumbersome and expensive way of attempting to solve the problem. It is expensive because it requires more judges in this huge country, stretching 3,000 miles from coast to coast and with 20 million people. Will they write in and make their requests? How will such a program be administered? I do not see anything in the bill which indicates a clear cut system for carrying out the practical suggestions contained in clauses 1, 2 and 3.
We have all had frustrations in attempting to get information at some stage, and I would be less than frank if I said there is no problem in this regard. I recognize the problem; but I believe most sincerely that steps have already been taken toward reaching our goal in this respect. This has been done by sending out the task force which the Prime Minister sent out recently. If that task force can come back with concrete, solid ideas whereby everyone will know whom to contact and in what department, they will make great strides toward reform in this area.
Therefore, sir, I conclude by commending the hon. member for-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Gibson:: I mean that seriously, sir. I conclude by commending the hon. member for a forward looking idea, but I submit that the method proposed is not the best.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. In view of the remarks in his maiden speech last week, that private members public bills were ridiculous, a waste of time and should be done away with, I am wondering why he is participating in this debate today-because this is the second time within a week.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, this is the only forum I have. As a young member, I hesitate to try to speak on important legislation such as the agrarian acts, the farm acts. I know very little about these subjects, and I do not mind admitting it. I have been advised by
Government Administration
other hon. members, with more experience than I have that the private members hour is the best place to express views, and to attempt to gain experience in thinking out and planning so as to conform with the rules of debate. That is the main reason I have taken part in the debate, although I am extremely interested in this topic.
The suggestion I made last week was not to abolish private members bills, but rather that there be a more effective way of using this hour for the discussion of controversial topics, having six speeches of ten minutes each. I think we would all find it more interesting and exciting; the press would enjoy it, and the public would find it more provocative.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate because the bill proposes something new, a new way from the government to approach the public.
First of all, I must say that I do not fully agree with those who believe that the politi-sation of Canadians will improve relations between the government and the public, or encourage the public to approach the government and to take an interest in some department or other.
It goes without saying that people would of course derive some benefit from such an act because, first of all, the information would be free. What I mean is that anyone who wanted information, for the specific purpose of criticizing certain departments or, as I said, of pursuing the politisation of the people would be free to do so, and quite easily at that. For instance, anyone who wanted to tear down certain government programs for personal reasons could obtain information on the topics discussed during their preparation and then use this information to fight against the program, and in some cases, to compete against it.
Now, as I was saying, I do not fully agree that it will necessarily help the people, but I am concerned about the fact that it might give rise to dissension amongst Canadians and give rise to doubts. There are, no doubt, people who would wonder, when a department is in process of studying the pros and cons of some program or policy or other, whether the public should read about it.
October 15, 1968

Government Administration
On the other hand, those who take part in the discussion who merely want to strengthen their arguments in favour of or against a program, or who want to look at both sides of the question, could leave with ideas that have no bearing on the situation.
Furthermore, I do not agree with the principle of the bill. Should the bill be adopted, it would create a lot of administrative problems. First of all, it is true that section 2 of the bill stipulates that the law would not apply to documents on national security, or to documents benefitting from legal exemption, or again to documents of a confidential nature on business companies. It is easy to enumerate the type of documents. There should be someone in the department, some high official, some very important person, who would be in a position to establish what can be disclosed to the public and what cannot.
I think that, from an administrative point of view, it would involve extraordinary intricacies. For example, how can a civil servant in a department decide whether a discussion or a correspondence exchanged between a minister, a deputy minister or a civil servant of another country or province, can be made public or not? Therefore, the officials of a department would simply have to decide whether those matters should be revealed or not. As far as we are concerned, what will come out of it? It will not bring about much result, because certain information is already provided by the government.
Then, I am wondering how the provisions of the bill can be helpful. Obviously, to promote this administrative measure, a new kind of publicity is needed. A new reclassification of all departments would probably be necessary to bring together the factors that affect national security. Also, when we speak of business corporations, one must be very careful. There again a whole set of files would be needed for the various business corporations or various contracts or various communications.
I feel that all this would require tremendous expenditures and there again, I am wondering to what extent these espenditures are warranted. It is well for the government to spend money on worthwhile causes, but, otherwise I do not think it is justifiable.
As I said earlier, this would create confusion in the minds of people. The problem as to morale or frame of mind may exist in a department. For instance, if the Department of Area Development, that is to be established at an early date, was considering a
[Mr. Breau.l

plan concerning my province, New Brunswick, at least certain areas of it, we can be sure such an idea or philosophy as regards area development could be a good one, but there must be also some disadvantages.
Now let us suppose the problem would concern a civil service employee, or a person from outside is given the responsibility of preparing a report. He goes to a certain area and makes a report. He would probably bring arguments that may not be agreeable to everybody but they should nevertheless be taken into account so as to come to something worthwhile.
Mr. Speaker, can we imagine a person bringing arguments against area development, against the development of a given area? Such a person might hang for that, there is no question about it. I repeat once more that the arguments put forward by that person may be good, but advantages or disadvantages must necessarily be considered.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It
being seven o'clock, the time allowed for private members hour has expired. If the house agrees we will resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.



FARM CREDIT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-110 to amend the Farm Credit Act-Mr. Olson-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
James Hugh Faulkner: It being seven o'clock, I do now leave the chair, to resume at eight o'clock.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Harold Warren Danforth: Before we pass clause 1, Mr. Chairman, I should like, on behalf of this party, to make a few comments on the basic principles of this bill that were not covered at the resolution stage. One of the facts that is apparent in the bin is that the government has two prime purposes in mind. Number one is to broaden the base and to enlarge that part of the agricultural segment that would be eligible to receive these loans. Number two is an attempt to change the prevailing rate of interest that we have been experiencing as a
October 15, 1968

farm community since the inception of this measure. 1 think very few persons will take objection to the active consideration by the government to enlarging the company of individuals who are eligible for these loans.
I wonder, however, if the government has considered that to the very degree by which they enlarge the scope of this measure they will be subjecting the farm community, in my considered opinion, to a great deal more vertical integration. In listening to the minister and in reading the provisions of the bill, it is quite apparent that the previous definition of farmer, as one who is actively engaged in farming, has been changed to such a degree that almost anyone in the business world today could become eligible to obtain a loan. A person could become eligible by obtaining shares in a co-operative farm. The bill itself refers to a person who either has the intention of farming or the basic ability to farm.
When these pieces of legislation were first introduced the prime purpose was to enable young farmers and established farmers to either enlarge their holdings or to start farming in an economic manner. The fact that these measures were used to such an extent, and such large sums of money were borrowed by those engaged in agriculture, is an indication of the success of this type of legislation. I am wondering, sir, in the light of the economic chaos through which agriculture is struggling today, if such legislation as we have before us will not enable large business interests with large sums of money at their disposal, whether they be from this country or from other countries, to move into the farm industry?
Such business interests could take up large tracts of our land, either through corporate farms or by vertical integration. In this fashion, we would see a good deal of our farm land pass out of the control of the younger farmers of this nation, and instead of having tracts of land in Canada administered by farmers and farm families, I venture to say that in an extreme case we would see large tracts of farm land administered by boards of directors, such as we have in corporations.
Having said this, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that many of us on this side of the house believe that there should not be a change in the method by which interest is determined or charged in respect of those who wish to borrow money under this type of legislation. This is not the same type of legislation as we were dealing with in Bill No. C-lll. This measure relates to long term borrowing, 10 years, 15 years or up to 30 years. In the
Farm Credit Act
course of that time, interest rates are going to vary up and down the scale. It has been our experience during the years this measure has been in force that you see at one time very low interest rates, and at another, extremely high interest rates. With interest rates on the way down, as they are at the moment, we feel that the 5 per cent rate prescribed in the former legislation provides ample recompense for those who wish to lend money in this fashion.
We feel that this money is being provided by the government, and not through a banking institution, so that places this type of legislation in a category by itself. We feel that although the government did have to subsidize the interest rate under which money was obtained to lend to farmers, an examination of interest rates throughout the years would reveal that in a period of 20 to 25 years the cost of these loans to the government would be almost negligible. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, when those who wish to obtain money through this legislation are able to do so at a prescribed interest rate, one which they feel would enable them to borrow money in the large amounts necessary to work into the farming industry, farmers would be more attracted to it and would borrow enough to obtain economic units. This might not be the case if the interest rate were set too high. As I say, this is the second point in the bill that is causing some concern.
The third point that is causing great concern is the fact that the categories of people who may borrow money are defined and limited. We have the age limit of 21 to 45 prescribed and the different rates at which money may be borrowed either by individual farmers or collectively.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I have been wondering, Mr. Chairman, whether consideration should be given to allowing individual farmers to borrow up to the gross amount that the bill provides can be borrowed by three farmers collectively. I make this suggestion because a tremendous amount of money is needed today in order to bring what is and has been a viable economic farm unit into the position of remaining such in the future.
I use as an example, Mr. Chairman, a dairy farm that today has about 60 to 100 cows, run by a single farmer who wishes to become more competitive and to change over to automatic feeding, perhaps to silage instead of hay, to using the new type of milking stalls and equipment and installing concrete feed

October 15, 1968
Farm Credit Act
lots, with all that that entails. Such a changeover could very cost $100,000 to $125,000, as it does in some instances.
It would be unfortunate indeed if an endeavour of this size could not qualify under the act. As I read the act, the very most that can be borrowed by an individual farmer under optimum circumstances is $55,000; unless the circumstances are of the very best the maximum is $40,000. It is true that if the farmer has a son over 21 years of age this amount may be doubled. However, there are many farmers whose sons are not 21 years of age, who have no son or son-in-law, or whose sons are engaged upon some other endeavour. Are we to lose this type of farm enterprise that has been so successful over the years, which has been built up over generations, because under this bill they will no longer be eligible for this type of loan, or will some attempt be made to make it possible for these farmers to borrow such sums of money at a reasonable rate of interest?
All of these questions, Mr. Chairman, we should like the minister to deal with. From his knowledge and advice he can give us the very information we are seeking. There is no doubt from the way the clauses have been drafted that this bill has received very serious consideration and has been subjected to very intimate and searching examination. However, we feel that before we can let the bill pass tonight we should be given a lot more information than that provided in the terms of the bill, and in the introductory remarks of the minister. As the debate develops we may offer some amendments for the consideration of the government, or we may find that some clauses, even as amended, are unacceptable to us at this time.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Chairman, I have to agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat, that there are some points of concern in this bill which require further explanation and consideration. Before commencing I might say that I found rather interesting this afternoon the minister's appeal to the house to try to speed this legislation through. It would appear that the time allotted to him by the government has pretty well run out, and at the same time he has not been able to pilot this bill through the house.
There have been some suggestions on his part and on the part of other hon. members that this, Mr. Chairman, is due to the somewhat lengthy debate that has been conducted by members of the opposition who wanted to take up a number of points. This is true; we

have been engaged in fairly lengthy debate on some of the questions involved in the farm credit legislation. I suggest that the implications of the changes in the legislation we are discussing mean millions of dollars for farmers all across Canada, and they are changes of the sort that we cannot let go by lightly.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the minister that had he gone along with some of the changes we proposed and been somewhat more responsive to our suggestions, perhaps this legislation could have been put through in a shorter time. I hope that he will be more responsive to some of the changes that we may propose in dealing with the amendments to the Farm Credit Act. I say that because I am sure he will agree that there are some differences in the situation we are considering under this bill, as compared to the bill we completed this afternoon, the amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
I also have to agree with the speaker who has just taken his seat, that there are some valid concerns about the amount of capital that is required at the present time to carry on an economic farm operation. Capital requirements for farming operations have escalated at a very rapid rate for more than one reason, and I am sure that the minister is aware of this. At the same time I would like to offer a word of caution. It seems to me that the primary concern of the government in terms of public policy is to bring as many agricultural units as possible up to a minimum standard of economic efficiency and satisfactory operation; that this should be the primary objective in allocating capital to farmers.
Mr. Chairman, there is one aspect of clause 1 which bothers me, and this is the change in definition of what is a farmer. The expression "farmer" refers, of course, to those people who are eligible to receive loans from the Farm Credit Corporation. I was particularly concerned with the change in the definition of the term "family farming corporation", which is defined by regulation, to the term "farming corporation". It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the implications of this change require examination.
I note that in the regulations made pursuant to the Farm Credit Act a family farming corporation is defined as:
-a corporation the principal object of which is the carrying on of an enterprise devoted to the production of agricultural products, and at least 95 per cent of the shares of which are owned by persons that are related to one another either through blood relationship, marriage or adoption, with not less than 51 per cent of the shares owned by the actual operator or operators of the farm.
October 15, 1968

I concede, Mr. Chairman, that there could be some deficiency, in terms of this regulation and its application, in the use of the term "family farming corporation" with emphasis on the word "family". Some people carrying on joint farming operations are not related in the way prescribed in the regulations but certainly should be entitled to as good consideration as those who are related in some way stipulated in the regulations.
However, Mr. Chairman, when the term is contracted simply to "farming corporation", it seems to me that the danger with which we have to be concerned is the possibility of operations under the Farm Credit Act being extended to large industrial ventures. This may not be the objective at the present time, and I see the minister shaking his head in dissent. I am quite prepared to accept his word that this is not what he intends.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I suggest, however, that this might open the door to large industrial operators who would crowd out a good many of the farm operators, even though they might be carrying on an efficient type of business. One example which occurs to me is that of the National Grain Company which is presently undertaking a large venture in hog raising. I recognize it is not the intention of the Farm Credit Corporation or of the government to allow such an organization to qualify for public assistance at the present time, but it seems to me that as legislators we should be concerned that we do not open the door to such a possibility at some time in the future.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In reply to the hon. member for Kent-Essex may I suggest to him that by changing the provision under consideration in clause 1 of this bill we are putting farmers who are owner-operators in a far stronger position to compete with the integrated operators, where producers and financial interests are involved. I say with respect that this will hamper rather than help these virtually integrated companies, because it will give actual owner-operators of farm units a better opportunity to join together in such a way as to compete with the integrated operations.
The act has been amended by changing the word "person" to "individual" so as to provide a distinction between individuals and corporations, the latter being, in the legal sense, persons. The change provides a way of dealing with the problem the hon. member raised.
Another point raised both by the hon. member for Kent-Essex and by the hon.
Farm Credit Act
member for Regina East concerns the replacement of the term "family farm corporation" by "farming corporation", to permit loans to farming corporations regardless of whether families are related by blood or adoption. This particular clause caused some concern to those who fear the expansion of corporate farming. It is not the intention, however, that this would allow persons who are not actual farm operators to become primary beneficiaries of loans from the corporation. I am sure what has been done here will satisfy both the hon. member for Regina East and the hon. member for Kent-Essex. We have sought to make certain that for individuals to benefit, even though they may be in a corporation or a co-operative, must in fact be owners principally engaged in the business of farming.


Harold Warren Danforth: Suppose one or more individuals concerned with a corporate farm or a co-operative have a large investment in such an undertaking. Would this make the entire co-operative ineligible for loans under this legislation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, if there were an investment at a level so high as to remove control from the actual operators of the farm, in which case the corporation would be ineligible. We want to prevent absentee persons who may own the majority of shares from becoming beneficiaries of the legislation.
As to the other point raised by the two hon. members I have mentioned, we believe we should bring as many farm units as possible up to economic viability with the amount of money we have. This is one of the reasons we say that if two or more farmers are in a co-operative or in a corporation they should be entitled to as much aid within the $100,000 limit as they would have been, had they been farming separately. We are not proposing amendments in this bill to raise the individual limit on funds; hon. gentlemen know those limits, now.
One other comment which I think will allay some apprehension. In clause 7 there is a provision that should the shares of a co-operative or corporation change in such a way that a majority go out of the hands of the actual owners, the corporation reserves the right to demand repayment of the loan. The purpose is the same; we want the benefits of this act to flow to the actual operators, not to anyone outside the operation. We wish to safeguard the situation should control be transferred from the hands of the actual operators later on.

October 15, 1968
Farm Credit Act


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on Bill No. C-110 which is somewhat of the same nature as the one passed this afternoon concerning farm improvement loans. Tonight we are considering Bill No. C-110 concerning farm machinery loans.
I would have liked the minister to tell us where matters stand in the investigation mentioned in the revised estimates for 1969, page 385 under expenses of the royal commission on farm machinery. Before introducing his new bill, it would have been normal, it seems to me for this royal commission which has already cost $508,100 in 1967-68 and for which an expenditure of about $382,000 will have to be authorized for 1968-69, for a total amount of approximately $900,000 in two years to investigate on the cost of farm machinery in Canada, to have served some useful purpose.
Nearly one million has been spent up to now and as yet we have no indication or report concerning that inquiry.
Before introducing this bill, I think that the minister could have told us this royal commission will have completed its job within one or two months and, in the light of that inquiry, we might be able to better study the bill which is before us today.
I should like tonight to join the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) when he said, not so long ago, on April 26, 1966 when he sat on this side of the house and stated clearly his thinking about the implication of the legislation which was introduced that day, regarding the prices of farm machinery and the farm situation in Canada.
As shown on page 4324, of the Debates of the House of Commons, April 26, 1966 the hon. member for Medicine Hat, now Minister of Agriculture said, and I quote:
The minister said that the government anticipates this expansion of money available to the Farm Credit Corporation will be sufficient for two and a half years. I suggest to him that if the price of land and farm machinery continues to rise as rapidly during the next two and a half years as h rise in the last two and a half years the extension will not provide the capital required by farmers in the next two and a half years.
I think that perhaps one of the real problems- and paradoxes in the extension of farm credit under the Farm Credit Corporation is that every time parliament increases the amount of money available to individual farmers you find there is an almost concurrent or immediately following increase in the price of land.
I have come to believe that one of the reasons for the increase in the price of land is that very recently the maximum amount available from the Farm Credit Corporation to an individual applicant was increased. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we are partially defeating the purpose of the act in increasing the maximum amount available.

Thus, at that time, the maximum was wrong, and today it is all right.
One of the problems that follows these increases and the high prices paid for land and machinery is, of course, that the capital cost, interest charges and other things that a farmer must bear increase substantially.
One of the greatest problems ... is that we need to be even more concerned about finding ways and means of seeing that farmers have an opportunity to repay these loans.
And he was right.
One of the greatest problems ... is that we need to be even more concerned about finding ways and means of seeing that farmers have an opportunity to repay these loans.
It was a problem then and it still is today. I continue:
I know that an increasing number of well-established farmers are today getting into financial difficulty and have been for the last two or three years because of the so-called cost-price squeeze.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The problem the minister discussed at that time, as reported on page 4324, the "cost-price squeeze", is still with us today.
I doubt that increasing the interest on loans for the purchase of farm machinery-as we did this afternoon for farm loans-which he denounced at that time, will remedy the situation that he then wanted to change.
The situation is perhaps not so difficult for well established farmers-
-again he is the one who says so-
-who have accumulated the necessary capital, but it is extremely difficult for a young farmer to obtain this amount of capital. If the young farmer does not obtain the capital he is unable to obtain the productivity necessary to provide a reasonable standard of living; his net income is not sufficient.
He concluded with his two main points:
-I should like to impress upon the minister that we in this part of the house are very concerned about the deteriorating net income of farmers across the country, because from this net income they will have to repay these loans in the future.
I wonder whether the minister is as concerned on the other side of the house as he was on April 26, 1966. He added:
Finally, I want to say that there has been-
And this is where we come to the same point where we are today, some two and a half years after later,
Finally, I want to say that there has been an alarming increase in the price of farm machinery.
It was a problem two and a half years ago. In the meantime, a royal commission has been set up, and it has cost nearly a million
October 15, 1968

dollars. However, prices have been constantly increasing.
I wonder whether one of the first steps-
It was the present minister who was then speaking.
-the minister could take in connection with this matter would be to have the people responsible for combines investigations look into the situation to ascertain if there has been any agreements made between the various farm machinery companies to raise prices. If there has not been, it seems a little difficult to understand-
We still do not understand.
-why all of them decided to raise their prices substantially within the last 15 to 18 months.
The problems of that time are still the same in October 1968.
I conclude by saying-
I am quoting the words said by the minister in 1966, and I would like him to remember.
I conclude by saying that I feel the minister has a responsibility to do something to convince farmers across the country that there is some justifiable cause for the very large and significant increase in farm machinery prices which we have noted recently.
At that time, there were complaints about the increase in farm machinery prices. So how will the minister convince all the farmers in this country that the interest increase on farm loans and the interest on farm machinery purchases, we want to increase tonight, are acceptable?
I should like, at this stage, to make a comment concerning the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) who, a while ago, denounced the interest rate on farm loans and farm machinery, saying they were intended to be profitable to banks only. This afternoon, however, less than twelve hours ago, that same member voted for the increase in the rate of interest.
Again, it is not the farmers, as I have shown this afternoon, who are getting returns and whose returns are increasing. It is precisely the rates of interest charged to those people we are preparing to increase tonight and those loans will be profitable to individuals who are at present in the financial world and in favour of whom this new act will mostly work, as the hon. member for Kent-Essex has pointed out in his complaints.
I take for instance the case of Mr. George Arnold Harp, President of the Bank of Montreal, who is administrator of a finance company and of trust companies, who is involved with farm machinery companies, who is a
Farm Credit Act
member of farm machinery unions, who has invested in funds, who administered in 1966 a total of $14,387,000,000 and who caused the profits of the companies he was administering in 1966 to show an increase of $1,249,968,000. This afternoon we voted against a legislation for which the government and the conservatives have voted unanimously so as to increase the profits of those gentlemen. The same M.P.'s will probably vote again unanimously, following the same logical reasoning they have brought forth this afternoon, to increase the rate of interest on loans granted for the purchase of farm machinery, although the hon. member for Kent-Essex has spoken against such plan this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, I could also consider the balance-sheet of companies administered by Mr. Earl McNaughton, chairman of the Royal Bank of Canada and executive of several finance companies, especially Capital Investment Corporation, Niagara Insurance, Canadian Pacific Railway, General Motors, Royal Victoria Hospital and many others, as the Montreal Trust, etc.
The asset of the companies which he administered in 1967 amounted to $33,759 million and still, not one of their balance-sheet shows a deficit. Nevertheless, this evening we are on the verge of doubling the interests of those gentlemen, since the Minister of Agriculture has not yet said no to the financiers.
At this point, I would like to remind him that a few years ago, he knew how to say no to financiers. Now he is saying no to the farmers, and he says yes to the finance corporations and banks which to-morrow could double the interests on loans for the purchase of farming implements and thus raise problems for many hundreds of thousands of farmers.
As the minister was not here this afternoon when I made the remark regarding a farmer who last night was to make a loan at 5 per cent, I will remind him that the same farmer will not be ready, within a few days, to borrow at 8 or 9 per cent. Canada will count one farmer less, which will make our national product go down by as much and the Minister of Agriculture will be responsible for this situation.
It is unfortunate that we have to repeat all this to the Minister of Agriculture who is an expert in agriculture as well as in finance. That is why we cannot pass without objecting, a bill which is so important for the farmers and which will cause a serious prejudice to them in years to come.

October 15, 1968
Farm Credit Act
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments on the bill which is now before us. I was particularly pleased to see the farm improvement loans legislation pass through the house this afternoon. I wish to comment that the measure of worth of the Minister of Agriculture will depend on how low he can convince his cohorts to set the interest rate and still have the banks lend money. We on this side of the house will watch very closely the formula that derives and how successful it is.
I should like to take exception to what has been said by the hon. member for Shefford, who has just spoken, when he suggests that we in this party voted for higher interest rates on this very point. We voted to establish a formula so that the interest rate could go only so high. The government did not accept the suggestion; I suppose it thought our formula was too low. However, we voted for the measure in an attempt to encourage the banks to lend money to the farmers so that they could make a profit, and not necessarily so that the banks could make a profit. We were in no way concerned whether the banks made a profit or not, but we were concerned about the agricultural industry. I think my friends on this side dealt with that point quite extensively.
I am a little disappointed because the minister proceeded with this legislation. Forgive me for saying so, but over the Thanksgiving week end I made an extensive tour of central Alberta. I can only say that I was depressed when I saw the weather conditions as bad as they were. The farmers have not turned a wheel for two weeks; crops are still lying out in the weather. There is snow in some fields, while other fields are too wet to enable a machine to get on them at all. I am a little disappointed that the minister did not bring in the cash advances legislation before the farm credit legislation, because the one represents immediate cash and the other represents long term credit.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have it ready to go on with immediately.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I realize the minister is prepared, but I was somewhat concerned this afternoon when he said that this legislation must go through, and hinted to the house that he has used up all the time his government will allow him for his farm legislation. I was a little disappointed when he threw out the

hint this afternoon about his time running out. In earlier days the minister had the whole department; now it is split into three sections under three ministers. One would think that three ministers would command some position in the government and that agricultural legislation would not be allowed only a limited number of days.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have had priority of time that has been available.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would hate to think that we were hamstrung in dealing with as important an issue as long term agricultural credit. This is an important issue, because certainly, when one considers the plight of the farmers today and in the immediate future he can only say that credit must play a major part in the revamping of the whole agricultural industry.
Clause I of this bill defines a farmer as one whose principal occupation is that of farming. In answering a question of the hon. member for Kent-Essex the minister said that we must acknowledge the fact that farmers should be encouraged to join together in order to compete better with vertical integration. Where has the family farm gone? Has it become non-existent; has it passed from the sight of all politicians, including the Minister of Agriculture? Why is this legislation not primarily for the purpose of strengthening and enlarging the family farm?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why is it necessary for us to become involved in the whole complex matter of joining farmers together? Have we admitted that the agriculture industry is beyond hope unless the farmers band together? I would like to think this is not so. On June 4 the Winnipeg Free Press quoted the Prime Minister as saying this:
The government proposes to amend the farm credit legislation to provide for broadened applicability and to stimulate the entry into the industry of younger people. These amendments would provide increased coverage for farmers desirous of acting in partnership, would improve the ability of farmers to enter into agreements with their sons-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is a quotation from a speech by the Prime Minister. I hear somebody over there saying "hear, hear". I am glad that someone in the Liberal party agrees with my interpretation of someone else's remarks, because sometimes I am accused of misinterpreting their remarks. This is what
October 15, 1968

the Prime Minister dealt with, as reported by the Winnipeg Free Press on June 4. He said that we must direct farm credit in such a way that farmers will be desirous of acting in partnership.


An hon. Member:: I cannot hear you.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He said he would direct-


An hon. Member:: Louder.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He said he would direct farmers to enter into agreement with their sons in a farming partnership. This is what the Prime Minister said. At the same time he also had an interesting theory. In the same news item he suggested that we must set up two categories of farmers, the big and the small, with special help to the small. I have looked through this whole bill in an effort to find some help for the small acreage farmer.


An hon. Member:: What did you find?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In answer to the smart replies over there I must say that I did not find anything. You know, we have a new rump here tonight. If one could measure the amount of brains by the amount of noise one might think there was a pretty intelligent rump over on that side.


An hon. Member:: You are right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to say-


An hon. Member:: Why don't you?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The only person here who has a time limit is the Minister of Agriculture. He pleaded with members of the house to get this legislation through tonight. I am in no particular hurry. If hon. gentlemen over there wish to prolong this debate, I am quite in agreement, because I believe the question of long term credit for the agricultural industry deserves more than a few scant hours of hurried scanning in this house. I should like to ask the minister where the family farm has gone. Has he lost sight of it altogether?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not at all.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This legislation purports to aid those farmers who will join together. I do not deny that two farmers who have joined together can compete better in the agricultural world in which we find ourselves today. I am not denying that fact; but it has always been my belief, and the belief of the Conservative party, that it is the duty of the government to promote the greatest opportunity for the greatest number of people.
Farm Credit Act
If we accept the philosophy and promote the idea that farmers must join together, that a father and son must join together, or that two or three brothers must join together, then we immediately accept the philosophy that it is government's duty to aid the big and say "to heck" with the small.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
That is what this bill does.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It does exactly the opposite.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to ask the minister whether this long term credit plan is not doing exactly the same thing the Prime Minister suggested, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press of June 4, when he said:
Because government assistance programs to farmers have, in the past, tended to do least for the people who need help most-the smaller, less efficient farmers-the Liberals are suggesting that farms be divided into two categories, with the operator deciding in which category he wishes to be. The greatest assistance would go to small, marginal farmers: the least would go to large, commercial operators. But the small farmer would pay a price. In return for government aid he would have to promise not to sell his farm, except for incorporation into a larger, more economic unit, or to a public authority-to be used for a community pasture or parkland.
Let me deal with the first part of the Prime Minister's comment. The greatest amount of assistance is to be given to the small farmer; but this bill allows the governor in council to set the interest rates. The minister has not said there will be two interest rates, one for the corporate farmer and one for the family farmer; or one for two brothers, or a father and son, and another for a family farm. He has not said what this particular clause will do for the individual farmer.
The minister did say to the hon. member for Kent-Essex that the individual would have to own the land; but how do you determine whether the man who owns the land is actually farming it?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: He would have to make a declaration that he was farming it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would he have to live on the land? The minister does not answer because he does not know. He himself would have difficulty in qualifying as a farmer if that were the case. These are the points that should be cleared up before this clause is passed.
There is no hesitation on my part in saying that long term credit is of utmost importance to the agricultural industry today. Never

October 15, 1968
Farm Credit Act
before has this industry been so badly in need of long term credit. Let me commend the operations of the Farm Credit Corporation in the past. If I had any criticism to offer I would say it has asked for too much guarantee and has not approved a sufficient number of loans to support the individual farmer.
I have not known of two brothers who were farming together who had much trouble getting money. There always seems to be money available for this type of operation, which is of a concentrated nature. They are not necessarily the most efficient farmers, but certainly the government is promoting the establishment of this type of farm through this type of farm credit legislation.
In my own area and throughout the constituency of Crowfoot there are brothers who farm together. I commend them for this, and there is very little that can be said against this type of operation. However, the backbone of the agricultural industry is the family farm. This bill and the proposed amendments will change the situation drastically. There will be a tendency on the part of farmers to create corporate farms. In this way they will be able to qualify for loans of $100,000 or more, whereas the maximum an individual farmer might obtain will be something in the neighbourhood of $40,000.
The hon. member for Shefford quoted the speech of the Minister of Agriculture, which I quoted earlier, in which the minister suggested that the cost of land would go up if money was made available. He suggested that this in fact has been the case, and I agree with him. Let me take this one step further. If this has been the case in the past, what will happen in the future when the government is prepared to give $100,000 to two or three brothers who farm together in order to purchase property? The individual farmer will be able to obtain only $40,000. Who do you suppose will be able to pay the extra $1, $2 or $5 per acre for that piece of land? There is no doubt in my mind that the corporate or single family unit, as the minister likes to describe it, will have the money to buy that acreage. That type of operation will grow, because brothers will be in a position to pay the extra money wanted by the farmer who is selling out. That farmer wants the highest price he can get, and I do not hold that against him. If the minister makes more money available to this type of operation he will increase the cost of land.
If this is what he wants, and feels is best, he will eventually end up with state farms like they have in Russia. Two farmers will

not be able to farm together as successfully as five farmers, and five farmers will not farm as effectively together as ten. In ten or 20 years from now we will have state farms, and as a result of this legislation they will actually be state farms because of the money the emits will owe the government.
The minister shakes his head in a negative fashion, but he has not changed my views by the remarks he has made. I asked him whether the individuals applying for loans would have to be engaged actively in farming and living on the farms, and he replied that they would have to be actively engaged. I suppose these people could go to the banks and borrow money, and then turn it over to managers. I am not sure that is the case, and I am not sure that would constitute being actively engaged.
At this time we must be very careful about where we are going as a result of clause 1 of this particular bill. Let us not forget the value of family farms. I am in complete agreement with the Minister of Agriculture that farmers may tend to join together to survive. I cannot accept this policy of the government which seems to indicate that the family farm is not an efficient operation and cannot survive. I firmly believe that these are efficient operations, and that an equal opportunity should be given to the individual farmer.
Let me remind the minister of the permit book system adopted by the Wheat Board. Two brothers farming together on a single farm unit receive one permit book, and an individual farmer on a single emit right alongside would also have one permit book. The minister has come up with a bill which will allow the corporate farm units to obtain loans of $100,000, whereas individual farmers may only obtain a maximum loan of $40,000. This will invariably put a group of farmers in a better position to buy the land in a particular area and it will inevitably increase the cost.
When talking to officials of the minister's department I have been told that two farmers operating together are better off financially than an individual farmer, and as a result are in a better position to pay back their loan. I do not disagree with that suggestion. Two or more farmers operating together have a built-in labour force, and more initiative because they are directly involved. I do not believe the government should go out of its way to promote one operation against another. It has been my belief that the government should provide equal opportunity. If we follow the
October 15. 1968

idea outlined by the minister we will ultimately force more and more family farms out of business.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could help the hon. member.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I see that the minister is eager to rise, Mr. Chairman.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Crowfoot has made the point several times, or has attempted to do so, that this measure will force family farms into a disadvantageous position relative to some other form of entity, whether it be a co-operative or corporation set-up. The fact of the matter is that exactly the opposite is true. If there is a family farm where there is more than one owner-operator, father-son, or father and more than one son, and if there is a partnership or family corporation or co-operative-indeed it does not have to be in that form as long as it is operated as one business, as a family unit-$100,000 is available to them. It would be $80,000 if there are two, and $100,000 if there are three.
All these changes will do will be to recognize every farmer, whether he belongs to a family unit or is in business for himself as having a right, as a bona fide farmer and a citizen of Canada, to apply for $40,000. He can then organize himself, whether it be in a family unit or some other arrangement, with those around him into operating the most efficient, economic unit. In this way he can take advantage of what my hon. friend has attempted to put forward as an economic disadvantage; that is, he can enter into a corporate arrangement and he would not be denied borrowing up to $40,000 because he belonged to a larger business than a singly-owned proprietorship type of farm.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is very, very difficult for me to follow the argument of the hon. member, because what he is arguing against, in so far as a family farm is concerned, is actually being provided for in this measure to make it easier and better for family farms and other small groups to in fact take advantage of the efficiency of operating a larger unit.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister's definition is quite convincing to those who are not aware of the actual conditions and practical application of the agricultural industry, and what is happening in it.
Farm Credit Act
The minister did not enunciate how the family had to be made up in order to borrow the $120,000, I think it is, that he mentioned. The minister was referring to a farmer operating a family farm with sons of 21 years of age or 18 years of age. He did not in any way refer to a farmer who has daughters.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member would agree that they are not partners until they become of age, whether it be 18 years of age or 21 years of age.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now the minister has put the picture very, very clearly. Supposing there are one, two or three brothers farming together, and a piece of land is for sale, and supposing also that a family operating a very efficient unit has children who are not 18 years of age or 19 years of age-they may be 6, 7, or 8 years of age; perhaps there are a few young farmers still in this country who have been brave enough in the last few years to try to establish a farm-I ask, who will be able to buy the piece of land available for sale in the neighbourhood?
Under the provisions of this bill, those able to buy the land will be the established, two, three or four brothers farming together who have formed a company. Perhaps two or three of the brothers are still in the city or have gone back to the towns and are doctors, or what have you; but they are considered to be farmers because they were able to borrow the money. The minister did not say they have to live on the farm, but as long as they are operating the farm-perhaps drive out at week ends to supervise it-they are eligible to take advantage of this bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The act says "principal
occupation".


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is a difficult one to determine, Mr. Chairman. "Principal occupation" is a very difficult term to define.


An hon. Member:: It is defined all the time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now we have the learned expert entering the debate. I wish that more of the backbenchers on the other side of the house would enter this debate, because we would benefit so much from the knowledge that they are sitting on. "Principal occupation" does not give a clear definition as to his degree of occupation in that field. It depends upon whether he is actively engaged in the agricultural industry. He might be an auctioneer making far more than the earnings of his farm.

October 15, 1968
Farm Credit Act


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to quote the interpretation of "principal occupation" which was put into the act by his party when in government. It says:
Where a person has two or more major occupations, one of which is farming, the corporation may determine which of such occupations is his principal occupation for the purposes of this act.
That was the definition put into the act by his party when in government.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That points out very vividly, Mr. Chairman, the difficulty in trying to define "principal occupation". The minister has substantiated my argument as to why it is not properly defined. In the opinion of the Farm Credit Corporation, what is a person's "principal occupation"? In other words, it is left to the corporation to decide this question and there is no real definition of the term. I am not disputing that particular point. The minister has in effect sidetracked me. He has not defined what is meant by "principal occupation". He has tried to define a family farm as one operated by a father and three sons, or a father and two sons, or a daughter, who has a contract. How many farms in western Canada would the minister describe as family farms which have no contract among the family?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You do not need a contract.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Ninety per cent of the family farms are operated as one person, that is, by the breadwinner of the family. The rest of the family contribute, no matter what their age, to the productive capacity of the farm. They do this beyond a shadow of a doubt. They do it in more ways than one. They may well not be old enough to sign a contract, such as the minister wants them to do under the provisions of this legislation. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I go back to my own boyhood in this respect. Without a doubt I worked harder at age 16 than I did at age 22. This exemplifies the point I have been trying to make, which is that this bill specifically helps and encourages the joining together, under a contract, of individual farmers.
The minister knows well the company of which I speak. Supposing that a piece of land comes up for sale and three or four people get together and buy it, they run the cattle jointly and form and operate a company, but they are still operating individual farms, the question that arises is: Would that be a company of bona fide farmers whose principal occupation is farming, because in that case

they would have a distinct advantage over a family farm that is also looking at that grazing land with envious eyes. The company formed in this way would be able to borrow $120,000 under this bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That figure is wrong, Mr. Chairman; $100,000 is the limit.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister would suggest that there is not too much difference between $40,000 and $100,000, but to the family farm there is a great deal of difference. I want it clearly understood by every member in the house, by the backbenchers of the minister's party and everybody else, that this bill denies the right to the family farm to compete equally with groups of persons banding or joining together in order to borrow money. It denies this right to a family farm, particularly if that farm is not incorporated and if the children on it are not old enough to sign a contract. This bill specifically spells out that such an arrangment cannot be considered a partnership. To qualify for a loan under the provisions of the bill, you must have children and they must be of age 18 or 21, and all boys. This must be the situation for such a farmer to compete with a joint operation. So let it be clearly understood that this bill is designed to take away any advantage that the family farmer has. This is what the minister is doing.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I would like very much to hear the minister dispute that argument far better than he has done so far tonight. He has not done so in any way, and I say to all members of this house it is my belief that the family farm is still the backbone of the industry, and it is the government's duty to maintain it, particularly in this bill which deals with long term credit.


Mr. Harding:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to take up too much time this evening but there are one or two questions that I would like to direct to the minister. I think most of the pertinent facts dealing with the legislation before us have been covered by one speaker or another during this debate, which has lasted for several days. There is one point however which does bear a great deal of repetition. I am referring to the change which has been made in the setting of the interest rates. I think this proposed change is the most objectionable feature of the amending legislation, and it is this particular point which has caused more debate
October IS, 1968

than any other. There are two objections to the change with which I would like to deal. First, instead of the rate being written into the act we see that the government intends to ask the house to change the regulations so that the interest rate would be set by governor in council. Personally I object to this change, and there are several reasons for my objections.
My first objection is to the fact that once again it is proposed that the regulating powers of this house be taken away from the members and handed over to the cabinet. I think this increasing trend toward government by order in council is not good, whether it is in the House of Commons, in the provincial legislature or wherever it may take place. There is far too much government by order in council, so that the elected representatives of the people do not have a voice in the decisions that are made. Handing this power over to the cabinet, no matter how good their intentions may be, is a step in the wrong direction.
The second reason for my objection, and one which I think will affect farmers most of all, is that we are going to see an increase in the interest rate which will be charged for loans under this act. It seems to me that in the old act the rate was set at 5 per cent. Farmers knew what they would have to pay when they went to the corporation for a loan. Today the minister is suggesting that we hand over to the cabinet the right to set the rate of interest on loans granted under this piece of legislation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wonder if the hon. member would allow me to suggest that he deal with this matter when we get to clause 5 where the interest rate in embodied. It is not included in clause 1.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I have only a minute or two left and I might as well complete the point I am making right now, rather than bring it up later on. I want to point out that as a new member I have been impressed by the number of members from all sides of the house who have taken part in the debate and who have told us of the trouble in which farmers all over the country find themselves. There have been references to the corn growers in Ontario and the grain farmers on the prairies, for whom this is one of the very bad years.
Here we are debating the interest rate, and the minister has assured us that in his opinion it will come down. I have one or two
Farm Credit Act
suggestions which I would like to make to him. I think the interest rate should be kept at 5 per cent, that it should be written into the act, and that we should subsidize the difference, if necessary. Perhaps we should put a ceiling on the amount of loan to be subsidized. This can be done.
The suggestion was made the other day that it would not be possible to put a ceiling on the amount of loan to be subsidized, because of the difficulties we would have with banks. However, in this case we are dealing with a crown corporation, so that subsidization can take place very easily. I want to point out to the minister the case of a farmer desperately in need of money. He borrows money at 7 or 8 per cent, and six months hence the interest rate could drop. This farmer, however, will be stuck for many years with a high interest loan which will amount to many thousands of dollars. Hon. members must be aware of the trouble in the field of housing under the N.H.A. where the interest rates went sky high and thus a terrific cost was inflicted on people trying to build homes, and borrow money at these exceptionally high rates.
Again I appeal to the minister and to the members of this house that we take another look at this matter. We can afford to subsidize loans for one year under this act. This will not break the government. Already there are many fields where money is being wasted. This money could, instead, be applied to give the farmers in a bad year at least an opportunity to get loans at 5 per cent interest rate, and even that in my opinion is too high.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back to a point raised earlier by me, and on which the minister commented with respect to the term "farming corporation" as qualifying under the definition of "farmer". I want to make it quite clear that I do not question the minister's word or the government's intention with respect to the extension of the term "farmer" to mean also a farming corporation, but it seems to me we as legislators have the responsibility of providing some protection in the legislation to prevent so far as possible the possible future subversion of the intent of this legislation, which could result in harm to the industry which we are trying to help.
In paragraph (e) of subclause 1 of clause 1 the term "farmer" includes three different categories: First, an individual whose principal occupation is farming, second, a farming

October 15, 1968
Farm Credit Act
corporation as defined by regulation-this is left completely open-and third, an individual who is the owner of farm land that is being farmed by a farming corporation, where that individual is a shareholder of the corporation and is principally occupied in the farming operations of that corporation.
So since under subparagraphs (i) and (iii) it is possible to refer to "principal occupation is farming" or "principally occupied in the farming operations of that corporation", it should also be possible to add such a provision in subparagraph (ii). Consequently I should like to move the following amendment:
That the following words be added to clause 1 subclause (1) immediately after the word "regulation," in line 12: "provided that at least 95 per cent of the shares are owned by individuals who are principally occupied in the farming operations of that corporation".
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I might elaborate on this amendment by pointing out, first of all, that the reference to a 95 per cent share requirement is consistent with the present regulations under the Farm Credit Act. The definition of a family farm corporation in these regulations provides that 95 per cent of the shares must be owned by those who are actually actively participating in the operation of the family farm corporation. The last part of the wording is similar to the last words of subparagraph (3) of this particular paragraph. I move the amendment, Mr. Chairman.


Albert Béchard: Is the committee ready for the question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before the amendment is dealt with, I feel we should have an explanation from either the minister or the mover of the amendment. As I understand it, the suggestion is that 95 per cent of the shares must be owned by individuals who are principally occupied in the farm operation of that corporation. I should like the matter cleared up in my mind. It seems to me this wording suggests that you cannot have a farmer owning a farm and getting involved in another corporation. I should like the minister to give his interpretation of this amendment before we vote on it so quickly. I should like more information from the mover of this amendment because it suggests that the individual must be principally occupied in the farm corporation, and no other family farm or corporation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, it is intended that a similar provision to this will be contained in the regulations. However, I would say to the hon. member that the amendment would cause some hardship if we use the figure of 95 per cent. The reason is that it would be necessary then, for example, in a father and son relationship, for one to buy the other out if the farm changed hands. We believe the figure should be substantial, certainly well over 50 per cent. When I say that,
I do not mean close to 50 per cent; I mean well above it. From the practical standpoint, we would find such a provision would cause some hardship when attempts were made to find the money to buy out all of the shares up to 95 per cent.
We have to bear in mind one or two other things. The amount of money that can be borrowed from the corporation does not go up to 95 per cent of the value of the farm unit. While we are certainly going to do something of this nature in the regulations, since such a provision has been used before, we feel that 95 per cent would be restrictive. This provision would necessitate a young farmer raising a substantial amount of cash, and this would be difficult. The shareholder may be his father or some other relative who could hold some of these shares, but he would not then be principally occupied in the farm operation of that corporation. This is the reason it would be difficult to accept this high percentage.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the minister why he does not put the definition in the act, rather than simply say he is going to deal with it by regulation? Is there any valid excuse for not having the provision incorporated in the act?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, there is, because we need to gain some experience with the various kinds of corporate and co-operative structures and the shareholdings that would be involved. There are many different kinds of arrangements, and there are many people involved in the farm business. We would like to have enough flexibility so we could make provision, first of all to meet these problems and at the same time make certain it is only actual owner-borrowers who are benefiting from this finance facility.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What assurance has the house that the regulations will in fact provide what the minister is now suggesting?
October 15, 1968


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am advised that when the family farm concept was put into the act in the first place, the definiton of "family farm" was left to be defined in the regulations on the basis of some experience in the various arrangements and structures of the ownership, control and operation of family farms. We believe that we need to have some experience with these more formal arrange-ements of family farm corporations and other farm corporations where the members participating are actual operators. There are partnerships and there are many other arrangements that are envisaged here. We feel we need some time to gain experience, at least in the first instance, to find out what variations there are in the structures.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The house has no assurance in this regard. In so far as the family farm is concerned, there is some room for latitude in the definition of a family farm. However, the latitude would be within a quite narrow variation. When you move into the area of corporations, I may say I am not so enamoured of the amendment put forward because it is not narrowing the definition. It does not really prevent a corporation from being involved in many farm operations. The amendment put forward is not really very restrictive. What I am protesting against is the minister asking for a blank cheque and simply trying to soothe the committee by saying it is proposed to do this or that. We have had a number of other instances in which assurances have been given-and I do not want to be offensive-but the actualities turned out to be very different from the assurances given.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I accept that reason for raising this point. I would have to say, though, that there were a number of definitions and interpretations that were left to the regulations each time the act has been amended. Indeed, when the act came into force in the first place on July 18, 1939, the definition of a "farmer" was a person whose principal occupation is farming and, for the purpose of part II, included co-operative farm associations and family farm corporations as defined by the regulations. This is not new to the act, it has been in the act for nine or ten years.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, in reality, the proposed amendment does not mean much. However, that does not mean that I accept the definition or the words of the hon. minister, according to whom we should try out this
Farm Credit Act
new system of financing, and it would be difficult to accept this amendment which means that 95 per cent of the shares would be held by individuals or by the individual contracting the loan under the new legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister knows this. The mover of the amendment must know it, too. They know that one has to own 95 per cent of a farm in order to borrow $40,000, $80,000 or $100,000. This means that when the loan is made, when the farmer has given his farm or property as guarantee, the financial system which finances the purchase or loan holds or controls 95 per cent of the shares of that farm. In other words, we are going in circles, always within the same system.
Here, according to the definition given by the hon. minister and which we see in the bill, it is obvious that some people thought very hard in order to come to the conclusion that a farmer is someone who works his farm. I suppose they had to take special courses to understand that a farmer is a man who works his farm and whose main occupation is agriculture.
For the purpose of Part II, this term includes a co-operative farm association and a family farming corporation as defined by the clause.
Mr. Chairman, I had something else to say on the bill itself, but since we are now considering the amendment-that is the subject under discussion-I must say that it means nothing at all under the circumstances, even if the shares are held on a 50 or 60 per cent basis by someone engaged in farming. Evidently, those people can borrow as well as those who hold 95 per cent of the shares. Nowadays, one rather seldom sees people holding 95 per cent of the shares in farming operations, even in western or in eastern Canada, because farms are mortgaged and because land is controlled at present not by the farmer but by those very people whom the minister wants us to accept as lenders to the Canadian farmers.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the difficulties pointed out by the minister regarding the 95 per cent figure that is proposed in my amendment. I simply took the figure in the regulations made under the act, which have applied up to the present time. I should be interested in hearing from the minister the sort of figure he has in mind as being reasonable, taking into account the variety of circumstances that might arise.

October 15, 1968
Farm Credit Act
I also recognize the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, that this in fact is not the final word in closing the door to the undesirable entry of corporations into farming operations, with the assistance of the public. However, I would ask the minister whether he is prepared to give the committee an undertaking that it is the intention of the government to pass regulations that do fulfil the intent of this amendment, namely that any public assistance given through the Farm Credit Corporation to help people to become established in farming, to established farming operations or to extend farming operations will be restricted to those who are principally engaged in the occupation of farming.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I can reply to the hon. member. He referred to the 95 per cent figure contained in the present regulations. While the regulations provide that 95 per cent of the ownership must be with members of the family, the regulations also provide that only 51 per cent shall be held by the actual operators. I can give the hon. member the undertaking that when the regulations are drawn they will provide that 51 per cent or even a larger share of the shares must be held by actual operators.
I would not like to give the hon. member the exact figure at this stage because there are such things as voting shares, preferred shares and other aspects involved in the structure of these companies. However, I can give the hon. member opposite the assurance that a majority, and indeed much more than a majority, of the shares will have to be held by the owner operators.
Then there is the problem that arises in corporate family farm structures which include young people who cannot be defined as operators, but may have an interest in the family farm corporation. We should like to leave enough room here so that this would not defeat some of the objectives in strengthening the competitive ability of the family farm unit.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the explanation given by the minister and his undertaking to me, I ask the leave of the committee to withdraw my amendment.


Albert Béchard: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.
[Ur. Burton.]


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed with clause 1, since the minister was discussing the regulations a minute ago would he say whether they still declare that the prime purpose of the Farm Credit Corporation is to aid farmers not now operating an economic unit? When the Farm Credit Corporation was first established in 1959 the regulations provided that loans could not be made to farmers who were already established on an economic farm unit. The corporation's basic purpose was to help farmers become established on economic units, putting them on a sounder footing. Would the minister say whether this provision, or one like it, is still in the regulations?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, it is.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then, Mr. Chairman, what is the minister's definition of an economic unit, if he is prepared to lend up to $100,000 to two, three or more farmers who are farming together a joint operation? Anyone with enough credit to borrow $100,000 today would be considered in the agricultural industry to be operating an established farm as an economic unit. Would the minister explain this regulation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am sure the hon. gentleman will recognize at once that three individuals have to apply for the loan through a corporation, a partnership, a cooperative or some other structure. I presume it takes nearly three times as much to support three families as to support one, and this is the justification for that amount. Each farmer, or citizen who wants to become a farmer, whether a member of one of these co-operations or associations or not, is entitled to equal consideration.
The regulations which were drafted are still applicable, Mr. Chairman. Regulation 12 (2) provides:
Where, in the judgment ol the Corporation, an applicant tor a loan has the resources required to complete an economic farm unit the corporation may decline to make a loan to him or limit the amount of the loan to be made to him.
This regulation would apply in this case, Mr. Chairman. I repeat for emphasis that if there is more than one family-and in many cases there will be-living off the same farm unit, the size of the farm, to become an economic unit, must go up proportionately.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I am not concerned with those farmers already living on a farm, the example cited by the minister. I am
October 15, 1968

concerned, in broadening the scope of this legislation, that the change in the definition of what is a farmer would make money available to corporations or co-operative farm associations that are already established units, units that to all intents and purposes are quite productive but want to enlarge. I am concerned that money will be taken out of the public treasury, in effect, and given primarily to those already engaged in farming on a sound financial basis. The lending of money to these sound economic units will mean depriving somebody else of a loan to assist him in his operations.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: But the same regulation applies. The key phrase is "if, in the judgment of the corporation. . It is the same phrase as has been used in the past. Where an individual or a corporation has the resources to complete an economic farm unit the corporation has a right to decline a loan on that basis.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This brings us to the crux of the problem. The regulations may be the same but they are now to be interpreted in line with a new act. The corporation can well interpret the intent of the government and of parliament in passing it, and the intent is to help corporations and co-operatives which are already established. So the interpretation of the regulation will definitely change. It is not enough for the minister to say that the regulation which was in effect in the past will continue to be in effect in the future, because it applies now to a different act. As we would say, using a colloquialism, it is a horse of another colour.
In the amendment which was withdrawn, an attempt was made to limit the use of this act in relation to corporate entities. It is a difficult thing to do. The minister knows that in recent years the Farm Credit Corporation, using its judgment, has made loans to what both he and I would consider to be economic units. I should like further assurance that it is still the intention of the government to lend money to farmers who are not yet operating economic units, so that they may be in a better position to compete within the industry.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not know how I can make the position more clear. I have answered that question in the affirmative three times. That is precisely what this part of the regulations means, and they are in effect.
Farm Credit Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then why is the hon. gentleman changing the definition of "persons" and using the word "individuals" if it is the intention of the government to lend money in respect of non-economic units?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I did not altogether follow the question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why the change in the definition of "farmers" if it is the intention of the government to lend money to owners of noneconomic units? What is the difference between "persons" and "individuals"?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is a legal term, because corporations under law can be regarded as persons and we wanted to make sure that we were dealing here with individuals-two or three, as the case might be, applying for the grant. Therefore it is preferable to use the word "individuals" rather than "persons".


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister give us some idea of what he considers to be an economic unit? Let him classify it in terms of gross income, or as net income, or in any other way. Let him just give us some idea of what he has in mind.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. gentleman knows very well that I could not begin to define that, taking into consideration all the factors which are applicable in the different regions, or in the context of the various commodities produced across this country. It would take hours to make that kind of explanation. The field men of the Farm Credit Corporation are skilled in this work and have been doing a good job; they take into account the various conditions and regions in determining the size of unit which will return a decent living to the operator involved.


Mr.   Homer@: There have been suggestions from the government benches that two classes of farmers, small farmers and big farmers, are to be considered. This is clear from the quotations from the Prime Minister's speech in Winnipeg this year, to which I have drawn attention. The minister should clear up this question concerning the nature of economic units. He has told us the government is trying to help those who are farming non-economic units. Would he consider a net income of $4,500 a year to meet his definition? What would the gross figure be? Surely he must have some idea. Surely he should be bold enough to say: I shall not rest until all farmers in Canada have an income of such and such a figure, and I will do my utmost to ensure that

October 15, 1968
Farm Credit Act
this bill helps toward that goal. I believe the minister should tell us clearly: I do not consider a farm to be an economic unit until it returns an income on such and such a level. Let the hon. gentleman make his position clear so that we may better understand what the Prime Minister meant in Winnipeg, and better understand what he refers to as an economic unit.


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, in the last few days the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has introduced for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) a series of bills favourable or detrimental to the farmer, and one of those is Bill No. C-110.
Even though the ability of the present minister of Agriculture have never been questioned, I dare say that his way of piloting his bills ranks him among the four predominant figures of this house, even well ahead of the Prime Minister. (Mr. Trudeau). The Minister of Agriculture, as a head of family, has acquired a maturity which the present Prime Minister lacks. As you all know, the Minister of Agriculture is also a full-fledged businessman, because while the Prime Minister was travelling all over the world, the Minister of Agriculture was building a successful business in his own province, and the measly three years experience acquired in this house by the Prime Minister is more than compensated by the 11 years spent in this house by the honourable Minister of Agriculture, who does not have to learn about farming problems, as he is himself a farmer. However, in spite of all his knowledge, the bill proposed by the honourable minister creates a few problems. We are concerned about the bad effects the passing of this bill will have on the farm people.
It is unfortunate that the farmer has to be subjected, by a government which is on the payroll of the big financiers of the country, to a bill which will strangle the farmer and do away with him. For the farmer, producer of the food needed for the survival of human beings, there is no hesitation, after the elections, in introducing bills such as the one now before us. However, according to circumstances, it is possible to introduce other sorts of bills and for the purveyors of election campaign funds, there was no hesitation in getting passed bill C-191, entitled "An act to amend the Excise Tax Act."

[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
And for the information of the new members in this house, you might allow me, Mr. Chairman, to quote a few excerpts'.
All the following:
Machinery and apparatus sold to or imported hy manufacturers or producers for use by them-
A little further one reads:
-gasoline powered and diesel powered self-propelled trucks mounted on rubber-tired wheels for off-highway use exclusively at mines and quarries;


Albert Béchard: Order. I must
remind the hon. member that he should confine his remarks to clause 1 of Bill C-110 under consideration, without referring to another bill recently passed by the house.


Roland Godin: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your remarks but I think it is important to point out to the newcomers the difference between the protection granted to companies which contribute to election funds and the way our farmers are treated.
Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that we will have to know what profits the farmers will have to make in order to pay their taxes, I take the liberty of continuing the quotation:
-internal combustion tractors, other than highway truck tractors, for use exclusively in the operation of logging, such operation to include the removal of the log from stump to skidwayare exempted from the 12 per cent federal tax.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the government is suggesting to its Minister of Agriculture unconditional loans, that is to say the farmers will not know now what interest rates they will be charged for the money they will have to borrow, for example to pay the sales tax on a third of the price of their tractors. It is not a secret for the farm machinery dealers-and the Minister of Agriculture is aware of it-that the farmers have to pay the 12 per cent federal tax on all the electrical system in their tractors, they have to pay the 10 per cent federal tax on what is called a grader. Those farmers who pay taxes on the purchase of farm equipment must think that they need profits to finance all that.
Farmers will have to borrow money to pay the sales tax on the hydraulic system, that is the system which feeds the plough, the harrow and all the other equipment. Mr. Chairman, the federal government sales tax also applies to that part of the tractor. It also applies to the pulley that is fastened to the tractor-the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. October 15, 1968

Olson) knows what I am talking about-that pulley through which all the farm equipment is steered, whether it be the threshing machine or any other machine. The federal government sales tax of 12 per cent applies as well, I insist to the shovel which is used to load the grain, or fertilizer, or earth.
A while ago, I pointed out in Bill No. C-191, with which we are well acquainted, the following:
-pipes or tubes commonly known as "oil-country goods", being casing or tubingincluding accessories, all the material required for the development of natural gas and mining. For the development of the agricultural produce required to feed the population, if the farmer can get water by gravity for his cattle, for the house, his home, the 12 per cent tax applies to the pipes. Otherwise, if he needs a pump, again he has to pay the 12 per cent tax on the pump. For all these things I am sorry Mr. Chairman, but the farmer has to pay sales tax.
In election time, the big companies are freed from excise taxes, and sales taxes. The farmer is not allowed to fade into the background: he always has to pay taxes. While our woods companies develop our forests to their advantage and that of foreign financiers, the farmer must purchase trucks on which the federal sales tax will always apply. All this will push him deeper into debt. If he wants to expand, he will have to go into debt. Of course he is not obliged to borrow because nothing forces him to expand his farm, but when time comes to seed, to bring in the crop, if machinery breaks down, he has to borrow. I feel that the Minister of Agriculture should act now and delete Section 8, subsection 2, paragraph (la) which reads as follows:
"(la) The Governor in Council may from time to time by regulation prescribe the rate or rates of interest to be paid in respect of any loan made under this Act."
Mr. Chairman, I do not think this makes sense. I think the farmer should know where he is going. The farmer cannot think that he will always pay beyond his means. He has lived long enough on the depreciation of his buildings. He must now make little profit, otherwise it will be the end of agriculture. The bill under consideration is the best means, the most hypocritical, the quietest, and the most conventional one to enable the government to seize the land of our farmers. Farms were seized in Poland and in Russia by all sorts of means, but today, the way the government does it is so well presented that
Business of the House
it is possible to forget it sometimes. It is really regrettable that one of ours should be forced to come to that, Mr. Chairman.
Ancient history teaches us all sorts of things, and, about treason, one recalls the story of Joseph who was sold by his brothers.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is time for the honourable minister to change his approach so as to prevent our young people and the coming generation to repeat or to think.. .


Albert Béchard: Order. It being 10 p.m. it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with the late shows, could the government house leader indicate to all of us what the business is for tomorrow?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The business tomorrow will be second reading and, we hope, committee stage of the bill to amend the Judges Act, to be followed by second reading stage of the drug bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
Thursday remains as announced some days ago?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Thursday
remains as announced last Thursday.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that many members should leave the house, because I think that all members should be interested in national matters. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention, as I have done, by asking the members on the other side of the house to give us the chance to fulfil our democratic obligation and to exercise our right to speak.
2192	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Thus, I revert to my speech which follows my comments of October 11.
I was then asking the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), if the unfortunate decision taken by the C.N.R. management that passenger service at Victoriaville would be discontinued completely, was irreversible.
Tonight, my remarks will be brief and especially directed to shed some light on a situation that has brought out a general outcry among the population of the area of Bois-Francs.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the minister was absent and you suggested that I put this question on the order paper. If I want to discuss it tonight, it is on account of the obvious urgency of the matter, because if I put it on the order paper, I would not get a reply until way after October 27.
Mr. Speaker, we know that this decision will be in force on October 27. That is a very serious matter. The Bois-Francs area, including the cities of Princeville, Arthabaska, Warwick and Victoriaville, as well as the rural and neighbouring regions, has a population of over 35,000. The whole area has a national reputation, I would say, thanks to the size of its manpower, its industry and its trade.
As a matter of fact, the Bois-Francs area is a furniture and textile centre. Its trade is extremely important. I wish to point out that the people there voted creditiste, but the increasing prosperity of the Bois-Francs area is new threatened because the road and communications network is out of date.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, Victoriaville is located about 100 miles from Montreal and the C.N.R. trains take over three and a half hours to cover the distance.
Secondly, Victoriaville is less than 75 miles away from Quebec City and there again, the Canadian National passenger service is absolutely unacceptable.
Thirdly, we have no direct junction line with the Trans-Canada highway, and it is not necessarily my intention to get elected to Quebec to acquaint them with the problem, as they are not even aware of it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at this point that we are told that the Canadian National passenger services are uneconomical in Victoriaville. I would like to ask the minister or his representative what are the grounds for asserting that the services in Victoriaville are uneconomical. Is it because the
[Mr. Fortin.l
DEBATES	October 15, 1968
present services are out-of-date and unsuitable? Is it because the people do not use them?
I believe it is a good reason for people not to use it; it is because the existing services are outmoded and inadequate.
Mr. Speaker, before removing such an essential service as that one in an area where railways are the only important means of communication, have the heads of the Canadian National Railways conducted a responsible and thorough inquiry with the people? What was their decision based upon? That is what I should like to know and what I am asking on behalf of the people, who want an answer without delay.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I am therefore asking first, that the minister order an inquiry if it has not yet been done, in order to clearly establish the economic viability or non-viability of this passenger transportation service.
Secondly, that the minister inquire about the possibility

and that is the point I am driving at-of improving that service, taking into account the needs of modern society.
Thirdly, it is not necessarily through the abandonment of all uneconomic services that an enterprise can necessarily be made a profitable one if beforehand-and I start from such a principle-we have not made sure whether the service could be made economic by improving and modernizing it.
Fourth, let the minister order the immediate revision of this most unfortunate decision which will certainly not promote the expansion and development of the region of Bois-Francs which has a most dynamic population.
Fifth, I would ask the minister to have a more modern railway station built, one better adapted to the needs of these areas, since the present one is falling in ruins.
Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude my remarks by maintaining that the C.N.R. should be there to serve the people and their interests. It must adapt its administrative policy to the present needs of our society; it must try to improve its services continually, whereas in Victoriaville, as elsewhere, services have in fact become worse. Since the C.N.R. is a Crown corporation, financed by the money of the taxpayers, it must serve the taxpayers and must be adapted in such a way that important regions such as that of Victoriaville are not neglected.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the population of this region very much affected by the decision which is to come into force of October
October 15, 1968

27th, I would appreciate some comments and a positive reply from the department, the minister or any other spokesman.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the interest shown in this matter by the hon. member when many people of the region of Victoriaville have heard that the Canadian National Railways intended to discontinue completely their passenger service in the region.
However, when we consider the situation, we hear that at no time have the Canadian National Railways proposed to discontinue their passenger service but rather that they anticipate a reduction in the service.
I may also add that because of the complaints that were received concerning the proposed reduction, the railway transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission is now considering the situation. The result of their study and their recommendations will be available in the near future and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) will be happy to report on the subject to the hon. member.



AGRICULTURE-DETERIORATION OF SITUATION ON THE PRAIRIES

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) the following question:
-is the government carrying on consultations with the provinces and other interested parties to consider measures to alleviate the serious income problem now facing the prairie farmers and also to counteract the deteriorating crop conditions which are getting worse by the day?
The minister in his answer could only refer to the cash advances proposal of which the house is already aware.
Today the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) also addressed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on this problem. The Prime Minister evaded an answer by referring the problem to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), both of whom were absent.
This crisis situation has developed over the past month as a result of unusually large amounts of rainfall and prolonged periods of inclement weather, which have prevented farmers from completing their harvest. The latest report of the Saskatchewan wheat pool states that 56 per cent of the harvest had
DEBATES	1193
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
been completed by October 4. Since that time there has been very little favourable weather. Over the past week end some districts received one inch of rainfall or more to add to the existing surplus of moisture.
The Globe and Mail today stated:
At the end of last week... about one-quarter of the crop in Manitoba, more than one-third in Saskatchewan and two-thirds in Alberta remained in the field.
The lack of progress in harvesting has been felt most severely in the northern half of the agricultural area in Saskatchewan, in areas of Manitoba, and in most of Alberta. In most of these areas, reports indicate that from 25 per cent to 40 per cent of the crop has been harvested, compared to some 80 per cent in some southern areas. With short, cool days and a surplus of moisture, it is probable that a large number of farmers will have to leave part of their crops in the field over the winter.
In addition, many farmers have sizable carryovers of grain stocks from last year. Quotas ranged from five to six bushels and grain officials estimate that this year a five bushel quota is the most that can be expected, with more pessimistic estimates suggesting four bushels. The continuing tight international market situation shows no promise of change. Today's Globe and Mail comments:
Farmers in the prairie provinces will have little spare money in the coming year. Farm income in the area is heading into a period of depression brought about by the combination of weakness in the world wheat market and crop damage from a wet harvesting season. "A lot of smaller farmers will be squeezed out this year," a Saskatchewan Wheat Pool official said in Regina.
Farm costs continue to rise at a level of 4 per cent to 5 per cent per year, while farm prices have dropped sharply. In particular, wheat prices dropped by some 22 cents per bushel in 1967 when farmers were left exposed during the period between the expiry of the old international wheat agreement and the beginning of the new international grains arrangement.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
There are a number of measures the government might consider to alleviate the problem. True, the situation could improve somewhat before freeze-up, but it is now clear that much of the crop will stay out in the field, much of the crop being harvested is in tough or damp condition, and in numerous cases there are problems involved in moving tough and damp grain to drying facilities.
1194	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Some of the measures the government should consider include:
1.	Special over-delivery quotas to enable tough and damp grain to move to terminals.
2.	Special action to clear space at elevator points now plugged with dry grain, which prevents facilities being used to move tough and damp grain.
3.	Special payments to farmers who are forced to leave part of their crop in the field.
4.	Adequate co-ordination and control to ensure that drying facilities are used to the maximum, and to develop emergency facilities as needed.
5.	Special depreciation allowances for storage and drying facilities.
6.	A guaranteed price of $2.12 per bushel for No. 1 wheat, basis lakehead.
7.	Effective back-up and support to the Canadian Wheat Board in dealing with the present difficult world market situation.
8.	Action to control farm costs, including special action to control farm machinery costs and interest costs on borrowed money.
To deal with the serious problem facing prairie farmers, action must be taken now.


Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) will perhaps allow me to answer and to offer a few suggestions with regard to the problem he raises in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) who is now on his way to Winnipeg in order to attend the first meeting of the National Grains Council. The minister will try solve problems.
Here, there is a slight difference between speech and deed. I feel the Minister of
DEBATES	October 15, 1968
Agriculture understands quite well the problem set forth by the member for Regina East, and I should like to point out to him that last Friday, the Minister of Agriculture answered a similar question put by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam). I shall quote the answer given by the minister to that hon. member:
Mr. Speaker, there is a possible or a potential serious loss to the farmers of western Canada, but I think the hon. member will realize that until the harvest season is completed it would be difficult to ascertain what the loss will be.
That is before the harvesting is over.
There are several days, perhaps even weeks, left this fall when much of this harvesting could be done, providing the weather turns better.
I feel it would be premature-and this is the gist of my reply-to attempt to determine losses at this time.
The hon. member must also be aware that western farmers have purchased for about $115 million worth of crop insurance and that the government's share amounts to 50 per cent of administrative costs and 25 per cent of premiums costs. Many other measures have been introduced in the advanced payments legislation, which is now before the house, as the hon. member has just said.
As regards other programs, all will depend on the circumstances and the hon. member will perhaps understand that the minister fairly tries to solve farm problems. He will also understand that, in conjunction with the provinces-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

The parliamentary secretary's time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.17 p.m.

Wednesday, October 16, 1968