Mr. Blanchette:

At this late stage of this measure I do not intend to make very extended remarks in connection with the bill before us. There is one thing that can be said, namely that all hon. members are seized with the fact that surely something should be done for agriculture. The difficulty seems to be as to the methods to be adopted to ameliorate the condition of the farmer. I will not expound the axiom that agriculture is badly in need of assistance; that is recognized by each and every one of us. It is also known that agriculture seems to be the poor daughter in the family of our economy. I might state further that to my way of thinking, no matter how long we try to compare the present act with this bill we will be getting adeptes for the former bill and also adeptes for the

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization present bill, but we are now dealing with the present bill and the discussion should be directed to this bill.

My purpose in rising this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, is to make a suggestion to the Minister of Agriculture. I feel that he is sincere in his efforts, and I know he has in mind the bettering of agriculture generally. With that aim in view, the suggestion I would like to make this afternoon is this. I noted this morning that during the remarks the minister made in connection with some of the suggestions which were brought out by hon. members the suggestion was made that perhaps pulpwood could be included in this bill. I believe the minister stated, and rightly so, that to a certain extent pulpwood comes more under provincial jurisdiction than federal. However, we have had striking examples in the past of measures adopted by the federal government that dealt especially with matters of provincial jurisdiction, and I am wondering whether it would not be possible for interviews to be held with some of the provincial governments for the purpose of having pulpwood included under this measure.

The purpose of the legislation no doubt is to ameliorate the conditions of the farmers in a general way, and I feel that no measure could be more beneficial to the farmers of Quebec and Ontario than, if pulpwood should be included under the legislation. I do not intend to move an amendment to that effect, knowing full well that such an amendment would be ruled out of order, but I humbly and sincerely suggest to the Minister of Agriculture again that he should reconsider his statement of this morning with a view to bringing pulpwood within the terms of the bill.

Mr. Blanchette:

I took it that the minister stated this morning that this was more a matter of provincial than federal jurisdiction and that the minister said pulpwood would not be included. The purpose of my remarks this afternoon was to have him reconsider that statement if he did make it.

Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):

Mr. Speaker, I shall not pretend to have new arguments to place before the house on this bill, as practically all the arguments possible have been advanced, from year to year, each time that a similar bill has been discussed.

The devotion and interest of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who has presented this bill is to be highly commended; but I am wondering whether the progress which is being made, from year to year, in industrial relations has not somewhat reduced the significance of this cause which he has espoused so ardently by the presentation of this bill.

The developments in the field of labour-management relations have strengthened the convictions of many that legislative provisions for this check-off would not serve any useful purpose in our federal legislation. The role of governments in industrial relations has always been-and will continue to be- a very live topic for discussion. Moreover, is it not generally accepted that the primary role of government should be one that is

for the introduction of the bill and some of the reasons why it should be passed by the house. The original legislation, the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act passed in 1934, was designed to give some security to the producers on the western plains against foreclosure for debt brought about by adverse agricultural conditions. The preamble of the original bill outlines that it was considered in the national interest that efficient producers of grain, cattle and farm produce on the prairies should be permitted to continue to produce.

As the result of the rather disastrous agricultural period that followed 1929 hundreds of thousands of farmers found themselves faced with economic conditions which necessitated that they should go to bankers and other credit institutions in order to obtain money to carry on their operations. Continued adverse conditions, which in some cases amounted to seven consecutive yeans of drought and practically no production, brought about a serious condition when the creditors sought to obtain repayment of the money they had lent and started to foreclose on the farmers in large numbers. Farmers who, through no fault of their own, had become bankrupt and did not have the means to carry on, found that their life savings and the work of themselves and their families were being wiped out. Foreclosures were extremely common. As a matter of fact, in many cases creditors who foreclosed obtained land and worn-out machinery and they were unable to make anything out of it afterwards.

In some cases the period of drought lasted for seven years, and in order to maintain the producers on the land this legislation was passed by the house in 1934. The procedure provided was that any producer, either before or after assignment under the Bankruptcy Act, could make an application before a court to file a proposal for the postponement or payment of his indebtedness over a period of years. The legislation made it possible for the farmer to take all the debts he owed to different people, lump them together and make some form of assignment under which he agreed to pay each of his creditors a certain amount each year out of the product of his toil.

I may say that the legislation, although limited in many respects and although it did not give complete justice, permitted the producer a period of time during which he could pay off his debts. It gave him an opportunity to produce and ultimately, in many cases, to pay off his indebtedness as soon as production was again possible. The return of rain, better weather conditions generally, better economic conditions and better prices

29, 1956 4433

Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act in many cases made it possible for the farmer to carry on and the farmer was able to save his property and assets and to hand them down to someone else in his family. The farmer was able to continue on the farm.

It was a very fortunate thing that the legislation saved him. The efficient producer was still on the land and capable of carrying on production when it was necessary. Shortly after the drought period, when Canada found itself in the midst of a war and needed production very badly, these efficient producers were there and did an excellent job of producing with very little help. The reason for amendment of the act at this time is quite evident. The farmers again find that they are falling badly into debt, not so much because of adverse weather conditions which affect production but rather because of the fact that higher costs of production enter into the picture. The farmer has really been producing in an extremely efficient manner but in spite of increased production the fact that his costs of operation are higher and there has been a reduction in the prices for his produce when he goes to sell it, and that in some cases he is unable to sell the commodity, has resulted in the farmer again sinking seriously and rapidly into debt.

The very nature of the original Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act has made it inoperative. I should like to refer to the limitation found in section 7 of the act, which section reads in part as follows:

... if two-thirds of the total amount therof-

The reference is to his debt.

-are owing by him in respect of debts incurred before the first day of May, 1935 . . .

With that provision in the act there are practically no debts with respect to which use can be made of the act and no cases where the farmer can get any redress or have the opportunity to make any kind of arrangement or assignment providing for the adjustment of payment of his debts. The main purpose of the bill is to remove that portion of section 5 from the section, to amend the other sections of the act which limit its application to debts incurred prior to that time, and to remove any reference to the particular period referred to in the preamble, that reference being to the period immediately following 1929 when serious indebtedness in certain farm areas had certainly resulted in a situation where it was beyond the capacity of the farmers to repay. The purpose of the bill is merely to make the benefits of the act applicable to producers who find themselves in that position today.

I might say that although the act did not meet all needs it was certainly of some little

Private Bills

Mr. J. A. Blancheiie (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour may I take the question as notice? In the meantime I might say that representations have been made to the Minister of Labour with regard to the subject matter of the question and that the matter is being fully gone into. A definite reply will probably be made in the course of the next few days.

Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Compton-Fronlenac):

Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this resolution reverses the flight of time for me some 18 years or so back to 1937, when I had occasion to speak on a similar resolution. As the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has just stated, the resolution for national scholarships had at that time been introduced by the then member for Essex East, who still has the honour to represent-and ably represent-this same constituency in the person of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin).

The resolution of 18 years ago was very well presented, and the expose that the sponsor made at the time fully outlined the needs as well as the possible consequences of putting the resolution into effect. Since that time similar resolutions have been introduced into this house, predicated always on the beneficial results which would be derived nationally by the implementation of its subject matter. Although 18 years have passed since the first resolution was introduced by the hon. member for Essex East in 1937, we have had this afternoon positive and tangible evidence of another very able presentation of the subject matter of the present debate, by the hon. member for York Centre, who introduced the resolution. I wish to congratulate him on his speech this afternoon on national scholarships, and his invitation, especially to the members from Quebec, to take part in this discussion is the reason why I am only too glad to support the resolution presented to us by him.

It is patent to us all that the purpose of the resolution is to supplement, if possible, the educational efforts not only of the federal and provincial governments but of all existing organizations interested in the subject of education.

Education is a heritage that we ourselves in this generation must assist in every possible way so that, as we pass from the field of activity, we shall leave behind us those who are probably better educated than we have had an opportunity of being. The resolution also means a greater use of our educational system and making of that system a greater national asset and a greater national benefit.

That there is often financial embarrassment to many of our students cannot be gainsaid.

Education

It we take into consideration the fact that 44 per cent of the children of the country issue from 14 per cent only of Canadian families, the assistance which can be given to needy students is recognized by all of us as one of the best investments a country can make.

In 1948-49, when university enrolment in the country had reached the total of 80,000, 30 per cent were ex-servicemen holding bursaries from the federal government. Apart from ex-servicemen, only one out of six or seven students in Canada, or less than 14 per cent of the total enrolment in Canadian universities, were holders of scholarships, even when participants in vocational training schemes were included.

In 1938, 14 per cent of Canadian students were scholarship holders. It must therefore be admitted that we have not made very much permanent advance in the 10 years from 1938 to 1948.

On the other hand, in Great Britain, in 1947, 25 per cent of the students, apart from ex-servicemen, held bursaries. Present government plans in Great Britain will result in the increase of this proportion to 70 per cent of the total number of university students. In the United States, 20 per cent of university students are on scholarships.

The report of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences mentions that 143 briefs had been presented to it up to 1950, and among these were those presented by the National Conference of Canadian Universities, the Trades and Labour Congress, the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour, and the Professional Institute of the Civil Service of Canada.

All of this goes to show the very high importance of the matter of education in the view of Canadians.

It is admitted by almost each and every one of us that, in accordance with the confederation act, education is under provincial jurisdiction. In no way must this requisite be interfered with, and at all times must this precept be adhered to.

I have been impressed this afternoon by the declaration of the hon. member for York Centre of the very small percentage of financial grants affecting students directly, out of the total grants made. I am wondering whether the matter could not be gone into with a view to increasing that percentage of only 6 or 7 per cent-if I recall correctly-that directly affects the students.

I know that it behooves each and every one of us to do all we can to increase, whenever it is possible to do so, the assistance for

needy and worthy students. I am wondering also whether some of our industries could not do a little more than they have done in the past in the establishment of scholarships particularly for worthy needy students. Corporation profits in 1954, for example, totalled $1,800 million. The figure for 1955 is estimated to be over $2i billion, an increase in profits of over $400 million in the last year. Surely here is a splendid opportunity for the corporations of Canada to lend their assistance to the establishment of national scholarships. In doing so they will not only assist needy students but will also assist themselves at the same time to secure the scientists and technical men they will need in the future.

The great need is for first-class men to give leadership and inspiration through their own brilliant, original discoveries. The future depends not only on the continued liberality of government agencies but on the number and quality of the men induced to do research work. The greatest need is to discover and train these men, and surely the resolution of the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth) will, if implemented, assist us to attain the aim envisaged.