1956-03-12

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer very briefly to the federal-provincial conference. At the October meeting it was agreed that this conference would resume in committee at a time to be fixed by the Prime Minister after consultation with the premiers of the provinces. In reply to my letter of January last outlining the fiscal proposals put forward by the federal government, some of the provincial premiers did suggest another meeting.
In my letter of February 18, 1956, I said:
Since our federal responsibilities and commitments are now so heavy that we would not be warranted in making any increase in the basic offer we made in January, it may be that the provincial governments generally would not feel that there would be any advantage to be derived from another meeting to discuss fiscal relations.
The replies to my letter indicated, however, that a further meeting in committee was desired.
The conference resumed Friday morning, March 9, and adjourned at five o'clock that day. Although the meeting was, as had been agreed, in camera, it was agreed at the beginning that each delegation could make public any statement it wished to make during the meeting. Some of these statements have been made public and several provincial representatives have made additional comments to the press. I will not endeavour to add to what has appeared in the press, or comment on the substance of the matter before the budget debate. I should like, however, to table the statement made by the federal Minister of Finance at the conference and also a statistical table distributed to the provincial premiers which shows an estimate of how the federal proposals would operate in the fiscal year 1957-58. It should be noted that these figures are illustrative only and that they are based on an assumed increase of 5 per cent per annum over the 1955 levels in the yields of standard taxes and the insurance premium tax.
Perhaps hon. members would wish to have the statement of the Minister of Finance and
the statistical table printed as an appendix to Hansard, as was done with the other documents relating to this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Do hon. members agree to this proposal?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of documents see appendix, pages 2065-68.)



REQUEST FOR NEW APPROACH FOLLOWING REPORTED BREAKDOWN OF CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: In
view of the fact that the dominion-provincial conference has, according to newspaper reports, broken down, will the Prime Minister advise the house whether or not he is prepared to consider a new approach to the problem which would be more satisfactory to the premiers of the provinces?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I had not seen any reports that the conference had broken down.


William Earl Rowe: Broken up, probably.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It came to an end. The statement I have laid on the table this afternoon and the statistical table illustrates the manner in which the proposals would operate, and represent the government's proposals. Now, there have been very large additional demands which the government felt, under present circumstances, could not be met.


William Earl Rowe: May I ask a supplementary
question? Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to have another conference in the near future?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Not unless we see some way of having more funds available for distribution because there was approval of the principle as being a step in the right direction. The contention was that it was not a long enough step, but it was as long a step as we thought we could make under present circumstances.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he say whether any further concessions were made to the provinces at

Dominion-Provincial Conference the recent conference, and whether those concessions were made at the general conference discussion or at some other place?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the provinces would not admit that anything that is proposed is a concession. There were explanations made as to how the retirement from the field of taxation on insurance premiums might operate. I know of nothing further that could be regarded as a concession or as an increase in the burden the proposals would mean for the federal treasury.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister consider that the provincial premiers who travelled hundreds, and, in some cases, thousands of miles, to be here on Friday, had been adequately warned that they were coming here only to be told that there was nothing new to tell them?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman can interpret himself the terms of the letter I wrote when I suggested to them that that being the situation it might very well be that they would not generally feel it was useful to have another discussion on fiscal policies at this time.
lLater:l
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister with reference to the documents he has tabled today? What has happened to the principle of federal control over taxation levels so as to deal with inflation and deflation when necessary in the public interest?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The passing of the British North America Act in 1867.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES   REFERENCE OF ANNUAL REPORT, AUDITORS' REPORT AND CAPITAL BUDGET TO RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING COMMITTEE

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have today laid on the table, in accordance with standing orders, the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year 1955 and the auditors' annual report to parliament of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ending December 31, 1955. Copies of both these reports have been made available for distribution to all hon. members. I now wish to move:
That the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for 1955, the auditors' annual report to parliament of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ending December 31, 1955, tabled this day, and


the capital budget of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ending December 31, 1955, tabled on Wednesday, March 7, 1956, be referred to the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: 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 bring in a measure to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act by providing for a new three year pool commencing April 1, 1956, and ending March 31, 1959; to provide further that the maximum amount of bank loans made in the new period and guaranteed under the act shall be three hundred million dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 34-Mr. Johnston (Bow River):
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda or other documents exchanged, during last three months, between the government and the superintendent of the Banff national park and/or citizens of Banff, relating to the erection of a civic centre in Banff.
Mr. Lesage:: Mr. Speaker, the motion reads in part as follows:
For a copy of all correspondence . . . exchanged . . . between the government and the superintendent of the Banff national park . . .
Such exchanges are, I believe, of a privileged character as between officials of the government. I therefore could not acquiesce in that part of the motion. As to the balance of it, I have no objection.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreeable that the motion be carried subject to the remarks made by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



DISABLED PERSONS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 40-Mr. Zaplitny:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other communications exchanged between municipal authorities in the province of Manitoba and the federal government or any department thereof, with respect to the Disabled Persons Act, since January 1, 1955.
Mr. Robertson:: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to accept this motion subject to the usual reservation with regard to securing approval of these governments.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is carried subject to receiving approval of the governments concerned.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. gentleman mean subject to the approval of the municipalities?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Surely this is going beyond anything we have ever had before. It holds the house down in receiving information. I do not think we should extend to the municipalities the courtesy that we extend to the provincial governments. I think this is a wrong procedure.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: We might allow it to
stand in the meantime.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



STATEMENT RESPECTING REPORTED OUTBREAK IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton), I should like to read the following memorandum with regard to rabies control:
Control measures followed in dealing with the present rabies outbreak in Ontario are (1) the isolation and quarantine of all suspicious domestic animals and of all animals which have been in contact with them; (2) in affected areas the strict application of control orders on dogs, with stray animals being impounded or destroyed; and (3) the operation of clinics for the free vaccination of dogs and cats where the incidence of the disease is considered to warrant it.
Every reported suspected case of rabies is immediately investigated by federal veterinary officers. The animal is isolated and, if rabies symptoms develop to the later stages, which is necessary for laboratory diagnosis, its head is sent to the department's laboratory. The veterinarians also quarantine for observation all animals known or suspected of having been in contact with the suspicious animal.
The tying up of all dogs in affected areas, and the disposal of strays, is an extremely important part of the control program. While such an order can be applied under the federal Animal Contagious Diseases Act, most
Inquiries of the Ministry municipalities also have dog ordinances which can serve the same purpose. In the present outbreak in Ontario this has been attended to adequately to date by local authorities.
Where rabies has occurred under circumstances which necessitate complete vaccination of all dogs and cats in the area as a control measure, vaccination clinics for that purpose are operated by the federal Department of Agriculture. Such clinics have been or are being operated widely in all districts of northern Ontario, in Renfrew, Victoria, Hastings and Northumberland counties and in an area around Galt and Guelph in Wentworth, Wellington, Waterloo and Brant counties. Approximately 51,000 dogs and cats have been vaccinated to date in those clinics. There is no charge for the vaccination of dogs or cats at those clinics but the government does not bear any part of the cost of having animals vaccinated privately apart from the clinics.
The present outbreak has centred very largely in northern Ontario which is, of course, the outcome of the fact that the primary focus of infection is in northern wildlife, and the northern areas are the most exposed to wildlife. One hundred and eleven cases were diagnosed in Ontario between April 1, 1955, and March 9, 1956, with 67, or well over half, being in wildlife. Eighty-six of those cases have been in the area north and west from Nipissing and Parry Sound. The next heaviest area of infection has been in that part of the province, which is also reasonably exposed to wildlife, bounded by Haliburton and Renfrew on the north, Hastings on the east and Victoria and Durham on the west. There have been 19 cases diagnosed in that general area.
Apart from central and northern Ontario, only six cases of rabies have been diagnosed in the province in the present outbreak, up to March 9. These consisted of one fox in Bruce county, two foxes in York county, one dog in Simcoe county on January 9, one dog near Galt on February 21 and a cat near Guelph on March 9.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: I should like
to ask if there is any scarcity of vaccine? I saw a report which indicated that one veterinarian had vaccinated all the animals he could but he was only able to get enough vaccine for a certain number. Is there any scarcity of vaccine?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no report that there is any scarcity. It could be that one veterinarian could be out or may have utilized all he had available. It takes some little time to get more.
2018	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as my department is concerned, may I reply to the question of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), which she asked on March 5. I refer her to the question of the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick), and the reply which was given by the Minister of Transport, which appears on page 759 of Hansard. It will be seen from that answer that there had been no men laid off by the Canadian National Railways on account of dieselization.
Then, a question was placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception, which was replied to by the Minister of Transport, as reported on page 2010 of Hansard of Friday last, which the hon. member for Hamilton West has doubtless seen. I am sure these two replies answer the main points in the questions of both hon. members. But, in so far as it applies to the Department of Labour, should the necessity arise, after everything is done by the Canadian National Railways to provide work for employees laid off owing to dieselization, my department and the national employment service will make every effort to assist in securing other work, as is being done in other parts of Canada.



REQUEST FOR ANNUAL REPORT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether we may expect to receive within the next day or two the annual report of the Canadian National Railways, and related documents to go before the sessional committee?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I hope to be able to deposit the annual report for last year on Wednesday next and at the same time the capital budget of the Canadian National Railways.



TRURO, N.S.-REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL MOTIVE POWER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. T. Purdy (Colchesler-Hanls):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question 1 wish to direct to the Minister of Transport of which I have given him notice. In view of the repeated reports of heavy congestion in loaded freight cars in the Truro, Nova Scotia, yards and (Mr. Gardiner.]

nearby sidings, and more particularly in view of the specific report that a rush car consigned to Quebec and arriving in Truro on March 1 was still there on March 9, will the minister press on the railway management the necessity of providing further motive power in the district in order to clear the congestion and relieve industry in our province from this further handicap?
Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question was long enough; perhaps we should let the minister answer now.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I received the notice just before I came into the house and I have not been able to obtain the information in order to give an answer.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY LAKE LEVELS  DEEPENING OF WELLAND CANAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to two questions put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs by the hon. member for Lambton West concerning the Welland canal. He asked:
Is the Welland canal kept open after navigation closes in the fall in order to take water from the great lakes?
The reply to that question is that, after the close of navigation, water is supplied through the canal for domestic use by adjacent municipalities, for process water by various commercial establishments and for power purposes, and is conducted through weirs and the canal channel but not through the locks.
The second question was:
If in the St. Lawrence seaway project the Welland canal is to be deepened, how much extra water would flow through the canal?
The answer is that the volume of water passing through the canal will not be increased by the deepening to which I have just referred.



WHEAT-REPORTED WIDENING OF PRICE MARGIN BETWEEN GRADES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question in view of a statement that appeared in the Financial Post now on the newsstands. The report is to the effect that the wheat board has widened the margin of prices between grades No. 1 and No. 5

wheat from 13 cents to 40 cents. Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce advise the house if this wheat priced at 40 cents below grade No. 1 is being offered to Ontario farmers as feed grain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the price of No. 5 wheat for two or three months, as far as I know, but certainly the Ontario buyer obtains the lowest price at which any wheat of the same grade is offered to any buyer. The price of No. 5 wheat is the same to any buyer.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the recent statement by the attorney general of Ontario to the effect that the province has no authority over prices to be charged by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to distributors of natural gas, is it the intention of the federal government to exercise control over such prices?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the government of the province of Ontario undoubtedly has the authority to regulate the prices of gas to the consumer and in fact has passed legislation to that end. With the price to the consumer regulated, it seems to me there is effective, even though indirect, regulation of the price that the pipe line can charge a distributor. I notice in the press that the chairman of the board of transport commissioners was reported to have said that the board has no authority to regulate the price of gas in the pipe line even though the pipe line is interprovincial in character.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a letter from the building trades council of Winnipeg, dated February 9, 1956, on the subject of unemployment insurance coverage for construction workers? If so, what is the intention of the government in facilitating the qualification of construction workers for unemployment insurance benefits, as suggested in the letter?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure I have received the letter, and the steps being taken with regard to it are the same as those applying to similar letters from other parts of Canada in that the commission is very carefully looking into the effects of the application of unemployment insurance as set out in that letter and will be able to make some recommendations thereon later on this winter.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct' a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister say whether a decision has yet been taken as to whether the government will take any action with respect to the report concerning an alleged combine in the manufacture, sale and distribution of beer in Canada?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on a previous occasion, we submitted this report to counsel in Toronto and after having considered it in a preliminary way he became ill and had to undergo a serious operation. We shall not be able to reach a decision ourselves until we get his opinion.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, under the Canada Forestry Act, agreements were made in 1951 and 1952 with eight provinces for the purpose of lending assistance to inventory the various provinces' forestry resources and to assist in reforestation. In order to continue and if possible to extend this aid the federal government has taken the following decisions:
1.	To continue assisting the provinces in reforestation programs.
2.	To extend from March 31, 1956, to March 31, 1958, the termination date of the present agreements for the forest inventories. This will allow the provinces which so need it a two-year period to complete their inventories and will also allow provinces which did not sign the agreements to enter the program for a two-year period.
3.	To offer assistance to the provinces to keep up-to-date the forest inventories. These
2020	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
agreements, which would be effective tor a Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade five-year period ending March 31, 1961, would and Commerce): Negotiations with Hungary provide that the federal government would were completed some days ago for the pay half the cost of maintaining the inventories.
The reforestation agreements have been, useful and are being continued for those provinces which so wish. New tree nurseries have been established with federal assistance in a few provinces. Under this program nearly 58 million trees have been planted.
The purpose of the inventory program is to assess as well as possible all provincial forest resources and to maintain up-to-date records of this resource so that provincial governments will have a reliable basis for the effective administration and management of their forests.
Inventories, like any other stocktaking, tend to become out of date unless they are revised on a continuous basis. Hence the federal government is prepared to enter into further agreements to pay half the cost of keeping these inventories in step with changing forest conditions.
purchase of 5,500,000 bushels of wheat.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say what effect, if any, the boost in freight rates which went into effect on Wednesday, March 7, will have on grain, hogs and cattle shipped to the United States?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of this question only a few moments ago and shall have to make inquiries in order to be able to answer.



DISABLED PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick Greystock Robertson: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. McBain) directed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) as follows:
Is it now legal in Canada to use the drug stilbestrol in poultry and livestock feeds?
A similar question was placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Huffman) and was answered on March 5, as recorded on page 1827 of Hansard of that date. In addition I would refer the hon. member to a comprehensive article which appeared in the St. Thomas Times-Journal of March 9.



REQUEST FOR ANSWER TO QUESTION ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Minister of National Health and Welfare when I may expect an answer to my question of February 17?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that the hon. member had not had an answer to a question which he had put to me. I assure my hon. friend that he in particular will receive a quick reply.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the house go into committee of supply.



AGRICULTURE-ECONOMIC POSITION OF INDUSTRY TRADE WHEAT    INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED SALES TO HUNGARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister say whether negotiations are now being conducted with Hungary for the purchase of a large quantity of Canadian wheat, namely, 3,600,000 bushels as suggested by Vic Mackie in an article recently in the Winnipeg Free Press.
TMr. Lesage.]


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, this motion affords the traditional opportunity for members to advance what they believe to be matters of importance, and to move amendments in order to secure a vote of the house on the matter that is brought before the house. Indeed, under today's constitutional system the right to withhold supply is one of the very few rights still enjoyed by the members of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I intend on this occasion to devote my time to an outline of the position of the Canadian farmer. Other members of the Progressive Conservative party will direct their attention to the amendment which I intend to move and will fill in the necessary details. As far as I am concerned, I will merely outline the problem.
I think it will be agreed generally, for certainly it is the view of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the farm union organization of Canada and other farm organizations, that in every province the farmer today is caught in a ruthless and unrelenting squeeze between falling prices of farm products and rising costs of production. I am not in any way advancing an argument of depression when I say that the squeeze is of such a nature that, unless action is taken to meet it, it will, unless curbed, lead inevitably to bankruptcy of Canada's outstanding industry. That trend applies equally to the apple and the potato grower, the field crop producer, the dairy farmer, the livestock producer and the wheat farmer.
It is true that some protection against this trend has been afforded by the Agricultural Prices Support Act, but to too great an extent that act has been applied in piecemeal fashion and, indeed, in considerable measure has become a dead letter. There have been glaring inconsistencies in its administration. I need only mention one in connection with the maintenance of the floor on butter, and there is no objection taken to that. The government found itself in the position of having a surplus, which was not a surplus according to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and it committed what to many Canadians was an inexcusable act of policy. It purchased butter, it maintained the price, and then it sold a considerable portion of that butter to a communist country at a price some 21 cents less than Canadians were paying for butter. That, indeed, is regarded by many Canadians as an example of asininity in the government's ramshackle policy in the administration of the protection to which agricultural products are entitled under the act in question.
Take the question of hog prices. We have had this controversy over and over again in the past and yet, while the government denies that hogs are being purchased on the markets at less than the established floor prices, any member from the western provinces must inevitably, in the nature of things, have received letters including bills which indicate clearly that the floor is being breached and
Economic Position of Agriculture that farmers are not receiving the protection to which they are entitled. The fact is that the law lacks teeth to punish wrongdoers. Every farmer must become his own police officer; otherwise his rights cannot be preserved.
There is a constitutional division of powers which I am glad to learn will receive the attention of the Supreme Court of Canada during the coming summer. We hope that once and for all the delineation of powers between the federal and the provincial governments respecting the marketing of agricultural products will be determined.
I think it is only fair to mention that one or more provinces have done something in their own legislatures to protect farmers against a breach of floor prices. In my own province of Saskatchewan I should like to see the legislature, now in session, bring in legislation to preserve and, at least, aid in protecting the farmers, the hog producers, who find themselves today in a position of having to sell on a market in which the floor is being broken.
The squeeze which the farmer suffers results from the disparity in the relationship between the prices of farm products and the prices the farmer has to pay. When they are in proper relationship parity is established, and it is parity that the farm organizations across this country are asking for today. Not charity but parity. When one looks at the general price relationship one begins to realize how far in recent years that desirable end has been departed from. As far as parity is concerned, it must be related to a basic period which is regarded as one in which prices and costs are in approximate equivalence one to the other.
I know of no better definition of parity than that which appeared in yesterday's New York Times. I have made the necessary changes in the definition to meet the situation in this country. It is as follows:
Parity prices are the dollars and cents prices that give to farm products the same buying or purchasing power they had in a selected base period when prices received by and prices paid by farmers were regarded as in good balance. . . . It has been put this way: If you can sell a truckload of barley and buy with the money received so much food, clothing, building materials, fertilizer, farm machinery and other living and production items as you could in a chosen favourable period in the past then your barley is selling at a parity price.
It goes on to point out the difference between rigid price supports which have not proved successful and flexible price supports which have proved successful in the experience of the United States.
The farm problem today is one that affects the people of Canada as a whole. I think the

Economic Position of Agriculture best description of it is to be found in an editorial in the Ottawa Journal recently which had this to say:
It is everybody's problem in Canada.
Not only farm organizations have spoken of the need of action. Such organizations as the Canadian Congress of Labour and the chamber of commerce in Winnipeg have all pointed out the dangerous position in which Canadian agriculture finds itself today, affecting as it does the people as a whole. I think one of the finest briefs I have read has been that of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture presented to the Gordon commission. It sets out in detail the situation of agriculture and endeavours to project itself 25 years ahead and anticipate the situation of agriculture at that time. It points out that there are 611,000 farmers in Canada today, that the average investment of a farmer is $15,500 and that between 1926 and 1954, if you allow the farmer interest of 3J per cent on the amount of his investment, the average return of a farmer has been only 30 per cent more than the amount of the hired man's wages. Taking 1948 as a base of 100, we find this:	Farm prices in
1955 were 97-8; retail prices 117-2; costs of distribution, 148. That covers nine Canadian farm products. What also took place was this. A larger share of the consumer's dollar goes to -the other elements of distribution than goes to the farmer. When the period began in 1948 the share of the farmer was 59-3 cents on every dollar. Today that share has fallen to 53 cents. That is the reason the Canadian farmer is disturbed. He is faced by the advancing shadow of diminishing returns that more and more obliterates his share of the national income. His share of the national income has gone down in the last six years to an alarming extent. If you take the parity price as a basis in 1951 and compare it with the parity price today, this is what you will find. In 1951 farm prices were 10 per cent over parity or 110; that is the ratio figure. In September, 1955, that relationship had fallen to 81. During the same period of time the costs of the things which the farmer has to buy had increased by approximately 2 per cent. That statement is not a partisan statement. It is a statement by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture based on an examination of statistics and given to the dominion-provincial agricultural conference in Ottawa in December, 1955. On the other hand, since 1951 Canadian consumer expenditure has increased substantially, while the farmer's receipts for the same food have shown a marked decline. That is shown in rather full degree and I am not going to quote at any 

length from the annual presentation to the cabinet by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on February 14, 1956. When my friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) produces what I choose to call statistical prosperity by the figures which he advances, I point out that the summary of * the views of this agricultural body is to the following effect:
. . . the notable exception in this picture of record prosperity is that of the farmer and his family. We do not claim that Canadian agriculture is in a depression such as we have known in the past. We do say that the farming industry is not sharing in Canada's new high level of prosperity .	.	. From the point of view of prices, farm
products now show a price decline, taken as a whole, to about 20 per cent below a fair relationship level-whether this is calculated on the base period of 1925-29 used by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture or the more recent period of 1943-45.
Farmers from coast to coast feel keenly that on the average their returns have become badly out of balance with those of other major groups in the nation. It is important to emphasize purchasing power in this connection because the farmer's difficulties are to be found as much in high prices of the things he buys as in a decline in the number of dollars he receives.
The decline in the farmers' position has not come about as a result of poor crops and lagging farm productivity.
That too is the view expressed by the interprovincial farm union in the brief which they presented to the government on the 16th of the month. I am not going to quote these figures-they are fully set out in the brief- except to say this. Since 1951 the ratio of operating expenses to gross income in agriculture in Canada has gone up 23-38 per cent in 1951, 30-77 per cent in 1952, 41-6 per cent in 1953 and 52-2 per cent in 1954; and apparently the trend continued in 1955, although final statistics are not available. At the same time the decline in net farm income has proceeded downward 10 per cent, 21 per cent and finally 48 per cent in 1954. These figures indicate that year by year the ratio of the operating expenses on the farm is going up and a decline in net income is taking place. The situation is the same in agriculture as it is in any other business. You cannot go on paying more for the things you buy while getting less for the things you have to sell.
The same thing has happened with regard to cattle and hog prices. The details given here indicate a pronounced reduction throughout the period from 1951 to 1954 and the first half of 1955. Cattle, 1951, on the weighted average price per hundredweight at public stockyards were $28.22; in 1952, $20; in 1953, $15.36 and in 1954, $14.45. During the same time the price of grade A hogs went down from $33.30 a hundredweight until in 1955, in the second half of the year, it stood at $23.17.

That trend downward has not been slowed up in recent weeks. That is one of the major complaints among hog producers, namely the fact that the floor as it exists today does not protect.
The Financial Post recently, in a 20-page
supplement in the November 12 issue, published a summary of Canadian agricultural trends. In it there was an article by David L. McFarlane, Professor of Economics at Macdonald College. I am going to quote just a couple of paragraphs of his remarks. He says:
Cash farm income, $2,812 millions in 1951 slipped to $2,377 millions in 1954 as prices declined. But farm costs have remained essentially at 1951 levels. Thus net farm income has declined much more rapidly than the gross figure. Net income, $2,189 millions in 1951, fell to nearly half this level, $1,126 million, by 1954.
He does not give the 1955 figures but the increase was of such a nature as to result in no greatly increased medium of prosperity. Then he goes on to say this:
It is hard for city people-unless in the position of workers in farm machinery plants-to realize that agriculture is having serious economic troubles. Alongside of an industrial boom with payrolls and profits setting records, we find agriculture in the worst position since the early war years.
The real meaning of the news columns which recite the difficulties of grain producers, dairy farmers, potato and fruit growers is something approaching comparative farm depression.
He goes farther in that regard than do the other quotations to which I have made reference. I would quote further in that regard in support of my contention, Mr. Speaker, but since my time is limited I cannot refer in detail to the supporting evidence which in every case bears out the contention of the opposition that the agricultural situation has worsened, and that since 1951 there has been a shrinking of Canadian farm income by approximately 50 per cent. When we went out of power in 1935 we assumed the responsibility of a campaign, repeated over and over again, that when we were in power things were bad but without regard to any world conditions that existed then and without regard to the drought that destroyed production and at the same time destroyed income. Ever since then my hon. friends to the right of you, sir, have posed as the exclusive possessors of the magic solution of all farm problems. They have been carried along by the prosperity that resulted from the war and, following the war, was continued in the postwar period in the cold war that was waged.
It is true, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was able to say to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) in
Economic Position of Agriculture regard to the contract with Hungary, that the wheat board is getting rid of a large amount of wheat.


Mr. Mclvor:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad my hon. friend interrupted because I think he will agree that Providence, not the government of Canada, brought about the disasters of flood and frost. The parity situation has been very thoroughly canvassed during recent years. We, in the Progressive Conservative party, tried to get some action on this matter on several occasions, but without success. One of the earliest occasions was in 1941, during the war. The last occasion when we moved an amendment regarding this question of parity prices was on March 23, 1953. At that time we pointed out a situation which was rapidly accelerating, namely the expansion of the spread. Our attitude was ridiculed. After moving the amendment on that occasion at page 3208, I used these words, which in the light of subsequent events were not far removed from the facts. I said this:
-I believe the demand on the part of Canadian farmers in general that action be taken now, before Canada finds itself in the position of having surplus production. We realize the needs of the NATO countries for all-out production in order to meet the eventuality that peace should cease to exist; and in order to maintain farmers on the farms something must be done to remove the squeeze that is taking place because of falling prices which have resulted, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, in a reduction in income of 12 per cent in 1952 over 1951, while the production of agricultural products was materially increased during the same period and farm costs have risen by 5 per cent.
At that time I moved this amendment:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to provide floor prices for agricultural products at such levels as to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship."
At that time we pointed out what was happening. What we pointed out then has been found, in the light of subsequent experience, to be correct. As far back as the national convention in October, 1948, we had enunciated our policy in this regard. I read that declaration in the light of subsequent events.
1. The Progressive Conservative party stands pledged to assure the maximum of stability of income to Canadian farmers. To this end we will enact permanent floor price legislation based on the following principles
(a)	A definite formula in the Farm Prices Support Act for arriving at floor prices.
(b)	The formula will allow for variations in production and demand for individual products.
(c)	Floor prices will be announced well in advance of the production period.

Economic Position of Agriculture
(d)	The floor price formula will be arrived at in consultation with representative producers.
We will establish a board of live stock commissioners similar to the board of grain commissioners.
We will give every legitimate encouragement to co-operative agencies whether relating to purchase, sale or credit.
We will extend the activities of the federal farm loan board so that farmers may take greater advantage of long term low interest rates in the purchase and development of their farms.
We will extend the facilities for agricultural research-
All these things, in the light of subsequent events, have been found to be actually needed to meet problems which have faced Canada since.
Now then, my time being limited, I cannot refer-


Mr. Speaker:: In fairness to the hon. member, perhaps I should tell him that the only reason for saying that, in moving an amendment to a motion to go into supply his time may be limited, is that it has happened the government has not considered the amendment to the motion to go into supply as one of want of confidence. I think the hon. member, if he were to make known the terms of his motion, could very well have this type of motion considered, as it almost always has been, one of want of confidence and then he would not need to worry about being limited as to time.


John George Diefenbaker: I intend to move, sir, seconded by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton):
That all the words after "That" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to create a parity of prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship."
Now, that is the amendment I intend to move, sir. On the basis of previous experience I would not expect that it would be regarded as other than an amendment that the government would not accept.
Today, in the world in which we live, we face one of the most all-embracing economic massive retaliation attacks by the U.S.S.R. that has ever been launched by any nation in all history. The U.S.S.R. failed in its cold war offensive. Now, it has launched an overall world economic offensive. It goes into a country that it has chosen as its victim and, with the promise of appeasing hunger at the moment, asks the people in reality to translate their hunger and their thirst into a reasonably higher standard of living than they have had in the past, and in return the people in those areas forfeit forever their freedom and their liberty.
In times like these I am one of those who believe that surpluses are not dangerous in themselves. I believe we have a responsibility to maintain a productive agricultural machine, and to assure to the farmer a fair and reasonable share of the national income, which he is not receiving today-and statistics prove it. The general attitude of farmers proves the truth of that statement. What we need is a national policy on agriculture.
There was a farm conference last fall, which representatives of the various provinces attended. That farm conference secured from the minister no general vista of the future of agriculture. No lead was given to producers in Canada, and no picture of the anticipated situation in agriculture. A simple declaration was made with respect to one or two matters. A floor was to be maintained. Except for that, there was not that leadership which the farmers of Canada, indeed the whole economy, have a right to expect. The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix said:
And it demonstrated that the federal government has no very clear idea (none that it will make public, at least) about what, if anything, it can do about the Canadian agricultural industry as a whole. Without worrying about the order of their importance, each of these points deserves consideration in some detail.
It asks for a lead. It says no lead was given at that conference, and goes on to say:
What the federal cabinet really will do remains anyone's guess.
Then, it goes on to deal with the difference in opinion as expressed regarding subsidies by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I suggest, therefore, that there is need for a declaration of policy on national agriculture. The last federal-provincial agricultural conference was disappointing. It achieved nothing except to bring a group together and advise them that something had been done, or would be continued, and then let them go home. It bore quite a similarity to the dominion-provincial conference of Friday last, when the provincial premiers came here and were told that nothing could be done for them except what they had already been told, and now they could go home. That is not the kind of leadership that Canadians deserve today. It is not the kind of leadership that will bring about that national unity that all of us hope for. A national conference on agriculture should be called. Representatives of the federal and provincial governments and of the farm organizations should work out a general policy for domestic and international trade. However, that conference should be delayed until such time as the supreme court

has finally determined the distribution of powers as between the federal and provincial governments.
Tomorrow we are to be visited by the peerless leader of the forces of democracy in NATO. Last summer some of us had the privilege of visiting NATO headquarters. General Gruenther, the spearhead of survival; has over and over again emphasized the need of unity among NATO nations. The president of Italy spoke to parliament a few days ago. What he emphasized above everything else was the absolute need of something being done to strengthen and maintain the NATO organization. Human nature being what it is, if threats of war and fears are removed, if cold war becomes warm smiles, the mortar that holds the NATO nations together is bound to become softened. We need to maintain the strength of NATO, to assure the preservation of the surpluses that are being built up as part of our joint defence. It is for that reason that we in the opposition believe that consideration should be given to the establishment of a food bank in NATO countries. The international food bank'under FAO has not proven possible because of the difficulties inherent in such a plan when nations both within and without NATO are members of that organization.
The soviet policy will challenge the free world. If the free world is to maintain its strength and be in a position to bargain from strength in the field of economics, the agricultural machine in our country must be maintained, and the Russians must not be permitted to have the initiative in the economic war.
We believe that one of the reasons for our situation is the fact that we have lost our markets. The British market for agricultural products is gone, to all intents and purposes. The total value of bacon shipped to Britain last year was about $3,600, compared with the tremendous shipments made during the days of the war and subsequently. Surely something can be done about that market. Denmark is getting out now. In September the Danish-British agreement will be terminated. Is this not the time to bring about once more aggressive action in this regard to secure those markets, or at least a portion of them? Is this not the time for the government to reconsider the convening of a British commonwealth trade conference to the end that we shall be able to disperse our farm products rather than concentrate them in the United States, which is close at hand and convenient? Our experience in the past shows us that that is dangerous to the preservation of our agricultural machine, because invariably when we have surpluses the United 67509-128
Economic Position of Agriculture States has surpluses, and the United States government has greater regard for the farmers of the middle west than it has for the continuance of the right of Canada to export agricultural products to that country.
What about Japan? Japan is a country that has always discharged its financial obligations. That country is a mighty market for agricultural products. It was suggested by a former member of this house, Milton Campbell, who now lives in Hamilton, that the market in Japan has a potential value greater than any other market anywhere in the world. Would it be too much to suggest that consideration be given to the advancement of assistance by way of loans so that Japan would be in a position to trade with us ana accept a considerably larger portion ot tne agricultural production of this country than is the case today?
Fourthly, I mentioned the economic offensive of the U.S.S.R. under which emphasis is being laid on seeking, through the stomachs of men in underdeveloped countries in Asia and Africa, to subvert their hearts. For several years we in the opposition have been contending that there is a dividend in advancing assistance to underdeveloped countries by way of agricultural products and the like by the extension of plans such as the Colombo plan. There were some who said we were idealists when we took that view, but what of the United States1 now? What of Britain and what of France? All three have declared that more and more we must alter our objectives in facing the new economic conflict from the U.S.S.R. and direct our attention to the contribution we make to assist those countries which have not the economic possibilities we have.
In addressing this house Sir Anthony Eden put it this way. He said that the free nations must, and I quote:
. . . raise the standards of living and provide economic help and confidence for peoples in underprivileged countries.
I believe that as part of our defence efforts there should be a diversion of some of our surpluses for the purpose of raising standards in underprivileged countries.
I come now to the question of the agricultural products act. The present legislation needs to be revamped. It needs to have teeth put into it. I mentioned the economic section in connection with hogs and the way in which the legislation is being evaded to the detriment of the farmer. The administration of this act has become loose and dilapidated. There is no means of enforcing whatever provisions may be passed by the board operating under that act. Should we not at this session amend the act to the end that it will become effective?

Economic Position of Agriculture
Next I mentioned in general the widespread disparity between the price the farmer receives and the price paid by the consumer. That disparity, that spread, deserves to be investigated. Many hon. members in this house want work to do. They would like to perform a worth-while work but have been denied the opportunity of making the contribution which their ability and training would permit. I would like to see the agricultural committee, when it is set up, undertake to make a preliminary investigation into those spreads. Then if after hearing evidence the agricultural committee finds it is circumscribed to such an extent as to be unable to come to a definite finding on the question which exercises the thinking of farmers all across the country today, I should like to see a royal commission appointed in order to investigate this spread and ensure a greater degree of equity to agriculture in assuring that the farmer would receive the largest possible percentage of the price ultimately paid by the consumer.
Finally, sir, I come to the need of making Canadian agriculture strong, effective and efficient. I have already mentioned that if the present price-cost relationship continues and the spread maintains its present rate of interest, the day is not far distant when the Canadian farmer will find himself in a situation dangerous to the future of agriculture in this country. That is not a partisan view. That is the view of the federation of agriculture, the farm union organization, and agricultural economists.
I have already mentioned that three years ago I had the honour of moving in this house an amendment based on what I then pointed out was a trend that was multiplying in its amplitude and would ultimately be most detrimental to agriculture. Amendments to that end had been moved previously. They were based on a declaration made by the hon. leader of this party in June of 1953 and also on the national policy of 1948.
In 1953 the hon. Leader of the Opposition said in effect, "We will appoint a national agricultural board for the purpose of establishing fair floor prices related to farm production costs."
At that time he and those associated with him endeavoured to place before the Canadian people the situation as they saw it. People did not accept the viewpoint that we then expressed. But looking back on the retrospect of events that have taken place since that time, we are able to say that if the stand we then took had been accepted in 1953, in the motion moved in March of that year, the Canadian farmer today would not find himself in his present position. In
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
the light of experience our views have proven to have been all too prophetically true.
The trend referred to in the amendment moved in 1953 has continued. Canadian agriculture today would not be in its present precarious position if action had been taken at that time on the basis of the experience of our neighbour to the south and also on the basis of the demands of farmers generally.
Therefore, sir, having already given notice of my intention to do so, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton):
That all the words after "That" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to create a parity of prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship".


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we in this group welcome the motion which has been placed before the house this afternoon. We are particularly pleased that the motion is drafted in such terms as to permit us to declare our support of the principle of parity prices. The support of the principle of parity prices is something which the members of this group and our party at large have supported from its very inception. It is part of our philosophy that governments should take whatever action is necessary in order to provide a measure of equality of treatment to all major sections of our economy. We do not agree and never have agreed with those who say that the role of government should be to keep out of the economy, to sit back as a referee and do nothing about falling incomes of various groups. We believe in government action and we certainly believe that government action is now needed.
I want to point out to hon. members of this house that the concept of parity prices is that the government shall so regulate the prices of farm products as to give to agriculture an income which bears a very direct relationship to the income of other groups in our economy. In the past the members of the Conservative party have always said that they have believed in a hands-off policy as far as the government is concerned, that they did not believe in regulation, that they believed in free enterprise, the freedom of prices to go up and down in the market. I am glad to see this apparent complete transformation that has now occurred and an indication that it is their opinion and philosophy that the role of government should be to set agricultural prices in a very direct relationship to the cost of production and to place that on a formula basis.

During this session there has been growing evidence that the Conservative party is learning, that their education is being improved. As the weeks go on they are coming more and more to agree with the stand which has been taken on various issues by the members of this group. We are very pleased at that and we welcome them because we believe that if the principle of parity prices is supported solidly by the three opposition parties it will definitely result in legislation, even from this government, which will bring about an improvement in the agricultural industry.


Clarence Decatur Howe: One more "C" in C.C.F.


Hazen Robert Argue: Pardon?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Add one more "C" to C.C.F.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is becoming all too clear that if the Conservative party is learning and is improving on its education, the Liberal party is doing the very opposite, that anything it has done in the past about legislation to improve the position of agriculture has been forgotten, that it has dropped the Liberal program. I think before I have finished speaking this afternoon I will be able to point out that the government's policy is spelling abject depression for agriculture from one end of this country to the other.
I hear a member of the Conservative party say that it has always been their policy. It is a wonderful thing to hear that, but I am afraid that their performance in the early 1930's demonstrated the very opposite. The record of the Liberals is not good. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) came into his present position in 1935 and during the next five years they established an index for the prices of agricultural products which was published in the Economic Annalist. They took the base period 1935-39 as 100, a period when farmers and agriculture were in a general economic depression. Then on the basis of an index of 100, which could hardly be a reasonable parity index price, we find that the indices in the earlier period under the Conservatives from 1931 to 1934 were as follows for field crops:
Field Products Animal Products
1931	
65.0	92.71932	
60.4	70.51933	
69.3	69.21934	
80.5	86.5
It is certainly true that in the 1930's under both Conservative and Liberal governments we had parity prices in reverse. The prices of agricultural products, instead of bearing a fair relationship to the cost of production, bore a most unfair relationship. Last year we 67509-128J
Economic Position of Agriculture moved a motion asking the government to give consideration to the advisability of establishing a system of party prices for agricultural products. This motion was moved by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) on May 13, and I am glad to say that that motion received the unanimous support of members of the opposition parties.


John George Diefenbaker: It has always been
supported.


Hazen Robert Argue: I go back to 1954, one year-


Mr. Hodgson:: Go back to before you were born.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would not want to get into the same position as my hon. friend.


An hon. Member:: Just go back.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They do not want to hear about 1954.


Hazen Robert Argue: I know this is something the Conservative party would like to forget, I know it is something about which they have not been too proud. On May 17, 1954, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) moved this amendment:
That all the words after the word "That" to the end of the question be struck out and that the following words be substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to demonstrating its support of the principle of orderly marketing through livestock marketing boards by announcing floor prices with respect to cattle and hogs at levels not less than the average of the prices which prevailed during the period from January 1, 1951 to December 31, 1953".
It will be noted that not only did we present a motion which embodied the principle of parity prices; we spelled out the formula. Had that formula been adopted by the government it would have resulted in cattle prices being not less than $21 per hundredweight, and probably more than that with the increased cost of production. A debate followed that amendment during which some most interesting remarks were made by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), a member of the Conservative party. The hon. member damned the motion in no uncertain terms when he said:
In my opinion this particular proposal comes very close to being complete nonsense, and I think bears no relationship to any realistic conception of what the livestock industry is, what conditions are or anything of that sort.
And then later:
For those reasons, perhaps, the formula is not a reasonable or realistic yardstick to use. The whole purpose of this resolution, if carried into effect, would be to socialize the livestock industry.
When we proposed a formula for livestock prices and demonstrated our support of livestock boards in May, 1954, the hon. member

Economic Position of Agriculture for Calgary North said that the motion was designed to socialize the agricultural industry. I am pleased that the members of the Conservative party are coming along and are now not only presenting a motion today but advancing the concept of full parity. As I am sure you would anticipate, Mr. Speaker, after the hon. member for Calgary North damned the resolution asking for a formula support price for cattle and hogs the Conservative party voted against a parity floor price for cattle and hogs. It was the policy of the Conservative party at that time, but I am glad that they have changed their policy now and are prepared to support a general system of parity prices.
There is a lot of opposition in the country to the concept of parity prices, and in the main the opposition is led by people who have parity prices for themselves. It is led by the big newspaper companies, it is led by Canada Packers, by Massey-Harris, by the big industrialists, by the great friends of the Conservative party and the great friends of the Liberal party. These people say it is wrong and foolish that the prices of agricultural products should be tied to the farmers' cost of production, but when they have anything to sell they, of course, not only tie their price to the cost of production but after having done that they add a very substantial sum to that formula and obtain for themselves very handsome profits.
When we advance the concept of parity prices all we are seeking to do is to give the farmer and agriculture something that is already enjoyed by every other major industry in the country, namely, that the products they have to sell will be related to the cost of producing those products. Certainly under the policy being followed at the present time there is no relationship between farm prices and the cost of production.
Even some consumers seem to feel that they have a stake in low prices for farm products, that if they can get prices to the farmer for agricultural products down the cost of food will come down, but that is very often not correct. It is quite possible, in fact, it often happens that when the farmer from time to time receives less and less for his product the consumer pays more and more for the same product. Therefore it is not amazing at all to find that from 1948 to 1953 the farmer's share of the consumer dollar was reduced from 59-3 to 53 and that from 1951 to 1955, when the index for farm product prices was dropping from approximately 116 to 98, a drop of 18 points, the drop in retail prices of food was only 3 points. The drop in the case of the producer was six times as great as the very small drop in retail food prices.
[Mr. Argue.l
I say it is possible to have adequate farm prices and reasonable costs to the consumer.
I believe that under the policies that have been followed we have not only allowed farm prices to fall to drastic levels but we have also created in the mind of the consumer the idea that if any savings are to be made they are to be made in shopping for food and that the thing to do is to get food prices as low as possible. How many consumers, how many men and women of this country are looking for bargains in food when they go out to buy. They expect to get cheap food. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) would like to see the floor price on butter reduced. He is one who would like to see lower food prices, bargain food prices, but the very same consumers who when they go shopping hope to get bedrock food prices think it is quite all right, quite in order, quite proper, to pay a very high price for a television set, a refrigerator or a new automobile. They do not go around shopping for bargains. They say that they want a good product, a quality product and they expect to pay a good price for a quality product.
I think it is wrong, I think it is ridiculous, for the government to allow food prices to fluctuate to such very low levels from the point of view of return to the farmer as they have been doing in recent times. All food commodities are going down. Under the policy being followed by the government the purchasing power of wheat is lower now than it has been in any ten-year period since 1891. The purchasing power of a bushel of wheat in 1953-54 was 70 cents. In the great depression from 1931 to 1940 the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat was 80 cents. The grain producer is losing out in the price-cost squeeze.
The results of these falling prices are very evident in the returns for farm cash income and farm net income. From 1951 to 1955- 1955 is an estimated figure-farm cash income fell from $2,811 million to $2,323 million. In the three year period from 1951 to 1954 farm net income fell from $2,154 million to $1,125 million, or a drop of 48 per cent in net income in a three year period. That is the result of the policy of the Liberal government. That is the result of the policy of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), a policy that over a three year period allows farm net income to fall by 48 per cent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of National Health and Welfare cannot argue against statistics produced by a branch of the department of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The government keeps saying time after time

that the country is prosperous, that the gross national product is going up, that everybody is becoming better and better off under the policies of a benevolent Liberal government, so they say. They are prepared to point out that the gross national product has risen from $21-4 billion in 1951 to $26-4 billion in 1955, an increase of $5 billion in the gross national product in a four year period.
Most segments of the economy are becoming more prosperous. The standard of living in most sections of the economy is going up, but, to the everlasting disgrace of the government, at a time of increased welfare for most sections of the economy the agricultural industry is falling into a depression at a very alarming rate. Does the government do anything about it? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! Not a single policy is being advanced by the government or even being discussed by the government that is aimed at stopping a further deterioration in the prices of agricultural products.
Has the farmer any reason to expect better treatment? I think he has. Although it has been quoted many times in the house,
I think it is well that I should quote again the statement made by the late prime minister, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, in a national radio broadcast on December 4, 1943, when he said:
If, to help the war effort, fanners are asked to accept a ceiling on prices, we believe they are entitled to a floor under prices to assure them against an agricultural depression after the war.
That was a very definite commitment by the late prime minister, another one of the commitments of the Liberal government that has never been kept. It has been made and forgotten. I should not say that the government did not make the gesture of keeping it, that they did not do a lot of window dressing. As a matter of fact, the window dressing it was prepared to do in this regard was to write a provision into a statute not as a governing part of the statute but merely as a kind of slogan. I refer to the Agricultural Prices Support Act passed in 1946. In dealing with the procedure to be followed by the appointed board the act has this to say:
. . . the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions_
And listen to this:
-and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
I suggest to the government that if it means what it says in the Agricultural Prices Support Act, it should be proposing legislation that will give to agricultural producers for
12, 1956
Economic Position of Agriculture their products prices that bear a fair relationship to their costs and will give to the farmer returns that bear a fair relationship to the returns given in other occupations.
Once again we find a promise by the government that has never been kept. As far as the agricultural industry is concerned, the government has adopted a policy that is slowly wrecking agriculture in every province in this country, and the situation is not confined to the wheat provinces. Sometimes people say that we in this group talk too much about wheat. But let us relate this motion to every product other than wheat and let us relate it to every province, if you like other than the three prairie provinces. I make the statement that agriculture in every province of Canada is in an extremely difficult position, that the farmers are facing continuously lowering prices for agricultural products in face of a rising cost of production, and that the farmer in Canada today is going broke under the policies of the Liberal government.
We thought that something might be done. We expected something to come from the federal-provincial conference. We expected something would come of that conference because we understood there was on the agenda an item which was to deal with the calling of a federal-provincial farm marketing conference on a general basis. Many of the provincial governments and certainly the farm organizations were calling for a general federal-provincial conference on marketing policies. Agricultural organizations were asking for representation.
What happened? Nothing came of it. They were turned down. When the conference was held on Friday, as far as the farmer is concerned the Prime Minister said no, and as far as everybody else was concerned at that conference he said no. It was probably the most expensive conference that has ever been held in Canada, for the purpose of listening to one two-letter word, namely "no" from the Prime Minister. The premiers and their advisers were called from all across this nation and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance in an arrogant manner say to the provinces, "we will have nothing to do with discussing any further improvement in policies-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Were you at the conference?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Were you?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: From the Prime Minister this afternoon we had confirmation of precisely what I am now saying, namely that the government said no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order.

Economic Position of Agriculture


Hazen Robert Argue: It will not be a point of order,
I am sure.


Mr. Marlin:: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend said that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance arrogantly said no. Once again my hon. friend is wrong. The Prime Minister was not arrogant. Nowhere in the reply will he find a definite no. It is simply another example of my hon. friend's continuous state of inaccuracy.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I am in a continuous state of inaccuracy as suggested, nobody knows it other than the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), apparently. The Prime Minister does not know. The newspapers do not know.


Mr. Sinclair:: You do not know.


Hazen Robert Argue: Some of the premiers and some of the others coming out of that conference do not know it because their impression was that they had come all across this country to hear said to them, "No. If you want something more, the answer is no. If you want a federal-provincial agricultural conference, the answer is no".


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I should add a "no".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Were you there too?


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: We are discussing an amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and it is not in order to discuss, under that particular amendment, the provincial-federal conference of a few days ago.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the point I was trying to make was this. At that conference there was discussed the question of whether or not a federal-provincial conference should be held to discuss agricultural marketing policies. I suggest-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. In order that there may be no confusion as to the course which this debate should take, may I draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that we are discussing an amendment to the motion to go into supply. In Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, at page 421 he will find the following extract:
When an amendment has been moved to the question for the Speaker to leave the chair, discussion should be properly confined to its subject-matter.
The hon. member just mentioned agricultural marketing policies. May I point out to the hon. member that in this session we

have already dealt with a subamendment which was in these words:
Their failure to adopt and implement agricultural and marketing policies designed effectively to keep farm cash income in Canada at a just and economic level.


Hazen Robert Argue: What was the date of that amendment, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: The amendment was moved by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) and seconded by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Yuill) on January 20 of this year and was negatived on January 24. The amendment which we are at present discussing is in the following terms:
in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to create a parity of prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship.
The hon. member will realize that he started off in his remarks to discuss that particular problem but latterly, in my opinion, he has been dealing with other matters. In view of the amendment of the hon. member for New Westminster, which I have just read, in view of the fact that we have had ample opportunities to discuss the general farm problems already in this session, and in view of the fact that the first item of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture has not been passed and that this item affords a further opportunity to discuss the general situation, I feel that hon. members would wish me to attempt to see to it that discussion on this particular amendment is strictly relevant to the amendment itself. I would ask for the co-operation of the hon. member.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I had momentarily overlooked the amendment that had already been voted on earlier in this session. I shall therefore be pleased to leave any discussion of that particular question at this time.
The motion we have before the house calls on the government to adopt a system of parity prices for agricultural products, the basis of the policy of the government ever since December, 1943, when it was enunciated by the late prime minister. We say that today there should be no reason that the opposition would have to move this kind of an amendment. That has been the stated policy of the government. But it has forgotten about its own policy. It has turned its back on its own commitments. As far as the farmer is concerned, the government's policies have been a flop. The government has failed the farmer. It has failed the farmer in other ways in addition to failure to provide him

with a system of prices that will allow him to stay in business and make a profit. As a matter of fact, other agricultural legislation on the statute books has been allowed to deteriorate. The value of it has been allowed to wither away.
In 1939 we had the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The maximum payment at that time was $500, but the value of the payment has largely been cut in half because of the increased cost of production and the decreased purchasing power of the dollar. Prairie farm assistance which has been of great benefit to the farmers in time of crop failure is now only a partial benefit. It is only a shadow of what it once was. The Liberal government cannot say too often in this house and in other places that it believes in free enterprise, that it believes in private enterprise. The Liberal government does not believe in private enterprise at all. It believes in corporation enterprise, big business enterprise. In my opinion there are only two main groups in this country that are today engaged in private enterprise where the individual has an enterprise and where he is in competition with other individuals in the same enterprise. I refer, of course, to the over 600,000 farmers in this nation. One could name the farmers and the local storekeepers. They are the private enterprisers.
They are in a bad way under policies followed by this government which allow and encourage corporations to grow and gobble up the local merchants, and which allow only the huge farmer to make any kind of reasonable return, thus driving the farmers off the land. These policies are wrecking the farmers and making them go broke. These policies are making bankruptcy the way out for many local merchants in this country. So far as the local storekeeper is concerned, about all the government has ever done for them is to print in the Canada Gazette the fact that he has gone bankrupt; that is about all the attention the local merchant ever obtains from this government. This government does not believe in private enterprise at all. It believes in a policy which wrecks the only two large groups in our country today that are bona fide free enterprisers, namely the local merchant and the farmer. The policy of the government is to get rid of both occupational groups, in an economic sense, just as fast as it can.
The government's policy is not good at home and it is not good internationally. We have surpluses of agricultural products at home, and instead of worrying or complaining about these surpluses we should be glad we have food surpluses. We should be glad that in Canada today there are substantial
Economic Position of Agriculture reserves of food. We should be adopting a policy that will move that food to the people in Canada who need it and to the people in the world who need increased quantities. The other day the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) stated in this house that many people in his constituency were starving. He got the horse laugh from some people when he made that statement. I make the statement that it is a fact that in every single constituency in Canada, urban and rural, there are people who are starving. They may not be starving in the sense that they are hungry but they are starving in the sense that they are nutritionally starving. They can eat only certain kinds of food, not the protective foods. They cannot afford anything better. There are tens of thousands of old age pensioners, particularly in those provinces where there is no subsidy and particularly in areas where they have to pay large sums for room rent, who are nutritionally hungry. That being a fact, and with such huge surpluses of food as we have now available, butter, pork, milk, grain of all kinds, the government should undertake a plan to enable those people to purchase greater quantities of food.
I would suggest a food stamp plan. I would suggest a supplementary payment for the increased purchase of food for old age pensioners, blind pensioners and all of those persons who are receiving assistance in that way from the federal government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why don't they do that in Saskatchewan?


Hazen Robert Argue: We are doing far more on a provincial basis in Saskatchewan for old age pensioners than is the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I should like to see him and his government match the supplementary payments that are being made in Saskatchewan. I should like to see him hurry up with his health program, about which he is so often so voluble.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Sure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He has suggested he would like to see the federal government do as much for old age security as the government of Saskatchewan. Will my hon. friend not say that the federal government pays more to old age pensioners than the province of Saskatchewan? Will my hon. friend not say the province of British Columbia pays more for old age pensioners than does the province of Saskatchewan?

Economic Position of Agriculture Mr. Depuly Speaker: Order. I think both For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, hon. members will realize that this discussion on behalf of this group, to move the amend-is out of order.	ment to which I have referred.


Hazen Robert Argue: In that regard I can say the record of the Saskatchewan government is far better in every respect than is the record of the government of which the minister is a part.
I have an amendment to move, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson). It reads:
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding thereafter the following words:
"in such a manner as to provide for a fair share of the national income for agriculture."
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we in this group would like to see the government appropriate a substantial sum of money to enable food to be available to the hungry people of the world. I am glad we have been able to sell wheat to the iron curtain countries. I shudder to think what would happen to the free world if the communists at this time had a surplus of food and we had a deficit because the communists would know what to do with it. They would be out using it-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. I must once more ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the terms of the amendment which is before us.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, Mr. Speaker, with great respect I suggest if you are going to have a parity program for agriculture you have to have in that program a method for disposing of food surplus. I would suggest-


Mr. Hosking:: Or controls on production.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is all the Liberals can think about, controls on production; restriction. They never once think of feeding the people in this country who are hungry. They never once think of making our surplus food available to needy people in the world because they have forgotten their Liberal philosophy. They have forgotten to undertake policies which will move surplus foods to the underdeveloped countries. I can see the Minister of National Health and Welfare looking aghast. But I want to say to him that the record of this government in relation to the needs of the people of the world, in relation to our huge surplus of food products, leaves more to be desired than probably the record of any democratic country. We have huge surpluses. This government, on a per capita or on any other basis, does a whole lot less than does the government of the United States.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I may say we intend to support the amendment and the subamendment, because a policy of support prices for agriculture is absolutely essential in order that the industry be put in a position where it can operate on a sound basis.
I quite realize that a great deal has been said in this house during the past few years on the question of support prices. Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that a great deal has been said, very little has been done by the federal government in that regard. Until such time as the government does show greater attention to the need for support prices for agriculture that will make it possible for the farmers of this country to receive their fair share of the national income, discussions such as we are having today will continue.
It seems very strange to me that while the government shows very little attention to this question, on the other hand it recognizes the results of the situation. Instead of trying to cure the situation the government merely tries to take care of the result. By that I mean already this session they have brought down four bills making it possible for people to borrow more and more money. They recognize the fact that their policies today are driving the people farther and farther into debt. So, what do we have? We have had four bills already this session to make it possible for the people to borrow more money and go farther into debt. We have had the small loans bill, the farm loans board bill, the industrial bank bill and the bill to make loans available to farmers against wheat in storage.
As I say, apparently they recognize that their policies today are driving the people farther and farther into debt, and instead of trying to change the situation so that people do not have to go farther into debt, they merely open the doors to permit them to go still farther into debt which, Mr. Speaker, is not a solution. It can only lead this country into difficulties in the future.
The policy of support prices is criticized on two main counts. First of all, we hear it said, it is a hand-out; the farmers want another hand-out. The newspapers in eastern Canada and the financial institutions are very good at making that charge. Hardly a week passes that you do not find that charge made in some eastern paper. Strangely enough, I have never seen those papers criticize one

subsidy, namely that on gold, a direct handout, year after year, a hand-out far greater than the supports given to agriculture under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, leaving out the question of foot-and-mouth disease. If they are so much opposed to the idea of subsidies, why do these institutions not criticize the subsidy on gold? It all depends on whom the subsidy is for when they criticize it.
One hates to travel over ground that has been travelled over many times before in this house; nevertheless, so long as the present situation exists we shall continue to have to repeat things that have been said in former years, especially by farm organizations that come down here year after year and ask the federal government to take action.
What is the justification for support prices? I maintain the farmers of this country are not asking for a hand-out; they are not asking for anything to be given to them. They believe they have paid a premium on certain insurance, and now they expect the insurance to be made available. Let us go back to the 1930's, the depression years, when the prices of farm products were at a very low level. Anyone in this house who was farming in those years will remember what was said when the farm organizations appealed to the government for support prices on farm products. They were told no, this was an international situation. Prices had fallen in the world markets and the government could not do anything about it. The farmers could not expect to get more than world market prices.
That was the situation in the 1930's, and the farmers continued to get low prices. Then the war came along. Within a very few years after the declaration of war, farm prices went up. It might have been ppssible then for the farmers to recoup their losses and pay off some of the debt that had been accumulated in those years when wheat had been selling at 19 cents a bushel and other things at a similar level. The farmers were hoping that for a few years, anyway, they would get prices that would make it possible for them to pay off their debt's; but what happened? When prices went up in the world markets the government stepped into the picture and said, "World prices are too high. You cannot have world prices because we are going to put a ceiling on them." I maintain you cannot adopt the attitude that on the one hand when world prices are down the farmers have to take them, and on the other hand when world prices go up the farmers cannot have them. That has been the policy of this 67509-129
Economic Position of Agriculture government in the past, and that is largely the reason the farmers have suffered in the past. If it is fair to make the farmer take low prices when world prices are low, then it is only fair to let him have the high prices when world prices are high, and I shall quote some figures to prove that this has not been the case.
Apparently the government of the day realized there was some justification for what I am saying, because the prime minister of the day, Mr. Mackenzie King, as has already been mentioned, did state that in view of the government's policy the government would take steps to stabilize farm prices after the war, and the Agricultural Prices Support Act was enacted, which contains words to the effect that farm prices will be maintained at a fair relationship. Perhaps I should quote from the section of the act which deals with that question. Paragraph 9, subsection 2, reads:
In prescribing prices under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (1), the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
Mark this:
[DOT]-a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
Today the farmers represent around 16 per cent of the population, and they are getting 6-8 per cent of the national income, which shows that something has slipped very badly somewhere.
In my opinion the Agricultural Prices Support Act is a good act. The only trouble is that it is not wide enough; it does not provide support prices, apparently, for a sufficient number of agricultural products. For instance, it does not include grain. Quite a number of farm organizations have asked that grain be brought under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. As I say, it is a good act. I have no quarrel with the formula that was laid down, namely that the price of farm products today should be maintained at such a level that it will bear the same relationship to the price of other commodities as existed in the base years 1943, 1944 and 1945. That is the general basis for setting support prices.
When you take into consideration the fact that in 1943, 1944 and 1945 the prices of farm products were not high in relation to the prices of other commodities, I think the farmers are justified in expecting that under the Agricultural Prices Support Act farm prices today would be maintained at a parity with those three years. But what do we find? According to the agricultural prices

Econc.idc Position of Agriculture support board we find that the support price for butter is only 84-6 per cent of parity, of those base years; the support price of 23 cents on hogs is only 83 per cent of parity of that base, and the support price of 38 cents on eggs is only 56 per cent of parity of that base. That shows that the floor prices on the few products supported today are still quite a bit below the formula laid down by the government.
Wheat, of course, does not come under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. As I say, farm organizations have asked that grain should be brought under that act. It is interesting to note that if grain were brought under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, then the price of wheat, on the basis of the three years 1943, 1944 and 1945, according to the dominion bureau of statistics would be $2.27 a bushel.
Some people say, well, what would be the reaction of the public if the government maintained support prices at that level? For instance, what would be the attitude of labour? Well, I understand labour has already taken a stand supporting it. I refer to the brief of the interprovincial farm union council, presented to the government on February 16, 1956, and quote from page 13 in reference to this question:
That the consumer would not resist any move that would reimburse farmers on an equitable basis has been proven by the fact that the two main organized labour groups, C.T.L.C. and C.C.L., are on record as being in support of the principle of a fair and equitable price to the primary producer of agricultural products.
No doubt labour realizes it has a very substantial market in the farm industry, and if they hope to be able to sell to the farmers in large volume then the farmers will have to be able to pay for the goods they buy from the secondary industries. In order to do so the farmers will have to receive a price that bears a fair relationship to the prices on other commodities.
The wheat producer is, of course, in worse shape than the majority of farm producers because the price of grain has dropped lower than the price of any other farm commodity. Here again the grain farmers are fully justified in insisting upon an adequate support price today, in view of the fact that they did take a price considerably below the world market price in the years 1945 to 1949.
I have in my hand figures showing the losses that were suffered under the British wheat agreement by comparison with the world market price for class 2 wheat in the years 1946 to 1950, during which period the farmers lost $431,676,844. Then as the result of subsidizing the Canadian consumer at the same price at which we sold wheat to Britain

instead of at the world market price, the farmers lost another $136,920,921. If you add those two figures together you get an over-all total of $568,597,765. If you subtract from that figure $65 million which the government paid to the farmers on account of their losses, you have a net loss of approximately half a billion dollars.
Therefore I do not think any one can argue that the farmers in asking for a support price today are asking for a hand-out. They are merely asking compensation for something they have already paid. They have already paid the premium of half a billion dollars in regard to wheat and many hundreds of millions in regard to prices on other commodities.
I say this in view of the fact that they accepted prices considerably below the world market prices. There are several ways in which support prices may be paid or in which a parity price may be guaranteed. Personally I think the farmers are justified in asking for 100 per cent of parity with the period from 1943 to 1945 for all their produce whether it is sold in Canada or on the external market. On the other hand, however, we recognize that we have no control over the external market, though we do have control over the prices at which commodities are sold in this country.
We in this group have always advocated the adoption of the two-price system. It is interesting to note that the interprovincial farm union has also adopted this policy; that is, a parity price for the production of agricultural products consumed in Canada, and the best price that can be obtained on the world market, preferably through international agreement, for the farm produce sold abroad with a reasonable floor placed under the goods exported abroad.
After all, when you consider that approximately 94 per cent of all farm produce apart from wheat is consumed in Canada, there is no reason why we should allow the 6 per cent that is exported to set the price for the 94 per cent consumed in this country. Therefore we have advocated the two-price system, not because we do not think the farmers are justified in asking for a parity price on all their produce but because it is far easier to put a two-price system into operation. After we have had it in operation, then will be time enough to think about trying to obtain a parity price on the total production.
There are some people who will say that the adoption of a policy which will give the farmers of this country a price for their commodity that will return to them their fair share of the national income will expand the

amount of our surpluses. In that regard I think the time is long overdue for the government to announce a long-term policy. What is the government's policy regarding agricultural production? I think the government should announce to the farmers just what it wants them to do in regard to production. Does the government want the farmers to reduce their production or to maintain it at its present level? If the government wants them to maintain it at the present level, then no one can argue that a policy of price support is to blame for present levels of production, because if the government does not want production to be maintained at present levels it will have to adopt a policy whereby production can be restricted. But just so long as the government does not want production to be restricted there can be no criticism of the farmers' present level of production. When you consider the international situation wherein, according to the FAO, 50 per cent of the population is hungry, I think we can then agree that a policy of maintaining production at a high level is essential at this time.
We in this group have always stated in so far as external markets are concerned that we feel the government should make food available to all those nations who are unable to obtain it through normal channels of trade by such means as acceptance of foreign currency, by barter agreements or in some cases by way of gifts. In so far as the domestic market is concerned, we feel we still have quite a large potential market for increased agricultural production in this country.
The federation of agriculture in its brief suggested a number of means by which we could increase the consumption of dairy products. The federation suggested a free school lunch milk program, a continuation of the policy of making butter available to institutions, and some form of a stamp coupon program in order to get milk and butter to needy people. From time to time we have advocated a similar policy in this house. We have pointed out that a stamp coupon program could be adopted which would be similar to the stamp program carried out in the United States shortly before the war.
It is also interesting to note that the Canadian consumers' association, in a pamphlet they recently put out, also advocated a free school lunch milk program in order to expand the consumption of milk and an expansion of the program of converting milk into milk powder so it can be more easily stored.
If our surpluses continue to rise after the government has done everything conceivably possible to expand our markets for agricultural produce both in the domestic and external fields, I believe the government should 67509-129J
Economic Position of Agriculture then try to build up fairly substantial reserves of all farm commodities that can be stored against the day when crop failures might come. If when we have built up satisfactory reserves surpluses continue, I think the government would be justified in introducing a policy along the lines of the policy it adopted during the war, known as the wheat acreage reduction policy. I would say that policy would only be justified provided they had done everything in their power to expand the domestic and foreign markets and had built up substantial reserves to carry us over for two or three years of crop failures. They might set up something like the soil bank provided by President Eisenhower of the United States to encourage farmers to take poor land out of cultivation and put it into grass or forest. This would help to restore the fertility of the land; and if it were necessary to expand production later on, that land which had been sown to grass and was therefore in a more fertile state could be broken up and put into grain once again.
I submit that the government definitely owes it to the farmers of this country to announce just what they want in that regard. If they want the farmers to continue to expand their production, then they should guarantee that they will not have to suffer a lower price. If on the other hand the government feels that our production of agricultural products today is as high as it is wise to maintain it, the government should announce that and bring in a policy similar to that adopted in the United States in order to encourage farmers to preserve the fertility of their soil.


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Branl-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, in seconding the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert I should like to say first to the C.C.F. party to my left that this is definitely not a new policy on the part of the Progressive Conservative party. To prove this I go back to April 8, 1941, where I find on page 2280 of Hansard of that day an amendment moved by the then hon. member for Lake Centre, the present hon. member for Prince Albert, reading as follows:
That all the words after "that" in the motion be struck out, and the following be substituted therefor:
"it be resolved that the government should take immediate steps to create a parity of prices as between agricultural and other products in order to improve the condition of Canadian agriculture and in order that it may receive a just and fair return, and thus be enabled to make that contribution to Canada's war effort which is so desirable, and which our agricultural population so greatly desire to make."
That should make it plain to the C.C.F. party that this was first brought into the

Economic Position of Agriculture House of Commons by the hon. member for Prince Albert back in 1941.


Mr. Nicholson:: Would the hon. member go back to 1931?


John Alpheus Charlton: I will go back to 1931 in a few minutes if my hon. friend will just wait. I should like now to quote from a speech made by a former leader of this party, John Bracken, at Lethbridge in 1943, when he said:
In order to prevent wide fluctuations of farm prices we shall, in the case of our major export products, provide a floor price below which they will not be permitted to fall, and we shall allow to the producers the benefit of any advance thereon. Since price ceilings are now being maintained to prevent farm prices from rising to high levels in wartime, we shall see to it that price floors are provided, to prevent farm prices from dropping to unfair levels in peacetime. There should not be price ceilings on farm prices to prevent inflation in wartime, without price floors to prevent deflation in peacetime.
Then on March 23, 1953, the hon. member for Prince Albert moved another motion, to be found at page 3208 of Hansard for that year, as follows:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to provide floor prices for agricultural products at such levels as to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship."
Surely that will answer the suggestion made by the hon. member for Assiniboia that this is a new policy on our part. It is not a new policy; we have stood for this policy for 15 years, and we are going to stick with it. As far as the C.C.F. subamendment is concerned we are quite willing to support it.
In regard to the criticism that we did not support the motion moved by the C.C.F. party on May 17, 1954, I think I should reread that motion, which is reported on page 4797 of Hansard and is as follows:
That all the words after the word "That" to the end of the question be struck out and that the following words be substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to demonstrating its support of the principle of orderly marketing through livestock marketing boards by announcing floor prices with respect to cattle and hogs at levels not less than the average of the prices which prevailed during the period from January 1, 1951 to December 31. 1953".
This party has never been in favour of a definite stated price for any particular period. We submit that it should be an elastic price. I think probably I should quote the remarks of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris to be found on page 4812 of Hansard for that same date. The hon. member said:
As a matter of fact, the present plan has been repudiated by the majority of livestock producer

groups in the province because it is too compulsory and, as has been indicated by the hon. member for Calgary North, it approximates socialized marketing. Among the groups who have not given their support to the plan are the Manitoba pools, which in a largely attended meeting in the city of Brandon just a few weeks ago, while supporting the broad principle of producer marketing boards, opposed to the extent of 90 per cent the proposal that has been put forward by the Manitoba farmers union. Also the Manitoba cattle producers association is opposed to the present plan.
I think we were quite justified in opposing that plan when it had been opposed by so many farm organizations across the country. The hon. member for Mackenzie suggested that I should go back to the 1930's, and I am ready to do that. I am willing to admit that when the Conservative government gave up power in 1935 the prices of agricultural products were low, but I would point out also that after five years of Liberal administration the inequality between the prices of the products the farmer had to buy and the prices of the products he had to sell had grown steadily worse.
In 1935, when the Liberals came into power, the parity prices were 20 per cent below; in 1940, after five years of Liberal administration, they had dropped to 23 per cent below parity. That should answer any question about the 1930's. I will say to the hon. member for Mackenzie that we are almost back now to the same ratio; we are closer to it than we have been at any time since 1932. I have here the Economic Annalist for February, 1956, volume 26, No. 1.
To prove the statement I have just made, I want to give farm prices of agricultural products from 1935 to 1940 on the basis of 100 for the 1935-39 price. In 1935 the figure was 88, in 1936 it was 96-9, in 1937 it was 119-7, in 1938 it was 105, in 1939 it was 91-8 and in 1940 it was 96-8. There was a rise of only 8-8 points in the period from 1935 to 1940. In the case of commodities and services used by farmers and taking the same period of years, 1935 to 1940, there was rise from 95-4 to 106-8, or an increase of 11-4 points. While farm prices fell 8-8 points the commodities the farmers were forced to buy rose 11-4 points.
Then we have the period from 1951 to the present time. On the same basis agricultural products have dropped from 296-8 in 1951 to a figure of 225 -05 for 1955, this figure being the average for the first eleven months of the year. That is a drop of 71-8 points. In the same period commodities and services used by the farmers have risen from 230 to 251-3, or an increase of 21-3 points.
I believe that gives a fairly good idea, Mr. Speaker, of the net position of the farmers of the country today, and after all it is the

net position that actually counts. The Minister of Agriculture can bring all the figures he likes on gross income and net worth statements, but the net income is the only one the farmer knows what it actually means as far as money in his pocket is concerned.
To go back again, I think most people from the west will remember the famous Gardiner dodgers that were used there in 1934 in the campaign prior to the election in 1935. 1 want to refer to what was on the dodger. It contained these words:
Dollar wheat will give you a job and enable you to own your own home. Dollar wheat will pay for your light and water and give you a telephone. Dollar wheat will pay your grocery bill and buy boots, shoes and clothing for the whole family.


William Earl Rowe: 'WJho said that?


John Alpheus Charlton: The Minister of Agriculture. He was not minister then but later became Minister of Agriculture. I continue:
Dollar wheat can provide a surplus for a rainy day. Vote Liberal.
What happened?


Mr. Lennard:: You cannot buy the overalls.


James Garfield Gardiner: There have never been any Tories elected since. That is what happened.


William Earl Rowe: You did a good job of fooling the people.


John Alpheus Charlton: In 1935 the price of wheat was 87 J cents a bushel. What happened to it from 1935 to 1940? It never did reach $1 a bushel until after two years of the world war. Yet the minister had the audacity to go across the country promising the farmers they would get dollar wheat. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, wheat went down to 60 cents a bushel. The government wanted to pay the farmers 60 cents for their wheat in 1938, I believe.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend wants to be correct. The government offered an initial payment of 60 cents, not 60 cents a bushel for wheat.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is what I just said.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no; you said 60 cents for wheat.


John Alpheus Charlton: The government offered 60 cents as an initial payment.


William Earl Rowe: Your initial payment was less than they got under the former government.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact the initial payment was made at 70 cents. It was not 60 cents.


William Earl Rowe: That was 17 cents below what was paid by the former government, still 17 cents low.
Economic Position of Agriculture


John Alpheus Charlton: If the minister will just contain himself I shall go ahead and say what happened. If it had not been for a deputation of farmers from the western provinces they would have only received 60 cents, but there was such an outcry that the government was forced to make the initial payment 70 cents. During the campaign in 1934 before the 1935 election they also promised a terrific increase in exports. I have placed on Hansard, on a previous occasion what actually did happen to exports prior to the time the Conservatives came into power in 1930 and after the Liberals came back into power in 1935. With the exception of three cases there was an increase in exports to Great Britain when the Conservatives were in power over what they were in 1929 or 1936. The table to which I refer can be found at page 3566 cf Hansard of April 7, 1953.
It is not necessary for me to go over all these figures. As I say, with the exception of three cases where exports were a little higher in 1929 than in 1934, the year I have here, exports were smaller in 1929 and 1936 than in 1934. These are dominion bureau of statistics figures and I do not think the minister can refute them.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not correct.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister has just said they are not correct.


James Garfield Gardiner: The price of wheat in 1936 was one of the highest prices we had in that period.


John Alpheus Charlton: I did not s'ay anything about prices. I referred to the export figures to Great Britain for the various products shown in this table, and I challenge the minister to say they are wrong. They are dominion bureau of statistics figures-


Frank Exton Lennard: He would not know.


John Alpheus Charlton: -and I do not think they can be said to be wrong.


William Earl Rowe: Are you taking the average? Maybe he is taking a special day.


James Garfield Gardiner: $1.22 a bushel for wheat.


William Earl Rowe: What day was that?


James Garfield Gardiner: The average through the
year 1936-37.


John Alpheus Charlton: In the brief submitted to the cabinet by the interprovincial farm union council there is a very interesting table on page 4. As a matter of fact, it shows beyond any doubt that at the present time wheat is selling at a lower price as far as purchasing power is concerned than it was during the period from 1930 to 1939 or at any time during the history of this country with the

Economic Position of Agriculture possible exception of 1931 and 1932. It is table 3 on page 4 of the brief and is headed, "Purchasing Power of a Bushel of Wheat Basis Fort William". Would it be possible to have this table placed on the record?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Did
the hon. member indicate the source of the table?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, I said it was taken from page 4 of the brief of the interprovincial farm union council, submitted to the government of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
it agreed that the hon. member has permission to place these figures on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Alpheus Charlton: 
James Garfield Gardiner: That is included in the first $3 million.


John Alpheus Charlton: I know that a great error was made in suggesting that the floor price on butter cost the taxpayers of Canada $8 million in one year. If it is $8 million-and I am not suggesting it will reach that amount; but according to the Minister of Agriculture it might do so by this next May 1-that will be for seven years instead of one. I think it is just as well to get that situation clear.
As I say, the total subsidies paid by the government under this act were some $83 million. As is not known by many, all subsidies are not paid to agriculture. I want to be clear on this point. There is a considerable amount in the way of subsidies that go to industries other than agriculture. From 1946, when the agricultural prices support board came into being, of the total subsidies paid out by this government in only four years out of the nine was over 50 per cent received by agriculture. In five of those nine years over 50 per cent was received by industries other than agriculture, and they are quite numerous. I do not want to go over them.


John George Diefenbaker: Clear the matter up.
Economic Position of Agriculture


John Alpheus Charlton: For instance, in 1954 the
following government subsidies were paid:
Government subsidies 1954 Federal:	($ Millions)
Department of Agriculture:
Feed freight assistance, western grain	19
Hog premiums	 5
Agricultural prices support board loss ..	4
Miscellaneous:
Payments, co-operative marketing act	4
Lime assistance	 1
Premiums cheese	 1
Total agriculture	 34
Other federal subsidies:
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act	15
Maritime Freight Rates Act	 H
Movement of coal	 12
Miscellaneous:
Steamship subventions	 4
Payments, re trackage C.N.R. and
C.P.R	 7
Other	 2
Total other	 51
"Other" includes payments re immigrants en route; fishing bounty; payments re Canadian coal; drydock subsidies; subsidies- salvage companies; subventions-air carriers; payments re fisheries price support and destruction of harbour seals. In that case the agricultural subsidies paid out were $34 million and subsidies paid out to other industries were $51 million.
There are many other subsidies in addition to those, Mr. Speaker, that are paid by consumers by reason of tariff protection. However, it is not my intention to go into that now. I admit that tariff protection is necessary in a good many cases. But if this is so, is it not just as reasonable that the farmers should have protection as well? The present economic plight of the farmers generally is serious.
I want to go back again to the brief of the farm union, page 6, where it is definitely stated that 38 per cent of the farmers in this country have a gross income of less than $1,200 a year. I repeat that 38 per cent of the total number of farmers in Canada have a gross income of less than $1,200 a year. The minister might have been right when he said back in 1953, as I distinctly recall, that if the figures could be produced, 90 per cent of the farmers in eastern Canada did not make enough to pay income tax. Probably he was closer to being right than he thought at that time.
Then again, as was stated by the hon. member for Assiniboia this afternoon, from 1951 to date the net income of all farmers in Canada has been reduced by 48-22 per cent. If anyone doubts that statement, Mr. Speaker, all he needs to do is drive around the rural districts and see the number of farm homes and farm buildings that are going to rack

Economic Position of Agriculture and ruin, actually tailing down in many cases. He could visit the county registrar's offices and find out the increase in the number of mortgages that have been put on farms in the last couple of years, or visit the township tax collector and find out how many people are in arrears on taxes in this last year. If anyone still does not believe that the farmers' situation is a bad one now, that is one way of finding out.
This, as I said, is the situation with regard to the farmers' income. While the general economy of Canada has probably never been better, the farmers, one industry, have suffered a 48-22 per cent decline in their income. Practically all others are receiving better incomes than they ever received in their lives before. Is that fair? No one, not even a person on the government side of the house, would state that was a fair situation, or one that could be ignored or about which the government could sit back and take a do nothing attitude.
A Financial Post survey shows that 25 corporations dealing with farmers increased their average profits after taxes by 402 per cent between 1946 and 1954. One of the larger packing companies indicates in its annual report that the average profit over the last 10 years was 27-5 per cent of their capital investment. I would venture to say that there are very few farmers who would not be tickled to death if they could average 2 per cent or 3 per cent net on their capital investment every year.
While some of these companies admit that they buy as cheaply as possible and sell for ss much as possible, most farmers are forced to pay the prices they are asked and to sell for what they are offered. In order to improve their marketing position, many commodity groups have set up plans under provincial marketing legislation to sell their products. Many such plans are in operation in Ontario now, and have been quite successful. Most farmers feel that this method of marketing is one solution to the problem, but certainly it cannot be said that farmers' organizations are not trying to help themselves by every possible avenue open to them.
In view of the fact that the two main labour organizations, the Trades and Labour Congress and the Canadian Congress of Labour, are on record as being in support of the principle of equitable prices to the primary producers of agricultural products, why does this government stubbornly refuse to make adequate use of the existing floor price legislation? We ask, as we have asked on various previous occasions, that the government bring forward an amendment to include in the Agricultural

Prices Support Act a formula which would ensure agriculture producers a fair and equitable basis for arriving at floor prices. The farmers of Canada, comprising approximately 17 per cent of the population in 1954, received 6-8 per cent of the national income. I know quite well, as does everyone else, that the 1955 figure will be still lower. The situation requires a realistic floor price policy for agriculture if the economy of our country is to be maintained at a reasonable level of prosperity.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I rise with pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to participate in this debate and support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert as well as the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia. One of the reasons we felt it was wise to add the subamendment was to make it quite clear that what is involved in this debate particularly is a question of principle rather than a question of method. We believe that when we discuss parity prices with respect to agriculture, this parliament should be asked to accept and adopt the principle that agriculture as a whole in this country, being a basic industry, should receive its fair share of the national income. The method by which that can be brought about can be discussed in greater detail after such time as this parliament has become committed to the principle.
This afternoon I should like to discuss this amendment under four headings. First of all, we have to establish who wants parity prices. As this debate continues I have no doubt there will be government members who will be tempted to get into the debate and try to prove that there is opposition to this proposition about parity prices. I think it would be interesting not only to assess who in this house is for and who against the principle of parity prices for agriculture, although that is fairly obvious, but also to note that the members of the opposition have not only in the debate this afternoon but on previous occasions expressed themselves in favour of similar motions to the one which is before us and which were placed before the house by my C.C.F. colleagues.
Therefore, so far as the three parties sitting in the opposition are concerned, there is no question with respect to their acceptance of that principle, but there may be some question as to how it is regarded on the other side of the house. By deduction we shall have to assume that the members of the government are opposed to this principle because in the past they have so expressed themselves. But I believe there are a large number of private members on the government side of the house, and perhaps more

particularly those members representing agricultural constituencies in western Canada, who are thoroughly in favour, in their own minds at least, of the proposition which we are now placing before the house. What I have to say this afternoon will be more or less directed to those members because, while the government may regard this motion as a want of confidence motion-it is their privilege, of course, so to regard it-yet I believe that if the government on this occasion were to announce that they are willing to allow this motion to go to a free vote of the house-and under the rules of the house that can be done-


James Garfield Gardiner: May I call the hon. member's attention to the fact that the mover of the motion indicated that it was a want of confidence motion, and went on to make his speech for the length of time he desired.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I beg to differ with the Minister of Agriculture on that, because I listened very carefully at that point. What the hon. member for Prince Albert said was that this was the kind of motion which he assumed the government would not be prepared to accept. That is a different thing from saying-


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker made it known that his time was just about exhausted. He said, "If it is considered a want of confidence motion, then you have all the time you wish", and the hon. member went on and took it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He had unlimited time, anyway. He was the first opposition member speaking in reply to a minister who had moved a government order.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Now that the expert on the rules from Winnipeg North Centre has informed the minister what the rules are, we may proceed with the question.
As I said, I listened very carefully to what the hon. member said when he moved his amendment. What he did say was this: Even though it was suggested to him from the Chair at the time that this motion may be considered a want of confidence motion, he assumed it was the kind of motion that the government was not prepared to accept. Now, that is a different thing entirely from a want of confidence motion.
The government, as a government-and I am speaking now of the cabinet-may have their own views. They may even have divergent views on this question. I rather suspect they have. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture would be in a position to give us some very interesting details on that. However, they are bound by tradition, perhaps, to adopt a common policy. If they have
Economic Position of Agriculture adopted the policy amongst themselves as being opposed to the principle of parity prices, then of course they will have to argue for their position and they cannot diverge. But there is nothing to prevent the private members, who normally support the government on questions of confidence, from expressing their own opinions as private members on this question, and voting as they see fit when the matter comes to vote.
What I was about to say when I was interrupted by the minister was this. The government could facilitate the situation so far as those private members are concerned by any one of the ministers-and I think most appropriately in this instance it would be the Minister of Agriculture-rising in his place and saying that while the government have adopted a certain position for certain reasons, they would like to have the free and open opinion of all the private members of the house, including those who support the government, on this question of principle. There would be no harm done.
If that were done, then those members who represent agriculture in this house, or who represent constituencies largely agricultural, would be in a position to state their opinions openly and clearly. If, under those conditions, they are still opposed to the principle of parity prices, then of course they should say so and their vote would logically follow their opinion.
But I am afraid that once again, as in the past, we are heading into a sort of cul-de-sac, where private members supporting the government have in their own constituencies and elsewhere in the country made speeches in support of this very principle, and have stated again and again that they are prepared to go along with this principle of parity prices; but when they come to this house, because the government holds them down to the definition of a want of confidence motion, of course they have the excuse when they go back to their constituencies to say, "Well, of course, we would like to have supported the motion. It was in line with our thinking, but in doing so we would have defeated the government and would have had to come back to the people in a general election.
Of course even that is a poor excuse, because in a democratic parliament no member, regardless of where he sits or what government he supports, should let the fact that a general election may result from the particular way in which he votes deter him from voting that way. After all, we are only representatives of the people here. We are the temporary trustees of the public trust as a parliament, and it is the electors themselves who should decide the main issues of the country. Be that as it may-
2042	HOUSE OF
Economic Position of Agriculture


Mr. Sluder:: May I ask a question? How many free votes does the socialist government of Saskatchewan allow its members?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, we are now concerned with what is happening in this chamber, not with what is happening, or what the hon. member claims may be happening, somewhere else. I would suggest he address that question to his colleagues in the Saskatchewan legislature and they might be able to inform him on that question.


Mr. Byrne:: Is the hon. member satisfied that he has answered the question?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I simply have to state quite frankly that I am not in a position to answer a question arising out of what happens in the Saskatchewan legislature. I leave it to the members of that legislature to answer for themselves. The question before this house is whether the members of this house who sit on the government side-because they are the ones who are going to decide this issue-are prepared to express their opinions and by a free vote, a free opinion on the merits of the principle in this amendment rather than toeing the party line and voting simply to uphold the government. I hope that before the debate is over the Minister of Agriculture will rise in his place and give freedom to the followers of his party to speak and vote on this question as they please.
Who are the organizations, outside of the membership of this house, who are interested in this issue, and what are their views? I would like to call as the first witness the members of the Manitoba farmers' union in convention in Winnipeg on December 5, 6 and 7, 1955. One of the first resolutions that appeared on the agenda of that convention, which was carried, reads as follows:
Whereas decreased farm income due to depressed prices drastically affects the living standards of the farm family, and
Whereas there appears to be no lessening to any appreciable degree of the price squeeze pressure, and it is quite obvious that the continual deterioration in the agricultural economy is now being reflected to a marked degree in our national economy,
Therefore be it resolved that we urge the federal government to establish a parity price program which will equal 100 per cent of parity on all agricultural products.
That sets out very clearly, without need for much comment, the attitude of the Manitoba farmers' union in convention. I might add that, of course, is also the representative views of the farm unions of all the provinces of Canada.
Then I call as the second witness the presentation made to the Manitoba members of parliament-and that included the federal members of parliament-in December of 1955


by the Manitoba federation of agriculture and co-operation. In that presentation they had this to say, as shown on page 4 under the heading, "Equality for Agriculture":
We believe that farm families generally, should receive prices or returns that will yield them enough income from farming to maintain a level of living equivalent to that of persons in other occupations with comparable skill, effort and investment.
The M.F.A.C. has, over a long period of time, advocated and worked for equality or parity for agriculture.
That sets out the views of the Manitoba federation of agriculture, which represents a large number of farmers in that province and includes most of the co-operative associations.
We call as a third witness the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which is the parent body of the M.F.A.C., and their annual submission to the government of February 14, 1956. On the fourth page of their brief they had this to say:
Farmers feel that the worsening of their relative position has reached a point where it should be recognized that it Is a vital concern of the public's, as well as of the farmer's, that this trend be halted. The farmer's position is difficult enough now to ensure that he will make any further production adjustments that are within his ability to make. However, it should be emphasized that a continuation of the recent downward trend in farm purchasing power will create economic hardship, make it difficult to maintain adequate municipal and educational services, and delay rather than encourage the further healthy development of agriculture in this country.
That is the studied opinion of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in its submission to the government this year. I think it sets out rather adequately that so far as organized agriculture is concerned, and that includes organized agriculture right across this country, they are in favour of the principle of parity income for agriculture.
We know now that so far as the farmers themselves are concerned they want this to be adopted. So far as hon. members sitting in the opposition are concerned we want this policy adopted, too. That leaves the onus on hon. members sitting on the government side of the house to cast the deciding vote. It is a serious responsibility and one which they cannot take lightly, because this question has reached a point in the thinking of the farm organizations across Canada where I predict it is going to be one of the major issues in the next election.
Hon. members who support the government and who represent agricultural constituencies I think will not be able to wiggle out of that position by simply stating they were voting to uphold this government, as if the government were tottering and ready to fall and

Economic Position of Agriculture
had to be upheld on every occasion. They will have to take the responsibility for their actions as individuals representing the constituencies which they were elected to represent. They will not be able to use as an excuse the fact that the government considered this as a question of want of confidence.
I come now to the second part of what I have to say. I have already discussed who wants parity prices, and I would now like to turn to the question of why we want parity prices for agriculture. It is not only because it is a good subject for academic discussion. It is rather because, from a practical point of view, after having canvassed the situation and the position of agriculture from the various angles, the farm organizations have come to the conclusion that unless this government-or this parliament, to be more exact-takes steps in the near future and takes a hand in the economy of this country with respect to both the income of agriculture and the expenses of agriculture incurred in production, then the downward trend of farm income is going to continue. That situation is aggravated all the more by the fact that while the trend of the returns has been downward, and figures have been quoted today which show that the decrease runs as high as 48 per cent in recent years, the cost of production is still either static or rising.
In a situation of that kind it is not enough for the government to say that it hopes the situation will change because of the trade position, or that markets will increase for other reasons. We have reached the point where we are now either going to take a hand in assisting agriculture to get its share of the national income or we will have to say to agriculture, "We are not going to do anything about it", and the farmers will have to decide as individuals or family units whether they are going to stay in agriculture or do as so many have already done, leave the farms and flock to the cities thereby aggravating the unemployment situation during the slack period, and adding to the problems which already exist in the over-congested cities in our country. Therefore it is a serious question.
I would like to refer to page 5 of the submission made by the interprovincial farm union council to the government on February 16, 1956, in which they point out some of the trends I have been speaking about. We have heard a great deal about the grain situation, but I would like to emphasize the fact that so far as agriculture is concerned,
livestock in my opinion is much more important than grain so far as the stability of income is concerned.
With respect to cattle we find that a comparison between the years 1951 to 1954 shows a steady downward trend. The yearly weighted average price per hundredweight of total sales on public stockyards for cattle in 1951 was $28.22; in 1952, $20.00; in 1953, $15.30; in 1954, $14.45. The statistics do not appear for 1955, but we have no reason to believe that the picture is any better.
We come then to grade A hogs dressed, in the second period 1954-55. In the first half of 1954 the price was $33.33; second half of 1954, $24.92; in the first half of 1955 the price was $23.52; in the second half of 1955, $23.17.
In recent months hon. members of this group have pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture and the government that in many cases the price has dropped even lower than the established price under the Agricultural Prices Support Act.
Another interesting set of statistics contained in the same submission is a comparison of the return on investment. There are those who regard agriculture as a business. I personally regard it as something more than that; I think it is a way of life. Let us look at agriculture from the business point of view for the time being. We find as contained on page 8 of this submission that in 1954 Canada Packers Limited showed a return on capital investment of 25-2 per cent whereas in the same year, if you take the grouping of all farmers in the province of Manitoba and take into consideration their investment and return, in 1954 their return on investment amounted to -001 per cent. That is a very striking contrast as to what the returns on investment are for agriculture as compared with another industry.
Figures have been given today to show the comparative share of the national income or the gross national product received by farmers as compared with the national economy generally. We find that in 1952 farmers received 11-4 per cent of the national income, whereas on a proportionate basis they should have received something like 20 per cent. In 1953 they received 9-9 per cent. In 1954 it went down to 6-8 per cent, and no doubt it will be less than that in 1955, probably around 6 per cent. There again we have plenty of evidence to show that on that basis agriculture has good reason for asking that this parliament take action with respecl to a parity income for agriculture in order tc ensure that farmers get something like theii fair share of the national income.
I come now to the third heading, and tha'
is how can we establish parity income foi
2044	HOUSE OF
Economic Position of Agriculture agriculture. I said earlier that the methods may differ. Other hon. members may have their own ideas as to how this can be done, and I for one will be very glad to hear them. The government itself may have some ideas on this question, but in my own opinion and speaking for myself I think there are two main channels through which we can approach the question of parity income for agriculture.
One of these would be a method of setting a system of floor prices and using subsidies where necessary to maintain those floor prices. Under that system it would be necessary to extend the provisions of the Agricultural Prices Support Act in order to make greater use of marketing boards, because it is only through a system of marketing boards that this act can be properly administered, as I shall show in a minute or two. Wherever it is found necessary, in order to maintain floor prices as a protection or guarantee against a fire sale of a particular product, this parliament should be prepared to vote moneys to be used as subsidies to uphold those floor prices.
I should like to mention this because when hon. members in this house speak about subsidies in order to maintain floor prices, there are many people in the country who do not quite understand what is involved. They have a vision of this parliament having to vote hundreds of millions of dollars annually for the purpose of subsidizing this, that or some other agricultural product. If we have a system of guaranteed floor prices that is not necessarily what is going to happen, and I am fairly sure that is not what would happen.
There would be times when this parliament would be called upon to make an appropriation in order to prevent the surplus of a certain product depressing the price of the whole market at that point, but as long as the market price remained at the level of the floor price or higher it would not cost the public treasury one cent in the form of subsidy to maintain the floor price. That is something that should be emphasized and understood, that a floor price and the willingness to maintain a floor price by means of a subsidy does not necessarily involve the expenditure of public money. It acts as insurance; this government could act as an underwriter in order to prevent prices falling below a certain floor. We should be prepared to use public funds to maintain that floor price.
There is another method which I believe could be used alongside this one, but which is not being used at the present time, and I refer to price control. I remember during


last session we were told a number of times that one of the reasons we cannot expect farmers to get better prices for certain products was the necessity of meeting world competition. We were told that therefore they had to keep their prices at a level which would be competitive with the prices of agricultural products elsewhere. They were advised from time to time to cut down their cost of production by greater efficiency, by the use of more modern methods, by greater production per unit and in that way be able to compete on the world markets.
We know that the possibility of their doing that is limited strictly by the factors which enter into the cost of production. If we are going to accept the principle or the idea or the theory that we should try to produce agricultural products at prices which will be competitive with agricultural products grown in other countries, then we will have to take steps to see that the cost of the articles which the farmer has to buy and which enter into his cost of production are controlled.
I think that in order to have a really successful system of parity prices in this country we shall have to employ eventually both these methods or a combination of them, that is a system of floor prices with marketing boards for their administration and a system of price control in order to maintain the cost of production at a reasonable figure. If the cost of production is not controlled we may find that many of the advantages of floor prices would be frittered away by those who are in position to exploit the farmer through profiteering.
In my opinion the whole question boils down to providing sufficient purchasing power within our own country to make it possible for the people to buy at the proper price level all the agricultural products required by our population, and having some machinery set up for the purpose of assisting in the sale of our surplus products on the world market, not at the cost of the producer but if necessary at the cost of the nation as a whole.
I want to emphasize again that the most important and most desirable market for agricultural products that can be found anywhere in the world is the market we have right here in Canada. There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people who would be using more food, a better quality of food and in greater quantities if they had sufficient income to be able to do so.
This was illustrated most vividly during the years of the war and immediately after the war. When money began to circulate in this country and people began to have steadier jobs at better pay we found that the consumption of agricultural products began to rise so

markedly that during the war years we had to have food rationing because the demand was beginning to exceed the supply. Now the shoe seems to be on the other foot. If we could do something, if we could increase the purchasing power of the Canadian people and bring about that happy relationship where effective demand would more or less equal supply, then we would have an ideal situation.
I should like to finish before six o'clock, and if I could take just one minute I should like to set before the house five points which I believe should be followed in order to bring about this sufficient effective purchasing power to provide a better market for agricultural products in our own country.
First, we should accept the principle of parity for agriculture.
Second, I would advocate a system of floor prices to be established for producers. I emphasize floor prices for producers, because under the Agricultural Prices Support Act we find that even where floor prices are established they work to the advantage of the packers or dealers and do not find their way down to the producer level.
Third, the establishment of low cost credit for our agricultural producer.
Fourth, effective action to prevent monopolies and combines. I was interested in hearing the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand say that an industry which does business with the farmers had increased its profits by something like 402 per cent. I think I heard the hon. member correctly, and if he confirms that figure there is something wrong when we find that the income of agriculture has dropped by 48 per cent in recent years while the profits of this industry which deals with the agricultural industry have increased by 402 per cent. They do not do that by ordinary business practices. We know that monopolies and combines constitute a greater danger and threat to our economy than ever before, and effective steps should be taken to combat that type of practice.
Fifth, and perhaps as important as any of the others, is the fact that if we are to have sufficient effective purchasing power in this country we must expand to the greatest possible extent our social welfare legislation to provide all those who need goods and can use them with the purchasing power in order that they can buy the good things of life that we have in such abundance in this country.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
Economic Position of Agriculture


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, the matter before the house is perhaps one of the most important and challenging that has ever come before this assembly. We are now discussing the matter of asking the government to give consideration to bringing in a policy of parity prices for agriculture. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because unless we can bring about for agriculture policies which will give a fair share of the national income to our agricultural producers I think we shall have difficulty in every part of our economy.
Before the dinner recess I was most interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Dauphin, when he stated he believed that if members on the government side of the house were given the liberty of voting according to their feelings with respect to this matter, and if a free vote were allowed, they would join with members on the opposition benches in supporting this resolution.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: We could not do that. Only the Tories want socialism.


Edward George McCullough: I think there are three phases in respect of this whole problem; first, the economic position of agriculture; second, what does the future hold for agriculture; and third, how can we achieve our objective? There may be some people who are not too greatly concerned about agriculture. They think perhaps the Canadian economy, with its buoyancy in the industrial field today, is sufficient to sustain a relatively high income for our Canadian people. On the other hand I am sure that agriculture will be in the future, as it has been in the past, the chief segment of our economy upon which we can build the strength of our prosperity. For this reason I think we should examine all phases of the economic position of agriculture at the present time.
It is true that we have many sources of information coming to various members of the house in respect of farm income, both on a national and a regional basis. While it is true that the general Canadian economic picture is not so bad-the figure is just down a few points; 3 per cent or a little less when one considers the whole of the Canadian economy -on the other hand in western Canada we have a situation where the three western provinces during these last three years have experienced a tragic drop in farm income. According to the Canadian Wheat Pool of February 6, 1956, the total farm income for 1954 was $2,377 million, or $398 million below

Economic Position of Agriculture that of 1953. It is also a very important matter that the income of the farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta'-that is, their 1954 income-was down a total of $404 million, some 28 per cent below the 1953 income.
It is true that during this period profits and in many industries wages boomed. But we have the three western provinces with their income down 28 per cent from 1953. As I stated earlier, we have a number of sources from which we can find out the kind of income which farmers are receiving today. While newspapers across the country have expressed concern with respect to farm income, I think this government has not yet awakened to the seriousness of the situation. I have here a clipping from the Montreal Gazette of January 18, 1956 in respect of farm income. The Bank of Nova Scotia monthly review has this to say:
The continued restriction of farm purchasing power in the west and the failure of the farm sector generally to share in the buoyancy that characterized other parts of the economy in 1955 cannot be regarded lightly . . .
Then it goes on to point out the drop in income. Again, the Windsor Star of January 12, 1956, contains an article quoting the words of Professor Buckley, who states that although the prairie people are aware of the fact, he thinks the rest of Canada is not impressed with the reality. Then again the Ottawa Citizen of December 22 had this to say, quoting H. H. Hannam. The article states that farm income has dropped 23 per cent from 1951, and then Mr. Hannam says:
How would anyone else like to take a 25 per cent salary cut?
And he goes on to say this:
We are not hollering blue ruin or depression, but now is the time when the downward trend must be checked.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: What do you suggest?


Edward George McCullough: I am
going to come to that.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Oh, you are going to come to that?


Edward George McCullough: I am
suggesting, as are many other people, that the members on the other side of the house, namely on the Liberal benches, support the principle of parity prices. Now that we have had an interjection from the hon. member,
I hope he will see fit to get to his feet and say what he thinks. I am saying what I think.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I do not think like the socialists.


Irvin William Studer: The hon. member is stating what the papers say.


Edward George McCullough: Again, Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail of February 17, 1956, contains an article under the heading "Low Incomes driving Farmers from Land". While it indicates again the drop in farm income it has this to say:
Canada Packers Limited shows an indicated average profit for 10 years of 27.5 per cent on their capital investment. This is more than three times the expected return on general investments and 25 times more than was received by farmers on their capital investment in 1954.
As I said before, it seems difficult to convince this government that we need for Canada agricultural policies to prevent this sort of downward spiralling of farm prices. In that connection the Winnipeg Free Press of December 29, 1955 has this to say. The article is headed "The West ignored". Commenting in the report of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on economic conditions in Canada, it says:
Mr, Howe's review has one other feature of note, and particularly of note to western Canada. The review largely ignores western Canada. It describes the economy in a state of vigorous expansion, bordering on the dangers of speculative excesses and an inflationary boom. This is entirely accurate for most sections of the economy. It is not the whole picture for the prairies. It ignores the state of the farmer.
I fear that is the important point in the discussion which is taking place at this time, Mr. Speaker, and indeed in relation to the arguments and discussions which have taken place since this new session began. From coast to coast the state of agriculture is a fiasco, and this government has not seen fit to do much about it. As I stated before, I think we must examine the economic position of the farmer. I have given some excerpts from newspaper thought in respect of the question, and I should now like to examine it a little more closely.
I have here a chart prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics dated February 26, 1956. This chart shows farm income, farm expenses and value of farm capital in Canada from 1945 to 1954. It shows the gross income, operating costs, depreciation, net income and value of farm capital. I am just going to illustrate the situation in 1951. There was a gross income of $3,578 million; operating costs were $1,238 million; depreciation, $196 million; net income, $2,154 million.
The important thing, Mr. Speaker is this. By 1954 the gross income had dropped to $2,624 million; operating costs had risen to $1,255 million; depreciation was even higher, $245 million. The net income had again dropped from a high in 1951 of $2,154 million to $1,125 million. This chart illustrates and gives a vivid graphic picture of farm

income in Canada. Rather than try to put the whole thing on the record, I should like the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, to place this chart on Hansard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon.
member indicate the source of this record?


Edward George McCullough: The
dominion bureau of statistics.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to place this table on Hansard?
Economic Position of Agriculture Mr. Gardiner: May I ask the hon. member if he is putting on the record 1952 and 1953 as well?


Edward George McCullough: Yes, up to 1954.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to place this table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward George McCullough: The
table is as follows:
Farm Income, Farm Expenses and Value of Farm Capital, Canada 1945-1954
Year	Gross Income	Operating Costs	Deprecia- tion (thousand dollars)	Net Income *	Value of Farm Capital1945 	
1,761,834	686,547	110,145	971,582	5,671,7881946 	
2,000,715	761,934	117,094	1,138,637	5,902,0051947 	
2,251,085	927,791	128,662	1,206,209	6,415,6401948 	
2,810,196	1,008,862	140,519	1,681,563	7,148,6431949 	
2,802,494	1,026,231	153,387	1,640,504	7,525,1291950 	
2,727,433	1,119,089	174,069	1,448,081	8,223,2711951 	
3,578,453	1,238,011	196,271	2,154,527	9,354,9001952 	
3,500,548	1,369,860	212,346	1,923,473	9,425,3111953 	
3,226,711	1,295,925	232,753	1,699,605	9,358,7981954 	
2,624,732	1,255,826	245,692	1,125,641	9,718,961* Includes	supplementary payments	made under	the provisions of the	Prairie Farm	Assistance Act.
I should like also to illustrate the purchasing power of the farmer's dollar in 1954 in relation to other years. Again I am not going to use too many figures. We can go back to 1910 and see that the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat was $1.29. In 1954-55 with the initial price at $1.40, the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat had decreased to 61-4 cents. I submit I have put sufficient figures on the record to indicate the plight of agriculture today.
Now, I think we should try to examine the future. I am most impressed with the fact that it was the Conservative party which this afternoon moved for parity prices. I feel we have long since convinced many people in Canada that unless agriculture gets a fair share of the national income, unless we have agriculture policies in this country which will give the farmer a fair relationship between the things he has to sell and the things he has to buy, we cannot have justice and certainly we cannot have a stable economy.
This government may not worry very much about what is happening in agriculture. I, for one, want to join with those people who believe that the family farm is the type of farm we should support in making our policies. I believe policies of that type will add strength to the family and to our nation generally. I am going to suggest to this government that unless they can take this
problem in hand and see to it that the family farm is saved from disintegration, we are going to have bigger and bigger farms in this country. This has been the trend in the United States for many years, and perhaps it still is. We see this happening in Canada today. The investment necessary to start a small farm today is too large for the young farmer to undertake. I noticed that in the submission the Manitoba government made to the Gordon commission they indicated that $17,000 was the capital investment in the average Manitoba farm. I believe it would be somewhat higher in Saskatchewan. It is clear that a young man wanting to take up agriculture as his way of life is not likely to be able to finance the undertaking.
We do not have a national policy on credit that would give low interest loans and enable a young man to set himself up on the farm. Indeed, today under the various acts providing for farm loans and farm improvement loans, the interest rate is quite a bit too high. Young people graduating from high school or university who would like to go on farms are forced to find other occupations just because proper financing is not available to enable them to undertake agriculture.
In addition to that there are the fluctuations and vagaries of this system, not the law of supply and demand, but purely the fact that the individual farmer gets little help and is

Economic Position of Agriculture expected to market his products under conditions over which he has no control.
I want, therefore, to support the principle of parity prices. As I said before, the interprovincial farm union council and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture support parity prices. We have, too, the large labour unions in this country supporting the principle of fairness and equity for agriculture.
I have here a clipping from the Globe and Mail of February 20 which I should like to read. It says:
T.L.C. chief, Claude Jodoin and C.C.L. head A. R. Mosher-whose organizations are soon to amalgamate-agreed also that farmers should get "equitable" or parity prices on all farm products.
In respect to this whole argument on parity prices, there are those who say they are in favour of agriculture getting a fair share of the national income but they are against parity prices. I do not know how you can have it both ways. I do not know how you can say you are prepared to support policies which will guarantee the producers a fair share of the national income, yet at the same time you are against parity prices. I find it difficult to see how such people can be sincere. I feel that the two are synonymous. Parity prices simply mean justice and equity for the agriculture producer.
I do not believe it does much good to go into the past. I think we should be looking to the future. I feel sure the Minister of Agriculture would join the rest of us if he were a free agent and able to state whether or not he was in favour of parity for agriculture. I would suggest that members on the Liberal benches who come from the prairie provinces and represent agricultural constituencies should get up and state what they think about this. I agree with the hon. member for Dauphin. When the federal election rolls around I do not believe any western farmer will believe any of those hon. members who say, "Oh, yes, we are in favour of it; we are in favour of parity prices, but we could not do anything else because we had to support the government." Everyone in Canada knows that this government has such a preponderance of numbers on the benches opposite that they could send 100 members home and still carry measures; there would be little chance of the government being defeated. Of course, at times they are not all in the house. If the government wanted to, it could have a free vote. They could take off the whips and let hon. members rise to their feet and say what they believe.
Since I am talking about farm income, may I say that I have heard the Minister of Agriculture out west state his financial position as a farmer. I do not want to be unfair

about this; but he knows full well the vagaries of agriculture, of nature, and the fluctuations in prices with which the farmer has to cope. He knows that for many years as a farmer he himself was in the position that many farmers in western Canada are facing today. If he would try to get his colleagues to say that in the interests of every Canadian we have to do something tangible in order to meet the challenge before us-[DOT]


James Garfield Gardiner: Before my hon. friend concludes will he permit me to remind him that when we first opposed parity prices, or brought in the system we now have, we had a majority of only three or four, I think.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Canada had better government from the Liberals in those days.


Edward George McCullough: Now
you have a big majority, but that is no reason for doing what you like. More than that, if you were in favour of this resolution you would have the support of all the members on the opposition benches. Therefore I do not think your argument holds water at all.
What we are asking for, Mr. Speaker, is a national policy adequate to meet the need. First, we should have a low interest rate so that any young farmer in Canada could go into agriculture as his life work, as his vocation. Second, and this is most important, we should have a policy which would give stability to the various kinds of production. At the present time there is pressure on the marketing of hogs and cattle. I believe it was just two years ago that the Minister of Agriculture suggested to western farmers that if they wanted to get ready cash they should feed some of their grain.
I notice he is not advocating that today. Why not? He knows that today there is pressure on the hog market and the beef market, and that perhaps prices will collapse. Already the hog market is so depressed that many farmers are receiving returns for their hogs below what is supposed to be the support price. The whole agricultural economic picture is in a state of chaos; it is a fiasco, and this government is not prepared to do anything about it.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that those who say higher prices for agricultural products will only mean that the consumers will pay higher prices are not correct. Fair prices, adequate prices, which mean parity to the farmer, do not mean higher prices to the consumer. May I give one specific example in respect of wheat. I have taken the trouble to make some investigations, and I find that one bushel of the higher milling grades of wheat will produce about 72-2 per cent of flour. At the

present prices for top grade wheat the farmer will get anywhere from 96 cents to $1.25 per bushel for that wheat. He will receive 1J to 2i cents a pound. As soon as that wheat is made into flour the price increases to 5| cents a pound, and when it is made into bread it retails at 15 cents a pound. One hundred pounds of flour will make 129 loaves of bread, and at present prices they will retail at around $8.66.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the house can see what happens. The farmer produces the wheat, but the price he receives for that wheat has very little to do with the price the consumer pays for a loaf of bread. That is also true of canned vegetables and many other things which the farmers produce. Therefore it is not a fact that fair prices to the producer would mean higher prices to the consumer.
As I said in the early part of my remarks, the people who are handling the farmers' products, such as the packers, are receiving tremendous profits, but the farmer himself is in a depressed state. What I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that the time is ripe for this government to take adequate action to underwrite a comprehensive parity price policy for all of Canada.
We have far too much urbanization in this country. Far too many people are leaving the farms, not because they could not be made economic, not because farmers are not using new techniques, or are not attempting to be as scientific in their production as any other business. They are leaving the farms because of the marketing and price situation over which they have little or no control. I am suggesting that the only authoritative body that is given the power by the people of this country is the federal government. Unless they are ready to take action, agriculture in this country will face a very blue future.
Many other countries are awakening to the fact that they must have adequate agricultural prices to meet the challenge of the day. In this country we should have policies under which we would conserve the nutritive content of the soil. We should have a policy under which a farmer could buy fertilizer and add it to the soil so that future generations would be assured of high fertility in our soil. We should have a conservation program under which a farmer could undertake those projects necessary to prevent the erosion of the soil. We have just a hit and miss policy. Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act some money has been expended, but up to the present time we have not a comprehensive national system for agriculture which meets the challenge of
Economic Position of Agriculture the day. Here is one place where we should make a beginning and establish parity prices for agriculture.
I agree with the hon. member for Dauphin. It would not necessarily mean, if such a policy were established, that we would be paying money out of the federal treasury to support the principle. Only in those times when due to outside influences the market is depressed, would it be necessary for the federal government to step in and use money from the federal treasury to guarantee a fair price to the producer which would bear some relation to the cost of production.
We have seen the prices of things which the farmer grows going down and down into the cellar, and the cost of his production going up and up. We have seen the cost of machinery and the cost of fuel and the cost of everything that goes into his production going up and up. We find that machine companies who hold either a monopoly or a semimonopoly in that field are able to demand from the farmer the price he will pay for those goods. As a matter of fact, we all know that when the farmer goes to sell his goods he asks, "How much will you give me for this?" When he goes to buy he asks, "How much do you want for this?" Unless this government is prepared to step in and give a fair deal to agriculture we shall continue to have a depressed industry.
Therefore I hope that when the time comes to vote on this motion the government, perhaps through the Minister of Agriculture, will rise and say to the house that all members are to be allowed a free vote. I think it would be refreshing if at this time hon. members who come from the west, were to rise and state the real condition of agriculture. Many of them did not do so during the debate on the farm loans bill, but I think that now this important measure is before us hon. members could, to some extent at least, say what they think concerning this important matter.
(Translation) :


Mr. Robert Perron (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment now before the house has to do with the problem of agriculture, certainly the most urgent and complex problem of all those facing our economy at this time. It requires immediate action on the part of the government.
The problem of wheat surpluses in western Canada has provided grounds for extended discussions since the beginning of this session. I will therefore not labour the point.

Economic Position of Agriculture
The two bills which the government has put through, and which involve an expenditure of 30 million dollars to be borne by the taxpayers of this country are sufficiently indicative to the economic status of the western farmer at this time.
While I do not wish to minimize the importance of this matter of wheat surpluses, which is such as to exert a considerable influence on our national revenue, it is certain that the personal problems of each and every farmer in Quebec, taken individually, are just as critical, if not more so.
Mr. Speaker, farm income has decreased by 5 or 10 per cent in 1955 and probably even more in areas where, for instance, hog-raising is practised. In short, it means that since 1952, i.e. for the past three years, the net farm income has decreased by 50 per cent.
After three consecutive years of set-backs, farmers have drained their savings from the years of prosperity and are now penniless; their problem is similar to that of western farmers.
Today, farmers of the province of Quebec have to keep up their farm either by mortgaging their property or by further increasing their debt to the bank, the credit union, their suppliers, merchants, and so on, instead of deriving from their farm an income that will provide them with a decent standard of living.
We hear everywhere that Canada has just had the best year in all her history. Our national income has exceeded $26 billion, and forecasts for 1956 are most optimistic. Company balance sheets show record profits. Individual income has jumped in a similar proportion. Our export and import trade reaches record figures. Production has never been so high.
On the labour front, 1955 has meant another step forward for our labour force, in that they got a guaranteed annual wage from certain industries, and everywhere the renewal of contracts under collective bargaining shows salary increases and additional fringe benefits. The government has even increased unemployment insurance benefits. In short, Mr. Speaker, living conditions seem to be getting better everywhere in this country which is going through an extraordinary development.
This is true of industry, trade and various other sectors of our economy, but it seems that in this development, agriculture has not been able to hold its own and, instead of benefiting from this general prosperity, the farmer is going through a period of depression.
TMr. Perron.]

This, to my mind, sums up the present position. It is an alarming one. It is certainly the crucial issue at this time and it is up to the government to straighten out, by appropriate means, the economic disparity between some otherwise comparable professional groups.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is, I think, well suited to restore the balance in this field.
The government has explained the policy it means to follow to improve the lot of the western farmer; but we have as yet not been told of its intentions with regard to the eastern farmer. There was no reference to it in the speech from the throne, and for the past two months not a single word has been uttered about it by the government. When the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made his statement about the estimates of his department, apart from burying us under a stack of statistics designed to prove that everything is all right-which merely shows that anything can be made out of statistics-had nothing to say about any steps the government meant to take in order to bring relief to the eastern farmer.
No problem can be solved by avoiding reference to it, or by quoting statistics to show that all goes well, when everyone agrees that things are pretty bad despite anything that may be said by all the economists and statisticians in the world.
One of the questions of particular concern to eastern farmers, since it is vital to them, is to know whether or not the government will continue its price support policy. I hope that the house will be told about this during the present debate, as this would be in perfect agreement with the amendment now before us.
It is absolutely essential that the support price of butter be maintained at 58 cents per pound for the present year and even for two years. The farmer would then know beforehand where he is going. It would alleviate his worries and the uncertainty which always confronts him. Everyone agrees that in the province of Quebec the dairy industry is the basis of agriculture. It is the one that must be saved first. There is no reason why the support price should not be kept this year at the same level since the cost of production has remained exactly the same and because, since 1949, that legislation has cost very little to Canadian taxpayers while it has, on the other hand, protected the consumer by avoiding

those price variations which are often so costly for him.
If the government does not maintain the same level, the farmers of the province of Quebec who will thus be deprived of their one and only sure source of revenue will be ruined.
I therefore urge the government to come to an immediate decision and to tell the house about it without delay.
Mr. Speaker, I stated at the outset that farm income has dropped from 5 to 10 per cent in 1955 mainly because the price of hogs, which remained at 23 cents a pound, the support price set by the government, for several months, has dropped considerably. This, in turn, brought about a decline of farm income in the district of Quebec, particularly in my riding and in the surrounding counties where hog-breeding is practised on a large scale. In fact, the price of feeds and breeding costs remained stationary while the price of pork which, last year, was 27, 28 and 29 cents a pound, was reduced by 5, 6 and even 7 cents a pound, thus depriving the farmer of the profits which he could reap from this operation.
The only way to correct this situation would seem to be an increase of 3 cents in the support price of hogs, to give the farmer a chance to make ends meet.
In connection with hog raising it must not be forgotten that it is at the government's request that farmers, during the war, invested their money in piggeries so as to obtain a new source of revenue. Nowadays, in a great many cases, this operation is no longer profitable. The only way in which it may be made so again would be an increase in the support price to 26 cents a pound.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Prince Albert is such as to solve the farm problem. In fact, I will go so far as to say that it is the one and only solution to this problem.
To sum up, I would say that this amendment should be unanimously carried by the house. I feel too that the government should follow this up by adopting the following two measures.
1.	Maintenance of the support price of butter at 58 cents a pound, and
2.	An increase in the support price of pork from 23 to 26 cents a pound.
Mr. Speaker, the constitutional responsibility of the federal government is to solve these farm problems, and the farmer is rightfully entitled to this solution.
Economic Position of Agriculture (Text):


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that I could not follow the hon. member for Dorchester, but I shall read with interest tomorrow the translation of his remarks. I am sure that speaking as he has this evening he was pointing up the fact that the farmers in the area where he lives are experiencing a most difficult time.
I realize that the members from Saskatchewan have taken up a good deal of time since parliament opened, but I am sure that if there were not a real problem we would not have had such a sympathetic hearing from the chamber as we have had every time agriculture has been discussed.
This evening I propose to stress the fact that the amendment before us has been moved because of a nation-wide problem. Over the week end I was up to my old home in Bruce county, which I left some 35 years ago to go west. When I return now I find that my old neighbours are encountering the same sort of problems we have in the west, with the difference that there are very few people left in Bruce county.
A young lady sat across from me on the train Friday night, going home for the week end. It was pretty obvious that she wa? a school teacher, and I soon found myself in conversation with her. She told me she was teaching in Toronto, and I asked if she had any notion of going back to her home county and marrying a farmer. She replied, "Never." "Why not?" She said, "When I think of the life my mother has had on the farm, it is not for me, thank you." That young girl was probably getting twice the salary teaching in Toronto that she would get for teaching in the township where she went to school. She was wearing a nice fur coat, probably being paid for on the instalment plan, but apparently her life in Toronto was quite different from the life she had known as a girl on the farm.
Going out from Toronto I noticed that nearly every house had a T.V. aerial. While there were some out in the country, they were not as numerous as in the city. I do not want to give the impression that the people of Bruce county are facing starvation; nothing of the sort, but there are very few young people there. Those who are getting old are enjoying a fair measure of security.
I called on one of my old neighbours, who told me that she would be 90 years of age next year. She was quite proud of a new

Economic Position of Agriculture electric sewing machine she had bought since Christmas, costing around $200. She had been moved by an appeal from the children's aid society for quilts for children, and she and her sister had made some six quilts on this new machine. Since she will be 90 years of age next year I am sure the $200 machine will last the rest of her life. The machine she had previously had been in use for nearly 50 years. The money for that new machine had come from the soil which had been cultivated by her family for nearly 100 years. There were no children on that farm. Where there used to be some 17 families enjoying a reasonably good standard of living when I was there, today there are only four families.
I was interested in reading some of the evidence produced at the time of the dominion-provincial conference a few years ago, which was descriptive of conditions in Prince Edward Island. This reads:
-they see the citizens of other provinces grow rich at their expense; they see the best of their youth attracted to other provinces, just as they are entering the period when they might become an asset to the community. The only protest has been an occasional request for "better terms".
Of course the children of Bruce county have not gone to other provinces necessarily, but when they move to larger centres like Toronto, Windsor, London, Montreal or Vancouver they find life to be quite different from what it was on the old homestead. Those who presented this brief showed how the people of Canada as the result of tariff policies channel a great deal of wealth to the central provinces. They pointed out that the only two provinces which have benefited since confederation as the result of tariffs were Ontario and Quebec, whereas all the other provinces have had to pay a heavy penalty.
Just this afternoon in answer to one of my questions on the order paper we had an answer setting out the per capita disbursements on liquor, tobacco and education.
I asked for these figures to be broken down on a provincial basis, but I am told that the information regarding tobacco and liquor is not kept on a provincial basis. I find that we seem to have spent very freely as far as tobacco disbursements are concerned, because the per capita expenditure was $31.26, while the per capita expenditure on liquor was $56.92, and for education, $40.26.
But when you consider the per capita expenditure for education in the different provinces you find that in the case of Prince Edward Island, Which my grandparents on my mother's side left about 100 years ago because of difficult conditions, this per capita 

expenditure was only $20.34 as compared with the high in British Columbia of $55.50. Newfoundland was only $21.46, with Alberta next to British Columbia with $48.87.
I think it could easily be argued that it should be a matter of national concern when farm people in a fine province like Prince Edward Island are getting such a small share of the national income that they have available for education only $20.34 per capita as compared with $42.41 in Ontario, $55.50 in British Columbia, and $42.73 in Saskatchewan.
If the farmers of our provinces are to continue to receive a smaller and smaller share of the national income it will be most difficult for us to maintain the educational standard that we think children in a modern society should have.
Having demonstrated during the war that we could plan our production and our economic life so as to have a million of our youngest and ablest people in the armed services and another million in war industries, and still increase our production of foodstuffs so that we were able to drink more milk and eat more beef and pork, it seems to me there is something radically wrong when in 1955 and 1956 we have to cut down the consumption of milk by the children of Canada.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: How does liquor consumption compare for those years?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Liquor consumption is going up, as I indicated; but as part of our national policy it was decided during the war that the production of milk should be encouraged by support prices, and we found that as a result of the subsidies milk production and consumption increased. During the period from 1940 to 1945 we consumed 445 pounds per person per year compared with 420 pounds in 1951, the last year for which I have statistics. There was a drop from 445 to 420. We find that the consumption of other products that are essential for a healthy people is not increasing as it should.
I realize there are many people who are disturbed about the suggestion of providing subsidies. Canadian farmers in all parts of the country are proud people. They do not want something for nothing. Nevertheless I have never heard very many protests about having subsidies in the form of tariffs. As the Prince Edward Island brief points out, every person in that province has suffered a net loss of $17.88 per year because of tariffs, the people of Nova Scotia have lost $12.28, and the people in the province of Saskatchewan have lost $28.16. As a result of the penalty that people have paid because of tariffs,

I think during the transitional period the government of this country certainly might accept the principle that those who are producing food should have something like a fair share of the national income.
I was interested to note that the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand did not spend very much time this afternoon discussing conditions in Canada during the thirties. He could have said quite correctly that in 1954 the farm share of the national income was a lower percentage of the total national income than was the case during the whole period of the thirties. It is true that in 1931 and 1932 the farmers' share was less than it was last year, but if we take the whole ten years between 1930 and 1940 the farmers received an average of 6 [DOT] 1 per cent of the national income for the 20 per cent of the population composed of farm families, compared with 5-6 per cent last year.
That presents a very serious situation for the people of the country. While the farmer's share is going down, while he is tightening his belt, he is able to read in the daily papers very impressive advertisements. Here is a large advertisement taken from the Globe and Mail. It points out that for the second straight year the forward-look Plymouth shattered Toronto sales records, and that sales in January, 1956, were up 298 per cent over January, 1954. A similar advertisement taken from a Montreal paper points out that in January, 1956, Plymouth sales were five times as great as in January, 1954.
While the farmers are being caught' in a price squeeze and are unable to meet their costs with the lower prices they are receiving for beef, pork and other products, when they go to buy they are paying higher and higher prices. Therefore when the farmers read about all-time high sales and the very high profits being made by corporations, it is very hard for them to understand why the government of the country cannot do something about it.
After the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that the farmers of Canada were enjoying an unusually prosperous period, I took the trouble to send a circular letter to some of the people in my constituency to find out' whether I was wrong in my opinion or whether the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce were wrong.
I am going to read a few extracts from two or three of the letters I received in reply. Here is one from a man who says that he has farmed as a law-abiding citizen for 32 years, that up until five years ago he had done well but then he started to go behind. He
Economic Position of Agriculture says that he owes three years' taxes, $364 for seed grain, $780 to the bank and store bills.
Another farmer tells a very similar story. Another farmer has gone to British Columbia for the winter to get enough money to see him through. Another man has gone to Vancouver island. Here is a farmer who has been exceptionally industrious and a good citizen, the sort of citizen any community would welcome. I am sure he has never spent five cents on liquor or tobacco during his lifetime. He has been industrious and a good manager. He points out that he owes the bank $2,500, owes $500 in taxes and needs a new tractor and other machines, repairs to his buildings and a great many other things which he knows he should have but because of receiving less than fair prices for his products and because operating expenses are so high he is unable to go into the market to buy the articles the production of which provides employment for many people in eastern Canada.
I find that the Searle Grain Company has sent us two interesting letters, one dealing with the subsidization of wheat and the other with the challenge that Russia presents to the world. One would not expect the Searle Grain Company to advocate subsidies publicly, but they say we must recognize the fact that we are living in a very strange world. Many countries which normally import are subsidizing exports, and other countries which could buy their grains much cheaper in the world market than they can produce them at home are paying large subsidies. It is quite obvious that the Canadian farmer cannot survive in a world where farmers in every other country have support prices.
Ours is one of the few countries that has not tied the production of foodstuffs to the defence program. The Minister of National Defence is never asked any question about whether he wants $1 million, $50 million or $500 million. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said once that if his colleague in defence wanted a gold plated piano he got a gold plated piano. But when it comes to producing food for the sake of our own economy and to meet the competition of other countries, our government has not been willing to give the consideration that it should to this problem.
The Searle Grain Company points out what has not been given too much attention in Canada, that Russia is now making an all-out drive to challenge the west in the field of economic support. It mentions that before world war I Russia was a major exporter and that in 1954 Russia brought under cultivation-


Owen C. Trainor: Will the hon. member permit
a question?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Certainly.

Economic Position of Agriculture


Owen C. Trainor: Are you suggesting that we should emulate Russia?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No, I was not making any such suggestion. I was merely drawing the attention of the house to the report on Russia in the Searle Grain Company letter, which the hon. member should read.


Owen C. Trainor: I have read it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think the hon. member will admit that if Russia is going to have 27 million more acres in production than it had previously, compared with our total acreage of 22 million, it poses quite a problem for Canada. While at the moment Russia is prepared to buy some grain from Canada, the bringing in of this large acreage in order to seed it to wheat and other cereals is going to present a problem to Canada as we seek to export our product and when we find that our product is not being subsidized whereas France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Britain-all our former customers-are subsidizing on an extremely generous basis.
For example France, which formerly was an importer, has found that this policy of subsidizing has not only solved her production problem, the problem of supplying the market at home, but they have produced so much more than they can use that last year France gave Australia a close run for exports in the world markets. Every bushel of wheat that went into export from France carried with it a subsidy of $1.61 a bushel. Hence I do not think there is any use of people in Canada ignoring the fact that we are living in a new set of circumstances where those who are engaged in the production of food are entitled to leadership from the government.
It takes about two years for people to get to qualify for relief in the cities. If the government of Canada thinks that people should deplete the rural communities to a greater extent and should qualify for relief in the cities if they cannot get jobs, I think the government should say so. Here is a debate that has been going on since three o'clock this afternoon, and there has not been a member rise on the government side of the house to indicate whether or not there is any problem in the part of Canada in which he lives, or whether the only people who see the problems are those of us who sit over on this side of the house.


Mr. Bennett:: You make your speech; we will make ours.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think it is significant that no one is prepared to say a word in defence of what the government is doing or should be doing. Before the debate ends I think somebody on the government side should certainly say something about it.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It is your amendment, not ours.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think there are two important fields that should be explored. We have a large section of our Canadian citizens who are not getting enough food to eat. Over the week end I read with interest a little booklet written by a young reporter for the Toronto Daily Star who spent 14 days trying to live as an old age pensioner would live on $20. I am sure that any hon. member who placed himself in the position of this young reporter would realize, with these large surpluses on hand, how niggardly we are with this large sector of the economy, and would want to see that ways and means were found so that some of our surplus food supplies would find their way into the stomachs of our old age pensioners, widows and orphans and all those who are in the lower income tax brackets.
Then I think we must pay some attention to our international responsibilities. Some 10 years ago Canada, along with a great many other countries, joined in tackling the problem of hunger. When we consider that at least half the people of the world must get by on about $100 per person per year, compared with nearly 10 times that amount in Canada, we realize that we should not be cutting down our production or worrying about this surplus. I have here, in "Agricultural Markets and Prices" at page 51, a table which is taken from one of the United Nations publications showing the per capita income in United States dollars for a number of countries, as follows:
Per Capita National Income
	Per Capita Income (In
Country	U.S. dollars)
		 36
		 57
		 51
Philippines 			 44 	 36
		 132
		 188
		 112
	
		 870
		 1,453
The Canadian figure would be up a good deal since those figures were prepared, but any way you figure them out, I think we cannot remain idly by in this rich, enlightened country, with almost unlimited productive capacity, while there are so many people in the world who have never had even one good meal. I commend the suggestions made by my colleagues who have spoken previously that we continue to produce maximum quantities of foodstuffs for our own use and for the use of our neighbours in all parts of the world, and that we have for agricultural

products a price which will bear some fair relation to the prices which we have to pay for what we buy.
One of my constituents in a letter he wrote to me emphasized the fact that his conditions now are actually worse than they were in the dirty thirties, as he described them. He said that in those days he was using horses and was able to produce his own food, but that in these modern days the horse has gone and he is obliged to pay cash for his fuel and for repairs for his tractors. With dollars so hard to get and expenses so extremely high, he and his neighbours are in a much more difficult position.
Again I think the government of Canada, which had no problem whatever during the war years in finding ways and means to finance an effective war effort, can find all the resources necessary to assure to the 20 per cent of the Canadian people who are making their contribution to the economy of Canada in connection with the production of food a fair share, nothing more and nothing less.


Mr. H. O. While (Middlesex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert, I do so for several reasons. No doubt many of those who have taken part in the debate thus far have, by contact with their constituencies and by reference to the dominion bureau of statistics and to speeches by other members, become aware of the plight in which agriculture finds itself today. I take part in this debate because of the fact that statistics show that farmers are receiving less and less of the total amount of money that is taken in by all the people in the economy, and that they are getting less and less of the national income, 19 per cent of the people receiving about 10 or 11 per cent of the national income.
They are also getting less and less of the consumer's dollar. Of every dollar the consumer pays for food, less and less finds its way back to the primary producer of that particular article, whether it be beef, bacon, strawberries or any other thing you want to mention. Net farm income has shown a steady decline over the past few years.
During this session the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture have explained to the Canadian people through parliament that the farmers are fairly well to do, and that over the years some thousands of millions of dollars have been taken in by the Canadian farmers.
These figures on income, of course, do not mean very much unless you know what are the costs. I do not propose tonight to discuss
Economic Position of Agriculture this from a high windy hill. I am going to take you down to the farm, just as I went to the farms last week end when I was home. I talked to some of the farmers there and I shall tell you what they are saying and what they are doing. When one reduces the subject to this basis, one finds out whether or not the farmers are making a lot of money and just what conditions are.
I find that there are more municipal taxes unpaid this year than for many years. I find also that those co-operatives serving farmers that do extend credit to their members have more unpaid bills and bigger bills than they have had for many years. I talked to these people last Saturday when I was home.
What has brought about these conditions? Not so many years ago we were warning the government that the loss of the British markets and the loss of other export markets would eventually be reflected in the Canadian economy. Such is the case, and it has now caught up with us. We listened to the debates on the wheat surplus in the Canadian west for about three weeks. We can look back and find that not so many years ago we were able to export over 600 million pounds of bacon and 147 million pounds of cheese to Britain in one year, as well as supply our own markets. Is it any wonder then that today, when we are barely supplying our home markets with these products, much less feed grain is being used by eastern farmers to finish livestock and produce cheese, bacon and many other products? This is having an effect not only on the income of the eastern farmers but on the western producer, because we are not buying such large quantities of coarse grains and low grade feed wheat for livestock purposes.
We are finding ourselves in this difficult position also because of inflation, as I have mentioned time and time again. We are living in a world where dollars are plentiful but they do not buy very much. We find ourselves in this position also, Mr. Speaker, because of the United States farm surplus disposal programs. In many cases the United States is usurping our traditional markets for surplus farm products.
While these events are taking place, there are a certain number of people who are more or less apologists for the policy or lack of policy, shall I say, of the government. I am just going to mention a couple of them. There is the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We find the farmers' union coming into Ontario; and they are getting a foothold in Ontario because farmers believe the federation of agriculture has not been

Economic Position of Agriculture dynamic enough in supporting an agricultural program for this country. Then the president of the dairy farmers of Canada is saying, "Do not antagonize the government; be careful, and everything will turn out all right." That has been going on for quite a number of years.
Early in this session the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, "We are a party that believes in plenty; we believe in surpluses." Almost in the same breath he said there would be shortages of copper, shortages of steel, shortages of cement and many other things. The only thing of which he was proud was that there were surpluses of farm products. I can tell you that at the time Canadian farmers in southwestern Ontario were harvesting their onions, two carloads of onions were brought into this country from Egypt for no other purpose but to break the price.
I believe that is a rather shortsighted policy. We hear about surpluses in almost all farm products. This year there was supposed to have been a big crop of apples. As I go along the north shore of lake Ontario week after week I go through some of the best apple orchard areas in Ontario, and I am surprised at the number of orchards that have deteriorated in the past 10 years. I could say the same thing of my own county. I wonder sometimes if these surpluses are just fictitious, because when they are saying how many millions of bushels of apples may be produced as compared with five years ago or 10 years ago, they do not take into consideration that our population has been growing by leaps and bounds.
Take a look at the potato business. When we did have a crop of potatoes in this country there were 7,000 carloads of potatoes brought in from the United States; and the tariff is rather one-sided in favour of the United States. We have surpluses in many other products and will have when the products are imported like that.
I want to show you, if I can, just what is happening to those farmers to whom I was talking. I was talking to some of the concentrated milk producers, and they are not happy. Recently they have taken a cut of 10 cents per hundredweight in the price of their milk, from $2.65 to $2.55 per hundred for 3'5 milk. I was talking to one producer who last year produced 700,000 pounds of milk from over 100 cows on 300 acres of land. He is an efficient producer and has cost accounting facilities. He said that the milk cost him a little over $3 per hundred and it is now selling, as I say, at $2.55. At the same time powdered milk and cheese

are being imported from New Zealand so there will be dollars available with which New Zealand can buy Canadian manufactured products. This is sacrificing the agriculture industry to the manufacturing industry.
If anyone wonders why agriculture is sacrificed, I can tell him in a very few words. It is because for the last 20 years the government has booted around the agricultural industry; and then every four years when there has been an election, agriculture voted for the government. Agriculture is the only segment of our economy that can be treated that way and still support the government.
Coming back to the price of milk for a moment, I may say that in Ontario there is what is known as the dairy herd improvement plan. A survey of many of the dairy herds in the province was undertaken, and it was supervised by some of the experts from the college. This survey dealt with cost accounting and dairy farming. They found that the average cost of production for a large number of herds in the province of Ontario was $3.17 per 100 pounds of milk. Neither the cheese producers, the butter producers nor the concentrated milk producers were getting much over $2.50 for that very same milk.
Let us take a look at what the butter producer is actually getting. From 100 pounds of 3-5 milk an average of 4-2 pounds of butter will be produced, which sells at 58 cents a pound. That comes to $2.32. If the skim milk is manufactured into powder the skim milk powder is worth 11 cents a pound, which adds 88 cents to the $2.32. From that he must deduct the cost of manufacturing which he pays to his co-operative creamery, and that varies from 85 cents to $1.00. Therefore the farmer receives $2.30 for his 100 pounds of milk that costs him, according to all figures that can be produced, at least $3.00 or $3.17.
Another indication of the trend of the times is the fact that many young men who in the last five years purchased farms are finding it very difficult to meet their taxes and interest on their debt. In many instances the farm is deteriorating; in some instances they have given up, sold out and gone to town. That is not a healthy situation. I grant you that on the other hand there are many people who have bought farms and paid for them, but they have paid for them through the work of two or three people in their family besides their wives and themselves. They have paid for them because they have accepted a very low standard of living in order to pay for the home and the farm.

Let us take a look at the sheep industry. Recently the Minister of Agriculture made some announcement about a disease known as scrapie that has appeared recently in some of the flocks in this country. If they did not know of the seriousness of the disease, they should have known of it. Two years ago in Canada a certain flock was quarantined and none of the sheep could be exported to the United States. At the same time the breeder of those sheep was allowed to exhibit his flock at the royal winter fair. The Canadian people were told it was perfectly safe; it was a nervous disease, and they did not need to worry about it too much. That flock has been destroyed after its breeding stock has been scattered all over the country. I do not think there is one thing that has happened to the sheep industry in the last 100 years that could be as serious as this outbreak of scrapie which the government muffed and blundered through. It could ruin the export market for breeding stock as far as the sheep industry in Canada is concerned.
At very nearly the same time the production of wool in Canada reached an all-time low. This has happened to the sheep industry in Canada in the last few years. This careless attitude is indicative of the approach the government takes to farm problems. They do not require the Canadian manufacturers to indicate on their finished product whether the wool is shoddy, whether it has been used once or ten times over until it has lost all its life, or whether it is new wool that has just been clipped from the sheep. You can talk about grading. The wool is graded many times from the producer to the manufacturer, but once it reaches the manufacturer it is never graded again.
What about the cattleman? Last fall he could purchase cattle for 18 cents, 19 cents or 20 cents a pound. Today they are about 4 cents a pound less than they were last fall when he purchased them. After feeding them all the crops he grew on his farm he will not make too much money this year.
Take a look at the hog producer. I talked to some of them when I was home last week. Figures indicate that the over-all livestock population is increasing in this country. As far as the future markets are concerned, conditions indicate that there will still be a surplus. What about the hog producer? Many hog producers buy the young baby pigs when they are weaned, when they weigh an average of about 30 pounds. Let us say that the farmer who purchases them can buy them for $8. Some of them sold for as much as $12 or $15 last year, but let us say that the farmer could buy them for $8, which would be cheaper than if he raised them. He starts out with a pig that has cost him $8. If he buys all his 67509-130
Economic Position of Agriculture feed, which sometimes happens, he finds that it takes about 700 pounds of chop to finish a 30-pound weanling pig until it weighs 200 or 210 pounds. The total cost of the feed, plus the young pig, will run to at least $32.50. When he sells the hog it is sold on a dressed weight basis. A 210 pound hog will dress out at from 160 to 165 pounds. I looked over the purchases today, and I found that 161 pounds was the average dressed weight of that type of hog. If he sells it at the floor of 23 cents- I heard my friends to the left say that out west they are not getting that-it will bring him $37.03, or $4.53 per hog net. If my farmer back home wants to have an income of $2,817 next year he will have to feed and finish two hogs every working day of the year, 313 days. He will have to work 365 days. But that does not take care of taxes, interest on the investment or depreciation; and no pigs must die, not one. Therefore it does not look as if it is a very lucrative branch of the farming business.
If he should have his own grain and feed it his labour return per hog might be about $7, but that will not take care of interest, taxes or depreciation, and there will be no provision for' any extra labour that he might wish to hire. I took the trouble to call up the federal Department of Agriculture and to speak to one of their swine experts. I asked how much feed it took to finish a hog. He said, "It takes 400 pounds of feed for 100 pounds of gain". The 700 pounds I have given is 20 pounds less than the federal Department of Agriculture figure as the average for this country. If he had some pigs that were not thrifty, or if he was not too good a feeder, he would likely have a loss.
I venture to say that many of the farmers who are producing hogs are not making $4.53, or the $7 I have quoted, but probably more nearly $1 or $2.
Some say the farmers are not efficient. I have before me some figures taken from an exhibit sponsored by the Ontario department of agriculture at the 1954 royal agricultural winter fair. These figures point out that never in Canada's history has one hour's labour on the part of an urban Canadian purchased so much food. I will give you a few comparisons. In 1924 an hour's labour would buy 20 pounds of potatoes; in 1954 it would purchase 37 pounds, almost twice as much. In 1924 an hour's labour would purchase 1J dozen eggs; today it will purchase 2-6 dozen eggs, over twice as much. In 1924 an hour's labour would purchase 2-8 pounds of beef; today it will purchase 3-2 pounds. In 1924 an hour's labour would purchase 1-6 pounds of pork; today it will purchase 2 pounds. In 1924 an hour's labour would purchase 1-1 pound of butter; today it will

Economic Position of Agriculture purchase 2'5 pounds. In 1924 an hour's labour would purchase 3-8 quarts of milk; today it will purchase 7-3 quarts of milk.
I said something about farm efficiency. The number of farmers has decreased by 35 per cent over this period of 30 years, but at the same time the production by 35 per cent fewer farmers has increased by over 25 per cent in the years between 1935 and 1954 alone, to say nothing of the increase over the preceding years.
Farm production per man in Canada is up 70 per cent. I do not know how much more efficient the government or the Minister of Agriculture wants farmers to be, but I think-


James Garfield Gardiner: I think they are probably the most efficient people in the country at this time.


Harry Oliver White: I agree with you; in many respects they are. What reward are they getting for their efficiency? The more efficient they are and the more they produce, the less they receive. I sometimes wonder if it would not be a good idea for the farmers to sit back for about two weeks and not buy anything. We would see how soon people would begin to realize that the farmers' prosperity is also their prosperity.
I was going to refer to an article concerning the cost of producing hogs, but it was written at a time when pork was 28 cents a pound and it does not apply today very well. However, even when pork was 28 cents a pound, according to figures produced at that time by a butcher in the city of Toronto it was his claim that the farmers were making only $1 a hog and he was making a 23 per cent gain just by selling pork over the counter.
I did say something about onions being imported into this country. I wish to read from an article which appeared in the London Free Press on January 17, 1956. Mr. J. E. Reynolds, president of the Ontario fruit and vegetable growers' association, had this to say:
For instance, a boatload of Egyptian onions-
I believe I previously referred to a carload of onions. That was a mistake; I should have said a boatload.
-arrived in Montreal while the biggest crop of Ontario Sett onions in history was being harvested.
Other examples: 22 freight cars of potatoes were imported each day during June, July and August; 5,000,000 pounds of cabbage were imported in June, and 9,000,000 pounds of tomatoes entered the country during July, while local produce was left on the vines.
When we complain about this the government tells us it does not want to offend our neighbours to the south. There is a difference between being ignored by our neighbours to


the south and having them respect us. They will respect us more if we stand up for our rights instead of saying that we are afraid and we do not want to offend them.
In conclusion I wish to point out that a bill was passed in the legislature of the state of Maryland to prohibit foreign companies establishing themselves in Maryland. Our government say that protesting about such things as I have mentioned might hurt our good relations, but they are going to proceed to enact that bill all right; they do not care how much they offend us. The Lord looks after those who look after themselves, and I think it is about time we Canadian farmers and the government as representatives of the people began to do some of those things as well.
I am glad to support the resolution moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert and the amendment moved by the C.C.F. party.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Vicioria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, while New Brunswick is not one of the great agricultural areas of this country nevertheless it is an important industry in the province. In fact, considering its importance and some of the special aspects of it, I believe that the farmers of New Brunswick and of eastern Canada are more severely crushed by the price-cost squeeze than are those in other sections of the country. Quite a large proportion of the farmers in New Brunswick may be classified as mixed farmers, although a certain number, chiefly in my own constituency, might be classified as specialty farmers who specialize in potatoes. I might have something to say about potato farming before I conclude. [DOT]
Farming is an important subject to the province of New Brunswick; and while I am not a practical farmer, and it has been a long time since I had anything to do with practical farming, I must admit I was fairly well trained in it when I was young. According to the standards of farming at that time I do realize what farm work is like, and I am aware of the length of the working day and of some of the problems involved in farming.
It strikes me as strange when we are told that 1955 was one of the high spots in the prosperity of this country. We are told that in 1955 Canada produced more, exported more and consumed more goods and received more money than in any other year in our history, generally speaking. Nevertheless the farmers with whom I come in contact appear to be poorer, are having a more difficult time to pay their bills, and have less money in their pockets than they have had for a number of years. I can only speak

with some assurance of the people of my own constituency, and of course from what I read in reports about agriculture generally across the country.
Having listened to many speakers this afternoon who are practical farmers, and knowing what little I do about the situation in my own constituency and province, I am certainly in favour of the principle of this resolution. I feel that I would be remiss in my duty as a member if I did not stand up and more or less put myself on record as to the way I think farmers should be treated.
It seems to me there is only one conclusion one can come to in connection with the agricultural industry as a whole, and that is that the farmer is not getting a fair share of the consumer's dollar. That has been stated this afternoon in various ways, but regardless of how it is stated I believe that is what the farmer actually wants. He wants more of the consumer's dollar for the stuff he is producing. The spread between what the farmer gets for the products he raises, and which represent long hours of labour and large investment, and his costs is growing less and less. The percentages have been given and there is no need of my repeating them, but certainly the farmers' prosperity is not keeping up with the prosperity of other groups in the community, in the province or in the country.
Is there a solution? I listened to and read the speech of the right hon. Minister of Agriculture delivered on February 10 last. Apparently the minister had gone to great pains to work out a table of figures which he placed on the record. While there was no proof, there was certainly an inference in those figures that the farmers' cash and net income have increased for the last 20 years. I would not take issue with the minister on that. The minister is a most astute gentleman and clever speaker. He made a most significant statement toward the end of his speech. Having placed the table on the record, having reviewed the figures, he said words to this effect: Add all the facts together and you will get some idea whether the farmer is advancing or whether he is going backward in connection with his operations up to the present' time. That was for a period of some 20 years.
I reread that statement. It is a wide open statement. It is one in which you can read an expressed opinion. The right hon. minister has expressed the opinion, or has plainly left the inference, that the farmers of this country are far better off than they were 20 years ago, that they are a going concern, and that most of these complaints by farm and 67509-130i
Economic Position of Agriculture agricultural organizations are more or less unfounded, that they are a group of people who cannot be satisfied.
I am sure that if some city dweller, or someone who knew nothing of the farmer's problems, had been sitting in the gallery and had heard that speech, or had read it later, he would have got the feeling that the group of people engaged in agriculture in this country, farmers if you will, are possibly the best off people in Canada. I think they could honestly come to that conclusion after having studied that speech.
On the other hand, when you talk to farmers or to farm groups and hear them tell their story, you find that the picture is not so prosperous. It is a gloomy picture. At least 65 per cent of the people in my constituency are agriculturists, and the majority of the rest depends upon the farmers. Figures, statistics and net worth statements may not give a gloomy picture, but when I go out and talk to the farmer, when I look over his equipment, when I follow him from the time he starts out in the morning at five or six o'clock until he quits at night, I do not get that picture. As someone has said, the municipal authorities, the local merchants and the bankers do not give you that picture. You get a much gloomier picture than might be taken from the speech of the right hon. minister.
Toward the end of his speech the minister said in effect that the way any man found out how wealthy he was, whether he was better off than he used to be, is to put his hand in his pocket and find some money there. I should like the right hon. minister to go down to my constituency, talk to the farmers and find out how many of them have money in their pockets or can afford to go to town, take a trip or have a little pleasure. They have not the money to do it.
When you get right down to earth and go around the country and see buildings in need of repair, see vacant farms, see farms growing up in bush, see schoolhouses vacant, you get a much different picture. I was brought up in a country community. I went to a school where there were some 40 or 50 students, but today there are only 14 or 15 in that little school. A certain percentage are drained off at seven years of age to the central school, but the reason for the small number is that many of the farms which supported happy and fairly prosperous farmers in those days, people who were able to make a living, who were able to pay their bills, who lived as well as their neighbours did, have no one living on them today.
It was a friendly society. As a matter of fact, I still think a country community is

Economic Position of Agriculture one of the best places to live. The farmers are located within 50 or 60 rods of one another in a community extending for miles. Bui fee picture today has changed. You ask why has it changed? That is a fair question. I am not here to give the answer, but I can give my opinion based on what I hear. I do not believe that 6 per cent of the young men who have grown up within a radius of 20 miles of the home where I was raised have remained on the farms and carried on the family tradition. Why? Invariably the story is that they go and work at any other job.
Unfortunately they may leave New Brunswick, as a great many of them have done. They go to central Canada, western Canada or the United States and work at ordinary labour or go into business. It seems that almost anything is more attractive to them and more remunerative than farm life, although in my opinion it would have been a good thing for them to stick with the farm.
Many of the farms in my community that are still occupied are worked by older people, and time is running out on them. They are not working their farms very much. They are not able to do so any more. They cannot hire help to farm them, and their farms are deteriorating. It is a sad picture. Nevertheless I believe our people, if they can make as much money and have as good a life, are just as anxious to farm as the people of any other country. In a few cases people in my community have been fortunate, possibly in the potato industry. They were able to accumulate 300 or 400 acres of land, and if they were fortunate enough to have a few fairly good years there is the possibility that they can carry over a bad period. But in the last few years the bad periods have been coming so close together that even these people are beginning to come to the end of their rope, so to speak. The savings they were able to make are being used in order to carry on.
I do not think one needs. to labour this problem very much. I feel this way about it. If I were capable of giving the government advice there would not be much use of my doing so, because I think I would be wasting my time in imposing my ideas on the house and the Minister of Agriculture. If the government has not been convinced by those hon. members who have spoken today that something has to be done for agriculture; if the members of the government have not been convinced in their travels throughout the country, or if they are convinced that something should be done and do not know what


to do, then I think they should be prepared to accept some advice. I think they should give it a try.
Here is the other side of the picture. I believe it has been mentioned before, but I do not think I would be out of order in referring to it. In my constituency we have a very fine agricultural school. If there is any place in the whole province of New Brunswick where young people can be induced to go into farming it is in my constituency. Any young fellow who has any interest in cattle or stock of any kind, potatoes, mixed crops or grains of any kind has a grand opportunity to get a start. But our experience has been that a great many of these young men having taken two or three courses-the courses run through the winter -do not find it profitable to go back home and put into effect the ideas they have been taught. The smarter they are and the better farmers they would make, the greater the chance is that they will not stay in New Brunswick, and they do not even go to western Canada to take up agriculture.
In other words a fundamental industry, an industry which is very important to this country so far as the production of food is concerned, is losing a great many young men who I am sure would like to stay on the farms and improve our agricultural lands, who are the very persons who would improve the raising, grading and marketing of products because of their education. They are not staying on the farms. It is not that they do not want to but because it is not profitable for them to do so.
For that reason it seems to me that the resolution, if we think about it, does throw some light on the problem. The principle of the resolution indicates to our farmers that we consider they are entitled, in view of the number of hours they work and the risk they take in capital investment, to a fair return for their products and their labour. They are entitled at least to a square deal compared with people employed in other industries, whether in New Brunswick, any other part of the maritimes, or any other part of Canada. They are entitled to an equal deal with the people who are employed in other industries. I believe that legislation such as is envisaged by the amendment could be passed and that, properly administered, it could and would be of great benefit to the farmers.
On motion of Mr. Montgomery the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Purdy: In the province of Nova Scotia, by counties, for the year ending December 31, 1955, what were the number and amounts of (a) applications for loans under the Canadian Farm Loan Act; (b) loans granted; (e) loans refused; (d) applications still under review?
Answer by: Mr. Harris:
The Canadian farm loan board advises as follows:
The Canadian farm loan board does not require for administration purposes and therefore does not maintain records classifying applications and loans by counties.
In the period January 1, 1955 to December 31, 1955:
Number Amount
(a)	
70	$255,340(b)	
40	$133,200(c)	
30	$115,675(d)	
nil


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 20S-Mr. Goode:
1.	What amounts of federal funds were invested by loan in the province of British Columbia by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for housing construction, in 1953-54 and 1954-55?
2.	What amount is estimated for 1955-56?
Answer by: Mr. Winters:
1.	1953, $5,643,000; 1954, $2,282,000; 1955, $1,933,000.
2.	1956, $1,025,000.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation operate on a calendar year basis.

Mr. Balcom: What money grants, under the national health program, have been given in Nova Scotia during 1955, to the special types of hospitals as designated by the Department of National Health and Welfare as (a) mental hospitals (M);	(b) t.b. sanatoria
(T.B.);	(c) chronic convalescent (C);	(d) newhospitals (N);	(e) hospital additions (A);	(f)
nurses' residences (N.R.)?
Answer by: Mr. Martin:
During the fiscal year 1955-56:
(a)	Addition to mental hospitals-Halifax county mental hospital, $91,250.01; Cape Breton county hospital, Sydney Kiver, $127,500.00.
(b)	Nil.
(c)	Nil.
Questions
(d)	New polio clinic-provincial polio clinic, Halifax, $5,443.04.
(e)	Addition to active treatment hospitals- Blanchard Fraser memorial hospital, Kent-ville, $5,250.00; Grace maternity hospital, Halifax, $21,250.00.
(f)	New nurses' residence-Victoria general hospital, Halifax, $24,332.66.


PER CAPITA STATISTICS
Mr. Nicholson: What were the disbursements on a per capita basis, in the last year for which statistics are available, in Canada and each of the provinces, for the following:	(a) tobacco; (b) alcoholic
beverages; (c) education?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):
(a)	Estimated total consumer expenditure on tobacco in Canada in 1954, $475-0 million; per capita, $31.26; provincial breakdown not available.
(b)	Estimated total consumer expenditure on alcoholic beverages in Canada in 1954, $865-0 million; per capita, $56.92; provincial breakdown not available.
(c)	Expenditure on formal education* in
Canada in 1952, $581 million; per capita- Canada, $40.26; Newfoundland, $21.46; Prince Edward Island, $20.34; New Brunswick, $35.18; Nova Scotia, $32.24; Quebec, $34.87; Ontario, $42.41; Manitoba, $37.37; Saskatchewan, $42.73; Alberta, $48.87; British Columbia, $55.50; Yukon and N.W.T.,	$20.44; unallocated, 27 cents.
* Includes operating costs, capital expenditures from current revenue and debt charges (principal and interest) but excludes capital expenditure from borrowed funds, the cost of which is spread over future years. All levels of education both public and private are included. Training and cultural and other related activities are not included. A preliminary estimate places the comparable total for 1955 at around $750 million.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, BANFF PARK
Mr. Harkness: 1.	What work will be done during the coming construction season in the Banff national park on the trans-Canada highway west of Banff?
2.	What bids have already been called for this work?
3.	What are the names of the bidders and what were the amounts of their bids?
4.	To whom were the contracts awarded, and what was the amount of each contract?
Answer by: Mr. Winters:
1.	(a) The department expects to complete work on the following contracts which are in progress. All mileages are measured from the east gate of Banff national park. The first contract west of Banff is at mileage 10-8.

Questions
Serial	Contract Details	Awarded to	Date	Amount1.	Mile 10-8 to Mile 14 -2-grading and provision of culverts and base course.	Poole Engineering Co., Ltd	Aug. 30, 1955	$1,282,040.002.	Mile 14-2 to Mile 21-grading and provision of culverts and base course.	Square M Construction Co., Ltd., Edmonton.	Sept. 8, 1955	1,177,630.00(b)	The department expects to commence work on the following contracts:	3.	Mile 21 to Mile 31-grading and provision of culverts and base course.	Tenders received (Contract not yet awarded).	4.	Mile 43-3 to Mile 51 [DOT] 1-grading and provision of culverts and base course.	Standard Gravel and Surfacing of Canada Ltd.	Feb. 22. 1956	2,074,440.005.	Mile 0 to Mile 14-2-construction of bituminous stabilized base course.	Tenders not yet called.	6. 7.	Construction of 5 small reinforced concrete rigid frame bridges between Mile 13 to Mile 40. Construction of a bridge and overpass over the Bow river and C.P.R. at Mile 14-3.	Tenders received (Contract not yet awarded). Tenders called-not yet received.	
(c) The following work is planned, provided funds become available:
8.	Bridge over the Bow river Mile 43-3.
9.	Overpass to C.P.R. at Mile 43-5.
10.	Bridge over Pipestone creek Mile 45-0.
11.	Bridge over Bow river Mile 47-3.
12.	Overpass to C.P.R. Mile 48-2.
13.	Bridge over Bath creek Mile 50-3.
14.	Overpass to C.P.R. Mile 50 6.
2.	Tenders have been called for contracts referred to in answer No. 1-(Serials 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7).
3.
Serial	Contract Details	Tenderers	Amount of Tender1.	Mile 10-8 to Mile 14-2-grading and	provision	Poole Engineering Co. Ltd	
$1,282,040.00of culverts and base course.	Standard Gravel & Surfacing of Canada Ltd.	1,396,322.00Mannix Limited	
1,499,608.00
' Jamieson Construction Co., Ltd.. 1,723,900.00
2.	Mile 14-2 to Mile 21, grading and	provision	Square M Construction Ltd	 1,177,630.00
of culverts and base course.	Assiniboia Construction Co., Ltd. 1,243,950.00
Standard Gravel & Surfacing of Canada
Ltd	 1,270,140.00
New West Construction Co. Limited		1,295,380.00
Mannix Limited	 1,323,235.00
W. C. Wells Construction Co. Limited		1,380,000.00
Poole Engineering Co. Ltd	 1,548,970.00
Marwell Construction Co. Ltd	 1,618,400.00
3.	Mile 21 to Mile 31, grading and provision of	J. A. Moulson Construction Ltd.. 1,335,463.50
culverts and base course.	Square M Construction Ltd., and Coleman
Collieries Ltd	 2,184,207.50
Poole Engineering Co., Ltd	 2,206,948.50
Mannix Limited	 2,248,635.25
New West Construction Co., Ltd	 2,274,590.00
Standard Gravel & Surfacing of Canada
Ltd	 2,29S.460.00
W. C. Wells Construction Co., Ltd	 2,360,942.50
4.	Mile 43-3 to Mile 51-1-grading and	provision	Standard Gravel & Surfacing of	Canadaof culverts and base course.	Ltd	
2,074,440.00New West Construction Co., Ltd	
2,135,920.00Poole Engineering Co. Ltd	
2,188,060.00
Square M Construction Ltd., and Coleman
Collieries Ltd	 2,209,999.00
Mannix Limited	 2,369,330.00

Questions
Serial	Contract Details	Tenderers	Amount of Tender
6. Construction of 5 small reinforced concrete Nodwell Brothers Ltd	 $249,168.55
rigid frame bridges between Mile 13 to Poole Construction Co., Ltd	 266,256.75
Mile 40.	Burns and Dutton Concrete and Construction Co. Ltd	 288,800.00
Assiniboia Construction Co. Ltd	 290,753.28
Remington Construction Co. Ltd	 293,927.00
Baynes-Manning (Alberta) Ltd	 301,760.05
4.	Answered by No. 1 (Serials 1, 2 and 4).


TOMATO PRODUCTS IMPORTS
Mr. Lennard: 1.	How many pounds of tomato products were imported into Canada, during the calendar year of 1955 from, (a) the United States of America; lb) Italy?
2.	What was the value of such imports from each of the countries mentioned?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):
1 and 2. Imports of tomato products (includes juice, paste, puree, pulp, and canned tomatoes) (Statistical classifications 136, 137, 138, 139, 140) during the calendar year 1955, were as follows: -
Lb.	Value
(a)	From United
States	
39,136,951	$3,122,533(b)	From	Italy	.	12,734,419	$1,572,639


PRESERVED CHERRY IMPORTS
Mr. Lennard: 1.	How many pounds of cherries, sulphured or in
brine,	were	imported	into Canada,	during the
calendar year 1955 from, (a) the United States of America; (b) Italy?
2.	What was the value of such imports from each of the countries mentioned?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):
1 and 2. Imports of cherries, sulphured or in brine (statistical classification 51) during the calendar year 1955, were as follows: - Lb.	Value
(a)	From United
States	
1,125	$	312(b)	From Italy .	6,616,164	829,131Year	Number of prosecutions	Number of convictions1950 ...	
58	571951 ...	
15	141952 ...	
33	331953 ...	
16	161954 ...	
12	121955 ...	
18	171956 ...	
-	*Total	... 152	149
1/1/50
to
7/3/56


T.V. STATION CBLT
Mr. Pallet!: 1.	Is T.V. station CBLT changing from channel 9 to channel 6?
2.	If so, what steps, if any, have been taken to ensure that there will be no interference to reception on existing channels in the Toronto area?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	No steps required as assignment of channel 6 is in accordance with the Canada-United States of America allocation agreement.


MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT
Mr. Herridge: 1.	How many prosecutions have been instituted under section 6 of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, since January 1, 1950, to date?
2.	How many convictions were obtained in this period?
3.	How many persons were fined, were imprisoned, or were both fined and imprisoned?
Answer by: Mr. Lesage:
1, 2 and 3. Prosecutions under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, section 6, since January 1, 1950:
Number of	Number of suspended	
fines		sentences, etc.
56	1	sentence suspended13	1	sentence suspended33	15	1	bound over12	17	146	2	sentences suspended1	bound over
None reported to March 7, 1956.

Questions
No sentences of imprisonment were imposed during the above period for violation of section 6 of the Migratory Birds Convention Act.


SHIPPING STATISTICS-CANADIAN PORTS
Mr. Hahn: 1. How many ships carrying export and import goods called at the ports of Montreal, Quebec,
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Vancouver, New Westminster, British Columbia, in each of the years 1951, 1952, 1953. 1954 and 1955?
2. What was the total tonnage of freight other than passenger cargo (a) exported; (b) imported, through each port in each of these years?
Answer by. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):
1. NUMBER OF VESSELS ARRIVED AT AND DEPARTED FROM CANADIAN PORTS IN INTERNATIONAL SEABORNE SHIPPING
Year	Montreal	Halifax	Vancouver	New Westminster	Arrived	Departed	Arrived	Departed	Arrived	Departed	Arrived	Departed1951	1,809	2,145	i,m	1,164	2,424	2,356 2,743	736	8261952	1,927	1,843	1,165	1,133	2,909	690	8311953	2,149	2,866	1,157	1,154	3,409	3,353	702	8271954	
1955*	2,054	2,751	1,164	1,172	3,609	3,506	766	869
'Data will not be available until May.
2. CARGOES LOADED FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND CARGOES UNLOADED FROM


FOREIGN COUNTRIES
[Stage Direction]
Tons weight (2,000 lb.)
Year	Montreal	Halifax	Vancouver	New Westminster	Cargoes Loaded	Cargoes Unloaded	Cargoes Loaded	Cargoes Unloaded	Cargoes Loaded	Cargoes Unloaded	Cargoes Loaded	Cargoes Unloaded1951	
1952	
1953	
1954	
1955*	4,378,036 5,655,171 5,077,501 3,861,534	5,028,863 3,978,764 4,411,604 4,809,560	547,650 757,798 693,177 612,828	1,535,034 1,979,504 1,914,879 1,804,118	3,534,779 4,480,315 4,348,824 4,658,799	2,607,412 2,676,853 2,623,095 1,482,348	1,081,960 1,195,298 1,124,083 1,117,193	93,118 94,453 54,764 57,853
'Data will not be available until May.

Mr. Michener: What would be the estimated annual loss in revenue if deductions from taxable personal income were allowed for, (a) real property taxes paid to municipalities in Canada; (b) school taxes paid to municipalities and school boards in Canada?
Answer by: Mr. Harris:
In order to answer this question it would be necessary to know the income tax rate of every taxpayer owning real estate in Canada. As this information is not of government record it is not possible to give an accurate estimate in answering this question.


T.V. SYSTEM-BANFF NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Johnston (Bow River): 1.	Have there been any requests for permission to erect a community T.V. antenna system in Banff national park?
2.	If so, who made this request and what are the particulars in connection with such a proposal?
3.	Has the government given any permit for such a construction?
Answer by: Mr. Lesage:
1.	Yes.
2.	A request has been received from Mr. Bert Henderson of Banff. The proposal envisaged; (i) the formation of a company to erect, maintain and operate a community T.V. system to distribute television programs to residents of Banff by means of wire and cable; (ii) the acquisition of suitable site for antenna, and right of way from said site to closest power or telegraph line with permission to carry connecting line on trees, and the stringing of carrier line to residences on telephone poles in the townsite; (iii) an installation charge of approximately $125 to each residence plus a monthly service charge of from $3 to $5; (iv) a capital investment of approximately $25,000 by the company.
3.	No.

Dominion-Provincial Conference


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER OF FINANCE march 9, 1956
At our October meeting the federal government put forward certain suggestions in broad outline. These were discussed quite fully at that time and later both in conversations and correspondence. They were then developed into definite proposals in the Prime Minister's letters of January 6 and February 18. We have circulated a statistical paper to indicate how these proposals would operate in the first year of the proposed arrangements, that is, in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958. No one can foretell accurately either the level or the provincial distribution of population, incomes and profits one or two years hence, but we believe that the assumptions on which this table is based are reasonable.
Last October I suggested three principles or objectives that we ought to have in mind-
(a)	to assure as far as possible, to both the federal and provincial governments, access to revenues consistent with their responsibilities;
(b)	to develop and maintain fiscal arrangements that will contribute to high and stable levels of employment and that will tend to moderate rather than exaggerate the ups and downs in economic activity;
(c)	to promote simplicity, economy and equity in the tax system as a whole and in the machinery of tax collection.
The system of tax rental agreements, which is about to enter its tenth and final year, went a long way toward meeting these objectives, but experience has shown that it has not succeeded in meeting all the considerations to which the members of this conference attach importance. The proposals now before you are designed to reconcile as much as possible the various views represented around this table.
These proposals go just as far as we can go at this time in providing fiscal need grants and in reducing the extent to which we are occupying certain tax fields. On the assumptions we have made, our proposal will make available to the provincial governments $640 million in the first year of the new arrangements. This is $108 million or 20 per cent more than would be available to them if the present tax rental agreements were renewed 67509-131
and all the provinces took full advantage of them. The $640 million is made up of:-
(a)	Unconditional equalization grants	
$152 million(b)	Revenues from the personal income, corporation and succession duty fields, either by rental agreements or collection agreements, or by direct provincial imposition and collection without any extra burden on the taxpayer ..	465	"(c)	Removal of the tax oninsurance premiums from the definition of special corporation taxes	
23	"
$640 million
We believe that revenues of these magnitudes from these tax fields are consistent with the actual responsibilities at this time and what seems likely to develop in the next five years. Any province that considers that it requires larger (or smaller) revenues from these tax fields is, of course, entirely free to impose and collect whatever rates it deems proper; but if a provincial rate exceeds the standard rate it will not entitle the taxpayer to any additional credit or rebate from the federal treasury.
On our side, we cannot at this time make any further material concessions that would adversely affect our revenues. Defence expenditures have been stabilized in the past year or two at a high level (nearly $1,800,000,000). We can hope that they will not go higher, but we cannot be sure; neither is it wholly within our control, that they may not have to go up again quite sharply. Many of you will have noticed that defence estimates in both the United Kingdom and the United States have gone up this year.
During the past 15 years, with the consent, often at the urging of provincial governments, we have taken on very large new classes of expenditures in the field of social welfare- unemployment insurance, family allowances, old age pensions and assistance, and other measures-which this year are costing the federal treasury not far short of $900 million,
[Stage Direction]
Dominion-Provincial Conference and are normally growing at a rate which will bring them over one billion dollars within five years. During the past year our total disbursement in these fields (including unemployment insurance benefits) was in fact over one billion dollars. All these payments have contributed to the maintenance of levels of incomes which have undoubtedly relieved the provincial governments of a great load of welfare claims that would otherwise have been pressed upon them and their municipalities. They have also had important beneficial effects on provincial revenues from all forms of taxation. They have been good and constructive expenditures, but their bearing upon the balance of revenues and responsibilities must not be overlooked.
Since we met last April the federal government has undertaken, subject to negotiated conditions, to assume costs in relation to unemployment assistance which in a year like 1954-55 would amount to about $25 million. We have also agreed in principle to assume additional costs of about $180 million a year in the field of health insurance. Now we are proposing arrangements which in the first year of operation and on the assumptions we have made will benefit provincial government treasuries by $108 million over and above the amounts already available to them under the tax rental agreement system. This, I assure you, is the practical limit of our capacity in these fields and at this time, having regard to all our other responsibilities, some of which, as in defence, are, in the last analysis, unlimited.
Our proposed stabilization payments are designed to give to the provincial governments an assurance of relative stability in these three tax fields. In effect we are offering every province unconditionally a guarantee that its annual revenues from equalization payments plus the yield or rental of the standard taxes will not fall below the higher of (a) its per capita rental available in 1956-57 multiplied by the current population, or (b) 90 per cent of its average actual revenues from equalization and stabilization payments and standard tax yields in the two preceding years. This is an offer of an unconditional floor in these tax fields, and a floor that keeps rising with our expanding economy. In the table before you, only Prince Edward Island and British Columbia benefit from this guaranteed minimum in 1957-58. We can all hope that the steady growth of our country is such that the floor will not often come into operation; but the insurance policy is none the less there.
The responsibility of promoting simplicity and economy in the whole field of taxation
belongs to all levels of government. As a federal contribution to this objective we are offering two alternatives-tax rental agreements and tax collection agreements.
We are prepared to offer each province a tax rental agreement covering all or any of these three tax fields for the five year period April 1, 1957 to March 31, 1962. The rental to be paid to the province will be the estimated total tax liability of taxpayers in that province at the standard rates of tax. The renting province need pass no taxing statute and will incur no administrative costs. It will, however, be bound for five years.
Alternatively, in the case of a provincial government having enacted and undertaken to maintain a taxing statute that in the opinion of the federal government does not differ from time to time in any material respect from the comparable federal statute and imposes the standard rates, the federal government is prepared to enter into an agreement to collect the tax for the provincial government. The federal government would remit periodically to the provincial government the amounts collected less a fee to cover the cost of collection. The fee we have in mind is 2 per cent of the amounts collected, providing the accounting procedures can be kept reasonably simple. A collection agreement would have to be for a period of, say, three years; or if for two years the fee would probably have to be 3 per cent. The cost of redesigning our collection machinery would not justify entering into agreements on a one-year basis. Notice to extend or terminate a collection agreement would have to be given not later than about the last day of April preceding the year to be affected.
While there seems to have been a general acceptance of the principle of equalization, there is, I realize, some conflict of views on the manner in which it has been applied. Some provinces with very substantial taxable capacity feel that their responsibilities are such that they should be accorded still more room in these tax fields. Other provinces, where taxable capacity is below the average, press for still larger equalization or fiscal need grants. The federal government is squeezed between these conflicting views.
If we were to raise the standard rates and lower the level up to which we equalize, we would find it impossible, except at a quite unacceptable cost to the federal treasury, to establish a formula which would not reduce the payments to most of the provinces to amounts below those available under the current rental agreements. It has been suggested that we should meet this by supplementary grants on a straight fiscal need basis.

While I would like to come as close to meeting all points of view as possible, I do not believe that experience with fiscal need payments, based on a sort of periodic means test, has been such as to encourage us to use them when the more objective approach that we have adopted is available to us.
Other ideas have been put forward and I assure you that they have all been given careful consideration. The co-operative use of these tax fields and the elimination of conditional grants have been suggested. The periodic collective determination of tax policies and an agreed division of the total yield does not seem to me to be a practicable policy. If there is any real support for this suggestion we would, of course, be prepared to study it after we have had some experience with our present proposals. As for conditional grants, it has been a tendency over the years for finance ministers and provincial treasurers to disapprove of them in principle, but
Dominion-Provincial Conference then- spending colleagues seem to keep pressing for new or expanded conditional grants.
Our proposals as now set out before you are an earnest effort to meet the differing and sometimes conflicting interests of the various provincial governments and at the same time maintain fully the strength of the federal government to meet its wide ranging and vital national responsibilities. Our proposals are not entirely new, but are, we think, a constructive adaptation of our past experience to our present problems. We have tried to meet adequately and sympathetically the needs of those provinces which have been having difficulty in providing standards of service which modern societies consider to be essential. But we have also had to keep in mind the preservation of the national interests of our peoples. The national interests and national security must be preserved if provincial autonomy is to have any real meaning.
C7509-131|
to
o
[Stage Direction]


Department of Finance, Ottawa,
8 March, 1956
An estimate of how the federal proposals would operate in fiscal year 1957-58, if (a) provincial populations were as indicated; (b) the yields of standard taxes and the insurance premium tax increased by 5% per annum over the 1955 levels at 1956 rates; and (c) the distribution of taxable incomes, profits and successions between provinces were in the same proportion as in the most recent breakdown available.
(all figures in thousands except per capitas and percentages.)
Fiscal Year 1957-58
-	Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	TotalPopulation-June 1, 1957	432	108	703	578	4,700	5,509	867	929	1,172	1,377	16,375Yield of standard taxes	4,275	825	9,545	7,240	127,525	209,490	18,415	13,005	25,010	48,595	464,525Per capita yield of standard taxes	9-90	7-64	13-58	12-53	27-13	38-03	21-24	14-00	21-85	35-29	-Equalization per capita to top 2 ($37.48)	27-58	29-84	23-90	24-95	10-35	-	16-24	23-48	15-63	2-19	-Equalization payment for 1957-58 0)	11,915	3,225	16,800	14,420	48,645	-	14,080	21,810	18,320	3,015	152,230Standard taxes plus equalization payment 0).	16,190	4,050	26,345	21,660	176,170	209,490	32,495	34,815	43,930	51,610	616,755Stabilization payment for 1957-58 (2)	
Revenue available from 2% insurance premium	-	80	-	-	~	95	175tax	230	70	765	555	6,205	9,980	1,090	650	1,550	2,060	23,155Total revenue available 1957-58 (')	16,420	4,200	27,110	22,215	182,375	219,470	33,585	35,465	45,480	53,765	640,085Tax rental payment available in 1956-57 (3)... Increase 1957-58 proposed formula over 1956-57	14,015	4,130	21,810	18,370	139,535	168,700	28,415	28,420	35,010	50,360	508,795agreement formula 0)	2,375	70	5,300	3,845	42,840	50,770	5,170	7,045	10,470	3,405	131,290Per cent increase	
Tax rental available in 1957-58 if the 1952	16-9	1-7	24-3	20-9	30-7	30-1	18-2	24-8	29-9	6-8	25-8agreements were continued (4)	
Increase in proposed formula over the 1952	14,690	4,120	22,565	19,065	144,800	177,070	29,240	29,620	37,505	52,670	531,435agreement formula, 1957-58 0)	1,730	-10	4,545	3,150	37,575	42,400	4,345	5,845	7,975	1,095	108,650Per cent increase over 1952 formula	11-8	[DOT]2	20-1	16-5	25-9	23-9	14-9	19-7	21-3	2-1	20-4Per capita increase over 1952 formula	4-00	-*09	6-47	5-45	7-99	7-70	5-01	6-29	6-80	[DOT]80	6-64
o
*1
o
o
£
o
[Stage Direction]
(*) All equalization payments and total revenue available would be subject to possible deductions in respect of any provincial special corporation taxes levied.
(2)	To bring up to per capita rate of payments in 1956-57-P.E.I. $38.24, B.C. $37.55.
(3)	Estimated on gross national product at factor cost of $23-4 billion.
(<) Estimated on gross national product at factor cost of $24-4 billion.
Note; These figures are illustrative only.
No account has been taken of such increased revenue items as license fees, fire marshall's tax, personal income tax on non-residents etc.
Dominion-Provincial Conference
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 13, 1956

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer very briefly to the federal-provincial conference. At the October meeting it was agreed that this conference would resume in committee at a time to be fixed by the Prime Minister after consultation with the premiers of the provinces. In reply to my letter of January last outlining the fiscal proposals put forward by the federal government, some of the provincial premiers did suggest another meeting.
In my letter of February 18, 1956, I said:
Since our federal responsibilities and commitments are now so heavy that we would not be warranted in making any increase in the basic offer we made in January, it may be that the provincial governments generally would not feel that there would be any advantage to be derived from another meeting to discuss fiscal relations.
The replies to my letter indicated, however, that a further meeting in committee was desired.
The conference resumed Friday morning, March 9, and adjourned at five o'clock that day. Although the meeting was, as had been agreed, in camera, it was agreed at the beginning that each delegation could make public any statement it wished to make during the meeting. Some of these statements have been made public and several provincial representatives have made additional comments to the press. I will not endeavour to add to what has appeared in the press, or comment on the substance of the matter before the budget debate. I should like, however, to table the statement made by the federal Minister of Finance at the conference and also a statistical table distributed to the provincial premiers which shows an estimate of how the federal proposals would operate in the fiscal year 1957-58. It should be noted that these figures are illustrative only and that they are based on an assumed increase of 5 per cent per annum over the 1955 levels in the yields of standard taxes and the insurance premium tax.
Perhaps hon. members would wish to have the statement of the Minister of Finance and
the statistical table printed as an appendix to Hansard, as was done with the other documents relating to this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Do hon. members agree to this proposal?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of documents see appendix, pages 2065-68.)


REQUEST FOR NEW APPROACH FOLLOWING REPORTED BREAKDOWN OF CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Earl Rowe: In
view of the fact that the dominion-provincial conference has, according to newspaper reports, broken down, will the Prime Minister advise the house whether or not he is prepared to consider a new approach to the problem which would be more satisfactory to the premiers of the provinces?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I had not seen any reports that the conference had broken down.


William Earl Rowe: Broken up, probably.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It came to an end. The statement I have laid on the table this afternoon and the statistical table illustrates the manner in which the proposals would operate, and represent the government's proposals. Now, there have been very large additional demands which the government felt, under present circumstances, could not be met.


William Earl Rowe: May I ask a supplementary
question? Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to have another conference in the near future?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Not unless we see some way of having more funds available for distribution because there was approval of the principle as being a step in the right direction. The contention was that it was not a long enough step, but it was as long a step as we thought we could make under present circumstances.

On the orders of the day:


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he say whether any further concessions were made to the provinces at

Dominion-Provincial Conference the recent conference, and whether those concessions were made at the general conference discussion or at some other place?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the provinces would not admit that anything that is proposed is a concession. There were explanations made as to how the retirement from the field of taxation on insurance premiums might operate. I know of nothing further that could be regarded as a concession or as an increase in the burden the proposals would mean for the federal treasury.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister consider that the provincial premiers who travelled hundreds, and, in some cases, thousands of miles, to be here on Friday, had been adequately warned that they were coming here only to be told that there was nothing new to tell them?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman can interpret himself the terms of the letter I wrote when I suggested to them that that being the situation it might very well be that they would not generally feel it was useful to have another discussion on fiscal policies at this time.
lLater:l
On the orders of the day:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister with reference to the documents he has tabled today? What has happened to the principle of federal control over taxation levels so as to deal with inflation and deflation when necessary in the public interest?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The passing of the British North America Act in 1867.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES   REFERENCE OF ANNUAL REPORT, AUDITORS' REPORT AND CAPITAL BUDGET TO RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING COMMITTEE
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have today laid on the table, in accordance with standing orders, the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year 1955 and the auditors' annual report to parliament of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ending December 31, 1955. Copies of both these reports have been made available for distribution to all hon. members. I now wish to move:
That the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for 1955, the auditors' annual report to parliament of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ending December 31, 1955, tabled this day, and


the capital budget of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ending December 31, 1955, tabled on Wednesday, March 7, 1956, be referred to the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: 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 bring in a measure to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act by providing for a new three year pool commencing April 1, 1956, and ending March 31, 1959; to provide further that the maximum amount of bank loans made in the new period and guaranteed under the act shall be three hundred million dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 34-Mr. Johnston (Bow River):
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda or other documents exchanged, during last three months, between the government and the superintendent of the Banff national park and/or citizens of Banff, relating to the erection of a civic centre in Banff.
Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, the motion reads in part as follows:
For a copy of all correspondence . . . exchanged . . . between the government and the superintendent of the Banff national park . . .
Such exchanges are, I believe, of a privileged character as between officials of the government. I therefore could not acquiesce in that part of the motion. As to the balance of it, I have no objection.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreeable that the motion be carried subject to the remarks made by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


DISABLED PERSONS ACT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 40-Mr. Zaplitny:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other communications exchanged between municipal authorities in the province of Manitoba and the federal government or any department thereof, with respect to the Disabled Persons Act, since January 1, 1955.
Frederick Greystock Robertson: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to accept this motion subject to the usual reservation with regard to securing approval of these governments.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is carried subject to receiving approval of the governments concerned.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. gentleman mean subject to the approval of the municipalities?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Surely this is going beyond anything we have ever had before. It holds the house down in receiving information. I do not think we should extend to the municipalities the courtesy that we extend to the provincial governments. I think this is a wrong procedure.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: We might allow it to
stand in the meantime.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


STATEMENT RESPECTING REPORTED OUTBREAK IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Garfield Gardiner: In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton), I should like to read the following memorandum with regard to rabies control:
Control measures followed in dealing with the present rabies outbreak in Ontario are (1) the isolation and quarantine of all suspicious domestic animals and of all animals which have been in contact with them; (2) in affected areas the strict application of control orders on dogs, with stray animals being impounded or destroyed; and (3) the operation of clinics for the free vaccination of dogs and cats where the incidence of the disease is considered to warrant it.
Every reported suspected case of rabies is immediately investigated by federal veterinary officers. The animal is isolated and, if rabies symptoms develop to the later stages, which is necessary for laboratory diagnosis, its head is sent to the department's laboratory. The veterinarians also quarantine for observation all animals known or suspected of having been in contact with the suspicious animal.
The tying up of all dogs in affected areas, and the disposal of strays, is an extremely important part of the control program. While such an order can be applied under the federal Animal Contagious Diseases Act, most
Inquiries of the Ministry municipalities also have dog ordinances which can serve the same purpose. In the present outbreak in Ontario this has been attended to adequately to date by local authorities.
Where rabies has occurred under circumstances which necessitate complete vaccination of all dogs and cats in the area as a control measure, vaccination clinics for that purpose are operated by the federal Department of Agriculture. Such clinics have been or are being operated widely in all districts of northern Ontario, in Renfrew, Victoria, Hastings and Northumberland counties and in an area around Galt and Guelph in Wentworth, Wellington, Waterloo and Brant counties. Approximately 51,000 dogs and cats have been vaccinated to date in those clinics. There is no charge for the vaccination of dogs or cats at those clinics but the government does not bear any part of the cost of having animals vaccinated privately apart from the clinics.
The present outbreak has centred very largely in northern Ontario which is, of course, the outcome of the fact that the primary focus of infection is in northern wildlife, and the northern areas are the most exposed to wildlife. One hundred and eleven cases were diagnosed in Ontario between April 1, 1955, and March 9, 1956, with 67, or well over half, being in wildlife. Eighty-six of those cases have been in the area north and west from Nipissing and Parry Sound. The next heaviest area of infection has been in that part of the province, which is also reasonably exposed to wildlife, bounded by Haliburton and Renfrew on the north, Hastings on the east and Victoria and Durham on the west. There have been 19 cases diagnosed in that general area.
Apart from central and northern Ontario, only six cases of rabies have been diagnosed in the province in the present outbreak, up to March 9. These consisted of one fox in Bruce county, two foxes in York county, one dog in Simcoe county on January 9, one dog near Galt on February 21 and a cat near Guelph on March 9.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I should like
to ask if there is any scarcity of vaccine? I saw a report which indicated that one veterinarian had vaccinated all the animals he could but he was only able to get enough vaccine for a certain number. Is there any scarcity of vaccine?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no report that there is any scarcity. It could be that one veterinarian could be out or may have utilized all he had available. It takes some little time to get more.
2018	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, in so far as my department is concerned, may I reply to the question of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), which she asked on March 5. I refer her to the question of the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick), and the reply which was given by the Minister of Transport, which appears on page 759 of Hansard. It will be seen from that answer that there had been no men laid off by the Canadian National Railways on account of dieselization.
Then, a question was placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception, which was replied to by the Minister of Transport, as reported on page 2010 of Hansard of Friday last, which the hon. member for Hamilton West has doubtless seen. I am sure these two replies answer the main points in the questions of both hon. members. But, in so far as it applies to the Department of Labour, should the necessity arise, after everything is done by the Canadian National Railways to provide work for employees laid off owing to dieselization, my department and the national employment service will make every effort to assist in securing other work, as is being done in other parts of Canada.



REQUEST FOR ANNUAL REPORT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether we may expect to receive within the next day or two the annual report of the Canadian National Railways, and related documents to go before the sessional committee?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I hope to be able to deposit the annual report for last year on Wednesday next and at the same time the capital budget of the Canadian National Railways.



TRURO, N.S.-REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL MOTIVE POWER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Timlin Purdy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question 1 wish to direct to the Minister of Transport of which I have given him notice. In view of the repeated reports of heavy congestion in loaded freight cars in the Truro, Nova Scotia, yards and (Mr. Gardiner.]

nearby sidings, and more particularly in view of the specific report that a rush car consigned to Quebec and arriving in Truro on March 1 was still there on March 9, will the minister press on the railway management the necessity of providing further motive power in the district in order to clear the congestion and relieve industry in our province from this further handicap?
Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question was long enough; perhaps we should let the minister answer now.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I received the notice just before I came into the house and I have not been able to obtain the information in order to give an answer.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY LAKE LEVELS  DEEPENING OF WELLAND CANAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to two questions put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs by the hon. member for Lambton West concerning the Welland canal. He asked:
Is the Welland canal kept open after navigation closes in the fall in order to take water from the great lakes?
The reply to that question is that, after the close of navigation, water is supplied through the canal for domestic use by adjacent municipalities, for process water by various commercial establishments and for power purposes, and is conducted through weirs and the canal channel but not through the locks.
The second question was:
If in the St. Lawrence seaway project the Welland canal is to be deepened, how much extra water would flow through the canal?
The answer is that the volume of water passing through the canal will not be increased by the deepening to which I have just referred.



WHEAT-REPORTED WIDENING OF PRICE MARGIN BETWEEN GRADES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question in view of a statement that appeared in the Financial Post now on the newsstands. The report is to the effect that the wheat board has widened the margin of prices between grades No. 1 and No. 5

wheat from 13 cents to 40 cents. Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce advise the house if this wheat priced at 40 cents below grade No. 1 is being offered to Ontario farmers as feed grain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the price of No. 5 wheat for two or three months, as far as I know, but certainly the Ontario buyer obtains the lowest price at which any wheat of the same grade is offered to any buyer. The price of No. 5 wheat is the same to any buyer.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the recent statement by the attorney general of Ontario to the effect that the province has no authority over prices to be charged by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to distributors of natural gas, is it the intention of the federal government to exercise control over such prices?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the government of the province of Ontario undoubtedly has the authority to regulate the prices of gas to the consumer and in fact has passed legislation to that end. With the price to the consumer regulated, it seems to me there is effective, even though indirect, regulation of the price that the pipe line can charge a distributor. I notice in the press that the chairman of the board of transport commissioners was reported to have said that the board has no authority to regulate the price of gas in the pipe line even though the pipe line is interprovincial in character.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Owen C. Trainor: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a letter from the building trades council of Winnipeg, dated February 9, 1956, on the subject of unemployment insurance coverage for construction workers? If so, what is the intention of the government in facilitating the qualification of construction workers for unemployment insurance benefits, as suggested in the letter?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure I have received the letter, and the steps being taken with regard to it are the same as those applying to similar letters from other parts of Canada in that the commission is very carefully looking into the effects of the application of unemployment insurance as set out in that letter and will be able to make some recommendations thereon later on this winter.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct' a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister say whether a decision has yet been taken as to whether the government will take any action with respect to the report concerning an alleged combine in the manufacture, sale and distribution of beer in Canada?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on a previous occasion, we submitted this report to counsel in Toronto and after having considered it in a preliminary way he became ill and had to undergo a serious operation. We shall not be able to reach a decision ourselves until we get his opinion.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, under the Canada Forestry Act, agreements were made in 1951 and 1952 with eight provinces for the purpose of lending assistance to inventory the various provinces' forestry resources and to assist in reforestation. In order to continue and if possible to extend this aid the federal government has taken the following decisions:
1.	To continue assisting the provinces in reforestation programs.
2.	To extend from March 31, 1956, to March 31, 1958, the termination date of the present agreements for the forest inventories. This will allow the provinces which so need it a two-year period to complete their inventories and will also allow provinces which did not sign the agreements to enter the program for a two-year period.
3.	To offer assistance to the provinces to keep up-to-date the forest inventories. These
2020	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
agreements, which would be effective tor a Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade five-year period ending March 31, 1961, would and Commerce): Negotiations with Hungary provide that the federal government would were completed some days ago for the pay half the cost of maintaining the inventories.
The reforestation agreements have been, useful and are being continued for those provinces which so wish. New tree nurseries have been established with federal assistance in a few provinces. Under this program nearly 58 million trees have been planted.
The purpose of the inventory program is to assess as well as possible all provincial forest resources and to maintain up-to-date records of this resource so that provincial governments will have a reliable basis for the effective administration and management of their forests.
Inventories, like any other stocktaking, tend to become out of date unless they are revised on a continuous basis. Hence the federal government is prepared to enter into further agreements to pay half the cost of keeping these inventories in step with changing forest conditions.
purchase of 5,500,000 bushels of wheat.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say what effect, if any, the boost in freight rates which went into effect on Wednesday, March 7, will have on grain, hogs and cattle shipped to the United States?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of this question only a few moments ago and shall have to make inquiries in order to be able to answer.



DISABLED PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick Greystock Robertson: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. McBain) directed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) as follows:
Is it now legal in Canada to use the drug stilbestrol in poultry and livestock feeds?
A similar question was placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Huffman) and was answered on March 5, as recorded on page 1827 of Hansard of that date. In addition I would refer the hon. member to a comprehensive article which appeared in the St. Thomas Times-Journal of March 9.



REQUEST FOR ANSWER TO QUESTION ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Minister of National Health and Welfare when I may expect an answer to my question of February 17?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that the hon. member had not had an answer to a question which he had put to me. I assure my hon. friend that he in particular will receive a quick reply.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the house go into committee of supply.



AGRICULTURE-ECONOMIC POSITION OF INDUSTRY TRADE WHEAT    INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED SALES TO HUNGARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister say whether negotiations are now being conducted with Hungary for the purchase of a large quantity of Canadian wheat, namely, 3,600,000 bushels as suggested by Vic Mackie in an article recently in the Winnipeg Free Press.
TMr. Lesage.]


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this motion affords the traditional opportunity for members to advance what they believe to be matters of importance, and to move amendments in order to secure a vote of the house on the matter that is brought before the house. Indeed, under today's constitutional system the right to withhold supply is one of the very few rights still enjoyed by the members of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I intend on this occasion to devote my time to an outline of the position of the Canadian farmer. Other members of the Progressive Conservative party will direct their attention to the amendment which I intend to move and will fill in the necessary details. As far as I am concerned, I will merely outline the problem.
I think it will be agreed generally, for certainly it is the view of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the farm union organization of Canada and other farm organizations, that in every province the farmer today is caught in a ruthless and unrelenting squeeze between falling prices of farm products and rising costs of production. I am not in any way advancing an argument of depression when I say that the squeeze is of such a nature that, unless action is taken to meet it, it will, unless curbed, lead inevitably to bankruptcy of Canada's outstanding industry. That trend applies equally to the apple and the potato grower, the field crop producer, the dairy farmer, the livestock producer and the wheat farmer.
It is true that some protection against this trend has been afforded by the Agricultural Prices Support Act, but to too great an extent that act has been applied in piecemeal fashion and, indeed, in considerable measure has become a dead letter. There have been glaring inconsistencies in its administration. I need only mention one in connection with the maintenance of the floor on butter, and there is no objection taken to that. The government found itself in the position of having a surplus, which was not a surplus according to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and it committed what to many Canadians was an inexcusable act of policy. It purchased butter, it maintained the price, and then it sold a considerable portion of that butter to a communist country at a price some 21 cents less than Canadians were paying for butter. That, indeed, is regarded by many Canadians as an example of asininity in the government's ramshackle policy in the administration of the protection to which agricultural products are entitled under the act in question.
Take the question of hog prices. We have had this controversy over and over again in the past and yet, while the government denies that hogs are being purchased on the markets at less than the established floor prices, any member from the western provinces must inevitably, in the nature of things, have received letters including bills which indicate clearly that the floor is being breached and
Economic Position of Agriculture that farmers are not receiving the protection to which they are entitled. The fact is that the law lacks teeth to punish wrongdoers. Every farmer must become his own police officer; otherwise his rights cannot be preserved.
There is a constitutional division of powers which I am glad to learn will receive the attention of the Supreme Court of Canada during the coming summer. We hope that once and for all the delineation of powers between the federal and the provincial governments respecting the marketing of agricultural products will be determined.
I think it is only fair to mention that one or more provinces have done something in their own legislatures to protect farmers against a breach of floor prices. In my own province of Saskatchewan I should like to see the legislature, now in session, bring in legislation to preserve and, at least, aid in protecting the farmers, the hog producers, who find themselves today in a position of having to sell on a market in which the floor is being broken.
The squeeze which the farmer suffers results from the disparity in the relationship between the prices of farm products and the prices the farmer has to pay. When they are in proper relationship parity is established, and it is parity that the farm organizations across this country are asking for today. Not charity but parity. When one looks at the general price relationship one begins to realize how far in recent years that desirable end has been departed from. As far as parity is concerned, it must be related to a basic period which is regarded as one in which prices and costs are in approximate equivalence one to the other.
I know of no better definition of parity than that which appeared in yesterday's New York Times. I have made the necessary changes in the definition to meet the situation in this country. It is as follows:
Parity prices are the dollars and cents prices that give to farm products the same buying or purchasing power they had in a selected base period when prices received by and prices paid by farmers were regarded as in good balance. . . . It has been put this way: If you can sell a truckload of barley and buy with the money received so much food, clothing, building materials, fertilizer, farm machinery and other living and production items as you could in a chosen favourable period in the past then your barley is selling at a parity price.
It goes on to point out the difference between rigid price supports which have not proved successful and flexible price supports which have proved successful in the experience of the United States.
The farm problem today is one that affects the people of Canada as a whole. I think the

Economic Position of Agriculture best description of it is to be found in an editorial in the Ottawa Journal recently which had this to say:
It is everybody's problem in Canada.
Not only farm organizations have spoken of the need of action. Such organizations as the Canadian Congress of Labour and the chamber of commerce in Winnipeg have all pointed out the dangerous position in which Canadian agriculture finds itself today, affecting as it does the people as a whole. I think one of the finest briefs I have read has been that of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture presented to the Gordon commission. It sets out in detail the situation of agriculture and endeavours to project itself 25 years ahead and anticipate the situation of agriculture at that time. It points out that there are 611,000 farmers in Canada today, that the average investment of a farmer is $15,500 and that between 1926 and 1954, if you allow the farmer interest of 3J per cent on the amount of his investment, the average return of a farmer has been only 30 per cent more than the amount of the hired man's wages. Taking 1948 as a base of 100, we find this:	Farm prices in
1955 were 97-8; retail prices 117-2; costs of distribution, 148. That covers nine Canadian farm products. What also took place was this. A larger share of the consumer's dollar goes to -the other elements of distribution than goes to the farmer. When the period began in 1948 the share of the farmer was 59-3 cents on every dollar. Today that share has fallen to 53 cents. That is the reason the Canadian farmer is disturbed. He is faced by the advancing shadow of diminishing returns that more and more obliterates his share of the national income. His share of the national income has gone down in the last six years to an alarming extent. If you take the parity price as a basis in 1951 and compare it with the parity price today, this is what you will find. In 1951 farm prices were 10 per cent over parity or 110; that is the ratio figure. In September, 1955, that relationship had fallen to 81. During the same period of time the costs of the things which the farmer has to buy had increased by approximately 2 per cent. That statement is not a partisan statement. It is a statement by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture based on an examination of statistics and given to the dominion-provincial agricultural conference in Ottawa in December, 1955. On the other hand, since 1951 Canadian consumer expenditure has increased substantially, while the farmer's receipts for the same food have shown a marked decline. That is shown in rather full degree and I am not going to quote at any 

length from the annual presentation to the cabinet by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on February 14, 1956. When my friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) produces what I choose to call statistical prosperity by the figures which he advances, I point out that the summary of * the views of this agricultural body is to the following effect:
. . . the notable exception in this picture of record prosperity is that of the farmer and his family. We do not claim that Canadian agriculture is in a depression such as we have known in the past. We do say that the farming industry is not sharing in Canada's new high level of prosperity .	.	. From the point of view of prices, farm
products now show a price decline, taken as a whole, to about 20 per cent below a fair relationship level-whether this is calculated on the base period of 1925-29 used by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture or the more recent period of 1943-45.
Farmers from coast to coast feel keenly that on the average their returns have become badly out of balance with those of other major groups in the nation. It is important to emphasize purchasing power in this connection because the farmer's difficulties are to be found as much in high prices of the things he buys as in a decline in the number of dollars he receives.
The decline in the farmers' position has not come about as a result of poor crops and lagging farm productivity.
That too is the view expressed by the interprovincial farm union in the brief which they presented to the government on the 16th of the month. I am not going to quote these figures-they are fully set out in the brief- except to say this. Since 1951 the ratio of operating expenses to gross income in agriculture in Canada has gone up 23-38 per cent in 1951, 30-77 per cent in 1952, 41-6 per cent in 1953 and 52-2 per cent in 1954; and apparently the trend continued in 1955, although final statistics are not available. At the same time the decline in net farm income has proceeded downward 10 per cent, 21 per cent and finally 48 per cent in 1954. These figures indicate that year by year the ratio of the operating expenses on the farm is going up and a decline in net income is taking place. The situation is the same in agriculture as it is in any other business. You cannot go on paying more for the things you buy while getting less for the things you have to sell.
The same thing has happened with regard to cattle and hog prices. The details given here indicate a pronounced reduction throughout the period from 1951 to 1954 and the first half of 1955. Cattle, 1951, on the weighted average price per hundredweight at public stockyards were $28.22; in 1952, $20; in 1953, $15.36 and in 1954, $14.45. During the same time the price of grade A hogs went down from $33.30 a hundredweight until in 1955, in the second half of the year, it stood at $23.17.

That trend downward has not been slowed up in recent weeks. That is one of the major complaints among hog producers, namely the fact that the floor as it exists today does not protect.
The Financial Post recently, in a 20-page
supplement in the November 12 issue, published a summary of Canadian agricultural trends. In it there was an article by David L. McFarlane, Professor of Economics at Macdonald College. I am going to quote just a couple of paragraphs of his remarks. He says:
Cash farm income, $2,812 millions in 1951 slipped to $2,377 millions in 1954 as prices declined. But farm costs have remained essentially at 1951 levels. Thus net farm income has declined much more rapidly than the gross figure. Net income, $2,189 millions in 1951, fell to nearly half this level, $1,126 million, by 1954.
He does not give the 1955 figures but the increase was of such a nature as to result in no greatly increased medium of prosperity. Then he goes on to say this:
It is hard for city people-unless in the position of workers in farm machinery plants-to realize that agriculture is having serious economic troubles. Alongside of an industrial boom with payrolls and profits setting records, we find agriculture in the worst position since the early war years.
The real meaning of the news columns which recite the difficulties of grain producers, dairy farmers, potato and fruit growers is something approaching comparative farm depression.
He goes farther in that regard than do the other quotations to which I have made reference. I would quote further in that regard in support of my contention, Mr. Speaker, but since my time is limited I cannot refer in detail to the supporting evidence which in every case bears out the contention of the opposition that the agricultural situation has worsened, and that since 1951 there has been a shrinking of Canadian farm income by approximately 50 per cent. When we went out of power in 1935 we assumed the responsibility of a campaign, repeated over and over again, that when we were in power things were bad but without regard to any world conditions that existed then and without regard to the drought that destroyed production and at the same time destroyed income. Ever since then my hon. friends to the right of you, sir, have posed as the exclusive possessors of the magic solution of all farm problems. They have been carried along by the prosperity that resulted from the war and, following the war, was continued in the postwar period in the cold war that was waged.
It is true, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was able to say to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) in
Economic Position of Agriculture regard to the contract with Hungary, that the wheat board is getting rid of a large amount of wheat.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad my hon. friend interrupted because I think he will agree that Providence, not the government of Canada, brought about the disasters of flood and frost. The parity situation has been very thoroughly canvassed during recent years. We, in the Progressive Conservative party, tried to get some action on this matter on several occasions, but without success. One of the earliest occasions was in 1941, during the war. The last occasion when we moved an amendment regarding this question of parity prices was on March 23, 1953. At that time we pointed out a situation which was rapidly accelerating, namely the expansion of the spread. Our attitude was ridiculed. After moving the amendment on that occasion at page 3208, I used these words, which in the light of subsequent events were not far removed from the facts. I said this:
-I believe the demand on the part of Canadian farmers in general that action be taken now, before Canada finds itself in the position of having surplus production. We realize the needs of the NATO countries for all-out production in order to meet the eventuality that peace should cease to exist; and in order to maintain farmers on the farms something must be done to remove the squeeze that is taking place because of falling prices which have resulted, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, in a reduction in income of 12 per cent in 1952 over 1951, while the production of agricultural products was materially increased during the same period and farm costs have risen by 5 per cent.
At that time I moved this amendment:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to provide floor prices for agricultural products at such levels as to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship."
At that time we pointed out what was happening. What we pointed out then has been found, in the light of subsequent experience, to be correct. As far back as the national convention in October, 1948, we had enunciated our policy in this regard. I read that declaration in the light of subsequent events.
1. The Progressive Conservative party stands pledged to assure the maximum of stability of income to Canadian farmers. To this end we will enact permanent floor price legislation based on the following principles
(a)	A definite formula in the Farm Prices Support Act for arriving at floor prices.
(b)	The formula will allow for variations in production and demand for individual products.
(c)	Floor prices will be announced well in advance of the production period.

Economic Position of Agriculture
(d)	The floor price formula will be arrived at in consultation with representative producers.
We will establish a board of live stock commissioners similar to the board of grain commissioners.
We will give every legitimate encouragement to co-operative agencies whether relating to purchase, sale or credit.
We will extend the activities of the federal farm loan board so that farmers may take greater advantage of long term low interest rates in the purchase and development of their farms.
We will extend the facilities for agricultural research-
All these things, in the light of subsequent events, have been found to be actually needed to meet problems which have faced Canada since.
Now then, my time being limited, I cannot refer-


Mr. Speaker:: In fairness to the hon. member, perhaps I should tell him that the only reason for saying that, in moving an amendment to a motion to go into supply his time may be limited, is that it has happened the government has not considered the amendment to the motion to go into supply as one of want of confidence. I think the hon. member, if he were to make known the terms of his motion, could very well have this type of motion considered, as it almost always has been, one of want of confidence and then he would not need to worry about being limited as to time.


John George Diefenbaker: I intend to move, sir, seconded by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton):
That all the words after "That" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to create a parity of prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship."
Now, that is the amendment I intend to move, sir. On the basis of previous experience I would not expect that it would be regarded as other than an amendment that the government would not accept.
Today, in the world in which we live, we face one of the most all-embracing economic massive retaliation attacks by the U.S.S.R. that has ever been launched by any nation in all history. The U.S.S.R. failed in its cold war offensive. Now, it has launched an overall world economic offensive. It goes into a country that it has chosen as its victim and, with the promise of appeasing hunger at the moment, asks the people in reality to translate their hunger and their thirst into a reasonably higher standard of living than they have had in the past, and in return the people in those areas forfeit forever their freedom and their liberty.
In times like these I am one of those who believe that surpluses are not dangerous in themselves. I believe we have a responsibility to maintain a productive agricultural machine, and to assure to the farmer a fair and reasonable share of the national income, which he is not receiving today-and statistics prove it. The general attitude of farmers proves the truth of that statement. What we need is a national policy on agriculture.
There was a farm conference last fall, which representatives of the various provinces attended. That farm conference secured from the minister no general vista of the future of agriculture. No lead was given to producers in Canada, and no picture of the anticipated situation in agriculture. A simple declaration was made with respect to one or two matters. A floor was to be maintained. Except for that, there was not that leadership which the farmers of Canada, indeed the whole economy, have a right to expect. The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix said:
And it demonstrated that the federal government has no very clear idea (none that it will make public, at least) about what, if anything, it can do about the Canadian agricultural industry as a whole. Without worrying about the order of their importance, each of these points deserves consideration in some detail.
It asks for a lead. It says no lead was given at that conference, and goes on to say:
What the federal cabinet really will do remains anyone's guess.
Then, it goes on to deal with the difference in opinion as expressed regarding subsidies by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I suggest, therefore, that there is need for a declaration of policy on national agriculture. The last federal-provincial agricultural conference was disappointing. It achieved nothing except to bring a group together and advise them that something had been done, or would be continued, and then let them go home. It bore quite a similarity to the dominion-provincial conference of Friday last, when the provincial premiers came here and were told that nothing could be done for them except what they had already been told, and now they could go home. That is not the kind of leadership that Canadians deserve today. It is not the kind of leadership that will bring about that national unity that all of us hope for. A national conference on agriculture should be called. Representatives of the federal and provincial governments and of the farm organizations should work out a general policy for domestic and international trade. However, that conference should be delayed until such time as the supreme court

has finally determined the distribution of powers as between the federal and provincial governments.
Tomorrow we are to be visited by the peerless leader of the forces of democracy in NATO. Last summer some of us had the privilege of visiting NATO headquarters. General Gruenther, the spearhead of survival; has over and over again emphasized the need of unity among NATO nations. The president of Italy spoke to parliament a few days ago. What he emphasized above everything else was the absolute need of something being done to strengthen and maintain the NATO organization. Human nature being what it is, if threats of war and fears are removed, if cold war becomes warm smiles, the mortar that holds the NATO nations together is bound to become softened. We need to maintain the strength of NATO, to assure the preservation of the surpluses that are being built up as part of our joint defence. It is for that reason that we in the opposition believe that consideration should be given to the establishment of a food bank in NATO countries. The international food bank'under FAO has not proven possible because of the difficulties inherent in such a plan when nations both within and without NATO are members of that organization.
The soviet policy will challenge the free world. If the free world is to maintain its strength and be in a position to bargain from strength in the field of economics, the agricultural machine in our country must be maintained, and the Russians must not be permitted to have the initiative in the economic war.
We believe that one of the reasons for our situation is the fact that we have lost our markets. The British market for agricultural products is gone, to all intents and purposes. The total value of bacon shipped to Britain last year was about $3,600, compared with the tremendous shipments made during the days of the war and subsequently. Surely something can be done about that market. Denmark is getting out now. In September the Danish-British agreement will be terminated. Is this not the time to bring about once more aggressive action in this regard to secure those markets, or at least a portion of them? Is this not the time for the government to reconsider the convening of a British commonwealth trade conference to the end that we shall be able to disperse our farm products rather than concentrate them in the United States, which is close at hand and convenient? Our experience in the past shows us that that is dangerous to the preservation of our agricultural machine, because invariably when we have surpluses the United 67509-128
Economic Position of Agriculture States has surpluses, and the United States government has greater regard for the farmers of the middle west than it has for the continuance of the right of Canada to export agricultural products to that country.
What about Japan? Japan is a country that has always discharged its financial obligations. That country is a mighty market for agricultural products. It was suggested by a former member of this house, Milton Campbell, who now lives in Hamilton, that the market in Japan has a potential value greater than any other market anywhere in the world. Would it be too much to suggest that consideration be given to the advancement of assistance by way of loans so that Japan would be in a position to trade with us ana accept a considerably larger portion ot tne agricultural production of this country than is the case today?
Fourthly, I mentioned the economic offensive of the U.S.S.R. under which emphasis is being laid on seeking, through the stomachs of men in underdeveloped countries in Asia and Africa, to subvert their hearts. For several years we in the opposition have been contending that there is a dividend in advancing assistance to underdeveloped countries by way of agricultural products and the like by the extension of plans such as the Colombo plan. There were some who said we were idealists when we took that view, but what of the United States1 now? What of Britain and what of France? All three have declared that more and more we must alter our objectives in facing the new economic conflict from the U.S.S.R. and direct our attention to the contribution we make to assist those countries which have not the economic possibilities we have.
In addressing this house Sir Anthony Eden put it this way. He said that the free nations must, and I quote:
. . . raise the standards of living and provide economic help and confidence for peoples in underprivileged countries.
I believe that as part of our defence efforts there should be a diversion of some of our surpluses for the purpose of raising standards in underprivileged countries.
I come now to the question of the agricultural products act. The present legislation needs to be revamped. It needs to have teeth put into it. I mentioned the economic section in connection with hogs and the way in which the legislation is being evaded to the detriment of the farmer. The administration of this act has become loose and dilapidated. There is no means of enforcing whatever provisions may be passed by the board operating under that act. Should we not at this session amend the act to the end that it will become effective?

Economic Position of Agriculture
Next I mentioned in general the widespread disparity between the price the farmer receives and the price paid by the consumer. That disparity, that spread, deserves to be investigated. Many hon. members in this house want work to do. They would like to perform a worth-while work but have been denied the opportunity of making the contribution which their ability and training would permit. I would like to see the agricultural committee, when it is set up, undertake to make a preliminary investigation into those spreads. Then if after hearing evidence the agricultural committee finds it is circumscribed to such an extent as to be unable to come to a definite finding on the question which exercises the thinking of farmers all across the country today, I should like to see a royal commission appointed in order to investigate this spread and ensure a greater degree of equity to agriculture in assuring that the farmer would receive the largest possible percentage of the price ultimately paid by the consumer.
Finally, sir, I come to the need of making Canadian agriculture strong, effective and efficient. I have already mentioned that if the present price-cost relationship continues and the spread maintains its present rate of interest, the day is not far distant when the Canadian farmer will find himself in a situation dangerous to the future of agriculture in this country. That is not a partisan view. That is the view of the federation of agriculture, the farm union organization, and agricultural economists.
I have already mentioned that three years ago I had the honour of moving in this house an amendment based on what I then pointed out was a trend that was multiplying in its amplitude and would ultimately be most detrimental to agriculture. Amendments to that end had been moved previously. They were based on a declaration made by the hon. leader of this party in June of 1953 and also on the national policy of 1948.
In 1953 the hon. Leader of the Opposition said in effect, "We will appoint a national agricultural board for the purpose of establishing fair floor prices related to farm production costs."
At that time he and those associated with him endeavoured to place before the Canadian people the situation as they saw it. People did not accept the viewpoint that we then expressed. But looking back on the retrospect of events that have taken place since that time, we are able to say that if the stand we then took had been accepted in 1953, in the motion moved in March of that year, the Canadian farmer today would not find himself in his present position. In
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
the light of experience our views have proven to have been all too prophetically true.
The trend referred to in the amendment moved in 1953 has continued. Canadian agriculture today would not be in its present precarious position if action had been taken at that time on the basis of the experience of our neighbour to the south and also on the basis of the demands of farmers generally.
Therefore, sir, having already given notice of my intention to do so, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton):
That all the words after "That" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to create a parity of prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship".


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we in this group welcome the motion which has been placed before the house this afternoon. We are particularly pleased that the motion is drafted in such terms as to permit us to declare our support of the principle of parity prices. The support of the principle of parity prices is something which the members of this group and our party at large have supported from its very inception. It is part of our philosophy that governments should take whatever action is necessary in order to provide a measure of equality of treatment to all major sections of our economy. We do not agree and never have agreed with those who say that the role of government should be to keep out of the economy, to sit back as a referee and do nothing about falling incomes of various groups. We believe in government action and we certainly believe that government action is now needed.
I want to point out to hon. members of this house that the concept of parity prices is that the government shall so regulate the prices of farm products as to give to agriculture an income which bears a very direct relationship to the income of other groups in our economy. In the past the members of the Conservative party have always said that they have believed in a hands-off policy as far as the government is concerned, that they did not believe in regulation, that they believed in free enterprise, the freedom of prices to go up and down in the market. I am glad to see this apparent complete transformation that has now occurred and an indication that it is their opinion and philosophy that the role of government should be to set agricultural prices in a very direct relationship to the cost of production and to place that on a formula basis.

During this session there has been growing evidence that the Conservative party is learning, that their education is being improved. As the weeks go on they are coming more and more to agree with the stand which has been taken on various issues by the members of this group. We are very pleased at that and we welcome them because we believe that if the principle of parity prices is supported solidly by the three opposition parties it will definitely result in legislation, even from this government, which will bring about an improvement in the agricultural industry.


Clarence Decatur Howe: One more "C" in C.C.F.


Hazen Robert Argue: Pardon?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Add one more "C" to C.C.F.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is becoming all too clear that if the Conservative party is learning and is improving on its education, the Liberal party is doing the very opposite, that anything it has done in the past about legislation to improve the position of agriculture has been forgotten, that it has dropped the Liberal program. I think before I have finished speaking this afternoon I will be able to point out that the government's policy is spelling abject depression for agriculture from one end of this country to the other.
I hear a member of the Conservative party say that it has always been their policy. It is a wonderful thing to hear that, but I am afraid that their performance in the early 1930's demonstrated the very opposite. The record of the Liberals is not good. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) came into his present position in 1935 and during the next five years they established an index for the prices of agricultural products which was published in the Economic Annalist. They took the base period 1935-39 as 100, a period when farmers and agriculture were in a general economic depression. Then on the basis of an index of 100, which could hardly be a reasonable parity index price, we find that the indices in the earlier period under the Conservatives from 1931 to 1934 were as follows for field crops:
Field Products Animal Products
1931	
65.0	92.71932	
60.4	70.51933	
69.3	69.21934	
80.5	86.5
It is certainly true that in the 1930's under both Conservative and Liberal governments we had parity prices in reverse. The prices of agricultural products, instead of bearing a fair relationship to the cost of production, bore a most unfair relationship. Last year we 67509-128J
Economic Position of Agriculture moved a motion asking the government to give consideration to the advisability of establishing a system of party prices for agricultural products. This motion was moved by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) on May 13, and I am glad to say that that motion received the unanimous support of members of the opposition parties.


John George Diefenbaker: It has always been
supported.


Hazen Robert Argue: I go back to 1954, one year-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Go back to before you were born.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would not want to get into the same position as my hon. friend.


An hon. Member:: Just go back.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They do not want to hear about 1954.


Hazen Robert Argue: I know this is something the Conservative party would like to forget, I know it is something about which they have not been too proud. On May 17, 1954, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) moved this amendment:
That all the words after the word "That" to the end of the question be struck out and that the following words be substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to demonstrating its support of the principle of orderly marketing through livestock marketing boards by announcing floor prices with respect to cattle and hogs at levels not less than the average of the prices which prevailed during the period from January 1, 1951 to December 31, 1953".
It will be noted that not only did we present a motion which embodied the principle of parity prices; we spelled out the formula. Had that formula been adopted by the government it would have resulted in cattle prices being not less than $21 per hundredweight, and probably more than that with the increased cost of production. A debate followed that amendment during which some most interesting remarks were made by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), a member of the Conservative party. The hon. member damned the motion in no uncertain terms when he said:
In my opinion this particular proposal comes very close to being complete nonsense, and I think bears no relationship to any realistic conception of what the livestock industry is, what conditions are or anything of that sort.
And then later:
For those reasons, perhaps, the formula is not a reasonable or realistic yardstick to use. The whole purpose of this resolution, if carried into effect, would be to socialize the livestock industry.
When we proposed a formula for livestock prices and demonstrated our support of livestock boards in May, 1954, the hon. member

Economic Position of Agriculture for Calgary North said that the motion was designed to socialize the agricultural industry. I am pleased that the members of the Conservative party are coming along and are now not only presenting a motion today but advancing the concept of full parity. As I am sure you would anticipate, Mr. Speaker, after the hon. member for Calgary North damned the resolution asking for a formula support price for cattle and hogs the Conservative party voted against a parity floor price for cattle and hogs. It was the policy of the Conservative party at that time, but I am glad that they have changed their policy now and are prepared to support a general system of parity prices.
There is a lot of opposition in the country to the concept of parity prices, and in the main the opposition is led by people who have parity prices for themselves. It is led by the big newspaper companies, it is led by Canada Packers, by Massey-Harris, by the big industrialists, by the great friends of the Conservative party and the great friends of the Liberal party. These people say it is wrong and foolish that the prices of agricultural products should be tied to the farmers' cost of production, but when they have anything to sell they, of course, not only tie their price to the cost of production but after having done that they add a very substantial sum to that formula and obtain for themselves very handsome profits.
When we advance the concept of parity prices all we are seeking to do is to give the farmer and agriculture something that is already enjoyed by every other major industry in the country, namely, that the products they have to sell will be related to the cost of producing those products. Certainly under the policy being followed at the present time there is no relationship between farm prices and the cost of production.
Even some consumers seem to feel that they have a stake in low prices for farm products, that if they can get prices to the farmer for agricultural products down the cost of food will come down, but that is very often not correct. It is quite possible, in fact, it often happens that when the farmer from time to time receives less and less for his product the consumer pays more and more for the same product. Therefore it is not amazing at all to find that from 1948 to 1953 the farmer's share of the consumer dollar was reduced from 59-3 to 53 and that from 1951 to 1955, when the index for farm product prices was dropping from approximately 116 to 98, a drop of 18 points, the drop in retail prices of food was only 3 points. The drop in the case of the producer was six times as great as the very small drop in retail food prices.
[Mr. Argue.l
I say it is possible to have adequate farm prices and reasonable costs to the consumer.
I believe that under the policies that have been followed we have not only allowed farm prices to fall to drastic levels but we have also created in the mind of the consumer the idea that if any savings are to be made they are to be made in shopping for food and that the thing to do is to get food prices as low as possible. How many consumers, how many men and women of this country are looking for bargains in food when they go out to buy. They expect to get cheap food. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) would like to see the floor price on butter reduced. He is one who would like to see lower food prices, bargain food prices, but the very same consumers who when they go shopping hope to get bedrock food prices think it is quite all right, quite in order, quite proper, to pay a very high price for a television set, a refrigerator or a new automobile. They do not go around shopping for bargains. They say that they want a good product, a quality product and they expect to pay a good price for a quality product.
I think it is wrong, I think it is ridiculous, for the government to allow food prices to fluctuate to such very low levels from the point of view of return to the farmer as they have been doing in recent times. All food commodities are going down. Under the policy being followed by the government the purchasing power of wheat is lower now than it has been in any ten-year period since 1891. The purchasing power of a bushel of wheat in 1953-54 was 70 cents. In the great depression from 1931 to 1940 the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat was 80 cents. The grain producer is losing out in the price-cost squeeze.
The results of these falling prices are very evident in the returns for farm cash income and farm net income. From 1951 to 1955- 1955 is an estimated figure-farm cash income fell from $2,811 million to $2,323 million. In the three year period from 1951 to 1954 farm net income fell from $2,154 million to $1,125 million, or a drop of 48 per cent in net income in a three year period. That is the result of the policy of the Liberal government. That is the result of the policy of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), a policy that over a three year period allows farm net income to fall by 48 per cent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of National Health and Welfare cannot argue against statistics produced by a branch of the department of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The government keeps saying time after time

that the country is prosperous, that the gross national product is going up, that everybody is becoming better and better off under the policies of a benevolent Liberal government, so they say. They are prepared to point out that the gross national product has risen from $21-4 billion in 1951 to $26-4 billion in 1955, an increase of $5 billion in the gross national product in a four year period.
Most segments of the economy are becoming more prosperous. The standard of living in most sections of the economy is going up, but, to the everlasting disgrace of the government, at a time of increased welfare for most sections of the economy the agricultural industry is falling into a depression at a very alarming rate. Does the government do anything about it? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! Not a single policy is being advanced by the government or even being discussed by the government that is aimed at stopping a further deterioration in the prices of agricultural products.
Has the farmer any reason to expect better treatment? I think he has. Although it has been quoted many times in the house,
I think it is well that I should quote again the statement made by the late prime minister, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, in a national radio broadcast on December 4, 1943, when he said:
If, to help the war effort, fanners are asked to accept a ceiling on prices, we believe they are entitled to a floor under prices to assure them against an agricultural depression after the war.
That was a very definite commitment by the late prime minister, another one of the commitments of the Liberal government that has never been kept. It has been made and forgotten. I should not say that the government did not make the gesture of keeping it, that they did not do a lot of window dressing. As a matter of fact, the window dressing it was prepared to do in this regard was to write a provision into a statute not as a governing part of the statute but merely as a kind of slogan. I refer to the Agricultural Prices Support Act passed in 1946. In dealing with the procedure to be followed by the appointed board the act has this to say:
. . . the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions_
And listen to this:
-and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
I suggest to the government that if it means what it says in the Agricultural Prices Support Act, it should be proposing legislation that will give to agricultural producers for
12, 1956
Economic Position of Agriculture their products prices that bear a fair relationship to their costs and will give to the farmer returns that bear a fair relationship to the returns given in other occupations.
Once again we find a promise by the government that has never been kept. As far as the agricultural industry is concerned, the government has adopted a policy that is slowly wrecking agriculture in every province in this country, and the situation is not confined to the wheat provinces. Sometimes people say that we in this group talk too much about wheat. But let us relate this motion to every product other than wheat and let us relate it to every province, if you like other than the three prairie provinces. I make the statement that agriculture in every province of Canada is in an extremely difficult position, that the farmers are facing continuously lowering prices for agricultural products in face of a rising cost of production, and that the farmer in Canada today is going broke under the policies of the Liberal government.
We thought that something might be done. We expected something to come from the federal-provincial conference. We expected something would come of that conference because we understood there was on the agenda an item which was to deal with the calling of a federal-provincial farm marketing conference on a general basis. Many of the provincial governments and certainly the farm organizations were calling for a general federal-provincial conference on marketing policies. Agricultural organizations were asking for representation.
What happened? Nothing came of it. They were turned down. When the conference was held on Friday, as far as the farmer is concerned the Prime Minister said no, and as far as everybody else was concerned at that conference he said no. It was probably the most expensive conference that has ever been held in Canada, for the purpose of listening to one two-letter word, namely "no" from the Prime Minister. The premiers and their advisers were called from all across this nation and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance in an arrogant manner say to the provinces, "we will have nothing to do with discussing any further improvement in policies-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Were you at the conference?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Were you?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: From the Prime Minister this afternoon we had confirmation of precisely what I am now saying, namely that the government said no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order.

Economic Position of Agriculture


Hazen Robert Argue: It will not be a point of order,
I am sure.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend said that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance arrogantly said no. Once again my hon. friend is wrong. The Prime Minister was not arrogant. Nowhere in the reply will he find a definite no. It is simply another example of my hon. friend's continuous state of inaccuracy.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I am in a continuous state of inaccuracy as suggested, nobody knows it other than the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), apparently. The Prime Minister does not know. The newspapers do not know.


James Sinclair: You do not know.


Hazen Robert Argue: Some of the premiers and some of the others coming out of that conference do not know it because their impression was that they had come all across this country to hear said to them, "No. If you want something more, the answer is no. If you want a federal-provincial agricultural conference, the answer is no".


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I should add a "no".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Were you there too?


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: We are discussing an amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and it is not in order to discuss, under that particular amendment, the provincial-federal conference of a few days ago.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the point I was trying to make was this. At that conference there was discussed the question of whether or not a federal-provincial conference should be held to discuss agricultural marketing policies. I suggest-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. In order that there may be no confusion as to the course which this debate should take, may I draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that we are discussing an amendment to the motion to go into supply. In Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, at page 421 he will find the following extract:
When an amendment has been moved to the question for the Speaker to leave the chair, discussion should be properly confined to its subject-matter.
The hon. member just mentioned agricultural marketing policies. May I point out to the hon. member that in this session we

have already dealt with a subamendment which was in these words:
Their failure to adopt and implement agricultural and marketing policies designed effectively to keep farm cash income in Canada at a just and economic level.


Hazen Robert Argue: What was the date of that amendment, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: The amendment was moved by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) and seconded by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Yuill) on January 20 of this year and was negatived on January 24. The amendment which we are at present discussing is in the following terms:
in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to create a parity of prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship.
The hon. member will realize that he started off in his remarks to discuss that particular problem but latterly, in my opinion, he has been dealing with other matters. In view of the amendment of the hon. member for New Westminster, which I have just read, in view of the fact that we have had ample opportunities to discuss the general farm problems already in this session, and in view of the fact that the first item of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture has not been passed and that this item affords a further opportunity to discuss the general situation, I feel that hon. members would wish me to attempt to see to it that discussion on this particular amendment is strictly relevant to the amendment itself. I would ask for the co-operation of the hon. member.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I had momentarily overlooked the amendment that had already been voted on earlier in this session. I shall therefore be pleased to leave any discussion of that particular question at this time.
The motion we have before the house calls on the government to adopt a system of parity prices for agricultural products, the basis of the policy of the government ever since December, 1943, when it was enunciated by the late prime minister. We say that today there should be no reason that the opposition would have to move this kind of an amendment. That has been the stated policy of the government. But it has forgotten about its own policy. It has turned its back on its own commitments. As far as the farmer is concerned, the government's policies have been a flop. The government has failed the farmer. It has failed the farmer in other ways in addition to failure to provide him

with a system of prices that will allow him to stay in business and make a profit. As a matter of fact, other agricultural legislation on the statute books has been allowed to deteriorate. The value of it has been allowed to wither away.
In 1939 we had the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The maximum payment at that time was $500, but the value of the payment has largely been cut in half because of the increased cost of production and the decreased purchasing power of the dollar. Prairie farm assistance which has been of great benefit to the farmers in time of crop failure is now only a partial benefit. It is only a shadow of what it once was. The Liberal government cannot say too often in this house and in other places that it believes in free enterprise, that it believes in private enterprise. The Liberal government does not believe in private enterprise at all. It believes in corporation enterprise, big business enterprise. In my opinion there are only two main groups in this country that are today engaged in private enterprise where the individual has an enterprise and where he is in competition with other individuals in the same enterprise. I refer, of course, to the over
600,000	farmers in this nation. One could name the farmers and the local storekeepers. They are the private enterprisers.
They are in a bad way under policies followed by this government which allow and encourage corporations to grow and gobble up the local merchants, and which allow only the huge farmer to make any kind of reasonable return, thus driving the farmers off the land. These policies are wrecking the farmers and making them go broke. These policies are making bankruptcy the way out for many local merchants in this country. So far as the local storekeeper is concerned, about all the government has ever done for them is to print in the Canada Gazette the fact that he has gone bankrupt; that is about all the attention the local merchant ever obtains from this government. This government does not believe in private enterprise at all. It believes in a policy which wrecks the only two large groups in our country today that are bona fide free enterprisers, namely the local merchant and the farmer. The policy of the government is to get rid of both occupational groups, in an economic sense, just as fast as it can.
The government's policy is not good at home and it is not good internationally. We have surpluses of agricultural products at home, and instead of worrying or complaining about these surpluses we should be glad we have food surpluses. We should be glad that in Canada today there are substantial
Economic Position of Agriculture reserves of food. We should be adopting a policy that will move that food to the people in Canada who need it and to the people in the world who need increased quantities. The other day the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) stated in this house that many people in his constituency were starving. He got the horse laugh from some people when he made that statement. I make the statement that it is a fact that in every single constituency in Canada, urban and rural, there are people who are starving. They may not be starving in the sense that they are hungry but they are starving in the sense that they are nutritionally starving. They can eat only certain kinds of food, not the protective foods. They cannot afford anything better. There are tens of thousands of old age pensioners, particularly in those provinces where there is no subsidy and particularly in areas where they have to pay large sums for room rent, who are nutritionally hungry. That being a fact, and with such huge surpluses of food as we have now available, butter, pork, milk, grain of all kinds, the government should undertake a plan to enable those people to purchase greater quantities of food.
I would suggest a food stamp plan. I would suggest a supplementary payment for the increased purchase of food for old age pensioners, blind pensioners and all of those persons who are receiving assistance in that way from the federal government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why don't they do that in Saskatchewan?


Hazen Robert Argue: We are doing far more on a provincial basis in Saskatchewan for old age pensioners than is the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I should like to see him and his government match the supplementary payments that are being made in Saskatchewan. I should like to see him hurry up with his health program, about which he is so often so voluble.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Sure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He has suggested he would like to see the federal government do as much for old age security as the government of Saskatchewan. Will my hon. friend not say that the federal government pays more to old age pensioners than the province of Saskatchewan? Will my hon. friend not say the province of British Columbia pays more for old age pensioners than does the province of Saskatchewan?

Economic Position of Agriculture Mr. Depuly Speaker: Order. I think both For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, hon. members will realize that this discussion on behalf of this group, to move the amend-is out of order.	ment to which I have referred.


Hazen Robert Argue: In that regard I can say the record of the Saskatchewan government is far better in every respect than is the record of the government of which the minister is a part.
I have an amendment to move, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson). It reads:
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding thereafter the following words:
"in such a manner as to provide for a fair share of the national income for agriculture."
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we in this group would like to see the government appropriate a substantial sum of money to enable food to be available to the hungry people of the world. I am glad we have been able to sell wheat to the iron curtain countries. I shudder to think what would happen to the free world if the communists at this time had a surplus of food and we had a deficit because the communists would know what to do with it. They would be out using it-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. I must once more ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the terms of the amendment which is before us.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, Mr. Speaker, with great respect I suggest if you are going to have a parity program for agriculture you have to have in that program a method for disposing of food surplus. I would suggest-


Henry Alfred Hosking: Or controls on production.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is all the Liberals can think about, controls on production; restriction. They never once think of feeding the people in this country who are hungry. They never once think of making our surplus food available to needy people in the world because they have forgotten their Liberal philosophy. They have forgotten to undertake policies which will move surplus foods to the underdeveloped countries. I can see the Minister of National Health and Welfare looking aghast. But I want to say to him that the record of this government in relation to the needs of the people of the world, in relation to our huge surplus of food products, leaves more to be desired than probably the record of any democratic country. We have huge surpluses. This government, on a per capita or on any other basis, does a whole lot less than does the government of the United States.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I may say we intend to support the amendment and the subamendment, because a policy of support prices for agriculture is absolutely essential in order that the industry be put in a position where it can operate on a sound basis.
I quite realize that a great deal has been said in this house during the past few years on the question of support prices. Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that a great deal has been said, very little has been done by the federal government in that regard. Until such time as the government does show greater attention to the need for support prices for agriculture that will make it possible for the farmers of this country to receive their fair share of the national income, discussions such as we are having today will continue.
It seems very strange to me that while the government shows very little attention to this question, on the other hand it recognizes the results of the situation. Instead of trying to cure the situation the government merely tries to take care of the result. By that I mean already this session they have brought down four bills making it possible for people to borrow more and more money. They recognize the fact that their policies today are driving the people farther and farther into debt. So, what do we have? We have had four bills already this session to make it possible for the people to borrow more money and go farther into debt. We have had the small loans bill, the farm loans board bill, the industrial bank bill and the bill to make loans available to farmers against wheat in storage.
As I say, apparently they recognize that their policies today are driving the people farther and farther into debt, and instead of trying to change the situation so that people do not have to go farther into debt, they merely open the doors to permit them to go still farther into debt which, Mr. Speaker, is not a solution. It can only lead this country into difficulties in the future.
The policy of support prices is criticized on two main counts. First of all, we hear it said, it is a hand-out; the farmers want another hand-out. The newspapers in eastern Canada and the financial institutions are very good at making that charge. Hardly a week passes that you do not find that charge made in some eastern paper. Strangely enough, I have never seen those papers criticize one

subsidy, namely that on gold, a direct handout, year after year, a hand-out far greater than the supports given to agriculture under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, leaving out the question of foot-and-mouth disease. If they are so much opposed to the idea of subsidies, why do these institutions not criticize the subsidy on gold? It all depends on whom the subsidy is for when they criticize it.
One hates to travel over ground that has been travelled over many times before in this house; nevertheless, so long as the present situation exists we shall continue to have to repeat things that have been said in former years, especially by farm organizations that come down here year after year and ask the federal government to take action.
What is the justification for support prices? I maintain the farmers of this country are not asking for a hand-out; they are not asking for anything to be given to them. They believe they have paid a premium on certain insurance, and now they expect the insurance to be made available. Let us go back to the 1930's, the depression years, when the prices of farm products were at a very low level. Anyone in this house who was farming in those years will remember what was said when the farm organizations appealed to the government for support prices on farm products. They were told no, this was an international situation. Prices had fallen in the world markets and the government could not do anything about it. The farmers could not expect to get more than world market prices.
That was the situation in the 1930's, and the farmers continued to get low prices. Then the war came along. Within a very few years after the declaration of war, farm prices went up. It might have been ppssible then for the farmers to recoup their losses and pay off some of the debt that had been accumulated in those years when wheat had been selling at 19 cents a bushel and other things at a similar level. The farmers were hoping that for a few years, anyway, they would get prices that would make it possible for them to pay off their debt's; but what happened? When prices went up in the world markets the government stepped into the picture and said, "World prices are too high. You cannot have world prices because we are going to put a ceiling on them." I maintain you cannot adopt the attitude that on the one hand when world prices are down the farmers have to take them, and on the other hand when world prices go up the farmers cannot have them. That has been the policy of this 67509-129
Economic Position of Agriculture government in the past, and that is largely the reason the farmers have suffered in the past. If it is fair to make the farmer take low prices when world prices are low, then it is only fair to let him have the high prices when world prices are high, and I shall quote some figures to prove that this has not been the case.
Apparently the government of the day realized there was some justification for what I am saying, because the prime minister of the day, Mr. Mackenzie King, as has already been mentioned, did state that in view of the government's policy the government would take steps to stabilize farm prices after the war, and the Agricultural Prices Support Act was enacted, which contains words to the effect that farm prices will be maintained at a fair relationship. Perhaps I should quote from the section of the act which deals with that question. Paragraph 9, subsection 2, reads:
In prescribing prices under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (1), the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
Mark this:
[DOT]-a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
Today the farmers represent around 16 per cent of the population, and they are getting 6-8 per cent of the national income, which shows that something has slipped very badly somewhere.
In my opinion the Agricultural Prices Support Act is a good act. The only trouble is that it is not wide enough; it does not provide support prices, apparently, for a sufficient number of agricultural products. For instance, it does not include grain. Quite a number of farm organizations have asked that grain be brought under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. As I say, it is a good act. I have no quarrel with the formula that was laid down, namely that the price of farm products today should be maintained at such a level that it will bear the same relationship to the price of other commodities as existed in the base years 1943, 1944 and 1945. That is the general basis for setting support prices.
When you take into consideration the fact that in 1943, 1944 and 1945 the prices of farm products were not high in relation to the prices of other commodities, I think the farmers are justified in expecting that under the Agricultural Prices Support Act farm prices today would be maintained at a parity with those three years. But what do we find? According to the agricultural prices

Econc.idc Position of Agriculture support board we find that the support price for butter is only 84-6 per cent of parity, of those base years; the support price of 23 cents on hogs is only 83 per cent of parity of that base, and the support price of 38 cents on eggs is only 56 per cent of parity of that base. That shows that the floor prices on the few products supported today are still quite a bit below the formula laid down by the government.
Wheat, of course, does not come under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. As I say, farm organizations have asked that grain should be brought under that act. It is interesting to note that if grain were brought under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, then the price of wheat, on the basis of the three years 1943, 1944 and 1945, according to the dominion bureau of statistics would be $2.27 a bushel.
Some people say, well, what would be the reaction of the public if the government maintained support prices at that level? For instance, what would be the attitude of labour? Well, I understand labour has already taken a stand supporting it. I refer to the brief of the interprovincial farm union council, presented to the government on February 16, 1956, and quote from page 13 in reference to this question:
That the consumer would not resist any move that would reimburse farmers on an equitable basis has been proven by the fact that the two main organized labour groups, C.T.L.C. and C.C.L., are on record as being in support of the principle of a fair and equitable price to the primary producer of agricultural products.
No doubt labour realizes it has a very substantial market in the farm industry, and if they hope to be able to sell to the farmers in large volume then the farmers will have to be able to pay for the goods they buy from the secondary industries. In order to do so the farmers will have to receive a price that bears a fair relationship to the prices on other commodities.
The wheat producer is, of course, in worse shape than the majority of farm producers because the price of grain has dropped lower than the price of any other farm commodity. Here again the grain farmers are fully justified in insisting upon an adequate support price today, in view of the fact that they did take a price considerably below the world market price in the years 1945 to 1949.
I have in my hand figures showing the losses that were suffered under the British wheat agreement by comparison with the world market price for class 2 wheat in the years 1946 to 1950, during which period the farmers lost $431,676,844. Then as the result of subsidizing the Canadian consumer at the same price at which we sold wheat to Britain

instead of at the world market price, the farmers lost another $136,920,921. If you add those two figures together you get an over-all total of $568,597,765. If you subtract from that figure $65 million which the government paid to the farmers on account of their losses, you have a net loss of approximately half a billion dollars.
Therefore I do not think any one can argue that the farmers in asking for a support price today are asking for a hand-out. They are merely asking compensation for something they have already paid. They have already paid the premium of half a billion dollars in regard to wheat and many hundreds of millions in regard to prices on other commodities.
I say this in view of the fact that they accepted prices considerably below the world market prices. There are several ways in which support prices may be paid or in which a parity price may be guaranteed. Personally I think the farmers are justified in asking for 100 per cent of parity with the period from 1943 to 1945 for all their produce whether it is sold in Canada or on the external market. On the other hand, however, we recognize that we have no control over the external market, though we do have control over the prices at which commodities are sold in this country.
We in this group have always advocated the adoption of the two-price system. It is interesting to note that the interprovincial farm union has also adopted this policy; that is, a parity price for the production of agricultural products consumed in Canada, and the best price that can be obtained on the world market, preferably through international agreement, for the farm produce sold abroad with a reasonable floor placed under the goods exported abroad.
After all, when you consider that approximately 94 per cent of all farm produce apart from wheat is consumed in Canada, there is no reason why we should allow the 6 per cent that is exported to set the price for the 94 per cent consumed in this country. Therefore we have advocated the two-price system, not because we do not think the farmers are justified in asking for a parity price on all their produce but because it is far easier to put a two-price system into operation. After we have had it in operation, then will be time enough to think about trying to obtain a parity price on the total production.
There are some people who will say that the adoption of a policy which will give the farmers of this country a price for their commodity that will return to them their fair share of the national income will expand the

amount of our surpluses. In that regard I think the time is long overdue for the government to announce a long-term policy. What is the government's policy regarding agricultural production? I think the government should announce to the farmers just what it wants them to do in regard to production. Does the government want the farmers to reduce their production or to maintain it at its present level? If the government wants them to maintain it at the present level, then no one can argue that a policy of price support is to blame for present levels of production, because if the government does not want production to be maintained at present levels it will have to adopt a policy whereby production can be restricted. But just so long as the government does not want production to be restricted there can be no criticism of the farmers' present level of production. When you consider the international situation wherein, according to the FAO, 50 per cent of the population is hungry, I think we can then agree that a policy of maintaining production at a high level is essential at this time.
We in this group have always stated in so far as external markets are concerned that we feel the government should make food available to all those nations who are unable to obtain it through normal channels of trade by such means as acceptance of foreign currency, by barter agreements or in some cases by way of gifts. In so far as the domestic market is concerned, we feel we still have quite a large potential market for increased agricultural production in this country.
The federation of agriculture in its brief suggested a number of means by which we could increase the consumption of dairy products. The federation suggested a free school lunch milk program, a continuation of the policy of making butter available to institutions, and some form of a stamp coupon program in order to get milk and butter to needy people. From time to time we have advocated a similar policy in this house. We have pointed out that a stamp coupon program could be adopted which would be similar to the stamp program carried out in the United States shortly before the war.
It is also interesting to note that the Canadian consumers' association, in a pamphlet they recently put out, also advocated a free school lunch milk program in order to expand the consumption of milk and an expansion of the program of converting milk into milk powder so it can be more easily stored.
If our surpluses continue to rise after the government has done everything conceivably possible to expand our markets for agricultural produce both in the domestic and external fields, I believe the government should 67509-129J
Economic Position of Agriculture then try to build up fairly substantial reserves of all farm commodities that can be stored against the day when crop failures might come. If when we have built up satisfactory reserves surpluses continue, I think the government would be justified in introducing a policy along the lines of the policy it adopted during the war, known as the wheat acreage reduction policy. I would say that policy would only be justified provided they had done everything in their power to expand the domestic and foreign markets and had built up substantial reserves to carry us over for two or three years of crop failures. They might set up something like the soil bank provided by President Eisenhower of the United States to encourage farmers to take poor land out of cultivation and put it into grass or forest. This would help to restore the fertility of the land; and if it were necessary to expand production later on, that land which had been sown to grass and was therefore in a more fertile state could be broken up and put into grain once again.
I submit that the government definitely owes it to the farmers of this country to announce just what they want in that regard. If they want the farmers to continue to expand their production, then they should guarantee that they will not have to suffer a lower price. If on the other hand the government feels that our production of agricultural products today is as high as it is wise to maintain it, the government should announce that and bring in a policy similar to that adopted in the United States in order to encourage farmers to preserve the fertility of their soil.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, in seconding the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert I should like to say first to the C.C.F. party to my left that this is definitely not a new policy on the part of the Progressive Conservative party. To prove this I go back to April 8, 1941, where I find on page 2280 of Hansard of that day an amendment moved by the then hon. member for Lake Centre, the present hon. member for Prince Albert, reading as follows:
That all the words after "that" in the motion be struck out, and the following be substituted therefor:
"it be resolved that the government should take immediate steps to create a parity of prices as between agricultural and other products in order to improve the condition of Canadian agriculture and in order that it may receive a just and fair return, and thus be enabled to make that contribution to Canada's war effort which is so desirable, and which our agricultural population so greatly desire to make."
That should make it plain to the C.C.F. party that this was first brought into the

Economic Position of Agriculture House of Commons by the hon. member for Prince Albert back in 1941.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the hon. member go back to 1931?


John Alpheus Charlton: I will go back to 1931 in a few minutes if my hon. friend will just wait. I should like now to quote from a speech made by a former leader of this party, John Bracken, at Lethbridge in 1943, when he said:
In order to prevent wide fluctuations of farm prices we shall, in the case of our major export products, provide a floor price below which they will not be permitted to fall, and we shall allow to the producers the benefit of any advance thereon. Since price ceilings are now being maintained to prevent farm prices from rising to high levels in wartime, we shall see to it that price floors are provided, to prevent farm prices from dropping to unfair levels in peacetime. There should not be price ceilings on farm prices to prevent inflation in wartime, without price floors to prevent deflation in peacetime.
Then on March 23, 1953, the hon. member for Prince Albert moved another motion, to be found at page 3208 of Hansard for that year, as follows:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to provide floor prices for agricultural products at such levels as to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship."
Surely that will answer the suggestion made by the hon. member for Assiniboia that this is a new policy on our part. It is not a new policy; we have stood for this policy for 15 years, and we are going to stick with it. As far as the C.C.F. subamendment is concerned we are quite willing to support it.
In regard to the criticism that we did not support the motion moved by the C.C.F. party on May 17, 1954, I think I should reread that motion, which is reported on page 4797 of Hansard and is as follows:
That all the words after the word "That" to the end of the question be struck out and that the following words be substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to demonstrating its support of the principle of orderly marketing through livestock marketing boards by announcing floor prices with respect to cattle and hogs at levels not less than the average of the prices which prevailed during the period from January 1, 1951 to December 31. 1953".
This party has never been in favour of a definite stated price for any particular period. We submit that it should be an elastic price. I think probably I should quote the remarks of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris to be found on page 4812 of Hansard for that same date. The hon. member said:
As a matter of fact, the present plan has been repudiated by the majority of livestock producer

groups in the province because it is too compulsory and, as has been indicated by the hon. member for Calgary North, it approximates socialized marketing. Among the groups who have not given their support to the plan are the Manitoba pools, which in a largely attended meeting in the city of Brandon just a few weeks ago, while supporting the broad principle of producer marketing boards, opposed to the extent of 90 per cent the proposal that has been put forward by the Manitoba farmers union. Also the Manitoba cattle producers association is opposed to the present plan.
I think we were quite justified in opposing that plan when it had been opposed by so many farm organizations across the country. The hon. member for Mackenzie suggested that I should go back to the 1930's, and I am ready to do that. I am willing to admit that when the Conservative government gave up power in 1935 the prices of agricultural products were low, but I would point out also that after five years of Liberal administration the inequality between the prices of the products the farmer had to buy and the prices of the products he had to sell had grown steadily worse.
In 1935, when the Liberals came into power, the parity prices were 20 per cent below; in 1940, after five years of Liberal administration, they had dropped to 23 per cent below parity. That should answer any question about the 1930's. I will say to the hon. member for Mackenzie that we are almost back now to the same ratio; we are closer to it than we have been at any time since 1932. I have here the Economic Annalist for February, 1956, volume 26, No. 1.
To prove the statement I have just made, I want to give farm prices of agricultural products from 1935 to 1940 on the basis of 100 for the 1935-39 price. In 1935 the figure was 88, in 1936 it was 96-9, in 1937 it was 119-7, in 1938 it was 105, in 1939 it was 91-8 and in 1940 it was 96-8. There was a rise of only 8-8 points in the period from 1935 to 1940. In the case of commodities and services used by farmers and taking the same period of years, 1935 to 1940, there was rise from 95-4 to 106-8, or an increase of 11-4 points. While farm prices fell 8-8 points the commodities the farmers were forced to buy rose 11-4 points.
Then we have the period from 1951 to the present time. On the same basis agricultural products have dropped from 296-8 in 1951 to a figure of 225 -05 for 1955, this figure being the average for the first eleven months of the year. That is a drop of 71-8 points. In the same period commodities and services used by the farmers have risen from 230 to 251-3, or an increase of 21-3 points.
I believe that gives a fairly good idea, Mr. Speaker, of the net position of the farmers of the country today, and after all it is the

net position that actually counts. The Minister of Agriculture can bring all the figures he likes on gross income and net worth statements, but the net income is the only one the farmer knows what it actually means as far as money in his pocket is concerned.
To go back again, I think most people from the west will remember the famous Gardiner dodgers that were used there in 1934 in the campaign prior to the election in 1935. 1 want to refer to what was on the dodger. It contained these words:
Dollar wheat will give you a job and enable you to own your own home. Dollar wheat will pay for your light and water and give you a telephone. Dollar wheat will pay your grocery bill and buy boots, shoes and clothing for the whole family.


William Earl Rowe: 'WJho said that?


John Alpheus Charlton: The Minister of Agriculture. He was not minister then but later became Minister of Agriculture. I continue:
Dollar wheat can provide a surplus for a rainy day. Vote Liberal.
What happened?


Frank Exton Lennard: You cannot buy the overalls.


James Garfield Gardiner: There have never been any Tories elected since. That is what happened.


William Earl Rowe: You did a good job of fooling the people.


John Alpheus Charlton: In 1935 the price of wheat was 87 J cents a bushel. What happened to it from 1935 to 1940? It never did reach $1 a bushel until after two years of the world war. Yet the minister had the audacity to go across the country promising the farmers they would get dollar wheat. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, wheat went down to 60 cents a bushel. The government wanted to pay the farmers 60 cents for their wheat in 1938, I believe.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend wants to be correct. The government offered an initial payment of 60 cents, not 60 cents a bushel for wheat.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is what I just said.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no; you said 60 cents for wheat.


John Alpheus Charlton: The government offered 60 cents as an initial payment.


William Earl Rowe: Your initial payment was less than they got under the former government.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact the initial payment was made at 70 cents. It was not 60 cents.


William Earl Rowe: That was 17 cents below what was paid by the former government, still 17 cents low.
Economic Position of Agriculture


John Alpheus Charlton: If the minister will just contain himself I shall go ahead and say what happened. If it had not been for a deputation of farmers from the western provinces they would have only received 60 cents, but there was such an outcry that the government was forced to make the initial payment 70 cents. During the campaign in 1934 before the 1935 election they also promised a terrific increase in exports. I have placed on Hansard, on a previous occasion what actually did happen to exports prior to the time the Conservatives came into power in 1930 and after the Liberals came back into power in 1935. With the exception of three cases there was an increase in exports to Great Britain when the Conservatives were in power over what they were in 1929 or 1936. The table to which I refer can be found at page 3566 cf Hansard of April 7, 1953.
It is not necessary for me to go over all these figures. As I say, with the exception of three cases where exports were a little higher in 1929 than in 1934, the year I have here, exports were smaller in 1929 and 1936 than in 1934. These are dominion bureau of statistics figures and I do not think the minister can refute them.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not correct.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister has just said they are not correct.


James Garfield Gardiner: The price of wheat in 1936 was one of the highest prices we had in that period.


John Alpheus Charlton: I did not s'ay anything about prices. I referred to the export figures to Great Britain for the various products shown in this table, and I challenge the minister to say they are wrong. They are dominion bureau of statistics figures-


Frank Exton Lennard: He would not know.


John Alpheus Charlton: -and I do not think they can be said to be wrong.


William Earl Rowe: Are you taking the average? Maybe he is taking a special day.


James Garfield Gardiner: $1.22 a bushel for wheat.


William Earl Rowe: What day was that?


James Garfield Gardiner: The average through the
year 1936-37.


John Alpheus Charlton: In the brief submitted to the cabinet by the interprovincial farm union council there is a very interesting table on page 4. As a matter of fact, it shows beyond any doubt that at the present time wheat is selling at a lower price as far as purchasing power is concerned than it was during the period from 1930 to 1939 or at any time during the history of this country with the

Economic Position of Agriculture possible exception of 1931 and 1932. It is table 3 on page 4 of the brief and is headed, "Purchasing Power of a Bushel of Wheat Basis Fort William". Would it be possible to have this table placed on the record?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Did
the hon. member indicate the source of the table?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, I said it was taken from page 4 of the brief of the interprovincial farm union council, submitted to the government of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
it agreed that the hon. member has permission to place these figures on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Alpheus Charlton: 
James Garfield Gardiner: That is included in the first $3 million.


John Alpheus Charlton: I know that a great error was made in suggesting that the floor price on butter cost the taxpayers of Canada $8 million in one year. If it is $8 million-and I am not suggesting it will reach that amount; but according to the Minister of Agriculture it might do so by this next May 1-that will be for seven years instead of one. I think it is just as well to get that situation clear.
As I say, the total subsidies paid by the government under this act were some $83 million. As is not known by many, all subsidies are not paid to agriculture. I want to be clear on this point. There is a considerable amount in the way of subsidies that go to industries other than agriculture. From 1946, when the agricultural prices support board came into being, of the total subsidies paid out by this government in only four years out of the nine was over 50 per cent received by agriculture. In five of those nine years over 50 per cent was received by industries other than agriculture, and they are quite numerous. I do not want to go over them.


John George Diefenbaker: Clear the matter up.
Economic Position of Agriculture Mr. Charlton: For instance, in 1954 the following government subsidies were paid:
Government subsidies 1954 Federal:	($ Millions)
Department of Agriculture:
Feed freight assistance, western grain	19
Hog premiums	 5
Agricultural prices support board loss ..	4
Miscellaneous:
Payments, co-operative marketing act	4
Lime assistance	 1
Premiums cheese	 1
Total agriculture	 34
Other federal subsidies:
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act	15
Maritime Freight Rates Act	 H
Movement of coal	 12
Miscellaneous:
Steamship subventions	 4
Payments, re trackage C.N.R. and
C.P.R	 7
Other	 2
Total other	 51
"Other" includes payments re immigrants en route; fishing bounty; payments re Canadian coal; drydock subsidies; subsidies- salvage companies; subventions-air carriers; payments re fisheries price support and destruction of harbour seals. In that case the agricultural subsidies paid out were $34 million and subsidies paid out to other industries were $51 million.
There are many other subsidies in addition to those, Mr. Speaker, that are paid by consumers by reason of tariff protection. However, it is not my intention to go into that now. I admit that tariff protection is necessary in a good many cases. But if this is so, is it not just as reasonable that the farmers should have protection as well? The present economic plight of the farmers generally is serious.
I want to go back again to the brief of the farm union, page 6, where it is definitely stated that 38 per cent of the farmers in this country have a gross income of less than $1,200 a year. I repeat that 38 per cent of the total number of farmers in Canada have a gross income of less than $1,200 a year. The minister might have been right when he said back in 1953, as I distinctly recall, that if the figures could be produced, 90 per cent of the farmers in eastern Canada did not make enough to pay income tax. Probably he was closer to being right than he thought at that time.
Then again, as was stated by the hon. member for Assiniboia this afternoon, from 1951 to date the net income of all farmers in Canada has been reduced by 48-22 per cent. If anyone doubts that statement, Mr. Speaker, all he needs to do is drive around the rural districts and see the number of farm homes and farm buildings that are going to rack

Economic Position of Agriculture and ruin, actually tailing down in many cases. He could visit the county registrar's offices and find out the increase in the number of mortgages that have been put on farms in the last couple of years, or visit the township tax collector and find out how many people are in arrears on taxes in this last year. If anyone still does not believe that the farmers' situation is a bad one now, that is one way of finding out.
This, as I said, is the situation with regard to the farmers' income. While the general economy of Canada has probably never been better, the farmers, one industry, have suffered a 48-22 per cent decline in their income. Practically all others are receiving better incomes than they ever received in their lives before. Is that fair? No one, not even a person on the government side of the house, would state that was a fair situation, or one that could be ignored or about which the government could sit back and take a do nothing attitude.
A Financial Post survey shows that 25 corporations dealing with farmers increased their average profits after taxes by 402 per cent between 1946 and 1954. One of the larger packing companies indicates in its annual report that the average profit over the last 10 years was 27-5 per cent of their capital investment. I would venture to say that there are very few farmers who would not be tickled to death if they could average 2 per cent or 3 per cent net on their capital investment every year.
While some of these companies admit that they buy as cheaply as possible and sell for ss much as possible, most farmers are forced to pay the prices they are asked and to sell for what they are offered. In order to improve their marketing position, many commodity groups have set up plans under provincial marketing legislation to sell their products. Many such plans are in operation in Ontario now, and have been quite successful. Most farmers feel that this method of marketing is one solution to the problem, but certainly it cannot be said that farmers' organizations are not trying to help themselves by every possible avenue open to them.
In view of the fact that the two main labour organizations, the Trades and Labour Congress and the Canadian Congress of Labour, are on record as being in support of the principle of equitable prices to the primary producers of agricultural products, why does this government stubbornly refuse to make adequate use of the existing floor price legislation? We ask, as we have asked on various previous occasions, that the government bring forward an amendment to include in the Agricultural

Prices Support Act a formula which would ensure agriculture producers a fair and equitable basis for arriving at floor prices. The farmers of Canada, comprising approximately 17 per cent of the population in 1954, received 6-8 per cent of the national income. I know quite well, as does everyone else, that the 1955 figure will be still lower. The situation requires a realistic floor price policy for agriculture if the economy of our country is to be maintained at a reasonable level of prosperity.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I rise with pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to participate in this debate and support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert as well as the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia. One of the reasons we felt it was wise to add the subamendment was to make it quite clear that what is involved in this debate particularly is a question of principle rather than a question of method. We believe that when we discuss parity prices with respect to agriculture, this parliament should be asked to accept and adopt the principle that agriculture as a whole in this country, being a basic industry, should receive its fair share of the national income. The method by which that can be brought about can be discussed in greater detail after such time as this parliament has become committed to the principle.
This afternoon I should like to discuss this amendment under four headings. First of all, we have to establish who wants parity prices. As this debate continues I have no doubt there will be government members who will be tempted to get into the debate and try to prove that there is opposition to this proposition about parity prices. I think it would be interesting not only to assess who in this house is for and who against the principle of parity prices for agriculture, although that is fairly obvious, but also to note that the members of the opposition have not only in the debate this afternoon but on previous occasions expressed themselves in favour of similar motions to the one which is before us and which were placed before the house by my C.C.F. colleagues.
Therefore, so far as the three parties sitting in the opposition are concerned, there is no question with respect to their acceptance of that principle, but there may be some question as to how it is regarded on the other side of the house. By deduction we shall have to assume that the members of the government are opposed to this principle because in the past they have so expressed themselves. But I believe there are a large number of private members on the government side of the house, and perhaps more

particularly those members representing agricultural constituencies in western Canada, who are thoroughly in favour, in their own minds at least, of the proposition which we are now placing before the house. What I have to say this afternoon will be more or less directed to those members because, while the government may regard this motion as a want of confidence motion-it is their privilege, of course, so to regard it-yet I believe that if the government on this occasion were to announce that they are willing to allow this motion to go to a free vote of the house-and under the rules of the house that can be done-


James Garfield Gardiner: May I call the hon. member's attention to the fact that the mover of the motion indicated that it was a want of confidence motion, and went on to make his speech for the length of time he desired.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I beg to differ with the Minister of Agriculture on that, because I listened very carefully at that point. What the hon. member for Prince Albert said was that this was the kind of motion which he assumed the government would not be prepared to accept. That is a different thing from saying-


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker made it known that his time was just about exhausted. He said, "If it is considered a want of confidence motion, then you have all the time you wish", and the hon. member went on and took it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He had unlimited time, anyway. He was the first opposition member speaking in reply to a minister who had moved a government order.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Now that the expert on the rules from Winnipeg North Centre has informed the minister what the rules are, we may proceed with the question.
As I said, I listened very carefully to what the hon. member said when he moved his amendment. What he did say was this: Even though it was suggested to him from the Chair at the time that this motion may be considered a want of confidence motion, he assumed it was the kind of motion that the government was not prepared to accept. Now, that is a different thing entirely from a want of confidence motion.
The government, as a government-and I am speaking now of the cabinet-may have their own views. They may even have divergent views on this question. I rather suspect they have. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture would be in a position to give us some very interesting details on that. However, they are bound by tradition, perhaps, to adopt a common policy. If they have
Economic Position of Agriculture adopted the policy amongst themselves as being opposed to the principle of parity prices, then of course they will have to argue for their position and they cannot diverge. But there is nothing to prevent the private members, who normally support the government on questions of confidence, from expressing their own opinions as private members on this question, and voting as they see fit when the matter comes to vote.
What I was about to say when I was interrupted by the minister was this. The government could facilitate the situation so far as those private members are concerned by any one of the ministers-and I think most appropriately in this instance it would be the Minister of Agriculture-rising in his place and saying that while the government have adopted a certain position for certain reasons, they would like to have the free and open opinion of all the private members of the house, including those who support the government, on this question of principle. There would be no harm done.
If that were done, then those members who represent agriculture in this house, or who represent constituencies largely agricultural, would be in a position to state their opinions openly and clearly. If, under those conditions, they are still opposed to the principle of parity prices, then of course they should say so and their vote would logically follow their opinion.
But I am afraid that once again, as in the past, we are heading into a sort of cul-de-sac, where private members supporting the government have in their own constituencies and elsewhere in the country made speeches in support of this very principle, and have stated again and again that they are prepared to go along with this principle of parity prices; but when they come to this house, because the government holds them down to the definition of a want of confidence motion, of course they have the excuse when they go back to their constituencies to say, "Well, of course, we would like to have supported the motion. It was in line with our thinking, but in doing so we would have defeated the government and would have had to come back to the people in a general election.
Of course even that is a poor excuse, because in a democratic parliament no member, regardless of where he sits or what government he supports, should let the fact that a general election may result from the particular way in which he votes deter him from voting that way. After all, we are only representatives of the people here. We are the temporary trustees of the public trust as a parliament, and it is the electors themselves who should decide the main issues of the country. Be that as it may-
2042	HOUSE OF
Economic Position of Agriculture


Irvin William Studer: May I ask a question? How many free votes does the socialist government of Saskatchewan allow its members?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, we are now concerned with what is happening in this chamber, not with what is happening, or what the hon. member claims may be happening, somewhere else. I would suggest he address that question to his colleagues in the Saskatchewan legislature and they might be able to inform him on that question.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Is the hon. member satisfied that he has answered the question?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I simply have to state quite frankly that I am not in a position to answer a question arising out of what happens in the Saskatchewan legislature. I leave it to the members of that legislature to answer for themselves. The question before this house is whether the members of this house who sit on the government side-because they are the ones who are going to decide this issue-are prepared to express their opinions and by a free vote, a free opinion on the merits of the principle in this amendment rather than toeing the party line and voting simply to uphold the government. I hope that before the debate is over the Minister of Agriculture will rise in his place and give freedom to the followers of his party to speak and vote on this question as they please.
Who are the organizations, outside of the membership of this house, who are interested in this issue, and what are their views? I would like to call as the first witness the members of the Manitoba farmers' union in convention in Winnipeg on December 5, 6 and 7, 1955. One of the first resolutions that appeared on the agenda of that convention, which was carried, reads as follows:
Whereas decreased farm income due to depressed prices drastically affects the living standards of the farm family, and
Whereas there appears to be no lessening to any appreciable degree of the price squeeze pressure, and it is quite obvious that the continual deterioration in the agricultural economy is now being reflected to a marked degree in our national economy,
Therefore be it resolved that we urge the federal government to establish a parity price program which will equal 100 per cent of parity on all agricultural products.
That sets out very clearly, without need for much comment, the attitude of the Manitoba farmers' union in convention. I might add that, of course, is also the representative views of the farm unions of all the provinces of Canada.
Then I call as the second witness the presentation made to the Manitoba members of parliament-and that included the federal members of parliament-in December of 1955


by the Manitoba federation of agriculture and co-operation. In that presentation they had this to say, as shown on page 4 under the heading, "Equality for Agriculture":
We believe that farm families generally, should receive prices or returns that will yield them enough income from farming to maintain a level of living equivalent to that of persons in other occupations with comparable skill, effort and investment.
The M.F.A.C. has, over a long period of time, advocated and worked for equality or parity for agriculture.
That sets out the views of the Manitoba federation of agriculture, which represents a large number of farmers in that province and includes most of the co-operative associations.
We call as a third witness the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which is the parent body of the M.F.A.C., and their annual submission to the government of February 14, 1956. On the fourth page of their brief they had this to say:
Farmers feel that the worsening of their relative position has reached a point where it should be recognized that it Is a vital concern of the public's, as well as of the farmer's, that this trend be halted. The farmer's position is difficult enough now to ensure that he will make any further production adjustments that are within his ability to make. However, it should be emphasized that a continuation of the recent downward trend in farm purchasing power will create economic hardship, make it difficult to maintain adequate municipal and educational services, and delay rather than encourage the further healthy development of agriculture in this country.
That is the studied opinion of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in its submission to the government this year. I think it sets out rather adequately that so far as organized agriculture is concerned, and that includes organized agriculture right across this country, they are in favour of the principle of parity income for agriculture.
We know now that so far as the farmers themselves are concerned they want this to be adopted. So far as hon. members sitting in the opposition are concerned we want this policy adopted, too. That leaves the onus on hon. members sitting on the government side of the house to cast the deciding vote. It is a serious responsibility and one which they cannot take lightly, because this question has reached a point in the thinking of the farm organizations across Canada where I predict it is going to be one of the major issues in the next election.
Hon. members who support the government and who represent agricultural constituencies I think will not be able to wiggle out of that position by simply stating they were voting to uphold this government, as if the government were tottering and ready to fall and

Economic Position of Agriculture
had to be upheld on every occasion. They will have to take the responsibility for their actions as individuals representing the constituencies which they were elected to represent. They will not be able to use as an excuse the fact that the government considered this as a question of want of confidence.
I come now to the second part of what I have to say. I have already discussed who wants parity prices, and I would now like to turn to the question of why we want parity prices for agriculture. It is not only because it is a good subject for academic discussion. It is rather because, from a practical point of view, after having canvassed the situation and the position of agriculture from the various angles, the farm organizations have come to the conclusion that unless this government-or this parliament, to be more exact-takes steps in the near future and takes a hand in the economy of this country with respect to both the income of agriculture and the expenses of agriculture incurred in production, then the downward trend of farm income is going to continue. That situation is aggravated all the more by the fact that while the trend of the returns has been downward, and figures have been quoted today which show that the decrease runs as high as 48 per cent in recent years, the cost of production is still either static or rising.
In a situation of that kind it is not enough for the government to say that it hopes the situation will change because of the trade position, or that markets will increase for other reasons. We have reached the point where we are now either going to take a hand in assisting agriculture to get its share of the national income or we will have to say to agriculture, "We are not going to do anything about it", and the farmers will have to decide as individuals or family units whether they are going to stay in agriculture or do as so many have already done, leave the farms and flock to the cities thereby aggravating the unemployment situation during the slack period, and adding to the problems which already exist in the over-congested cities in our country. Therefore it is a serious question.
I would like to refer to page 5 of the submission made by the interprovincial farm union council to the government on February 16, 1956, in which they point out some of the trends I have been speaking about. We have heard a great deal about the grain situation, but I would like to emphasize the fact that so far as agriculture is concerned,
livestock in my opinion is much more important than grain so far as the stability of income is concerned.
With respect to cattle we find that a comparison between the years 1951 to 1954 shows a steady downward trend. The yearly weighted average price per hundredweight of total sales on public stockyards for cattle in 1951 was $28.22; in 1952, $20.00; in 1953, $15.30; in 1954, $14.45. The statistics do not appear for 1955, but we have no reason to believe that the picture is any better.
We come then to grade A hogs dressed, in the second period 1954-55. In the first half of 1954 the price was $33.33; second half of 1954, $24.92; in the first half of 1955 the price was $23.52; in the second half of 1955, $23.17.
In recent months hon. members of this group have pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture and the government that in many cases the price has dropped even lower than the established price under the Agricultural Prices Support Act.
Another interesting set of statistics contained in the same submission is a comparison of the return on investment. There are those who regard agriculture as a business. I personally regard it as something more than that; I think it is a way of life. Let us look at agriculture from the business point of view for the time being. We find as contained on page 8 of this submission that in 1954 Canada Packers Limited showed a return on capital investment of 25-2 per cent whereas in the same year, if you take the grouping of all farmers in the province of Manitoba and take into consideration their investment and return, in 1954 their return on investment amounted to -001 per cent. That is a very striking contrast as to what the returns on investment are for agriculture as compared with another industry.
Figures have been given today to show the comparative share of the national income or the gross national product received by farmers as compared with the national economy generally. We find that in 1952 farmers received 11-4 per cent of the national income, whereas on a proportionate basis they should have received something like 20 per cent. In 1953 they received 9-9 per cent. In 1954 it went down to 6-8 per cent, and no doubt it will be less than that in 1955, probably around 6 per cent. There again we have plenty of evidence to show that on that basis agriculture has good reason for asking that this parliament take action with respecl to a parity income for agriculture in order tc ensure that farmers get something like theii fair share of the national income.
I come now to the third heading, and tha'
is how can we establish parity income foi
2044	HOUSE OF
Economic Position of Agriculture agriculture. I said earlier that the methods may differ. Other hon. members may have their own ideas as to how this can be done, and I for one will be very glad to hear them. The government itself may have some ideas on this question, but in my own opinion and speaking for myself I think there are two main channels through which we can approach the question of parity income for agriculture.
One of these would be a method of setting a system of floor prices and using subsidies where necessary to maintain those floor prices. Under that system it would be necessary to extend the provisions of the Agricultural Prices Support Act in order to make greater use of marketing boards, because it is only through a system of marketing boards that this act can be properly administered, as I shall show in a minute or two. Wherever it is found necessary, in order to maintain floor prices as a protection or guarantee against a fire sale of a particular product, this parliament should be prepared to vote moneys to be used as subsidies to uphold those floor prices.
I should like to mention this because when hon. members in this house speak about subsidies in order to maintain floor prices, there are many people in the country who do not quite understand what is involved. They have a vision of this parliament having to vote hundreds of millions of dollars annually for the purpose of subsidizing this, that or some other agricultural product. If we have a system of guaranteed floor prices that is not necessarily what is going to happen, and I am fairly sure that is not what would happen.
There would be times when this parliament would be called upon to make an appropriation in order to prevent the surplus of a certain product depressing the price of the whole market at that point, but as long as the market price remained at the level of the floor price or higher it would not cost the public treasury one cent in the form of subsidy to maintain the floor price. That is something that should be emphasized and understood, that a floor price and the willingness to maintain a floor price by means of a subsidy does not necessarily involve the expenditure of public money. It acts as insurance; this government could act as an underwriter in order to prevent prices falling below a certain floor. We should be prepared to use public funds to maintain that floor price.
There is another method which I believe could be used alongside this one, but which is not being used at the present time, and I refer to price control. I remember during


last session we were told a number of times that one of the reasons we cannot expect farmers to get better prices for certain products was the necessity of meeting world competition. We were told that therefore they had to keep their prices at a level which would be competitive with the prices of agricultural products elsewhere. They were advised from time to time to cut down their cost of production by greater efficiency, by the use of more modern methods, by greater production per unit and in that way be able to compete on the world markets.
We know that the possibility of their doing that is limited strictly by the factors which enter into the cost of production. If we are going to accept the principle or the idea or the theory that we should try to produce agricultural products at prices which will be competitive with agricultural products grown in other countries, then we will have to take steps to see that the cost of the articles which the farmer has to buy and which enter into his cost of production are controlled.
I think that in order to have a really successful system of parity prices in this country we shall have to employ eventually both these methods or a combination of them, that is a system of floor prices with marketing boards for their administration and a system of price control in order to maintain the cost of production at a reasonable figure. If the cost of production is not controlled we may find that many of the advantages of floor prices would be frittered away by those who are in position to exploit the farmer through profiteering.
In my opinion the whole question boils down to providing sufficient purchasing power within our own country to make it possible for the people to buy at the proper price level all the agricultural products required by our population, and having some machinery set up for the purpose of assisting in the sale of our surplus products on the world market, not at the cost of the producer but if necessary at the cost of the nation as a whole.
I want to emphasize again that the most important and most desirable market for agricultural products that can be found anywhere in the world is the market we have right here in Canada. There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people who would be using more food, a better quality of food and in greater quantities if they had sufficient income to be able to do so.
This was illustrated most vividly during the years of the war and immediately after the war. When money began to circulate in this country and people began to have steadier jobs at better pay we found that the consumption of agricultural products began to rise so

markedly that during the war years we had to have food rationing because the demand was beginning to exceed the supply. Now the shoe seems to be on the other foot. If we could do something, if we could increase the purchasing power of the Canadian people and bring about that happy relationship where effective demand would more or less equal supply, then we would have an ideal situation.
I should like to finish before six o'clock, and if I could take just one minute I should like to set before the house five points which I believe should be followed in order to bring about this sufficient effective purchasing power to provide a better market for agricultural products in our own country.
First, we should accept the principle of parity for agriculture.
Second, I would advocate a system of floor prices to be established for producers. I emphasize floor prices for producers, because under the Agricultural Prices Support Act we find that even where floor prices are established they work to the advantage of the packers or dealers and do not find their way down to the producer level.
Third, the establishment of low cost credit for our agricultural producer.
Fourth, effective action to prevent monopolies and combines. I was interested in hearing the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand say that an industry which does business with the farmers had increased its profits by something like 402 per cent. I think I heard the hon. member correctly, and if he confirms that figure there is something wrong when we find that the income of agriculture has dropped by 48 per cent in recent years while the profits of this industry which deals with the agricultural industry have increased by 402 per cent. They do not do that by ordinary business practices. We know that monopolies and combines constitute a greater danger and threat to our economy than ever before, and effective steps should be taken to combat that type of practice.
Fifth, and perhaps as important as any of the others, is the fact that if we are to have sufficient effective purchasing power in this country we must expand to the greatest possible extent our social welfare legislation to provide all those who need goods and can use them with the purchasing power in order that they can buy the good things of life that we have in such abundance in this country.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
Economic Position of Agriculture AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, the matter before the house is perhaps one of the most important and challenging that has ever come before this assembly. We are now discussing the matter of asking the government to give consideration to bringing in a policy of parity prices for agriculture. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because unless we can bring about for agriculture policies which will give a fair share of the national income to our agricultural producers I think we shall have difficulty in every part of our economy.
Before the dinner recess I was most interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Dauphin, when he stated he believed that if members on the government side of the house were given the liberty of voting according to their feelings with respect to this matter, and if a free vote were allowed, they would join with members on the opposition benches in supporting this resolution.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: We could not do that. Only the Tories want socialism.


Edward George McCullough: I think there are three phases in respect of this whole problem; first, the economic position of agriculture; second, what does the future hold for agriculture; and third, how can we achieve our objective? There may be some people who are not too greatly concerned about agriculture. They think perhaps the Canadian economy, with its buoyancy in the industrial field today, is sufficient to sustain a relatively high income for our Canadian people. On the other hand I am sure that agriculture will be in the future, as it has been in the past, the chief segment of our economy upon which we can build the strength of our prosperity. For this reason I think we should examine all phases of the economic position of agriculture at the present time.
It is true that we have many sources of information coming to various members of the house in respect of farm income, both on a national and a regional basis. While it is true that the general Canadian economic picture is not so bad-the figure is just down a few points; 3 per cent or a little less when one considers the whole of the Canadian economy -on the other hand in western Canada we have a situation where the three western provinces during these last three years have experienced a tragic drop in farm income. According to the Canadian Wheat Pool of February 6, 1956, the total farm income for 1954 was $2,377 million, or $398 million below

Economic Position of Agriculture that of 1953. It is also a very important matter that the income of the farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta'-that is, their 1954 income-was down a total of $404 million, some 28 per cent below the 1953 income.
It is true that during this period profits and in many industries wages boomed. But we have the three western provinces with their income down 28 per cent from 1953. As I stated earlier, we have a number of sources from which we can find out the kind of income which farmers are receiving today. While newspapers across the country have expressed concern with respect to farm income, I think this government has not yet awakened to the seriousness of the situation. I have here a clipping from the Montreal Gazette of January 18, 1956 in respect of farm income. The Bank of Nova Scotia monthly review has this to say:
The continued restriction of farm purchasing power in the west and the failure of the farm sector generally to share in the buoyancy that characterized other parts of the economy in 1955 cannot be regarded lightly . . .
Then it goes on to point out the drop in income. Again, the Windsor Star of January 12, 1956, contains an article quoting the words of Professor Buckley, who states that although the prairie people are aware of the fact, he thinks the rest of Canada is not impressed with the reality. Then again the Ottawa Citizen of December 22 had this to say, quoting H. H. Hannam. The article states that farm income has dropped 23 per cent from 1951, and then Mr. Hannam says:
How would anyone else like to take a 25 per cent salary cut?
And he goes on to say this:
We are not hollering blue ruin or depression, but now is the time when the downward trend must be checked.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: What do you suggest?


Edward George McCullough: I am
going to come to that.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Oh, you are going to come to that?


Edward George McCullough: I am
suggesting, as are many other people, that the members on the other side of the house, namely on the Liberal benches, support the principle of parity prices. Now that we have had an interjection from the hon. member,
I hope he will see fit to get to his feet and say what he thinks. I am saying what I think.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I do not think like the socialists.


Irvin William Studer: The hon. member is stating what the papers say.


Edward George McCullough: Again, Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail of February 17, 1956, contains an article under the heading "Low Incomes driving Farmers from Land". While it indicates again the drop in farm income it has this to say:
Canada Packers Limited shows an indicated average profit for 10 years of 27.5 per cent on their capital investment. This is more than three times the expected return on general investments and 25 times more than was received by farmers on their capital investment in 1954.
As I said before, it seems difficult to convince this government that we need for Canada agricultural policies to prevent this sort of downward spiralling of farm prices. In that connection the Winnipeg Free Press of December 29, 1955 has this to say. The article is headed "The West ignored". Commenting in the report of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on economic conditions in Canada, it says:
Mr, Howe's review has one other feature of note, and particularly of note to western Canada. The review largely ignores western Canada. It describes the economy in a state of vigorous expansion, bordering on the dangers of speculative excesses and an inflationary boom. This is entirely accurate for most sections of the economy. It is not the whole picture for the prairies. It ignores the state of the farmer.
I fear that is the important point in the discussion which is taking place at this time, Mr. Speaker, and indeed in relation to the arguments and discussions which have taken place since this new session began. From coast to coast the state of agriculture is a fiasco, and this government has not seen fit to do much about it. As I stated before, I think we must examine the economic position of the farmer. I have given some excerpts from newspaper thought in respect of the question, and I should now like to examine it a little more closely.
I have here a chart prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics dated February 26, 1956. This chart shows farm income, farm expenses and value of farm capital in Canada from 1945 to 1954. It shows the gross income, operating costs, depreciation, net income and value of farm capital. I am just going to illustrate the situation in 1951. There was a gross income of $3,578 million; operating costs were $1,238 million; depreciation, $196 million; net income, $2,154 million.
The important thing, Mr. Speaker is this. By 1954 the gross income had dropped to $2,624 million; operating costs had risen to $1,255 million; depreciation was even higher, $245 million. The net income had again dropped from a high in 1951 of $2,154 million to $1,125 million. This chart illustrates and gives a vivid graphic picture of farm

income in Canada. Rather than try to put the whole thing on the record, I should like the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, to place this chart on Hansard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon.
member indicate the source of this record?


Edward George McCullough: The
dominion bureau of statistics.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to place this table on Hansard?
Economic Position of Agriculture Mr. Gardiner: May I ask the hon. member if he is putting on the record 1952 and 1953 as well?


Edward George McCullough: Yes, up to 1954.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to place this table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward George McCullough: The
table is as follows:
Farm Income, Farm Expenses and Value of Farm Capital, Canada 1945-1954
Year	Gross Income	Operating Costs	Deprecia- tion (thousand dollars)	Net Income *	Value of Farm Capital1945 	
1,761,834	686,547	110,145	971,582	5,671,7881946 	
2,000,715	761,934	117,094	1,138,637	5,902,0051947 	
2,251,085	927,791	128,662	1,206,209	6,415,6401948 	
2,810,196	1,008,862	140,519	1,681,563	7,148,6431949 	
2,802,494	1,026,231	153,387	1,640,504	7,525,1291950 	
2,727,433	1,119,089	174,069	1,448,081	8,223,2711951 	
3,578,453	1,238,011	196,271	2,154,527	9,354,9001952 	
3,500,548	1,369,860	212,346	1,923,473	9,425,3111953 	
3,226,711	1,295,925	232,753	1,699,605	9,358,7981954 	
2,624,732	1,255,826	245,692	1,125,641	9,718,961* Includes	supplementary payments	made under	the provisions of the	Prairie Farm	Assistance Act.
I should like also to illustrate the purchasing power of the farmer's dollar in 1954 in relation to other years. Again I am not going to use too many figures. We can go back to 1910 and see that the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat was $1.29. In 1954-55 with the initial price at $1.40, the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat had decreased to 61-4 cents. I submit I have put sufficient figures on the record to indicate the plight of agriculture today.
Now, I think we should try to examine the future. I am most impressed with the fact that it was the Conservative party which this afternoon moved for parity prices. I feel we have long since convinced many people in Canada that unless agriculture gets a fair share of the national income, unless we have agriculture policies in this country which will give the farmer a fair relationship between the things he has to sell and the things he has to buy, we cannot have justice and certainly we cannot have a stable economy.
This government may not worry very much about what is happening in agriculture. I, for one, want to join with those people who believe that the family farm is the type of farm we should support in making our policies. I believe policies of that type will add strength to the family and to our nation generally. I am going to suggest to this government that unless they can take this
problem in hand and see to it that the family farm is saved from disintegration, we are going to have bigger and bigger farms in this country. This has been the trend in the United States for many years, and perhaps it still is. We see this happening in Canada today. The investment necessary to start a small farm today is too large for the young farmer to undertake. I noticed that in the submission the Manitoba government made to the Gordon commission they indicated that $17,000 was the capital investment in the average Manitoba farm. I believe it would be somewhat higher in Saskatchewan. It is clear that a young man wanting to take up agriculture as his way of life is not likely to be able to finance the undertaking.
We do not have a national policy on credit that would give low interest loans and enable a young man to set himself up on the farm. Indeed, today under the various acts providing for farm loans and farm improvement loans, the interest rate is quite a bit too high. Young people graduating from high school or university who would like to go on farms are forced to find other occupations just because proper financing is not available to enable them to undertake agriculture.
In addition to that there are the fluctuations and vagaries of this system, not the law of supply and demand, but purely the fact that the individual farmer gets little help and is

Economic Position of Agriculture expected to market his products under conditions over which he has no control.
I want, therefore, to support the principle of parity prices. As I said before, the interprovincial farm union council and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture support parity prices. We have, too, the large labour unions in this country supporting the principle of fairness and equity for agriculture.
I have here a clipping from the Globe and Mail of February 20 which I should like to read. It says:
T.L.C. chief, Claude Jodoin and C.C.L. head A. R. Mosher-whose organizations are soon to amalgamate-agreed also that farmers should get "equitable" or parity prices on all farm products.
In respect to this whole argument on parity prices, there are those who say they are in favour of agriculture getting a fair share of the national income but they are against parity prices. I do not know how you can have it both ways. I do not know how you can say you are prepared to support policies which will guarantee the producers a fair share of the national income, yet at the same time you are against parity prices. I find it difficult to see how such people can be sincere. I feel that the two are synonymous. Parity prices simply mean justice and equity for the agriculture producer.
I do not believe it does much good to go into the past. I think we should be looking to the future. I feel sure the Minister of Agriculture would join the rest of us if he were a free agent and able to state whether or not he was in favour of parity for agriculture. I would suggest that members on the Liberal benches who come from the prairie provinces and represent agricultural constituencies should get up and state what they think about this. I agree with the hon. member for Dauphin. When the federal election rolls around I do not believe any western farmer will believe any of those hon. members who say, "Oh, yes, we are in favour of it; we are in favour of parity prices, but we could not do anything else because we had to support the government." Everyone in Canada knows that this government has such a preponderance of numbers on the benches opposite that they could send 100 members home and still carry measures; there would be little chance of the government being defeated. Of course, at times they are not all in the house. If the government wanted to, it could have a free vote. They could take off the whips and let hon. members rise to their feet and say what they believe.
Since I am talking about farm income, may I say that I have heard the Minister of Agriculture out west state his financial position as a farmer. I do not want to be unfair

about this; but he knows full well the vagaries of agriculture, of nature, and the fluctuations in prices with which the farmer has to cope. He knows that for many years as a farmer he himself was in the position that many farmers in western Canada are facing today. If he would try to get his colleagues to say that in the interests of every Canadian we have to do something tangible in order to meet the challenge before us-[DOT]


James Garfield Gardiner: Before my hon. friend concludes will he permit me to remind him that when we first opposed parity prices, or brought in the system we now have, we had a majority of only three or four, I think.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Canada had better government from the Liberals in those days.


Edward George McCullough: Now
you have a big majority, but that is no reason for doing what you like. More than that, if you were in favour of this resolution you would have the support of all the members on the opposition benches. Therefore I do not think your argument holds water at all.
What we are asking for, Mr. Speaker, is a national policy adequate to meet the need. First, we should have a low interest rate so that any young farmer in Canada could go into agriculture as his life work, as his vocation. Second, and this is most important, we should have a policy which would give stability to the various kinds of production. At the present time there is pressure on the marketing of hogs and cattle. I believe it was just two years ago that the Minister of Agriculture suggested to western farmers that if they wanted to get ready cash they should feed some of their grain.
I notice he is not advocating that today. Why not? He knows that today there is pressure on the hog market and the beef market, and that perhaps prices will collapse. Already the hog market is so depressed that many farmers are receiving returns for their hogs below what is supposed to be the support price. The whole agricultural economic picture is in a state of chaos; it is a fiasco, and this government is not prepared to do anything about it.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that those who say higher prices for agricultural products will only mean that the consumers will pay higher prices are not correct. Fair prices, adequate prices, which mean parity to the farmer, do not mean higher prices to the consumer. May I give one specific example in respect of wheat. I have taken the trouble to make some investigations, and I find that one bushel of the higher milling grades of wheat will produce about 72-2 per cent of flour. At the

present prices for top grade wheat the farmer will get anywhere from 96 cents to $1.25 per bushel for that wheat. He will receive 1J to 2i cents a pound. As soon as that wheat is made into flour the price increases to 5| cents a pound, and when it is made into bread it retails at 15 cents a pound. One hundred pounds of flour will make 129 loaves of bread, and at present prices they will retail at around $8.66.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the house can see what happens. The farmer produces the wheat, but the price he receives for that wheat has very little to do with the price the consumer pays for a loaf of bread. That is also true of canned vegetables and many other things which the farmers produce. Therefore it is not a fact that fair prices to the producer would mean higher prices to the consumer.
As I said in the early part of my remarks, the people who are handling the farmers' products, such as the packers, are receiving tremendous profits, but the farmer himself is in a depressed state. What I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that the time is ripe for this government to take adequate action to underwrite a comprehensive parity price policy for all of Canada.
We have far too much urbanization in this country. Far too many people are leaving the farms, not because they could not be made economic, not because farmers are not using new techniques, or are not attempting to be as scientific in their production as any other business. They are leaving the farms because of the marketing and price situation over which they have little or no control. I am suggesting that the only authoritative body that is given the power by the people of this country is the federal government. Unless they are ready to take action, agriculture in this country will face a very blue future.
Many other countries are awakening to the fact that they must have adequate agricultural prices to meet the challenge of the day. In this country we should have policies under which we would conserve the nutritive content of the soil. We should have a policy under which a farmer could buy fertilizer and add it to the soil so that future generations would be assured of high fertility in our soil. We should have a conservation program under which a farmer could undertake those projects necessary to prevent the erosion of the soil. We have just a hit and miss policy. Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act some money has been expended, but up to the present time we have not a comprehensive national system for agriculture which meets the challenge of
Economic Position of Agriculture the day. Here is one place where we should make a beginning and establish parity prices for agriculture.
I agree with the hon. member for Dauphin. It would not necessarily mean, if such a policy were established, that we would be paying money out of the federal treasury to support the principle. Only in those times when due to outside influences the market is depressed, would it be necessary for the federal government to step in and use money from the federal treasury to guarantee a fair price to the producer which would bear some relation to the cost of production.
We have seen the prices of things which the farmer grows going down and down into the cellar, and the cost of his production going up and up. We have seen the cost of machinery and the cost of fuel and the cost of everything that goes into his production going up and up. We find that machine companies who hold either a monopoly or a semimonopoly in that field are able to demand from the farmer the price he will pay for those goods. As a matter of fact, we all know that when the farmer goes to sell his goods he asks, "How much will you give me for this?" When he goes to buy he asks, "How much do you want for this?" Unless this government is prepared to step in and give a fair deal to agriculture we shall continue to have a depressed industry.
Therefore I hope that when the time comes to vote on this motion the government, perhaps through the Minister of Agriculture, will rise and say to the house that all members are to be allowed a free vote. I think it would be refreshing if at this time hon. members who come from the west, were to rise and state the real condition of agriculture. Many of them did not do so during the debate on the farm loans bill, but I think that now this important measure is before us hon. members could, to some extent at least, say what they think concerning this important matter.
(Translation) :


Robert Perron: Mr. Speaker, the amendment now before the house has to do with the problem of agriculture, certainly the most urgent and complex problem of all those facing our economy at this time. It requires immediate action on the part of the government.
The problem of wheat surpluses in western Canada has provided grounds for extended discussions since the beginning of this session. I will therefore not labour the point.

Economic Position of Agriculture
The two bills which the government has put through, and which involve an expenditure of 30 million dollars to be borne by the taxpayers of this country are sufficiently indicative to the economic status of the western farmer at this time.
While I do not wish to minimize the importance of this matter of wheat surpluses, which is such as to exert a considerable influence on our national revenue, it is certain that the personal problems of each and every farmer in Quebec, taken individually, are just as critical, if not more so.
Mr. Speaker, farm income has decreased by 5 or 10 per cent in 1955 and probably even more in areas where, for instance, hog-raising is practised. In short, it means that since 1952, i.e. for the past three years, the net farm income has decreased by 50 per cent.
After three consecutive years of set-backs, farmers have drained their savings from the years of prosperity and are now penniless; their problem is similar to that of western farmers.
Today, farmers of the province of Quebec have to keep up their farm either by mortgaging their property or by further increasing their debt to the bank, the credit union, their suppliers, merchants, and so on, instead of deriving from their farm an income that will provide them with a decent standard of living.
We hear everywhere that Canada has just had the best year in all her history. Our national income has exceeded $26 billion, and forecasts for 1956 are most optimistic. Company balance sheets show record profits. Individual income has jumped in a similar proportion. Our export and import trade reaches record figures. Production has never been so high.
On the labour front, 1955 has meant another step forward for our labour force, in that they got a guaranteed annual wage from certain industries, and everywhere the renewal of contracts under collective bargaining shows salary increases and additional fringe benefits. The government has even increased unemployment insurance benefits. In short, Mr. Speaker, living conditions seem to be getting better everywhere in this country which is going through an extraordinary development.
This is true of industry, trade and various other sectors of our economy, but it seems that in this development, agriculture has not been able to hold its own and, instead of benefiting from this general prosperity, the farmer is going through a period of depression.
TMr. Perron.]

This, to my mind, sums up the present position. It is an alarming one. It is certainly the crucial issue at this time and it is up to the government to straighten out, by appropriate means, the economic disparity between some otherwise comparable professional groups.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is, I think, well suited to restore the balance in this field.
The government has explained the policy it means to follow to improve the lot of the western farmer; but we have as yet not been told of its intentions with regard to the eastern farmer. There was no reference to it in the speech from the throne, and for the past two months not a single word has been uttered about it by the government. When the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made his statement about the estimates of his department, apart from burying us under a stack of statistics designed to prove that everything is all right-which merely shows that anything can be made out of statistics-had nothing to say about any steps the government meant to take in order to bring relief to the eastern farmer.
No problem can be solved by avoiding reference to it, or by quoting statistics to show that all goes well, when everyone agrees that things are pretty bad despite anything that may be said by all the economists and statisticians in the world.
One of the questions of particular concern to eastern farmers, since it is vital to them, is to know whether or not the government will continue its price support policy. I hope that the house will be told about this during the present debate, as this would be in perfect agreement with the amendment now before us.
It is absolutely essential that the support price of butter be maintained at 58 cents per pound for the present year and even for two years. The farmer would then know beforehand where he is going. It would alleviate his worries and the uncertainty which always confronts him. Everyone agrees that in the province of Quebec the dairy industry is the basis of agriculture. It is the one that must be saved first. There is no reason why the support price should not be kept this year at the same level since the cost of production has remained exactly the same and because, since 1949, that legislation has cost very little to Canadian taxpayers while it has, on the other hand, protected the consumer by avoiding

those price variations which are often so costly for him.
If the government does not maintain the same level, the farmers of the province of Quebec who will thus be deprived of their one and only sure source of revenue will be ruined.
I therefore urge the government to come to an immediate decision and to tell the house about it without delay.
Mr. Speaker, I stated at the outset that farm income has dropped from 5 to 10 per cent in 1955 mainly because the price of hogs, which remained at 23 cents a pound, the support price set by the government, for several months, has dropped considerably. This, in turn, brought about a decline of farm income in the district of Quebec, particularly in my riding and in the surrounding counties where hog-breeding is practised on a large scale. In fact, the price of feeds and breeding costs remained stationary while the price of pork which, last year, was 27, 28 and 29 cents a pound, was reduced by 5, 6 and even 7 cents a pound, thus depriving the farmer of the profits which he could reap from this operation.
The only way to correct this situation would seem to be an increase of 3 cents in the support price of hogs, to give the farmer a chance to make ends meet.
In connection with hog raising it must not be forgotten that it is at the government's request that farmers, during the war, invested their money in piggeries so as to obtain a new source of revenue. Nowadays, in a great many cases, this operation is no longer profitable. The only way in which it may be made so again would be an increase in the support price to 26 cents a pound.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Prince Albert is such as to solve the farm problem. In fact, I will go so far as to say that it is the one and only solution to this problem.
To sum up, I would say that this amendment should be unanimously carried by the house. I feel too that the government should follow this up by adopting the following two measures.
1.	Maintenance of the support price of butter at 58 cents a pound, and
2.	An increase in the support price of pork from 23 to 26 cents a pound.
Mr. Speaker, the constitutional responsibility of the federal government is to solve these farm problems, and the farmer is rightfully entitled to this solution.
Economic Position of Agriculture (Text):


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that I could not follow the hon. member for Dorchester, but I shall read with interest tomorrow the translation of his remarks. I am sure that speaking as he has this evening he was pointing up the fact that the farmers in the area where he lives are experiencing a most difficult time.
I realize that the members from Saskatchewan have taken up a good deal of time since parliament opened, but I am sure that if there were not a real problem we would not have had such a sympathetic hearing from the chamber as we have had every time agriculture has been discussed.
This evening I propose to stress the fact that the amendment before us has been moved because of a nation-wide problem. Over the week end I was up to my old home in Bruce county, which I left some 35 years ago to go west. When I return now I find that my old neighbours are encountering the same sort of problems we have in the west, with the difference that there are very few people left in Bruce county.
A young lady sat across from me on the train Friday night, going home for the week end. It was pretty obvious that she wa? a school teacher, and I soon found myself in conversation with her. She told me she was teaching in Toronto, and I asked if she had any notion of going back to her home county and marrying a farmer. She replied, "Never." "Why not?" She said, "When I think of the life my mother has had on the farm, it is not for me, thank you." That young girl was probably getting twice the salary teaching in Toronto that she would get for teaching in the township where she went to school. She was wearing a nice fur coat, probably being paid for on the instalment plan, but apparently her life in Toronto was quite different from the life she had known as a girl on the farm.
Going out from Toronto I noticed that nearly every house had a T.V. aerial. While there were some out in the country, they were not as numerous as in the city. I do not want to give the impression that the people of Bruce county are facing starvation; nothing of the sort, but there are very few young people there. Those who are getting old are enjoying a fair measure of security.
I called on one of my old neighbours, who told me that she would be 90 years of age next year. She was quite proud of a new

Economic Position of Agriculture electric sewing machine she had bought since Christmas, costing around $200. She had been moved by an appeal from the children's aid society for quilts for children, and she and her sister had made some six quilts on this new machine. Since she will be 90 years of age next year I am sure the $200 machine will last the rest of her life. The machine she had previously had been in use for nearly 50 years. The money for that new machine had come from the soil which had been cultivated by her family for nearly 100 years. There were no children on that farm. Where there used to be some 17 families enjoying a reasonably good standard of living when I was there, today there are only four families.
I was interested in reading some of the evidence produced at the time of the dominion-provincial conference a few years ago, which was descriptive of conditions in Prince Edward Island. This reads:
-they see the citizens of other provinces grow rich at their expense; they see the best of their youth attracted to other provinces, just as they are entering the period when they might become an asset to the community. The only protest has been an occasional request for "better terms".
Of course the children of Bruce county have not gone to other provinces necessarily, but when they move to larger centres like Toronto, Windsor, London, Montreal or Vancouver they find life to be quite different from what it was on the old homestead. Those who presented this brief showed how the people of Canada as the result of tariff policies channel a great deal of wealth to the central provinces. They pointed out that the only two provinces which have benefited since confederation as the result of tariffs were Ontario and Quebec, whereas all the other provinces have had to pay a heavy penalty.
Just this afternoon in answer to one of my questions on the order paper we had an answer setting out the per capita disbursements on liquor, tobacco and education.
I asked for these figures to be broken down on a provincial basis, but I am told that the information regarding tobacco and liquor is not kept on a provincial basis. I find that we seem to have spent very freely as far as tobacco disbursements are concerned, because the per capita expenditure was $31.26, while the per capita expenditure on liquor was $56.92, and for education, $40.26.
But when you consider the per capita expenditure for education in the different provinces you find that in the case of Prince Edward Island, Which my grandparents on my mother's side left about 100 years ago because of difficult conditions, this per capita 

expenditure was only $20.34 as compared with the high in British Columbia of $55.50. Newfoundland was only $21.46, with Alberta next to British Columbia with $48.87.
I think it could easily be argued that it should be a matter of national concern when farm people in a fine province like Prince Edward Island are getting such a small share of the national income that they have available for education only $20.34 per capita as compared with $42.41 in Ontario, $55.50 in British Columbia, and $42.73 in Saskatchewan.
If the farmers of our provinces are to continue to receive a smaller and smaller share of the national income it will be most difficult for us to maintain the educational standard that we think children in a modern society should have.
Having demonstrated during the war that we could plan our production and our economic life so as to have a million of our youngest and ablest people in the armed services and another million in war industries, and still increase our production of foodstuffs so that we were able to drink more milk and eat more beef and pork, it seems to me there is something radically wrong when in 1955 and 1956 we have to cut down the consumption of milk by the children of Canada.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: How does liquor consumption compare for those years?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Liquor consumption is going up, as I indicated; but as part of our national policy it was decided during the war that the production of milk should be encouraged by support prices, and we found that as a result of the subsidies milk production and consumption increased. During the period from 1940 to 1945 we consumed 445 pounds per person per year compared with 420 pounds in 1951, the last year for which I have statistics. There was a drop from 445 to 420. We find that the consumption of other products that are essential for a healthy people is not increasing as it should.
I realize there are many people who are disturbed about the suggestion of providing subsidies. Canadian farmers in all parts of the country are proud people. They do not want something for nothing. Nevertheless I have never heard very many protests about having subsidies in the form of tariffs. As the Prince Edward Island brief points out, every person in that province has suffered a net loss of $17.88 per year because of tariffs, the people of Nova Scotia have lost $12.28, and the people in the province of Saskatchewan have lost $28.16. As a result of the penalty that people have paid because of tariffs,

I think during the transitional period the government of this country certainly might accept the principle that those who are producing food should have something like a fair share of the national income.
I was interested to note that the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand did not spend very much time this afternoon discussing conditions in Canada during the thirties. He could have said quite correctly that in 1954 the farm share of the national income was a lower percentage of the total national income than was the case during the whole period of the thirties. It is true that in 1931 and 1932 the farmers' share was less than it was last year, but if we take the whole ten years between 1930 and 1940 the farmers received an average of 6 [DOT] 1 per cent of the national income for the 20 per cent of the population composed of farm families, compared with 5-6 per cent last year.
That presents a very serious situation for the people of the country. While the farmer's share is going down, while he is tightening his belt, he is able to read in the daily papers very impressive advertisements. Here is a large advertisement taken from the Globe and Mail. It points out that for the second straight year the forward-look Plymouth shattered Toronto sales records, and that sales in January, 1956, were up 298 per cent over January, 1954. A similar advertisement taken from a Montreal paper points out that in January, 1956, Plymouth sales were five times as great as in January, 1954.
While the farmers are being caught' in a price squeeze and are unable to meet their costs with the lower prices they are receiving for beef, pork and other products, when they go to buy they are paying higher and higher prices. Therefore when the farmers read about all-time high sales and the very high profits being made by corporations, it is very hard for them to understand why the government of the country cannot do something about it.
After the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that the farmers of Canada were enjoying an unusually prosperous period, I took the trouble to send a circular letter to some of the people in my constituency to find out' whether I was wrong in my opinion or whether the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce were wrong.
I am going to read a few extracts from two or three of the letters I received in reply. Here is one from a man who says that he has farmed as a law-abiding citizen for 32 years, that up until five years ago he had done well but then he started to go behind. He
Economic Position of Agriculture says that he owes three years' taxes, $364 for seed grain, $780 to the bank and store bills.
Another farmer tells a very similar story. Another farmer has gone to British Columbia for the winter to get enough money to see him through. Another man has gone to Vancouver island. Here is a farmer who has been exceptionally industrious and a good citizen, the sort of citizen any community would welcome. I am sure he has never spent five cents on liquor or tobacco during his lifetime. He has been industrious and a good manager. He points out that he owes the bank $2,500, owes $500 in taxes and needs a new tractor and other machines, repairs to his buildings and a great many other things which he knows he should have but because of receiving less than fair prices for his products and because operating expenses are so high he is unable to go into the market to buy the articles the production of which provides employment for many people in eastern Canada.
I find that the Searle Grain Company has sent us two interesting letters, one dealing with the subsidization of wheat and the other with the challenge that Russia presents to the world. One would not expect the Searle Grain Company to advocate subsidies publicly, but they say we must recognize the fact that we are living in a very strange world. Many countries which normally import are subsidizing exports, and other countries which could buy their grains much cheaper in the world market than they can produce them at home are paying large subsidies. It is quite obvious that the Canadian farmer cannot survive in a world where farmers in every other country have support prices.
Ours is one of the few countries that has not tied the production of foodstuffs to the defence program. The Minister of National Defence is never asked any question about whether he wants $1 million, $50 million or $500 million. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said once that if his colleague in defence wanted a gold plated piano he got a gold plated piano. But when it comes to producing food for the sake of our own economy and to meet the competition of other countries, our government has not been willing to give the consideration that it should to this problem.
The Searle Grain Company points out what has not been given too much attention in Canada, that Russia is now making an all-out drive to challenge the west in the field of economic support. It mentions that before world war I Russia was a major exporter and that in 1954 Russia brought under cultivation-


Owen C. Trainor: Will the hon. member permit
a question?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Certainly.

Economic Position of Agriculture


Owen C. Trainor: Are you suggesting that we should emulate Russia?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No, I was not making any such suggestion. I was merely drawing the attention of the house to the report on Russia in the Searle Grain Company letter, which the hon. member should read.


Owen C. Trainor: I have read it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think the hon. member will admit that if Russia is going to have 27 million more acres in production than it had previously, compared with our total acreage of 22 million, it poses quite a problem for Canada. While at the moment Russia is prepared to buy some grain from Canada, the bringing in of this large acreage in order to seed it to wheat and other cereals is going to present a problem to Canada as we seek to export our product and when we find that our product is not being subsidized whereas France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Britain-all our former customers-are subsidizing on an extremely generous basis.
For example France, which formerly was an importer, has found that this policy of subsidizing has not only solved her production problem, the problem of supplying the market at home, but they have produced so much more than they can use that last year France gave Australia a close run for exports in the world markets. Every bushel of wheat that went into export from France carried with it a subsidy of $1.61 a bushel. Hence I do not think there is any use of people in Canada ignoring the fact that we are living in a new set of circumstances where those who are engaged in the production of food are entitled to leadership from the government.
It takes about two years for people to get to qualify for relief in the cities. If the government of Canada thinks that people should deplete the rural communities to a greater extent and should qualify for relief in the cities if they cannot get jobs, I think the government should say so. Here is a debate that has been going on since three o'clock this afternoon, and there has not been a member rise on the government side of the house to indicate whether or not there is any problem in the part of Canada in which he lives, or whether the only people who see the problems are those of us who sit over on this side of the house.


Colin Emerson Bennett: You make your speech; we will make ours.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think it is significant that no one is prepared to say a word in defence of what the government is doing or should be doing. Before the debate ends I think somebody on the government side should certainly say something about it.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It is your amendment, not ours.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think there are two important fields that should be explored. We have a large section of our Canadian citizens who are not getting enough food to eat. Over the week end I read with interest a little booklet written by a young reporter for the Toronto Daily Star who spent 14 days trying to live as an old age pensioner would live on $20. I am sure that any hon. member who placed himself in the position of this young reporter would realize, with these large surpluses on hand, how niggardly we are with this large sector of the economy, and would want to see that ways and means were found so that some of our surplus food supplies would find their way into the stomachs of our old age pensioners, widows and orphans and all those who are in the lower income tax brackets.
Then I think we must pay some attention to our international responsibilities. Some 10 years ago Canada, along with a great many other countries, joined in tackling the problem of hunger. When we consider that at least half the people of the world must get by on about $100 per person per year, compared with nearly 10 times that amount in Canada, we realize that we should not be cutting down our production or worrying about this surplus. I have here, in "Agricultural Markets and Prices" at page 51, a table which is taken from one of the United Nations publications showing the per capita income in United States dollars for a number of countries, as follows:
Per Capita National Income
	Per Capita Income (In
Country	U.S. dollars)
		 36
		 57
		 51
Philippines 			 44 	 36
		 132
		 188
		 112
	
		 870
		 1,453
The Canadian figure would be up a good deal since those figures were prepared, but any way you figure them out, I think we cannot remain idly by in this rich, enlightened country, with almost unlimited productive capacity, while there are so many people in the world who have never had even one good meal. I commend the suggestions made by my colleagues who have spoken previously that we continue to produce maximum quantities of foodstuffs for our own use and for the use of our neighbours in all parts of the world, and that we have for agricultural

products a price which will bear some fair relation to the prices which we have to pay for what we buy.
One of my constituents in a letter he wrote to me emphasized the fact that his conditions now are actually worse than they were in the dirty thirties, as he described them. He said that in those days he was using horses and was able to produce his own food, but that in these modern days the horse has gone and he is obliged to pay cash for his fuel and for repairs for his tractors. With dollars so hard to get and expenses so extremely high, he and his neighbours are in a much more difficult position.
Again I think the government of Canada, which had no problem whatever during the war years in finding ways and means to finance an effective war effort, can find all the resources necessary to assure to the 20 per cent of the Canadian people who are making their contribution to the economy of Canada in connection with the production of food a fair share, nothing more and nothing less.


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert, I do so for several reasons. No doubt many of those who have taken part in the debate thus far have, by contact with their constituencies and by reference to the dominion bureau of statistics and to speeches by other members, become aware of the plight in which agriculture finds itself today. I take part in this debate because of the fact that statistics show that farmers are receiving less and less of the total amount of money that is taken in by all the people in the economy, and that they are getting less and less of the national income, 19 per cent of the people receiving about 10 or 11 per cent of the national income.
They are also getting less and less of the consumer's dollar. Of every dollar the consumer pays for food, less and less finds its way back to the primary producer of that particular article, whether it be beef, bacon, strawberries or any other thing you want to mention. Net farm income has shown a steady decline over the past few years.
During this session the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture have explained to the Canadian people through parliament that the farmers are fairly well to do, and that over the years some thousands of millions of dollars have been taken in by the Canadian farmers.
These figures on income, of course, do not mean very much unless you know what are the costs. I do not propose tonight to discuss
Economic Position of Agriculture this from a high windy hill. I am going to take you down to the farm, just as I went to the farms last week end when I was home. I talked to some of the farmers there and I shall tell you what they are saying and what they are doing. When one reduces the subject to this basis, one finds out whether or not the farmers are making a lot of money and just what conditions are.
I find that there are more municipal taxes unpaid this year than for many years. I find also that those co-operatives serving farmers that do extend credit to their members have more unpaid bills and bigger bills than they have had for many years. I talked to these people last Saturday when I was home.
What has brought about these conditions? Not so many years ago we were warning the government that the loss of the British markets and the loss of other export markets would eventually be reflected in the Canadian economy. Such is the case, and it has now caught up with us. We listened to the debates on the wheat surplus in the Canadian west for about three weeks. We can look back and find that not so many years ago we were able to export over 600 million pounds of bacon and 147 million pounds of cheese to Britain in one year, as well as supply our own markets. Is it any wonder then that today, when we are barely supplying our home markets with these products, much less feed grain is being used by eastern farmers to finish livestock and produce cheese, bacon and many other products? This is having an effect not only on the income of the eastern farmers but on the western producer, because we are not buying such large quantities of coarse grains and low grade feed wheat for livestock purposes.
We are finding ourselves in this difficult position also because of inflation, as I have mentioned time and time again. We are living in a world where dollars are plentiful but they do not buy very much. We find ourselves in this position also, Mr. Speaker, because of the United States farm surplus disposal programs. In many cases the United States is usurping our traditional markets for surplus farm products.
While these events are taking place, there are a certain number of people who are more or less apologists for the policy or lack of policy, shall I say, of the government. I am just going to mention a couple of them. There is the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We find the farmers' union coming into Ontario; and they are getting a foothold in Ontario because farmers believe the federation of agriculture has not been

Economic Position of Agriculture dynamic enough in supporting an agricultural program for this country. Then the president of the dairy farmers of Canada is saying, "Do not antagonize the government; be careful, and everything will turn out all right." That has been going on for quite a number of years.
Early in this session the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, "We are a party that believes in plenty; we believe in surpluses." Almost in the same breath he said there would be shortages of copper, shortages of steel, shortages of cement and many other things. The only thing of which he was proud was that there were surpluses of farm products. I can tell you that at the time Canadian farmers in southwestern Ontario were harvesting their onions, two carloads of onions were brought into this country from Egypt for no other purpose but to break the price.
I believe that is a rather shortsighted policy. We hear about surpluses in almost all farm products. This year there was supposed to have been a big crop of apples. As I go along the north shore of lake Ontario week after week I go through some of the best apple orchard areas in Ontario, and I am surprised at the number of orchards that have deteriorated in the past 10 years. I could say the same thing of my own county. I wonder sometimes if these surpluses are just fictitious, because when they are saying how many millions of bushels of apples may be produced as compared with five years ago or 10 years ago, they do not take into consideration that our population has been growing by leaps and bounds.
Take a look at the potato business. When we did have a crop of potatoes in this country there were 7,000 carloads of potatoes brought in from the United States; and the tariff is rather one-sided in favour of the United States. We have surpluses in many other products and will have when the products are imported like that.
I want to show you, if I can, just what is happening to those farmers to whom I was talking. I was talking to some of the concentrated milk producers, and they are not happy. Recently they have taken a cut of 10 cents per hundredweight in the price of their milk, from $2.65 to $2.55 per hundred for 3'5 milk. I was talking to one producer who last year produced 700,000 pounds of milk from over 100 cows on 300 acres of land. He is an efficient producer and has cost accounting facilities. He said that the milk cost him a little over $3 per hundred and it is now selling, as I say, at $2.55. At the same time powdered milk and cheese

are being imported from New Zealand so there will be dollars available with which New Zealand can buy Canadian manufactured products. This is sacrificing the agriculture industry to the manufacturing industry.
If anyone wonders why agriculture is sacrificed, I can tell him in a very few words. It is because for the last 20 years the government has booted around the agricultural industry; and then every four years when there has been an election, agriculture voted for the government. Agriculture is the only segment of our economy that can be treated that way and still support the government.
Coming back to the price of milk for a moment, I may say that in Ontario there is what is known as the dairy herd improvement plan. A survey of many of the dairy herds in the province was undertaken, and it was supervised by some of the experts from the college. This survey dealt with cost accounting and dairy farming. They found that the average cost of production for a large number of herds in the province of Ontario was $3.17 per 100 pounds of milk. Neither the cheese producers, the butter producers nor the concentrated milk producers were getting much over $2.50 for that very same milk.
Let us take a look at what the butter producer is actually getting. From 100 pounds of 3-5 milk an average of 4-2 pounds of butter will be produced, which sells at 58 cents a pound. That comes to $2.32. If the skim milk is manufactured into powder the skim milk powder is worth 11 cents a pound, which adds 88 cents to the $2.32. From that he must deduct the cost of manufacturing which he pays to his co-operative creamery, and that varies from 85 cents to $1.00. Therefore the farmer receives $2.30 for his 100 pounds of milk that costs him, according to all figures that can be produced, at least $3.00 or $3.17.
Another indication of the trend of the times is the fact that many young men who in the last five years purchased farms are finding it very difficult to meet their taxes and interest on their debt. In many instances the farm is deteriorating; in some instances they have given up, sold out and gone to town. That is not a healthy situation. I grant you that on the other hand there are many people who have bought farms and paid for them, but they have paid for them through the work of two or three people in their family besides their wives and themselves. They have paid for them because they have accepted a very low standard of living in order to pay for the home and the farm.

Let us take a look at the sheep industry. Recently the Minister of Agriculture made some announcement about a disease known as scrapie that has appeared recently in some of the flocks in this country. If they did not know of the seriousness of the disease, they should have known of it. Two years ago in Canada a certain flock was quarantined and none of the sheep could be exported to the United States. At the same time the breeder of those sheep was allowed to exhibit his flock at the royal winter fair. The Canadian people were told it was perfectly safe; it was a nervous disease, and they did not need to worry about it too much. That flock has been destroyed after its breeding stock has been scattered all over the country. I do not think there is one thing that has happened to the sheep industry in the last 100 years that could be as serious as this outbreak of scrapie which the government muffed and blundered through. It could ruin the export market for breeding stock as far as the sheep industry in Canada is concerned.
At very nearly the same time the production of wool in Canada reached an all-time low. This has happened to the sheep industry in Canada in the last few years. This careless attitude is indicative of the approach the government takes to farm problems. They do not require the Canadian manufacturers to indicate on their finished product whether the wool is shoddy, whether it has been used once or ten times over until it has lost all its life, or whether it is new wool that has just been clipped from the sheep. You can talk about grading. The wool is graded many times from the producer to the manufacturer, but once it reaches the manufacturer it is never graded again.
What about the cattleman? Last fall he could purchase cattle for 18 cents, 19 cents or 20 cents a pound. Today they are about 4 cents a pound less than they were last fall when he purchased them. After feeding them all the crops he grew on his farm he will not make too much money this year.
Take a look at the hog producer. I talked to some of them when I was home last week. Figures indicate that the over-all livestock population is increasing in this country. As far as the future markets are concerned, conditions indicate that there will still be a surplus. What about the hog producer? Many hog producers buy the young baby pigs when they are weaned, when they weigh an average of about 30 pounds. Let us say that the farmer who purchases them can buy them for $8. Some of them sold for as much as $12 or $15 last year, but let us say that the farmer could buy them for $8, which would be cheaper than if he raised them. He starts out with a pig that has cost him $8. If he buys all his 67509-130
Economic Position of Agriculture feed, which sometimes happens, he finds that it takes about 700 pounds of chop to finish a 30-pound weanling pig until it weighs 200 or 210 pounds. The total cost of the feed, plus the young pig, will run to at least $32.50. When he sells the hog it is sold on a dressed weight basis. A 210 pound hog will dress out at from 160 to 165 pounds. I looked over the purchases today, and I found that 161 pounds was the average dressed weight of that type of hog. If he sells it at the floor of 23 cents- I heard my friends to the left say that out west they are not getting that-it will bring him $37.03, or $4.53 per hog net. If my farmer back home wants to have an income of $2,817 next year he will have to feed and finish two hogs every working day of the year, 313 days. He will have to work 365 days. But that does not take care of taxes, interest on the investment or depreciation; and no pigs must die, not one. Therefore it does not look as if it is a very lucrative branch of the farming business.
If he should have his own grain and feed it his labour return per hog might be about $7, but that will not take care of interest, taxes or depreciation, and there will be no provision for' any extra labour that he might wish to hire. I took the trouble to call up the federal Department of Agriculture and to speak to one of their swine experts. I asked how much feed it took to finish a hog. He said, "It takes 400 pounds of feed for 100 pounds of gain". The 700 pounds I have given is 20 pounds less than the federal Department of Agriculture figure as the average for this country. If he had some pigs that were not thrifty, or if he was not too good a feeder, he would likely have a loss.
I venture to say that many of the farmers who are producing hogs are not making $4.53, or the $7 I have quoted, but probably more nearly $1 or $2.
Some say the farmers are not efficient. I have before me some figures taken from an exhibit sponsored by the Ontario department of agriculture at the 1954 royal agricultural winter fair. These figures point out that never in Canada's history has one hour's labour on the part of an urban Canadian purchased so much food. I will give you a few comparisons. In 1924 an hour's labour would buy 20 pounds of potatoes; in 1954 it would purchase 37 pounds, almost twice as much. In 1924 an hour's labour would purchase 1J dozen eggs; today it will purchase 2-6 dozen eggs, over twice as much. In 1924 an hour's labour would purchase 2-8 pounds of beef; today it will purchase 3-2 pounds. In 1924 an hour's labour would purchase 1-6 pounds of pork; today it will purchase 2 pounds. In 1924 an hour's labour would purchase 1-1 pound of butter; today it will

Economic Position of Agriculture purchase 2'5 pounds. In 1924 an hour's labour would purchase 3-8 quarts of milk; today it will purchase 7-3 quarts of milk.
I said something about farm efficiency. The number of farmers has decreased by 35 per cent over this period of 30 years, but at the same time the production by 35 per cent fewer farmers has increased by over 25 per cent in the years between 1935 and 1954 alone, to say nothing of the increase over the preceding years.
Farm production per man in Canada is up 70 per cent. I do not know how much more efficient the government or the Minister of Agriculture wants farmers to be, but I think-


James Garfield Gardiner: I think they are probably the most efficient people in the country at this time.


Harry Oliver White: I agree with you; in many respects they are. What reward are they getting for their efficiency? The more efficient they are and the more they produce, the less they receive. I sometimes wonder if it would not be a good idea for the farmers to sit back for about two weeks and not buy anything. We would see how soon people would begin to realize that the farmers' prosperity is also their prosperity.
I was going to refer to an article concerning the cost of producing hogs, but it was written at a time when pork was 28 cents a pound and it does not apply today very well. However, even when pork was 28 cents a pound, according to figures produced at that time by a butcher in the city of Toronto it was his claim that the farmers were making only $1 a hog and he was making a 23 per cent gain just by selling pork over the counter.
I did say something about onions being imported into this country. I wish to read from an article which appeared in the London Free Press on January 17, 1956. Mr. J. E. Reynolds, president of the Ontario fruit and vegetable growers' association, had this to say:
For instance, a boatload of Egyptian onions-
I believe I previously referred to a carload of onions. That was a mistake; I should have said a boatload.
-arrived in Montreal while the biggest crop of Ontario Sett onions in history was being harvested.
Other examples: 22 freight cars of potatoes were imported each day during June, July and August; 5,000,000 pounds of cabbage were imported in June, and 9,000,000 pounds of tomatoes entered the country during July, while local produce was left on the vines.
When we complain about this the government tells us it does not want to offend our neighbours to the south. There is a difference between being ignored by our neighbours to


the south and having them respect us. They will respect us more if we stand up for our rights instead of saying that we are afraid and we do not want to offend them.
In conclusion I wish to point out that a bill was passed in the legislature of the state of Maryland to prohibit foreign companies establishing themselves in Maryland. Our government say that protesting about such things as I have mentioned might hurt our good relations, but they are going to proceed to enact that bill all right; they do not care how much they offend us. The Lord looks after those who look after themselves, and I think it is about time we Canadian farmers and the government as representatives of the people began to do some of those things as well.
I am glad to support the resolution moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert and the amendment moved by the C.C.F. party.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Mr. Speaker, while New Brunswick is not one of the great agricultural areas of this country nevertheless it is an important industry in the province. In fact, considering its importance and some of the special aspects of it, I believe that the farmers of New Brunswick and of eastern Canada are more severely crushed by the price-cost squeeze than are those in other sections of the country. Quite a large proportion of the farmers in New Brunswick may be classified as mixed farmers, although a certain number, chiefly in my own constituency, might be classified as specialty farmers who specialize in potatoes. I might have something to say about potato farming before I conclude. [DOT]
Farming is an important subject to the province of New Brunswick; and while I am not a practical farmer, and it has been a long time since I had anything to do with practical farming, I must admit I was fairly well trained in it when I was young. According to the standards of farming at that time I do realize what farm work is like, and I am aware of the length of the working day and of some of the problems involved in farming.
It strikes me as strange when we are told that 1955 was one of the high spots in the prosperity of this country. We are told that in 1955 Canada produced more, exported more and consumed more goods and received more money than in any other year in our history, generally speaking. Nevertheless the farmers with whom I come in contact appear to be poorer, are having a more difficult time to pay their bills, and have less money in their pockets than they have had for a number of years. I can only speak

with some assurance of the people of my own constituency, and of course from what I read in reports about agriculture generally across the country.
Having listened to many speakers this afternoon who are practical farmers, and knowing what little I do about the situation in my own constituency and province, I am certainly in favour of the principle of this resolution. I feel that I would be remiss in my duty as a member if I did not stand up and more or less put myself on record as to the way I think farmers should be treated.
It seems to me there is only one conclusion one can come to in connection with the agricultural industry as a whole, and that is that the farmer is not getting a fair share of the consumer's dollar. That has been stated this afternoon in various ways, but regardless of how it is stated I believe that is what the farmer actually wants. He wants more of the consumer's dollar for the stuff he is producing. The spread between what the farmer gets for the products he raises, and which represent long hours of labour and large investment, and his costs is growing less and less. The percentages have been given and there is no need of my repeating them, but certainly the farmers' prosperity is not keeping up with the prosperity of other groups in the community, in the province or in the country.
Is there a solution? I listened to and read the speech of the right hon. Minister of Agriculture delivered on February 10 last. Apparently the minister had gone to great pains to work out a table of figures which he placed on the record. While there was no proof, there was certainly an inference in those figures that the farmers' cash and net income have increased for the last 20 years. I would not take issue with the minister on that. The minister is a most astute gentleman and clever speaker. He made a most significant statement toward the end of his speech. Having placed the table on the record, having reviewed the figures, he said words to this effect: Add all the facts together and you will get some idea whether the farmer is advancing or whether he is going backward in connection with his operations up to the present' time. That was for a period of some 20 years.
I reread that statement. It is a wide open statement. It is one in which you can read an expressed opinion. The right hon. minister has expressed the opinion, or has plainly left the inference, that the farmers of this country are far better off than they were 20 years ago, that they are a going concern, and that most of these complaints by farm and 67509-130i
Economic Position of Agriculture agricultural organizations are more or less unfounded, that they are a group of people who cannot be satisfied.
I am sure that if some city dweller, or someone who knew nothing of the farmer's problems, had been sitting in the gallery and had heard that speech, or had read it later, he would have got the feeling that the group of people engaged in agriculture in this country, farmers if you will, are possibly the best off people in Canada. I think they could honestly come to that conclusion after having studied that speech.
On the other hand, when you talk to farmers or to farm groups and hear them tell their story, you find that the picture is not so prosperous. It is a gloomy picture. At least 65 per cent of the people in my constituency are agriculturists, and the majority of the rest depends upon the farmers. Figures, statistics and net worth statements may not give a gloomy picture, but when I go out and talk to the farmer, when I look over his equipment, when I follow him from the time he starts out in the morning at five or six o'clock until he quits at night, I do not get that picture. As someone has said, the municipal authorities, the local merchants and the bankers do not give you that picture. You get a much gloomier picture than might be taken from the speech of the right hon. minister.
Toward the end of his speech the minister said in effect that the way any man found out how wealthy he was, whether he was better off than he used to be, is to put his hand in his pocket and find some money there. I should like the right hon. minister to go down to my constituency, talk to the farmers and find out how many of them have money in their pockets or can afford to go to town, take a trip or have a little pleasure. They have not the money to do it.
When you get right down to earth and go around the country and see buildings in need of repair, see vacant farms, see farms growing up in bush, see schoolhouses vacant, you get a much different picture. I was brought up in a country community. I went to a school where there were some 40 or 50 students, but today there are only 14 or 15 in that little school. A certain percentage are drained off at seven years of age to the central school, but the reason for the small number is that many of the farms which supported happy and fairly prosperous farmers in those days, people who were able to make a living, who were able to pay their bills, who lived as well as their neighbours did, have no one living on them today.
It was a friendly society. As a matter of fact, I still think a country community is

Economic Position of Agriculture one of the best places to live. The farmers are located within 50 or 60 rods of one another in a community extending for miles. Bui fee picture today has changed. You ask why has it changed? That is a fair question. I am not here to give the answer, but I can give my opinion based on what I hear. I do not believe that 6 per cent of the young men who have grown up within a radius of 20 miles of the home where I was raised have remained on the farms and carried on the family tradition. Why? Invariably the story is that they go and work at any other job.
Unfortunately they may leave New Brunswick, as a great many of them have done. They go to central Canada, western Canada or the United States and work at ordinary labour or go into business. It seems that almost anything is more attractive to them and more remunerative than farm life, although in my opinion it would have been a good thing for them to stick with the farm.
Many of the farms in my community that are still occupied are worked by older people, and time is running out on them. They are not working their farms very much. They are not able to do so any more. They cannot hire help to farm them, and their farms are deteriorating. It is a sad picture. Nevertheless I believe our people, if they can make as much money and have as good a life, are just as anxious to farm as the people of any other country. In a few cases people in my community have been fortunate, possibly in the potato industry. They were able to accumulate 300 or 400 acres of land, and if they were fortunate enough to have a few fairly good years there is the possibility that they can carry over a bad period. But in the last few years the bad periods have been coming so close together that even these people are beginning to come to the end of their rope, so to speak. The savings they were able to make are being used in order to carry on.
I do not think one needs. to labour this problem very much. I feel this way about it. If I were capable of giving the government advice there would not be much use of my doing so, because I think I would be wasting my time in imposing my ideas on the house and the Minister of Agriculture. If the government has not been convinced by those hon. members who have spoken today that something has to be done for agriculture; if the members of the government have not been convinced in their travels throughout the country, or if they are convinced that something should be done and do not know what


to do, then I think they should be prepared to accept some advice. I think they should give it a try.
Here is the other side of the picture. I believe it has been mentioned before, but I do not think I would be out of order in referring to it. In my constituency we have a very fine agricultural school. If there is any place in the whole province of New Brunswick where young people can be induced to go into farming it is in my constituency. Any young fellow who has any interest in cattle or stock of any kind, potatoes, mixed crops or grains of any kind has a grand opportunity to get a start. But our experience has been that a great many of these young men having taken two or three courses-the courses run through the winter -do not find it profitable to go back home and put into effect the ideas they have been taught. The smarter they are and the better farmers they would make, the greater the chance is that they will not stay in New Brunswick, and they do not even go to western Canada to take up agriculture.
In other words a fundamental industry, an industry which is very important to this country so far as the production of food is concerned, is losing a great many young men who I am sure would like to stay on the farms and improve our agricultural lands, who are the very persons who would improve the raising, grading and marketing of products because of their education. They are not staying on the farms. It is not that they do not want to but because it is not profitable for them to do so.
For that reason it seems to me that the resolution, if we think about it, does throw some light on the problem. The principle of the resolution indicates to our farmers that we consider they are entitled, in view of the number of hours they work and the risk they take in capital investment, to a fair return for their products and their labour. They are entitled at least to a square deal compared with people employed in other industries, whether in New Brunswick, any other part of the maritimes, or any other part of Canada. They are entitled to an equal deal with the people who are employed in other industries. I believe that legislation such as is envisaged by the amendment could be passed and that, properly administered, it could and would be of great benefit to the farmers.
On motion of Mr. Montgomery the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Purdy: In the province of Nova Scotia, by counties, for the year ending December 31, 1955, what were the number and amounts of (a) applications for loans under the Canadian Farm Loan Act; (b) loans granted; (e) loans refused; (d) applications still under review?
Answer by: Mr. Harris:
The Canadian farm loan board advises as follows:
The Canadian farm loan board does not require for administration purposes and therefore does not maintain records classifying applications and loans by counties.
In the period January 1, 1955 to December 31, 1955:
Number Amount
(a)	
70	$255,340(b)	
40	$133,200(c)	
30	$115,675(d)	
nil


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 20S-Mr. Goode:
1.	What amounts of federal funds were invested by loan in the province of British Columbia by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for housing construction, in 1953-54 and 1954-55?
2.	What amount is estimated for 1955-56?
Answer by: Mr. Winters:
1.	1953, $5,643,000; 1954, $2,282,000; 1955, $1,933,000.
2.	1956, $1,025,000.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation operate on a calendar year basis.

Mr. Balcom: What money grants, under the national health program, have been given in Nova Scotia during 1955, to the special types of hospitals as designated by the Department of National Health and Welfare as (a) mental hospitals (M);	(b) t.b. sanatoria
(T.B.);	(c) chronic convalescent (C);	(d) newhospitals (N);	(e) hospital additions (A);	(f)
nurses' residences (N.R.)?
Answer by: Mr. Martin:
During the fiscal year 1955-56:
(a)	Addition to mental hospitals-Halifax county mental hospital, $91,250.01; Cape Breton county hospital, Sydney Kiver, $127,500.00.
(b)	Nil.
(c)	Nil.
Questions
(d)	New polio clinic-provincial polio clinic, Halifax, $5,443.04.
(e)	Addition to active treatment hospitals- Blanchard Fraser memorial hospital, Kent-ville, $5,250.00; Grace maternity hospital, Halifax, $21,250.00.
(f)	New nurses' residence-Victoria general hospital, Halifax, $24,332.66.


PER CAPITA STATISTICS
Mr. Nicholson: What were the disbursements on a per capita basis, in the last year for which statistics are available, in Canada and each of the provinces, for the following:	(a) tobacco; (b) alcoholic
beverages; (c) education?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):
(a)	Estimated total consumer expenditure on tobacco in Canada in 1954, $475-0 million; per capita, $31.26; provincial breakdown not available.
(b)	Estimated total consumer expenditure on alcoholic beverages in Canada in 1954, $865-0 million; per capita, $56.92; provincial breakdown not available.
(c)	Expenditure on formal education* in
Canada in 1952, $581 million; per capita- Canada, $40.26; Newfoundland, $21.46; Prince Edward Island, $20.34; New Brunswick, $35.18; Nova Scotia, $32.24; Quebec, $34.87; Ontario, $42.41; Manitoba, $37.37; Saskatchewan, $42.73; Alberta, $48.87; British Columbia, $55.50; Yukon and N.W.T.,	$20.44; unallocated, 27 cents.
* Includes operating costs, capital expenditures from current revenue and debt charges (principal and interest) but excludes capital expenditure from borrowed funds, the cost of which is spread over future years. All levels of education both public and private are included. Training and cultural and other related activities are not included. A preliminary estimate places the comparable total for 1955 at around $750 million.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, BANFF PARK
Mr. Harkness: 1.	What work will be done during the coming construction season in the Banff national park on the trans-Canada highway west of Banff?
2.	What bids have already been called for this work?
3.	What are the names of the bidders and what were the amounts of their bids?
4.	To whom were the contracts awarded, and what was the amount of each contract?
Answer by: Mr. Winters:
1.	(a) The department expects to complete work on the following contracts which are in progress. All mileages are measured from the east gate of Banff national park. The first contract west of Banff is at mileage 10-8.

Questions
Serial	Contract Details	Awarded to	Date	Amount1.	Mile 10-8 to Mile 14 -2-grading and provision of culverts and base course.	Poole Engineering Co., Ltd	Aug. 30, 1955	$1,282,040.002.	Mile 14-2 to Mile 21-grading and provision of culverts and base course.	Square M Construction Co., Ltd., Edmonton.	Sept. 8, 1955	1,177,630.00(b)	The department expects to commence work on the following contracts:	3.	Mile 21 to Mile 31-grading and provision of culverts and base course.	Tenders received (Contract not yet awarded).	4.	Mile 43-3 to Mile 51 [DOT] 1-grading and provision of culverts and base course.	Standard Gravel and Surfacing of Canada Ltd.	Feb. 22. 1956	2,074,440.005.	Mile 0 to Mile 14-2-construction of bituminous stabilized base course.	Tenders not yet called.	6. 7.	Construction of 5 small reinforced concrete rigid frame bridges between Mile 13 to Mile 40. Construction of a bridge and overpass over the Bow river and C.P.R. at Mile 14-3.	Tenders received (Contract not yet awarded). Tenders called-not yet received.	(c)	The following work is planned, provided funds become available:8.	Bridge over the Bow river Mile 43-3.9.	Overpass to C.P.R. at Mile 43-5.10.	Bridge over Pipestone creek Mile 45-0.11.	Bridge over Bow river Mile 47-3.12.	Overpass to C.P.R. Mile 48-2.13.	Bridge over Bath creek Mile 50-3.14.	Overpass to C.P.R. Mile 50 6.2.	Tenders have been called for contracts referred to in answer No. 1-(Serials 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7).
3.
Serial	Contract Details	Tenderers	Amount of Tender1.	Mile 10-8 to Mile 14-2-grading and	provision	Poole Engineering Co. Ltd	
$1,282,040.00of culverts and base course.	Standard Gravel & Surfacing of Canada Ltd.	1,396,322.00Mannix Limited	
1,499,608.00
' Jamieson Construction Co., Ltd.. 1,723,900.00
2.	Mile 14-2 to Mile 21, grading and	provision	Square M Construction Ltd	 1,177,630.00
of culverts and base course.	Assiniboia Construction Co., Ltd. 1,243,950.00
Standard Gravel & Surfacing of Canada
Ltd	 1,270,140.00
New West Construction Co. Limited		1,295,380.00
Mannix Limited	 1,323,235.00
W. C. Wells Construction Co. Limited		1,380,000.00
Poole Engineering Co. Ltd	 1,548,970.00
Marwell Construction Co. Ltd	 1,618,400.00
3.	Mile 21 to Mile 31, grading and provision of	J. A. Moulson Construction Ltd.. 1,335,463.50
culverts and base course.	Square M Construction Ltd., and Coleman
Collieries Ltd	 2,184,207.50
Poole Engineering Co., Ltd	 2,206,948.50
Mannix Limited	 2,248,635.25
New West Construction Co., Ltd	 2,274,590.00
Standard Gravel & Surfacing of Canada
Ltd	 2,29S.460.00
W. C. Wells Construction Co., Ltd	 2,360,942.50
4.	Mile 43-3 to Mile 51-1-grading and	provision	Standard Gravel & Surfacing of	Canadaof culverts and base course.	Ltd	
2,074,440.00New West Construction Co., Ltd	
2,135,920.00Poole Engineering Co. Ltd	
2,188,060.00
Square M Construction Ltd., and Coleman
Collieries Ltd	 2,209,999.00
Mannix Limited	 2,369,330.00

Questions
Serial	Contract Details	Tenderers	Amount of Tender
6. Construction of 5 small reinforced concrete Nodwell Brothers Ltd	 $249,168.55
rigid frame bridges between Mile 13 to Poole Construction Co., Ltd	 266,256.75
Mile 40.	Burns and Dutton Concrete and Construction Co. Ltd	 288,800.00
Assiniboia Construction Co. Ltd	 290,753.28
Remington Construction Co. Ltd	 293,927.00
Baynes-Manning (Alberta) Ltd	 301,760.05
4.	Answered by No. 1 (Serials 1, 2 and 4).


TOMATO PRODUCTS IMPORTS
Mr. Lennard: 1.	How many pounds of tomato products were imported into Canada, during the calendar year of 1955 from, (a) the United States of America; lb) Italy?
2.	What was the value of such imports from each of the countries mentioned?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):
1 and 2. Imports of tomato products (includes juice, paste, puree, pulp, and canned tomatoes) (Statistical classifications 136, 137, 138, 139, 140) during the calendar year 1955, were as follows: -
Lb.	Value
(a)	From United
States	
39,136,951	$3,122,533(b)	From	Italy	.	12,734,419	$1,572,639


PRESERVED CHERRY IMPORTS
Mr. Lennard: 1.	How many pounds of cherries, sulphured or in
brine,	were	imported	into Canada,	during the
calendar year 1955 from, (a) the United States of America; (b) Italy?
2.	What was the value of such imports from each of the countries mentioned?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):
1 and 2. Imports of cherries, sulphured or in brine (statistical classification 51) during the calendar year 1955, were as follows: - Lb.	Value
(a)	From United
States	
1,125	$	312(b)	From Italy .	6,616,164	829,131Year	Number of prosecutions	Number of convictions1950 ...	
58	571951 ...	
15	141952 ...	
33	331953 ...	
16	161954 ...	
12	121955 ...	
18	171956 ...	
-	*Total	... 152	149
1/1/50
to
7/3/56


T.V. STATION CBLT
Mr. Pallet!: 1.	Is T.V. station CBLT changing from channel 9 to channel 6?
2.	If so, what steps, if any, have been taken to ensure that there will be no interference to reception on existing channels in the Toronto area?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	No steps required as assignment of channel 6 is in accordance with the Canada-United States of America allocation agreement.


MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT
Mr. Herridge: 1.	How many prosecutions have been instituted under section 6 of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, since January 1, 1950, to date?
2.	How many convictions were obtained in this period?
3.	How many persons were fined, were imprisoned, or were both fined and imprisoned?
Answer by: Mr. Lesage:
1, 2 and 3. Prosecutions under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, section 6, since January 1, 1950:
Number of	Number of suspended	
fines		sentences, etc.
56	1	sentence suspended13	1	sentence suspended33	15	1	bound over12	17	146	2	sentences suspended1	bound over
None reported to March 7, 1956.

Questions
No sentences of imprisonment were imposed during the above period for violation of section 6 of the Migratory Birds Convention Act.


SHIPPING STATISTICS-CANADIAN PORTS
Mr. Hahn: 1. How many ships carrying export and import goods called at the ports of Montreal, Quebec,
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Vancouver, New Westminster, British Columbia, in each of the years 1951, 1952, 1953. 1954 and 1955?
2. What was the total tonnage of freight other than passenger cargo (a) exported; (b) imported, through each port in each of these years?
Answer by. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):
1. NUMBER OF VESSELS ARRIVED AT AND DEPARTED FROM CANADIAN PORTS IN INTERNATIONAL SEABORNE SHIPPING
Year	Montreal	Halifax	Vancouver	New Westminster	Arrived	Departed	Arrived	Departed	Arrived	Departed	Arrived	Departed1951	1,809	2,145	i,m	1,164	2,424	2,356 2,743	736	8261952	1,927	1,843	1,165	1,133	2,909	690	8311953	2,149	2,866	1,157	1,154	3,409	3,353	702	8271954	
1955*	2,054	2,751	1,164	1,172	3,609	3,506	766	869
'Data will not be available until May.
2. CARGOES LOADED FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND CARGOES UNLOADED FROM


FOREIGN COUNTRIES
[Stage Direction]
Tons weight (2,000 lb.)
Year	Montreal	Halifax	Vancouver	New Westminster	Cargoes Loaded	Cargoes Unloaded	Cargoes Loaded	Cargoes Unloaded	Cargoes Loaded	Cargoes Unloaded	Cargoes Loaded	Cargoes Unloaded1951	
1952	
1953	
1954	
1955*	4,378,036 5,655,171 5,077,501 3,861,534	5,028,863 3,978,764 4,411,604 4,809,560	547,650 757,798 693,177 612,828	1,535,034 1,979,504 1,914,879 1,804,118	3,534,779 4,480,315 4,348,824 4,658,799	2,607,412 2,676,853 2,623,095 1,482,348	1,081,960 1,195,298 1,124,083 1,117,193	93,118 94,453 54,764 57,853
'Data will not be available until May.

Mr. Michener: What would be the estimated annual loss in revenue if deductions from taxable personal income were allowed for, (a) real property taxes paid to municipalities in Canada; (b) school taxes paid to municipalities and school boards in Canada?
Answer by: Mr. Harris:
In order to answer this question it would be necessary to know the income tax rate of every taxpayer owning real estate in Canada. As this information is not of government record it is not possible to give an accurate estimate in answering this question.


T.V. SYSTEM-BANFF NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Johnston (Bow River): 1.	Have there been any requests for permission to erect a community T.V. antenna system in Banff national park?
2.	If so, who made this request and what are the particulars in connection with such a proposal?
3.	Has the government given any permit for such a construction?
Answer by: Mr. Lesage:
1.	Yes.
2.	A request has been received from Mr. Bert Henderson of Banff. The proposal envisaged; (i) the formation of a company to erect, maintain and operate a community T.V. system to distribute television programs to residents of Banff by means of wire and cable; (ii) the acquisition of suitable site for antenna, and right of way from said site to closest power or telegraph line with permission to carry connecting line on trees, and the stringing of carrier line to residences on telephone poles in the townsite; (iii) an installation charge of approximately $125 to each residence plus a monthly service charge of from $3 to $5; (iv) a capital investment of approximately $25,000 by the company.
3.	No.

Dominion-Provincial Conference


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER OF FINANCE march 9, 1956
At our October meeting the federal government put forward certain suggestions in broad outline. These were discussed quite fully at that time and later both in conversations and correspondence. They were then developed into definite proposals in the Prime Minister's letters of January 6 and February 18. We have circulated a statistical paper to indicate how these proposals would operate in the first year of the proposed arrangements, that is, in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958. No one can foretell accurately either the level or the provincial distribution of population, incomes and profits one or two years hence, but we believe that the assumptions on which this table is based are reasonable.
Last October I suggested three principles or objectives that we ought to have in mind-
(a)	to assure as far as possible, to both the federal and provincial governments, access to revenues consistent with their responsibilities;
(b)	to develop and maintain fiscal arrangements that will contribute to high and stable levels of employment and that will tend to moderate rather than exaggerate the ups and downs in economic activity;
(c)	to promote simplicity, economy and equity in the tax system as a whole and in the machinery of tax collection.
The system of tax rental agreements, which is about to enter its tenth and final year, went a long way toward meeting these objectives, but experience has shown that it has not succeeded in meeting all the considerations to which the members of this conference attach importance. The proposals now before you are designed to reconcile as much as possible the various views represented around this table.
These proposals go just as far as we can go at this time in providing fiscal need grants and in reducing the extent to which we are occupying certain tax fields. On the assumptions we have made, our proposal will make available to the provincial governments $640 million in the first year of the new arrangements. This is $108 million or 20 per cent more than would be available to them if the present tax rental agreements were renewed 67509-131
and all the provinces took full advantage of them. The $640 million is made up of:-
[Stage Direction]
(a)
[Stage Direction]
Unconditional equalization grants
[Stage Direction]
$152 million
[Stage Direction]
(b)
[Stage Direction]
Revenues from the personal income, corporation and succession duty fields, either by rental agreements or collection agreements, or by direct provincial imposition and collection without any extra burden on the taxpayer ..
[Stage Direction]
465
[Stage Direction]
"
[Stage Direction]
(c)
[Stage Direction]
Removal of the tax on
[Stage Direction]
insurance premiums from the definition of special corporation taxes
[Stage Direction]
23
[Stage Direction]
"
[Stage Direction]
$640 million
We believe that revenues of these magnitudes from these tax fields are consistent with the actual responsibilities at this time and what seems likely to develop in the next five years. Any province that considers that it requires larger (or smaller) revenues from these tax fields is, of course, entirely free to impose and collect whatever rates it deems proper; but if a provincial rate exceeds the standard rate it will not entitle the taxpayer to any additional credit or rebate from the federal treasury.
On our side, we cannot at this time make any further material concessions that would adversely affect our revenues. Defence expenditures have been stabilized in the past year or two at a high level (nearly $1,800,000,000). We can hope that they will not go higher, but we cannot be sure; neither is it wholly within our control, that they may not have to go up again quite sharply. Many of you will have noticed that defence estimates in both the United Kingdom and the United States have gone up this year.
During the past 15 years, with the consent, often at the urging of provincial governments, we have taken on very large new classes of expenditures in the field of social welfare- unemployment insurance, family allowances, old age pensions and assistance, and other measures-which this year are costing the federal treasury not far short of $900 million,
[Stage Direction]
Dominion-Provincial Conference and are normally growing at a rate which will bring them over one billion dollars within five years. During the past year our total disbursement in these fields (including unemployment insurance benefits) was in fact over one billion dollars. All these payments have contributed to the maintenance of levels of incomes which have undoubtedly relieved the provincial governments of a great load of welfare claims that would otherwise have been pressed upon them and their municipalities. They have also had important beneficial effects on provincial revenues from all forms of taxation. They have been good and constructive expenditures, but their bearing upon the balance of revenues and responsibilities must not be overlooked.
Since we met last April the federal government has undertaken, subject to negotiated conditions, to assume costs in relation to unemployment assistance which in a year like 1954-55 would amount to about $25 million. We have also agreed in principle to assume additional costs of about $180 million a year in the field of health insurance. Now we are proposing arrangements which in the first year of operation and on the assumptions we have made will benefit provincial government treasuries by $108 million over and above the amounts already available to them under the tax rental agreement system. This, I assure you, is the practical limit of our capacity in these fields and at this time, having regard to all our other responsibilities, some of which, as in defence, are, in the last analysis, unlimited.
Our proposed stabilization payments are designed to give to the provincial governments an assurance of relative stability in these three tax fields. In effect we are offering every province unconditionally a guarantee that its annual revenues from equalization payments plus the yield or rental of the standard taxes will not fall below the higher of (a) its per capita rental available in 1956-57 multiplied by the current population, or (b) 90 per cent of its average actual revenues from equalization and stabilization payments and standard tax yields in the two preceding years. This is an offer of an unconditional floor in these tax fields, and a floor that keeps rising with our expanding economy. In the table before you, only Prince Edward Island and British Columbia benefit from this guaranteed minimum in 1957-58. We can all hope that the steady growth of our country is such that the floor will not often come into operation; but the insurance policy is none the less there.
The responsibility of promoting simplicity and economy in the whole field of taxation
belongs to all levels of government. As a federal contribution to this objective we are offering two alternatives-tax rental agreements and tax collection agreements.
We are prepared to offer each province a tax rental agreement covering all or any of these three tax fields for the five year period April 1, 1957 to March 31, 1962. The rental to be paid to the province will be the estimated total tax liability of taxpayers in that province at the standard rates of tax. The renting province need pass no taxing statute and will incur no administrative costs. It will, however, be bound for five years.
Alternatively, in the case of a provincial government having enacted and undertaken to maintain a taxing statute that in the opinion of the federal government does not differ from time to time in any material respect from the comparable federal statute and imposes the standard rates, the federal government is prepared to enter into an agreement to collect the tax for the provincial government. The federal government would remit periodically to the provincial government the amounts collected less a fee to cover the cost of collection. The fee we have in mind is 2 per cent of the amounts collected, providing the accounting procedures can be kept reasonably simple. A collection agreement would have to be for a period of, say, three years; or if for two years the fee would probably have to be 3 per cent. The cost of redesigning our collection machinery would not justify entering into agreements on a one-year basis. Notice to extend or terminate a collection agreement would have to be given not later than about the last day of April preceding the year to be affected.
While there seems to have been a general acceptance of the principle of equalization, there is, I realize, some conflict of views on the manner in which it has been applied. Some provinces with very substantial taxable capacity feel that their responsibilities are such that they should be accorded still more room in these tax fields. Other provinces, where taxable capacity is below the average, press for still larger equalization or fiscal need grants. The federal government is squeezed between these conflicting views.
If we were to raise the standard rates and lower the level up to which we equalize, we would find it impossible, except at a quite unacceptable cost to the federal treasury, to establish a formula which would not reduce the payments to most of the provinces to amounts below those available under the current rental agreements. It has been suggested that we should meet this by supplementary grants on a straight fiscal need basis.

While I would like to come as close to meeting all points of view as possible, I do not believe that experience with fiscal need payments, based on a sort of periodic means test, has been such as to encourage us to use them when the more objective approach that we have adopted is available to us.
Other ideas have been put forward and I assure you that they have all been given careful consideration. The co-operative use of these tax fields and the elimination of conditional grants have been suggested. The periodic collective determination of tax policies and an agreed division of the total yield does not seem to me to be a practicable policy. If there is any real support for this suggestion we would, of course, be prepared to study it after we have had some experience with our present proposals. As for conditional grants, it has been a tendency over the years for finance ministers and provincial treasurers to disapprove of them in principle, but
Dominion-Provincial Conference then- spending colleagues seem to keep pressing for new or expanded conditional grants.
Our proposals as now set out before you are an earnest effort to meet the differing and sometimes conflicting interests of the various provincial governments and at the same time maintain fully the strength of the federal government to meet its wide ranging and vital national responsibilities. Our proposals are not entirely new, but are, we think, a constructive adaptation of our past experience to our present problems. We have tried to meet adequately and sympathetically the needs of those provinces which have been having difficulty in providing standards of service which modern societies consider to be essential. But we have also had to keep in mind the preservation of the national interests of our peoples. The national interests and national security must be preserved if provincial autonomy is to have any real meaning.
C7509-131|
to
o
[Stage Direction]


Department of Finance, Ottawa,
8 March, 1956
An estimate of how the federal proposals would operate in fiscal year 1957-58, if (a) provincial populations were as indicated; (b) the yields of standard taxes and the insurance premium tax increased by 5% per annum over the 1955 levels at 1956 rates; and (c) the distribution of taxable incomes, profits and successions between provinces were in the same proportion as in the most recent breakdown available.
(all figures in thousands except per capitas and percentages.)
Fiscal Year 1957-58
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
Nfld.
[Stage Direction]
P.E.I.
[Stage Direction]
N.S.
[Stage Direction]
N.B.
[Stage Direction]
Que.
[Stage Direction]
Ont.
[Stage Direction]
Man.
[Stage Direction]
Sask.
[Stage Direction]
Alta.
[Stage Direction]
B.C.
[Stage Direction]
Total
[Stage Direction]
Population-June 1, 1957
[Stage Direction]
432
[Stage Direction]
108
[Stage Direction]
703
[Stage Direction]
578
[Stage Direction]
4,700
[Stage Direction]
5,509
[Stage Direction]
867
[Stage Direction]
929
[Stage Direction]
1,172
[Stage Direction]
1,377
[Stage Direction]
16,375
[Stage Direction]
Yield of standard taxes
[Stage Direction]
4,275
[Stage Direction]
825
[Stage Direction]
9,545
[Stage Direction]
7,240
[Stage Direction]
127,525
[Stage Direction]
209,490
[Stage Direction]
18,415
[Stage Direction]
13,005
[Stage Direction]
25,010
[Stage Direction]
48,595
[Stage Direction]
464,525
[Stage Direction]
Per capita yield of standard taxes
[Stage Direction]
9-90
[Stage Direction]
7-64
[Stage Direction]
13-58
[Stage Direction]
12-53
[Stage Direction]
27-13
[Stage Direction]
38-03
[Stage Direction]
21-24
[Stage Direction]
14-00
[Stage Direction]
21-85
[Stage Direction]
35-29
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
Equalization per capita to top 2 ($37.48)
[Stage Direction]
27-58
[Stage Direction]
29-84
[Stage Direction]
23-90
[Stage Direction]
24-95
[Stage Direction]
10-35
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
16-24
[Stage Direction]
23-48
[Stage Direction]
15-63
[Stage Direction]
2-19
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
Equalization payment for 1957-58 0)
[Stage Direction]
11,915
[Stage Direction]
3,225
[Stage Direction]
16,800
[Stage Direction]
14,420
[Stage Direction]
48,645
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
14,080
[Stage Direction]
21,810
[Stage Direction]
18,320
[Stage Direction]
3,015
[Stage Direction]
152,230
[Stage Direction]
Standard taxes plus equalization payment 0).
[Stage Direction]
16,190
[Stage Direction]
4,050
[Stage Direction]
26,345
[Stage Direction]
21,660
[Stage Direction]
176,170
[Stage Direction]
209,490
[Stage Direction]
32,495
[Stage Direction]
34,815
[Stage Direction]
43,930
[Stage Direction]
51,610
[Stage Direction]
616,755
[Stage Direction]
Stabilization payment for 1957-58 (2)
[Stage Direction]
Revenue available from 2% insurance premium
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
80
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
~
[Stage Direction]
95
[Stage Direction]
175
[Stage Direction]
tax
[Stage Direction]
230
[Stage Direction]
70
[Stage Direction]
765
[Stage Direction]
555
[Stage Direction]
6,205
[Stage Direction]
9,980
[Stage Direction]
1,090
[Stage Direction]
650
[Stage Direction]
1,550
[Stage Direction]
2,060
[Stage Direction]
23,155
[Stage Direction]
Total revenue available 1957-58 (')
[Stage Direction]
16,420
[Stage Direction]
4,200
[Stage Direction]
27,110
[Stage Direction]
22,215
[Stage Direction]
182,375
[Stage Direction]
219,470
[Stage Direction]
33,585
[Stage Direction]
35,465
[Stage Direction]
45,480
[Stage Direction]
53,765
[Stage Direction]
640,085
[Stage Direction]
Tax rental payment available in 1956-57 (3)... Increase 1957-58 proposed formula over 1956-57
[Stage Direction]
14,015
[Stage Direction]
4,130
[Stage Direction]
21,810
[Stage Direction]
18,370
[Stage Direction]
139,535
[Stage Direction]
168,700
[Stage Direction]
28,415
[Stage Direction]
28,420
[Stage Direction]
35,010
[Stage Direction]
50,360
[Stage Direction]
508,795
[Stage Direction]
agreement formula 0)
[Stage Direction]
2,375
[Stage Direction]
70
[Stage Direction]
5,300
[Stage Direction]
3,845
[Stage Direction]
42,840
[Stage Direction]
50,770
[Stage Direction]
5,170
[Stage Direction]
7,045
[Stage Direction]
10,470
[Stage Direction]
3,405
[Stage Direction]
131,290
[Stage Direction]
Per cent increase
[Stage Direction]
Tax rental available in 1957-58 if the 1952
[Stage Direction]
16-9
[Stage Direction]
1-7
[Stage Direction]
24-3
[Stage Direction]
20-9
[Stage Direction]
30-7
[Stage Direction]
30-1
[Stage Direction]
18-2
[Stage Direction]
24-8
[Stage Direction]
29-9
[Stage Direction]
6-8
[Stage Direction]
25-8
[Stage Direction]
agreements were continued (4)
[Stage Direction]
Increase in proposed formula over the 1952
[Stage Direction]
14,690
[Stage Direction]
4,120
[Stage Direction]
22,565
[Stage Direction]
19,065
[Stage Direction]
144,800
[Stage Direction]
177,070
[Stage Direction]
29,240
[Stage Direction]
29,620
[Stage Direction]
37,505
[Stage Direction]
52,670
[Stage Direction]
531,435
[Stage Direction]
agreement formula, 1957-58 0)
[Stage Direction]
1,730
[Stage Direction]
-10
[Stage Direction]
4,545
[Stage Direction]
3,150
[Stage Direction]
37,575
[Stage Direction]
42,400
[Stage Direction]
4,345
[Stage Direction]
5,845
[Stage Direction]
7,975
[Stage Direction]
1,095
[Stage Direction]
108,650
[Stage Direction]
Per cent increase over 1952 formula
[Stage Direction]
11-8
[Stage Direction]
[DOT]2
[Stage Direction]
20-1
[Stage Direction]
16-5
[Stage Direction]
25-9
[Stage Direction]
23-9
[Stage Direction]
14-9
[Stage Direction]
19-7
[Stage Direction]
21-3
[Stage Direction]
2-1
[Stage Direction]
20-4
[Stage Direction]
Per capita increase over 1952 formula
[Stage Direction]
4-00
[Stage Direction]
-*09
[Stage Direction]
6-47
[Stage Direction]
5-45
[Stage Direction]
7-99
[Stage Direction]
7-70
[Stage Direction]
5-01
[Stage Direction]
6-29
[Stage Direction]
6-80
[Stage Direction]
[DOT]80
[Stage Direction]
6-64
[Stage Direction]
o
*1
o
o
£
o
[Stage Direction]
(*) All equalization payments and total revenue available would be subject to possible deductions in respect of any provincial special corporation taxes levied.
(2)	To bring up to per capita rate of payments in 1956-57-P.E.I. $38.24, B.C. $37.55.
(3)	Estimated on gross national product at factor cost of $23-4 billion.
(<) Estimated on gross national product at factor cost of $24-4 billion.
Note; These figures are illustrative only.
No account has been taken of such increased revenue items as license fees, fire marshall's tax, personal income tax on non-residents etc.
Dominion-Provincial Conference
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 13, 1956