1957-12-11

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of standing committee on railways, canals, and telegraph lines.-Mr. Fraser.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That when this house adjourns on Saturday, December 21 next, it shall stand adjourned until
11.00	a.m. on Thursday, January 2, 1958.
He said: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the house I ask that the last line of this motion be changed to read "until
11.00	a.m. on Friday, January 3, 1958".


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house to make this change in the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion as amended agreed to.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Benidickson: What steps, beyond the setting up of the Borden royal commission, is the government taking to assure, on an interim basis, that consumers will not be required to pay an inequitable price for natural gas from the Trans-Canada pipe line in areas where gas is already or is soon to be made available?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is a major matter of concern, and it may be noted that in the powers given to-the Borden commission the protection of the consumer as well as the producer is provided for, and that recommendations to the achievement of these ends are requested. The present situation is that any schedules covering costs that may be made applicable by the company will be filed with the board of transport commissioners, and immediate action will be taken in the event that anything of the nature feared by my hon. friend takes place.
I believe there is nothing further I can add at this time, except that I hope for an early recommendation in this connection by the Borden commission. The secretaries have been appointed. Mr. J. F. Parkinson of the Department of Finance and Major LaFrance of the Department of National Defence have been lent to the commission, and they have been working together in gathering the necessary information so that when the first of the sittings begins next week early recommendations in regard to these matters may be made.



PROVINCIAL REQUESTS FOR FEDERAL


Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	On what date did the government of New Brunswick first request financial aid for Beech-wood from the present government of Canada?
2.	What was the form of the request and what was the nature and scale of the assistance requested?
3.	On what date did the government of Saskatchewan first request the present government to join with Saskatchewan In the South Saskatchewan project?
4.	On what date did the government of British Columbia approach the present government regarding the development of the Columbia river?
5.	Has' any other provincial government made any request for assistance or co-operation in any power project?
6.	If so, which provincial governments and in respect of what projects?


Mr. Speaker:: Stand?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: I rise on a question of privilege, sir. We are being asked, according to the program announced by the house leader last night, to debate the Beechwood project before starred questions will come up again. I wonder if it would not be possible for the government to give an answer to these questions?


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, the debate will take place I hope some day this week. Certainly every bit of information that is available then will be given to the hon. gentleman. He has dealt with three matters here, first the Beechwood matter and then the requests of the provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia. If my hon. friend will restrict his question to the first two parts at this time, I will see that an answer is given tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me that the questions are very simple. They ask for dates only.

Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I am doubtful if it is proper to ask for information about a matter pending for debate. I shall look into the matter and see whether or not I am correct in that impression.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know Your Honour is approaching your responsibilities with very great care and thoroughness, but upon reflection Your Honour may want to give consideration to that opinion. One of the reasons for asking questions prior to a debate is to enable members to have a clear idea as to the course they should pursue in the debate.


Mr. Fleming:: Perhaps I could be of assistance on this point of order. There is on the order paper a resolution looking to the introduction of a bill to authorize the government of Canada to make a loan to the province of New Brunswick to cover the cost of financing the Beechwood project. It is hoped that the resolution will be before the house tomorrow. On that resolution, in keeping with the practice of the house, any information that is required and that is relevant will, of course, be forthcoming. When my friend the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) speaks about the need of having information before debate, he of course means debate on second reading of the bill to follow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; at any time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The purpose of having a resolution stage on such a measure is to provide whatever information the house requires in the later stages of the measure, and that information will be forthcoming on the resolution stage.


Mr. Speaker:: I am speaking from memory, but it seems to me that there is a precedent for the statement I made that where a matter is pending on the order paper for debate it is not proper to take the time of the house to ask questions. However, I will look into the matter and not commit myself finally this morning. lLater:l


Mr. Speaker:: With respect to starred question 45, the Clerk has given me a citation which was the one I probably had in mind in the statement I made. It is citation No. 295 of Beauchesne, third edition, at page 119 and in part it is as follows:
A question oral or written must not-
Then you have a great many subheadings, and subheading (v) reads:
Anticipate an order of the day or other matters.

So in so far as the question relates to Beechwood, which is an order of the day, I would think the citation is authority for the proposition that it is not in order.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE INCREASES

Mr. Thompson (Edmonfon-: Slrathcona):
1.	Has the ceiling on war veterans allowances been increased sufficiently to give married veterans full advantage of the increase in old age security pensions?
2.	If not, have steps been taken by the government to avoid reductions in war veterans allowances in such circumstances?


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The answer to questions Nos. 1 and 2 is as follows. In no case does the income ceiling under the War Veterans' Allowance Act permit payment of the maximum war veterans allowance to a recipient of pension under the Old Age Security Act. The old age security pension is treated as income on the same basis as income from other sources -for instance, superannuation or disability pension. However, the recent amendments of the war veterans allowance income ceilings had the following results. In the case of a single veteran, the ceiling now permits an income of $1,080 a year or $90 per month, and in the case of a married veteran $1,740 a year or $145 per month. This is over and above exempted income or receipts from casual labour.



GROUNDING OF C.G.S. &quot;BAFFIN&quot;

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 47
Mr. Fisher:: 1.	Was there a radar operator on duty aboard the C.G.S. Baffin when it grounded on Black rock?
2.	If so. did the operator inform the captain that Black rock was ahead?
3.	At what times did he inform the captain about the position of Black rock?
4.	What time was the grounding?
5.	At the time of the grounding, did the captain or the chief hydrographer have supreme control of the ship?
6.	If the chief hydrographer was in control, was he given any message from the radar operator re the position of Black rock?


Hon. Paul Comfois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: This question is in six parts. The answers are as follows:
1.	No; no one classified as such. Radar watch is maintained by the officer of the watch.
2.	Yes; he informed him the rock was 20 degrees on the port bow.
3.	Exact time not noted; approximately five minutes before grounding.
4.	Exactly 1632 hours; that is 4.32 p.m.
5.	The captain always has supreme control of the ship. The senior assistant hydrographer was directing the course of the ship on a sounding line, from the hydrographers' chart room.

6.	The hydrographer directing the course was informed regarding the position of Black rock when it was estimated to be one and one-half miles, one mile and one-half mile distant.
As a further explanation I may add this. When the captain reached the bridge shortly before the grounding the officer of the watch informed him of the proximity of Black rock. The course the ship was steering at the time would have passed the rock in safety though it would have been dangerously close. The captain went at once to the chart room from which the course was being directed.
In the meantime instructions were given from the chart room to alter the course to 270 in order to proceed to the next line of sounding. This brought the rock directly ahead and the grounding took place before preventive action could have effect. It should be realized that this occurred during dense fog, and the information regarding the proximity of the rock was secured from the radar screen only.

On the orders of the day:


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys which in a sense arises out of the answer to starred question No. 47. Was it an oversight that the information given this morning on the grounding of the Baffin on Black rock was not included in his answers to questions raised in the house on November 11, as found on page 945 of Hansard, in answer to the larger of the two members from Halifax?


Paul Comtois: Mr. Speaker, I think I gave every detail when my estimates were discussed. Furthermore, when the supplementary estimates are discussed I will table the report we already have in the department, and this was agreed when we were discussing my estimates. I do not think there are many other facts I could bring before the house on that matter. I do not know from what source such questions about the grounding of the Baffin come, but I am inclined to believe they come perhaps from some member of the S.A.C.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Rochefort: 1.	Is there an airport within the limits of the city of Cap de la Madeleine?
2.	If so, who is the owner of the said airport and who operates it?
Inquiries of the Ministry
3.	Does the federal government use such airport for public purposes? If so, since when?
4.	How much money has the government spent on the improvements of this airport on construction of buildings, hangars, etc.?
5.	Have engineers made reports condemning the same? If so, when?
6.	What would be the cost of extending this airport so it could be used by commercial aircraft?
7.	Is the government contemplating the construction of an airport in a neighbouring municipality and abandoning that of Cap de la Madeleine?
8.	Will the city council and public bodies of the county of Champlain and the city of Cap de la Madeleine be invited to be represented at any investigation?



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD


Mr. Kirk: 1.	What was the number of employees of the
national harbours board, in the following categories, at the ports of Halifax, Saint John, Chicoutimi, Quebec city, Montreal and Vancouver, on September 1, 1957:	(a) clerical and office staff; (b)
labourers; (c) cleaners and sweepers; (d) painters; (e) carpenters; (f) other skilled trades?
2.	How many employees, in each category, have been laid off at each of these national harbours since September 1, 1957, and up to November 15, 1957?
3.	Are any further lay-offs foreseen at any of these ports?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, of which I have given him notice. In view of his observations last week as to the care which he thinks should be exercised in respect of proposals made by countries for the easing of international tension, and without commenting on the direct merits of his observations, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what comment he has to make on the reported proposal made by the premier of the Soviet union to the Prime Minister of India, which was also addressed to the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? Furthermore, was such a proposal addressed to the government of Canada?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I thank the hon.
member for the notice which he gave me a few moments ago. I would first state, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian government has not received any communication in this regard. All we know has been gleaned from press reports.
I did say last week that we should not always dismiss out of hand every Soviet proposal, and a communication as important as that which the press report says has been

Inquiries of the Ministry sent to Mr. Nehru, Mr. Eisenhower, and Mr. Macmillan deserves careful study by the recipients and others. I can assure the house that the Canadian government will examine any proposal contained in these letters, if we see the official text. We will examine them with earnest care in the hope that they might provide or offer some prospect of advancement in this difficult and dangerous but essential endeavour to reach an agreement on the measures of disarmament.
We hope, as always we will hope, that the Russians will offer the west something of value. I am bound to say, however, that it will have to be something more solid than a renewal of the demand for simple cessation of nuclear tests. I find nothing, Mr. Speaker, in the press reports which would ensure such observance of such an undertaking, and I would point out to the house, moreover, that the banning of tests is only one part of the disarmament proposals endorsed a few months ago by the United Nations.
These proposals did include the banning of tests which would be effective immediately, but, in addition, that resolution proposed the cessation of the production of nuclear material for weapons purposes and the reduction of conventional armaments and other measures, all under a system of inspection and control which would assure all parties that all other parties were complying with their undertakings.


REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON PRESS REPORT RESPECTING MR. DULLES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I wish to ask the minister of external affairs a question about a matter of considerable gravity. I wish to inquire if the minister would make a comment on the statement in the Vancouver Sun of December 4, 1957, a copy of which I have left with him, that Mr. John Foster Dulles has personally tongue-lashed the Canadian minister to Washington, the British ambassador, the French ambassador and several others.


Sidney Earle Smith: Since I came into the house the hon. member sent me this clipping from the Vancouver Sun. I have not had an opportunity of reading it fully, but I would inform the house that it is a report from Washington, and the part that was underlined by someone here is to this effect:
In addition to his myopic view of today's world, Mr. Dulles has done more to lose friends and antagonize people than any U.S. secretary of state in recent history.
He has personally tongue-lashed the Canadian minister to Washington, a British ambassador, a French ambassador and several others.

It is always difficult to assert a negative, and to assert a negative on behalf of someone else is even more difficult. I have been in close touch with our representative in Washington for the past four months. Indeed, on Saturday last in Ottawa we discussed his relationships with Mr. Dulles, and nothing Mr. Robertson said on that occasion or at earlier meetings between the two of us would indicate that his relations with the secretary of state of the United States have been anything but courteous, friendly and indeed cordial. I cannot for a moment give any credence to the validity of this report.


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: May
I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister inquire into this specific incident so we can ascertain whether or not it is so, because if it is so it is something we could not countenance.


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am not happy about carrying on an investigation in relation to matters concerning our communications through our representative with the secretary of state for another country and then reporting to the house but, subject to your ruling, I will inform the house if I find there is anything disturbing in it. I would put it that way.


POSITION OF CANADA AT FORTHCOMING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will Canada at the forthcoming meeting of the NATO council press, and I hope with vigour, the point of view expressed this morning by the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to the banning of nuclear tests? In other words, will Canada urge the west to put itself in the lead in the effort to find ways of banning these tests?


Sidney Earle Smith: I thought I made my statement very clear in that regard. I told the house that the government will look carefully at any proposal made at this time. I draw the attention of my hon. friend to the reservations, if you can call them that, which I made in my statement in answer to the earlier question.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I have a supplementary question. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs can tell the house whether Canada has lodged any proposals with the NATO secretariat for this conference; and is Canada going to take

a position proposing the extension of economic assistance and strengthening of economic ties?


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: Before the Prime Minister answers, may I ask a supplementary question; he could deal with them both at the same time. I wish to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Prime Minister. Has he received a copy of the four basic proposals to the North Atlantic treaty council deposited by the British government with the NATO secretariat? In particular I should like to ask whether, if he has received a copy of these proposals deposited with the NATO secretariat, which are purported to try to get NATO to evolve into more than a military alliance, a strong position will be taken in respect of item 2, which provides for increased economic interdependence in NATO?


John George Diefenbaker: The question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia and amplified by the hon. member for Rosthern is one that over the years has had the attention of every nation within NATO, namely the realization that it is always very difficult to maintain a defensive organization based on military purposes and aims alone; for whenever there is any diminution in national fears there is an immediate weakening in the bonds that hold such organizations together.
Article 2 incorporated in the NATO declaration is one that has not received in the past that degree of implementation which many of us would like to see achieved. On the several occasions the NATO council have met, my understanding is that there has been a general discussion in this regard, but at no time has there been that degree of unanimity or indeed that degree of certainty as to the meaning of article 2. For that reason there has never been any material advance made in the implementation of the article.
I hope that article 2 will be one of those matters that will receive extraordinary attention on this occasion. As one of the representatives of Canada it will be my purpose to advance the need of a wider and more comprehensive implementation of that article, to the end that while maintaining our defences we shall co-operate in the economic fields that are available, to such an extent as to assure the strongest possible mortar to hold together the forces of freedom.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister say whether Canada has deposited any documents with the secretariat setting out Canada's proposals?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: I should say only in a general way. There has not been that specific application that Britain and the United States have applied to the problem of NATO, for it will be remembered that this meeting of NATO stems directly from the meeting in Washington of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom with the President of the United States and their declaration of interdependence. It also rises from the realization that recent scientific advances on the part of the U.S.S.R. have called for an intensified examination of NATO and its principles to the end that it may advance to the future stronger than ever before in its purposes and its aims.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: What does the Prime Minister mean when he says they have deposited documents only in a general way? What does that mean exactly? Does it mean that we have deposited no documents which will have any bearing on the proposals that are being made by some other countries?


John George Diefenbaker: No. What I say is this. Instead of being specific with regard to some of the matters, such as the four matters referred to in the British presentation, our purpose at the NATO meeting will be to enunciate general objectives-


Major James William Coldwell: Has that been done?


John George Diefenbaker: -to the end that we will be able to discharge our responsibilities as a middle power in NATO and bring together those who today have their disagreements, all of which I think are generally known and require no elucidation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I take advantage of the statement by the Prime Minister to ask him a further question, particularly in view of the fact that this may be my last opportunity to do so. I think the house and the country will be very grateful for what the Prime Minister has just said in regard to seeking to give further effect to the implications of article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In view of what the Prime Minister has said, therefore, will he not now state that the general attitude taken by the former secretary of state for external affairs, as one of a committee of three who examined the potentialities of the North Atlantic treaty in terms of article 2, is one that now affords to the right hon. gentleman an opportunity of placing before the NATO council the very constructive attitude which he has now put before this house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, over the years when we occupied the other side of the

Inquiries of the Ministry house we advanced most strongly our support of the intensification of the use of article 2. We pressed upon the then government the need of action is this regard. When the presentation of the three foreign ministers, to which the hon. member made reference, was made representations were made on behalf of Canada which had the support of members in every part of the country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with article 2, I think, as one of the Canadian representatives, I will be able to speak with the assurance that every part of this house is in favour of a further extension of the application of that article.


ATOMIC ENERGY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sidney Earle Smith: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I may make a statement. I desire to inform the house that there was signed earlier this morning an agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany for co-operation in the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The terms provide that the agreement shall come into force upon an exchange of notes to that effect, an exchange which the government intends to carry out later this month. With the leave of the house I shall cause to be deposited with the Clerk copies of the agreement in English and in French.
I do not intend to go into details of this agreement, but I desire to make some comments on it. The agreement was negotiated during September of this year on the basis of a draft prepared by Canada. That draft has been made available to a number of other governments which have expressed an interest in the possibility of concluding an agreement of this nature with Canada. We hope there will be a number of such agreements concluded before long. In this connection I might add that negotiations have been carried on with the government of Switzerland, and we are hopeful that the outcome will be successful and that an agreement with Switzerland will soon be forthcoming and brought into effect.
The agreement with Germany which has now been signed will provide for co-operation between the two countries on a reciprocal basis. That is to say, it does not envisage a
one-way traffic, but rather that each government will assist the other as appropriate and on a basis of equality. The co-operation

involved may take a variety of forms, including the exchange of information, the supply of equipment and materials, and access to and use of facilities. In particular, the agreement will permit arrangements to be made for the supply of uranium from Canada to Germany.
In all cases the activities involved must be directed solely to peaceful ends, and there is provision for adequate safeguards to ensure that materials such as uranium, which are essential to an atomic energy program, shall not be diverted to any military use. I emphasize this point, Mr. Speaker, that adequate safeguards to this end are assured. The safeguards provisions, I may add, are modelled closely upon those of the international atomic energy agency of the United Nations.
I desire at this point to say a few words about the relationship between such bilateral agreements and that agency, of which both Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany are members. Canada wholeheartedly supports the newly established international atomic energy agency, which is designed to encourage, to complement and to assist the efforts of governments, individually or in co-operation on a bilateral or multilateral basis, to develop and apply the peaceful uses of atomic energy. It is quite possible that when the agency is fully operative, as it is not now, the supply of such material as uranium from one country to another will frequently be arranged through it.
As I informed you a moment ago, the statute provides also for bilateral agreements. Provision is made in the statute of the international agency for safeguards in the case of bilateral agreements. The present agreement makes no explicit reference to such an arrangement; neither the international atomic energy agency nor any other suitable international body is yet in a position to apply safeguards, but the possibility of transferring the safeguards functions for which provision is made in the agreement to a mutually acceptable international body is one which could be raised by either party at a later date.
With the leave of the house I am depositing a copy of the agreement with the Clerk of the house.
The terms of the agreement provide that it shall come into force upon an exchange of notes to that effect. As I have already informed the house, it is our intention that this exchange should take place this month. We are confident that this agreement and others like it which may be negotiated with other friendly governments will be supported by all members of the house. I think we can

all agree that agreements of this kind, providing as they do for co-operation on a reciprocal basis, will come to play an important role in the development of the peaceful uses of atomic energy with consequent benefit to our friends and ourselves, and that such agreements will provide an additional market for Canadian uranium.
Finally, these intergovernmental agreements will not in themselves constitute contracts for the export of uranium from Canada. Rather they will establish conditions satisfactory to the two governments concerned under which such contracts may be concluded on a commercial basis between the appropriate governmental agencies in each country. The governmental agencies which will be responsible for the detailed operation of this agreement between West Germany and Canada and the negotiation of any contracts arising under it report to parliament through my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the question addressed to me by the hon. member I am happy to make this statement in relation to the use of nuclear power for peaceful uses.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether or not requests have come in from at least three other friendly countries, not referred to in my hon. friend's statement, altogether apart from the possible arrangements made in Switzerland?


Sidney Earle Smith: I know of two inquiries, and negotiations are going on. I ask permission of the house not to divulge the names of those countries. I can state, however, that there was hope that such an agreement might be negotiated with France, but they informed us that they were not interested in obtaining Canadian uranium on this basis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Are there any negotiations between Canada and the Euratom group, as a unit, regarding this matter?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, the Euratom group will become fully established for the first time on January 1, 1958.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. My question is, have steps been taken by the Department of
Inquiries of the Ministry Finance to have bilingual cheques issued by the department in all parts of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker.
ILater:]


Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance did not take advantage of the opportunity of answering my first question-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did answer the question plainly.


Wilfrid Lacroix: -my supplementary question is-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has another question he may put it. He began by commenting on the answer he received. He did have a reply, and he is not in a position to ask for more.


Wilfrid Lacroix: It is a supplementary question. Is it not true that the interpretation of the existing statutes has permitted, without passing a new act, the issuing of bilingual cheques by the Department of Finance in the province of Quebec? Are not these statutes the same for the other provinces of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I commented upon a similar question from the same hon. member two days ago. This question would involve a matter of legal opinion, and any answer I might give on that point would be clearly out of order.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Why didn't you answer my first question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did answer the hon. member's first question. He should not be making statements of that kind, since they are quite untrue.


Mr. Speaker:: I have already advised the hon. member to that effect.


WHEAT-PROVISION OF CREDIT FOR POLAND AND SPAIN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am sorry I was not able to give him notice. My question is based on a press dispatch which appeared in this morning's paper entitled, "Wheat Sale Dependent Upon Credit". Can the minister inform the house what steps have been taken by the government to meet the credit requirements of Poland and Spain so the sale of a considerable quantity of wheat, estimated at between seven and ten million bushels, may materialize?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it is hoped to sell wheat to various European countries. Hon. members will appreciate that under these conditions it would be inadvisable to give any information about the names of particular countries or the nature of the proposals. I think anyone who is really interested in selling wheat will realize the truth of what I have said.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I assume the matter is under active consideration by the government, and I think that is the important point.


LEAD AND ZINC-STATEMENT ON U.S. TARIFF COMMISSION HEARINGS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay East asked a question with regard to the hearings on lead and zinc before the United States tariff commission. In my reply I referred to strong representations having been made by the government of Canada, and the hon. member then asked a supplementary question as follows:
May I ask the minister whether these governmental negotiations are being carried on at the present time? Are they following the matter up to the very last in order that this drastic action may not be taken?
The answer is that the matter continues to be pursued with the United States authorities with the utmost vigour.


STATEMENT ON REPORTED PURCHASES BY ROUMANIAN AGRICULTURAL DELEGATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Medicine Hat directed a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with a Roumanian delegation which was in Canada for several weeks up to about 10 days ago. As reported at page 2127 of Hansard he asked specifically these questions:
What Canadian products were purchased, and has the invitation been accepted?
That is the invitation of the Roumanians to return this visit.
If so, what will the mission attempt to buy or sell?
This agricultural delegation from Roumania was headed by the minister of agriculture for Roumania. In view of the fact that the Department of Agriculture arranged their trip in Canada it is perhaps more appropriate that
[Mr. Johnson (Kindersley).)

I should reply to the question than that the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce should do so.
This delegation was here for the purpose of seeing our methods of farming, and particularly to look into the types of the seeds, livestock and machinery which we have in this country and which might be suitable for use in Roumania. They travelled right across the country and formed a very favourable opinion. They were convinced of the fact that we had here in Canada a good many products which they could buy and make use of.
Whilst they were here they purchased a considerable quantity of hybrid seed corn. They had purchased some hybrid seed corn the year before, and had also purchased some from the United States. They found that our hybrid seed corn turned out better in Roumania than did the purchases they made from the United States. As a result, when they were here this year they purchased something like two and one-half times as much seed corn in Canada as they purchased in the United States on this trip.
They also purchased some hogs; in fact, they purchased a plane load of hogs which were immediately flown to Roumania. It is rather interesting in this connection that the ancestors of those particular hogs were secured from Sir Winston Churchill about four years ago. They also purchased some cattle, Herefords and Black Angus; some chickens and some machinery.
These are all in the nature of what you might call sample purchases. If they turn out to be satisfactory, as I am sure they will, the minister of agriculture for Roumania assured me that they would be back to make considerably larger purchases in future years.
As to the invitation which was issued for a similar delegation to go to Roumania, I assured him that we would consider the matter seriously, and I hope something along that line might be arranged.


UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, and I am not sure whether it should be addressed to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has two parts. When is it proposed to introduce legislation to remove the threshold provisions of the Unemployment Assistance Act of 1956? Have any advances been made to encourage the province of Ontario to accept the benefits of the said

act, which will help municipalities in meeting the obligation to pay relief to unemployed persons?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, just as soon as we get on with the disposition of those things which are on the order paper now.
ILoter:]


Donald Ferguson Brown: May I ask a
question of the Prime Minister which is supplementary to a question I asked him earlier. Would he now care to answer the second part of that question, and tell us whether any advances have been made to the province of Ontario to encourage them to avail themselves of the provisions of the Unemployment Assistance Act, so the municipalities may be assisted in preparing their budgets in taking care of the relief of unemployed persons?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might contribute something in the way of an answer to the hon. member. The Prime Minister announced some days ago that the legislation to remove the so-called threshold from the Unemployment Assistance Act would be introduced at this session and that the legislation would become effective from January 1, 1958. It was discussed at the recent dominion-provincial conference, when a proposal was put forward on behalf of this government and was accepted with approval by all the provinces, including the province of Ontario. Obviously, no advances may be made until parliament authorizes them, unless they conform to the present terms of the act, with the threshold provisions still in effect.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. James Sinclair (Coasl-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who is responsible for the national film board, which has done a very fine job in recording for posterity great occasions in our country's history. Would he report to the house on the action taken by the national film board yesterday in recording another historic occasion, the start of construction of the South Saskatchewan dam, which the Prime Minister promised would be under way six months from the election? That six months expired yesterday, December 10.


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to answer the question in a
Inquiries of the Ministry form which would be satisfactory to the hon. gentleman, but I can assure him that in accordance with the habit of the government of making good on its pledges the national film board will be able to record the commencement of construction under this government.


James Sinclair: The pledge was for yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think there is another answer in that connection. It is that type of frivolous question that has used up 32 hours and 37 minutes so far this session.


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I want to assert that members on this side do not regard questions on the South Saskatchewan dam as frivolous, nor did we regard the promises of the Prime Minister last spring as frivolous, frivolous though they have turned out to be now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order. As I said a moment ago with regard to another question, I am sure all hon. members have great confidence in the way in which Your Honour has presided over our deliberations. What I am going to say now is in no way a reflection on the Speaker of the house, but I do suggest that the observation just made by the Prime Minister, the kind of observation which he has made repeatedly throughout this session, is wholly out of order. It is not up to any member of the house, including the Prime Minister, to lecture the House of Commons.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was not lecturing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Robichaud:: Respect of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: I was-


Mr. Gauthier (Porlneuf):: Being natural.


John George Diefenbaker: -simply pointing out the fact that day by day, and I have the list here, my hon. friends have been cluttering the record with nonsensical questions facetiously asked for a purpose other than the purposes of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Chevrier:: It is not up to you to judge them.


John George Diefenbaker: I am simply pointing out that fact. My hon. friends ask when we are going to do this and that. An average of almost one hour a day, Mr. Speaker, has been taken on questions that should not have

Inquiries of the Ministry taken more than 20 minutes if all that my hon. friends were asking for was information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wish to speak on the point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: do, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago Your Honour made it clear to the house that you are aware of citation 295 which begins on page 119 of Beauchesne's third edition. Amongst other things that citation says that questions, oral or written, must not be trivial, vague or meaningless, must not indulge in ridicule and so on. I say that the comment made by the Prime Minister, with all deference to that right hon. gentleman, is a reflection on Your Honour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
comment made by the Prime Minister implies that Your Honour has been negligent in your duty so far as questions on the orders of the day are concerned. On the contrary, I state that Your Honour has properly stopped questions that have been out of order. On one or two occasions you have stopped me and I have accepted your ruling. On the other hand Your Honour, in a manner that I think is highly commendable, has recognized that questions on the orders of the day play an important part in the affairs of parliament and of the country, and far from the Prime Minister being permitted to say what he said today I think he should be rebuked by Your Honour for his reflection on your conduct as the presiding officer of this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wish also to speak to the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the discussion of the point has proceeded far enough, and I should like to make the brief comment I have to make on it. The question of whether or not any particular intervention during the question period is frivolous should, of course, be raised at the time, and it is not in order now to review or reflect on questions that have been permitted to be asked in the past.
I think it is appropriate at this stage of the day's proceedings to discuss arrangements respecting the business of the house. In that respect I consider that the Prime Minister is entitled to comment on the amount of time that is taken by questions, but not to raise the matter of the propriety of questions that have been asked in the past, only to deal with those that are before the house at the present time.



SOCIAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have recognized the hon. member for Huron.


Mr. Cardiff:: May I be permitted to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to revert to motions at this time?


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: After questions.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare received reports and letters from senior citizens' associations indicating that landlords are raising the rents of old age security recipients progressively to take full advantage of the two recent increases in the pension? If so, would the minister consider making use of the facilities and personnel of the dominion bureau of statistics labour force survey to investigate this serious accusation and make their findings known to the appropriate provincial authority?


Hon. J. W. Monfeilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I want to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in giving me notice of his intention to ask this question though in somewhat different form. He asked me today if I had received letters from groups of senior citizens. Frankly I do not recall such, although I have seen reports in the press and so on. In reply I would say, with regard to the dominion bureau of statistics labour force survey being used as he suggests, that I am informed this involves too small a sample to be of much value in substantiating the reports mentioned by the hon. member.
In any case, it seems to me that the accuracy of such reports will become increasingly apparent without any special survey being undertaken. I would suggest that the best way of alleviating this situation, if it exists, would be through public reaction against the practice.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I address this question to the Minister of

National Revenue in a spirit of good, clean, economy-minded fun.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And frivolity.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is he aware that on the C.B.C. television program "Viewpoint" it sometimes happens that one member of the parliamentary press gallery interviews another member of the same press gallery, within the scope of a five-minute broadcast, and that this strange habit is spreading like wildfire, burning the taxpayers' dollars for other C.B.C. programs? Will the minister find out if both the reporter who interviews and the reporter who is interviewed are paid?


Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: The minister has been so busy in his office that he has not had an opportunity to see the program, therefore he is not in a position to comment upon the accuracy of the question. However, he will consider the matter.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. It is based on a Canadian Press dispatch in yesterday's Gazette under the headline "C.B.C. Plans Controls Tightening". It reads:
The publicly owned C.B.C. today gave notice that it plans tighter surveillance of the operations of privately owned radio and television stations in line with recommendations by the Fowler royal commission on broadcasting.
My question is, does the government regard this as a move in the right direction, and would not tighter controls be a denial of the democratic right of freedom of the air and freedom of speech?


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member for Dollard asked me a similar question yesterday and I commented on it then. I do not think I have anything more to add.



REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ambrose Holowach (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Since the report of the recent royal commission on broadcasting has been available for government study for some seven months, and because of the widespread public interest in the
Inquiries of the Ministry future status of the C.B.C., would the minister indicate to the house whether it is the intention of the government to set up a parliamentary committee for the purpose of examining the present and proposed activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


George Clyde Nowlan: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on December 7 the hon. member for Comox-Alberni inquired regarding the possibility of restoring regular steamer service to Lasqueti island, and if the Department of Transport could provide the services of a steamer to take supplies to this island.
Regular service to Lasqueti island has been provided in the past on the basis of assurance of assistance from the provincial government. This service was discontinued when this assistance was not received. The federal government has not paid any subsidy for the service in this area for over seven years.
I am inclined to feel the problem is one of provincial responsibility. It might be met by a small ferry service of the type now undertaken by the province of British Columbia and by other provinces in similar cases. [Later:]


Mr. T. S. Barneif (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport relating to the answer he gave earlier to my question with regard to the situation at' Lasqueti island.
I would like to ask the minister if he would not agree that the emergency situation existing at Lasqueti island could be met in part if the federal government would exercise its jurisdiction by an amendment to the Transport Act which would bring the coastal shipping companies under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners in order to prevent the sudden cessation of established services which is bringing hardship to whole communities on the British Columbia coast.


George Harris Hees: The case which the hon. member brought to my attention is one that has been looked after by a shipping company on the understanding that it would be given assistance by the provincial government. As I explained this morning, the service was discontinued as of last Wednesday because the promised assistance was not forthcoming. I think the best way to overcome this present difficulty is for the provincial government to make good the promises which I am told it made to the shipping company.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I then ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister of Transport make representations to that effect to the government of British Columbia in order to see if the emergency situation can be dealt with?


George Harris Hees: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a provincial matter, and I would suggest that the people of Lasqueti island should get in touch with the provincial government, as they are reasonably close by and should make these representations themselves. They are the ones primarily affected.



MIRAMICHI


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: I should like to reply to a supplementary question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi. I would advise that it is intended to submit for the approval of the governor in council a schedule of fees chargeable by the port warden for the Miramichi bay district. The hon. member will recall that he was supplied with a copy of the proposed rates a few weeks ago by my department.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might ask the Minister of National Defence whether it is the intention to make an early start on the proposed hangars at the R.C.A.F. airport at Summer-side, Prince Edward Island?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: That matter is under consideration. We hope that hangars will be available by the time new aircraft arrive at Summerside.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Lesage (Montmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, might I address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement of the leader of the government in the other place this morning that Bill L, an act to amend the Territorial Lands Act, which was introduced in the Senate, is a bill sponsored by a minister of the crown but not by the government, would he assure this house that Bill L is in fact a government sponsored bill?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, might I point out to Your Honour that my recollection is that the rules make it quite clear that no reference may be made to a statement or discussion in the other place during the course of the same session. Since the hon. gentleman's question is founded on a statement alleged to have been made there, his question is out of order.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the statement was made in the Senate committee on natural resources.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding of the practice is that this house does not refer to or comment upon any proceeding in the other house, although it is in order to read extracts from the debates of the other house. I would think that the question of the hon. member is not in order.


Jean Lesage: Then might I ask this. Is the bill introduced in the Senate, an act to amend the Territorial Lands Act, a government sponsored bill?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is precisely the same question which the hon. member asked before, and it seems to me that it is not in order to ask that question of the ministry at that stage of a bill, where it is a proceeding of the other house.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet referred on December 3 to a news item in the newspaper he Devoir to the effect that certain missionaries were in distress in the Arctic because their supplies did not reach them this summer. He asked what action the government intended to take.
My answer includes a review of how this operates and then the action we are taking. Supplies for the communities of Igloolik, Repulse Bay and Pelly Bay are norm ally sent by ship from Churchill; supplies for Pelly Bay are taken overland from Repulse Bay to their destination. Unusual ice conditions in Roes Welcome sound this year prevented the Hudson's Bay Company vessel carrying the supplies from reaching either Repulse Bay or Igloolik; the goods, therefore, were left at Coral Harbour on Southampton island.
The failure of ships to arrive is a not uncommon occurrence, particularly at Igloolik,

which in the past has sometimes been isolated tor more than two years. It is, therefore, the custom in such communities to carry reserve stocks to prevent serious distress. There has been no distress either for those living in the community or for the Eskimos trading into them. There are adequate supplies of food and other household requirements.
When the ship failed to arrive, the Hudson's Bay Company arranged for aircraft to fly the supplies from Coral Harbour to Repulse Bay and Igloolik. When they did so they offered to make available space for mission supplies. The material for both the trading store and for the mission at Igloolik has already been delivered. The first load for Repulse Bay will be moved on December 18 and will include 500 pounds of supplies for the mission. The remainder of the store and mission supplies are to go on a second trip in January. As a result of these airlifts, all materials except unusually heavy or unessential goods have been, or shortly will be, delivered.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, notice of which has been sent to him. What steps has the minister taken to provide on the spot supervision of the obligations written into the contracts of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation as given in sessional paper 176(b)?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I can report that this matter has been receiving consideration, and it is the intention of the department to undertake an on the spot inspection of the manner in which the various clauses governing conditions of labour in these contracts are being observed. This will be done in the very near future.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, notice of which has been sent to him. Has the minister received any representations on the price offered subcontractors for clearing work on the right of way of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, and if so, what is the subject matter of such representations?
Inquiries of the Ministry


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, there
must be some misunderstanding. I have received no representations as far as I am aware or any question from the hon. member. I will take the question as notice, therefore, and make inquiries.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: In
view of the fact that the minister does not intend to set up a committee, would he now indicate whether he had drawn to the attention of the governors of the C.B.C. the matter of the discrimination in the rates charged as between them and private broadcasters, which I drew to his attention a few days ago; and, if so, what action has the board of governors taken?


George Clyde Nowlan: Without admitting the validity
of the suggestion that there was discrimination, I have drawn the purport of the hon. member's question to the attention of the chairman of the board of the C.B.C. for such action as the board may deem advisable.


Frederick George Hahn: Will the minister assure the
house that he will direct the officers of the C.B.C. to see to it that the rates charged by the C.B.C. are not less than those charged by private broadcasters?


George Clyde Nowlan: I have no authority to direct the C.B.C. to do anything, and I do not propose to so direct.


Frederick George Hahn: Will the minister advise the
management of the C.B.C. that, if this practice continues, the $37 million we are to vote this year will not be given them?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member
has plied his question sufficiently, and has got all the answers he can reasonably expect.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Peterborough-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Those are bright Liberal colours you are wearing.


William McLean Hamilton: I
am sorry, Mr. Speaker; this is the hide of one of the Liberals we skinned at the last election.
2186	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
Yesterday the hon. member for Peterborough inquired regarding the cancellation stamp which appears on letters, and asked when the department began using Roman numerals to indicate the month of the year in marking cancellation of stamps instead of a written abbreviation for the month.
I wish to inform the hon. member that we have been in the process of doing this since 1948, at which time an announcement was made; and as stamps went out of use the new designation was introduced. I may say that the reason for introducing Roman numerals is that with international mail service many countries would find it difficult to read our letter abbreviations, whereas the Roman numerals are much more generally understood.



AGRICULTURE


Douglas Scott Harkness: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution;
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a system of guaranteed prices for certain agricultural commodities to be named therein and to provide that prices may be guaranteed for any other agricultural commodity or commodities as named from time to time by the governor in council, such measure to include: provisions for the establishment of a board and an advisory committee, the appointment of members thereof and employees and the payment of their salaries and expenses; provisions for the payment of administration costs and expenses; provisions establishing a revolving fund in the consolidated revenue fund and authorizing expenditures therefrom for the purposes of the proposed measure not exceeding in the aggregate two hundred and fifty million dollars in addition to the expenditure of the proceeds of sale of agricultural commodities and other revenues derived thereunder; and such further related and consequential provisions as may be necessary to give effect to the foregoing system.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The resolution before us is one on which a bill will be based that is designed to put into effect our stated program of greater stability of income for agriculture. Its objective is to provide for flexible supports on agricultural products, and to guarantee minimum price levels on key products in relation to prices in a previous base period.
This is a far-reaching and important piece of legislation, perhaps the most important, in its implications, in its expected results for agriculture and its effect on the general economy, that has been considered by the Canadian parliament for many years. I believe this legislation will give to our farmers a much greater degree of security than they have ever enjoyed in our history, but I do not maintain that it is a cure-all


for all the difficulties under which agriculture has laboured for the past several years. No one piece of legislation can be expected, at one stroke, to transform a complex industry, such as agriculture, from a depressed state to one of full and abounding health.
I do maintain that this is a very important step toward that goal. For many years there has been a demand on the part of agricultural organizations and by individual farmers for some form of parity price system in Canada. Exactly what was meant by parity has never been too clear, because its definition varied from organization to organization and from speaker to speaker who dealt with the matter. However, what was generally in mind was some sort of system such as that in effect in the United States, because our farmers were aware that men across the border in the same lines of production as themselves in many cases were receiving higher prices.
At the same time it was common knowledge amongst all who had studied the matter at all that the United States parity price system had led to difficulties of various kinds. It had resulted in the accumulation of vast surpluses of many agricultural products which had proven embarrassing to the United States agricultural economy and government, and the disposal of which has had serious effects on Canada and other nations. The United States system proved unworkable as far as some products were concerned. It produced anomalies and illogical situations in many cases, and it had constituted a heavy drain on the general taxpayer.
In view of all this, as a first step in attempting to devise a practical and workable agricultural prices stabilization bill for Canada I took a fairly close look at the United States system with a view to determining the defects in that system so we might avoid the difficulties which they have run into.
The first and most important defect, I believe, is the lack of flexibility and from this cause most of their troubles have developed. I have endeavoured in this legislation to provide for the greatest possible degree of flexibility so we will not be	saddled with a program which
inevitably acts as an incentive to produce burdensome and unsaleable surpluses. In arriving at the legislation now before you we studied several forms of parity formulae. At this point I should like to pay tribute to the officials of the prices support board, of the marketing service and of the economics division of the Department of Agriculture, all of whom put in a great deal of study and work on this matter. They studied five parity formulae in particular and prepared reports

on them for me, together with supporting documents to show what the effect would have been for each had it been in operation during the past ten years.
From all this mass of material it appeared that the most suitable system for Canada would be one of a three-year moving average as a base period. Among the advantages of the moving average formula is the fact that it deals with the immediate price situation. There is no intermediate step involving the calculation and use of an index. It takes into account technological and other changes, in that the base period advances automatically each year and the base price is adjusted gradually to changing conditions. The base price will be calculated in advance and the prescribed price announced, so that producers will have early notice of the level of support for named commodities and can plan their operations accordingly. Price information is readily available.
The formula is simple and readily understood; and I think this is a matter of great importance, because every farmer in the country can understand the formula, know how it applies and in many cases calculate for himself what the base price is likely to be. Each commodity may be considered entirely independently. The relationship of the base price of one commodity to another is left to the determination of market conditions and is not based on the relationship in some previous period when conditions of supply, demand and methods of production may have been quite different.
The basic reason for recommending a three-year moving average as a base is that the shorter the base and the closer it is to the current market situation, the more accurately it reflects market changes. The three-year average does not perpetuate abnormal conditions for as long as an average calculated for a greater number of years, and affords the farmer more immediate relief.
The purposes of the moving average formula method of determining the base price are to assure stability of income to farmers by protecting them against a drastic decline in prices; to provide for gradual adjustment through prices due to changes in consumption habits, losses of export outlets and radical technological advances, and to provide flexibility so that prompt and desirable adjustments may be made as conditions warrant. This legislation provides that a base price for any agricultural commodity-and I would like to stress the word "any"-will be established by calculating the average price for that commodity at representative markets 96698-139
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization during the three years immediately preceding the year in which the base price is established.
I could perhaps make the matter clearer by citing an example. I would like to emphasize that this example and the figures employed in it bear no direct relationship to actual prices, and this is not to be considered as a prediction or anything of that kind on my part as to what might be done as far as the particular commodity used for the purpose of illustrating the point is concerned; nor is it to be considered as prophesying what might happen in the future with regard to this or any other commodity.
Let us say that the average wholesale price of eggs in 1954 was 45 cents a dozen. In 1955 it was 50 cents a dozen and in 1956 it was 55 cents a dozen. The base price for 1957 then would be the average of these, that is 50 cents a dozen. Then let us say that the average price in 1957 was 60 cents a dozen. The base price for 1958 would be the average of prices for 1955, 1956 and 1957, that is, of 50 cents, 55 cents and 60 cents respectively, which would give a base price for 1958 of 55 cents a dozen. I trust that this brief explanation will have made clear the formula to be employed, the three-year moving average, and will have shown how the base price will be arrived at for any commodity.
However, the formula employed in any system of stabilizing or supporting prices is not what the farmer is primarily interested in; what concerns him, really, are the results, and he wants two of these in particular. First, he wants prices for his products which will cover his cost of production and leave him enough to live on; and second, he desires a sense of security in his price structure, the removal of his long-time fear that prices will fall away to nothing while his crop is growing or his livestock developing to market size.
In this legislation we have attempted to meet these two demands, conditional on not providing a price for any commodity which will serve as a strong incentive to farmers and thus result in large unsaleable surpluses. Guaranteed prices, effective for the next 12 months in most cases, will be set for any agricultural product where the need for such a guaranteed price is shown to exist, except that wheat, oats and barley grown in the wheat board area will not be included.
The reason for this is not to interfere in any way with the operations of the wheat board, which the great majority of farmers in western Canada strongly support. Provision is made that the guaranteed price may be made effective by the board, which the act provides for, through it (a) purchasing the
2188	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization commodity, (b) paying deficiency payments and (c) making such other payments as the governor in council may direct. The legislation provides for the setting up of an advisory committee, representative of farm organizations, which will advise the minister and the board as to what commodities should be placed under price guarantee and what the level of the guarantee should be.
The procedure envisaged is as follows: As soon as possible after January 1 in each year the board will assemble the statistical information necessary and will determine the base price for each commodity under price guarantee, and for others in respect of which it seems likely that price guarantees will be required.
The advisory committee will meet with the board to make its recommendations, and the two will confer together. The board will then make its recommendations to the government as to what commodities should be under guarantee for the next 12 months and the percentage of the base price at which each should be supported. The final responsibility, of course, must rest with the government, which may accept the board's recommendation, alter it or reject it.
In addition to the flexible guaranteed prices which may be applied to any agricultural commodity and which will be the ones in general use, the legislation provides for that sense of security which farmers have asked for and which we believe they are entitled to by providing assured floor prices for certain key commodities. This is done by writing into the legislation a provision that these commodities must be supported under any circumstances at 80 per cent of the base price. It is not expected that these will be the guaranteed prices in effect. The guaranteed prices will be higher in most cases, but this provision is written into the legislation so the farmer will be absolutely assured that no matter how prices may slide he will at the very least receive 80 per cent of the base price.
An example will show how this will operate. Butter has been supported at 58 cents for some years now, and the prices board selling price has been at about that level. Thus the base price will be around that figure. For ease in figuring, let us say it is 60 cents. The guaranteed price for the next year would be 100 per cent of the base price; or if it was desired to raise this a little, which as it happens has been requested during the last month by the dairy producers, the guaranteed price might be 105 per cent of the base price.
At the same time the assured floor price would be 48 cents, so that even if there


should be a catastrophe such as a change of government the farmer would be certain of his minimum of, in this case, 48 cents. So there will be no confusion with regard to the matter I have been talking about I should like to point out that the bill deals with three kinds of prices. There is a base price which is part of a formula arrived at by the use of the three year moving average. There is a guaranteed price which will be in effect for the following 12 months with respect to each of the commodities for which it may be required. Third, there is an assured floor price on certain basic commodities.
To summarize the main features of the legislation, they are: 1. It provides for the stabilization of agricultural prices on a three year moving average formula. 2. Every agricultural commodity, except wheat, oats and barley under the wheat board, is eligible for support. 3. Guaranteed prices will be set as a percentage of the base price in the early months of each year in most cases, and will continue in effect for 12 months after going into effect. The reason I say "in most cases" is that it might happen that in September, August or at some other time a demand would arise for the setting of a guaranteed price for an agricultural commodity which was not under a guaranteed price. In that case the guaranteed price would be set at that time and instead of being for the following 12 months it would be in effect until the next general period for the setting of prices, that is during the first three months of the calendar year. 4. In the case of certain key commodities a price floor of at least 80 per cent of the base price is mandatory under the act. 5. A price stabilization board is provided to carry on the operations of the program. 6. An advisory committee, representative of farm organizations, will be appointed to advise the minister and the board in regard to what commodities require guaranteed prices and the level at which these should be set. 7. A revolving fund of $250 million is available to finance the operations of the scheme.
I have given considerable detail in connection with this legislation, perhaps more than is customary at this stage, but I have done so in order that hon. members may be in no doubt as to what is proposed in the legislation. Further details, I think, should more properly be left for discussion until the bill is in the hands of members and they have had an opportunity to study it. I trust that we may get the resolution through without undue delay and proceed with the further stages of the legislation.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask the minister a question before he sits down?


Mr. Gardiner:: May I ask a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether I might ask a question.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was just going to ask a question. I do not know whether I completely understood one position taken, and the misunderstanding arises in connection with the use of butter as an example. I take it from the general remarks made with regard to the matter that a base price would be established and that there would not be a support price of less than 80 per cent established. Is that correct, or must it be 80 per cent?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman. I am afraid the right hon. gentleman has misunderstood. The base price is, as I said, part of the formula. It it arrived at by applying the three year moving average. Having arrived at that base price it is envisaged under the legislation that a guaranteed price will be set for any commodity for which it is required at whatever level is deemed appropriate and necessary in view of what the circumstances happen to be at the time. The amount set can be 90 per cent of the base price, 80 per cent of the base price or even 120 per cent or more of the base price. The base price is part of the formula, as I say, and it is particularly for the purpose of determining what guaranteed price will be set as a percentage of the base price.
In addition there is a provision which might be called a security provision, which provides that so far as certain key commodities are concerned the assured floor price to be set must not be less than 80 per cent of the base price.


James Garfield Gardiner: But it could be less on others except those?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The point I made was that the support price actually in effect for most commodities will be the guaranteed price I have spoken of, and in most cases it will be higher than the assured floor price. The assured floor price must not be less than 80 per cent of the base price. In other words, the legislation attempts to do two things and one of them it attempts to do in two ways. First of all it attempts to provide a means, by the use of a comparatively simple formula, whereby a guaranteed price may be set for any agricultural commodity, and such price would be set in view of all the various conditions existing at the time. Such conditions would include the farmers cost of production, the supply and demand position, the perishability of the commodity and so forth. All these factors have to be taken into consideration in setting the guaranteed price, and I will go into them in more detail at subsequent 9(5698-139J
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization stages of the legislation. This price is to be set 12 months in advance. It is designed to give the farmers security and stability of income.
Then there is, in addition to that, an absolute guarantee written into the legislation so it cannot be changed by the government or by a change of government or anything else until parliament meets and wants to change it, that the farmer will get at the very minimum this floor price of 80 per cent of the base price.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask my question now. Can the minister say whether this absolute guaranteed floor is not, in fact, lower than the prevailing price for most agricultural commodities? The second question is, when this legislation comes into effect does the minister believe it will result in an immediate increase in the price of any agricultural product?


Douglas Scott Harkness: These are questions, Mr. Chairman, which I do not think we should take time at this particular stage to discuss. The hon. gentleman is asking me really, to some extent, to make a prediction as to what the situation is going to be some time in the future. However, I will say this, as far as one question he has asked is concerned, whether the assured floor price would not, in many cases, be lower than the present price. That is correct; but I will say that the assured floor price will compare very favourably with the support prices which exist at the present time and have existed in the past. As I said, the purpose of that provision is to give some ultimate security that these assured floor prices are not the guaranteed prices which we expect are ordinarily going to be in use.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister not feel that the explanation he has given to date of the legislation he is about to introduce indicates that the government has completely repudiated its campaign pledge to provide the farmers with parity prices?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I believe absolutely nothing of the kind. I think this legislation will do everything we promised we would do so far as our campaign pledges are concerned. I believe the hon. member either does not understand the legislation, or if he does understand it he is deliberately attempting to misrepresent it.


Mr. Quelch:: May I ask a supplementary question based on these two other questions. Can the minister say whether there is any anchor contained in the legislation which

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization will guarantee that the average price for the base period will not get lower and lower and lower?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think it is quite apparent from what I said, if the hon. gentleman knows anything about the three year moving average, that the base price is going to vary up and down year by year as prices vary up and down.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is no parity.


Victor Quelch: There is no guarantee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: During the course of my speech I outlined what the advantages are of the three year moving average as against the fixed parity which was in effect in the United States and which got them into considerable difficulty.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: I should like to ask the minister, merely for information, when the guaranteed price is established for the three year period, will there be any relation whatever between that price and the prices of other things which farmers have to buy? In other words, will there be any relationship between that guaranteed price based on the three year average and what we generally understand as parity prices or the cost of production plus a fair profit?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There will certainly be a relationship. As I have indicated, we will have an advisory committee composed of representatives of the various farm organizations, and the whole purpose of this is to advise as to what commodities should be under price guarantee and the level of that guarantee. As I indicated in my speech, the whole purpose of putting these guarantees into effect is in order to give the producer a reasonable return, and as I indicated also there will be a relationship to the cost of production and various other factors that have to be taken into consideration so far as any particular product is concerned.


Mr. McCullough:: It is certainly quite
obvious, Mr. Chairman, that there are serious shortcomings in the proposed legislation. I should like to ask this question of the Minister of Agriculture. Does the government propose any method by which the guaranteed prices will be paid to the producer rather than to the trade, as the act presently provides? This seems to be a tremendous omission on the part of the government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I must immediately deny the preface put by the hon. member, that it is obvious there are severe defects in this legislation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, if hon. members opposite would spend as much time as I have in studying

the very large number of parity price formulae which exist, some of them in actual operation in various countries and others which have been proposed, I think they would realize at once that no matter which of these formulae you adopted as a price stabilization basis in Canada there would be all kinds of people, such as those in that group, who would say you should have used another one; you should have used A instead of B or you should have used C instead of X.
As a matter of fact I shall, at a later date, put a certain amount of evidence on the record to indicate what the experience has been in the United States in regard to these matters. I believe this evidence will indicate quite clearly that they wish they had in that country a system more like this than the one they have.
In so far as the other question is concerned, whether or not payment would be made direct to producers, that depends entirely on the commodity. There are some commodities for which that can be done and some for which it is administratively impossible to do it.


Charles Edward Johnston: What are examples of those two?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, this is a
measure for which the house has been waiting with some degree of eagerness since the opening of the session. I want, in the first place, to say to the Minister of Agriculture that from what he has said I am quite sure he has given a great deal of study to the question. In so doing he has arrived at certain conclusions. I am not going to agree with all the conclusions he has arrived at, but I am going to agree that he has put some time into studying these questions.
This is a question about which we on this side of the house should know something, because we studied it for some considerable time before 1944 when we brought the present act into being. We arrived at the same conclusion at that early time, comparatively speaking, at which the minister has arrived with regard to the United States system. The fact that we did arrive at that conclusion was the foundation for the principle involved in the act which has been on the statute books since 1944.
I am only going to say that after having had a full discussion of the matter, the minister has arrived at the same conclusion as we did at an earlier date. We have only the resolution before us at the moment, apart from the remarks that have been made by the minister, but when I read the resolution I was convinced that there was not very much difference in principle between the

resolution which is on the order paper now and the resolution which was placed on the order paper in 1944, and which is of course available to every member of this house.
The resolution of 1944 went on to state that we were going to set up a board; and it went on beyond that to say that we were providing a system under the act which the board would put into operation. Then we went on to say that there would be $200 million of a revolving fund that the board would have at its disposal from year to year with which to operate.
As I understand it, the present resolution reverses the order a little and that is about all. It says that we are going to set up a system and that system is going to be paid for, as to administration, in the same way it was under the old act. Then it says we are going to set up a board to administer it, and then we are going to have an advisory committee. While I do not think the previous act compelled us to have an advisory committee, we always have had one. That committee has been composed of representatives from farm organizations, with the president of one of them always acting as the chairman. It has included representatives appointed by provincial departments of agriculture across Canada and representatives from the farm organizations themselves.
Those members of that committee were all nominated by either the provincial governments or the farm organizations. None of them were nominees of mine. The only provision in our operation of it was that I had to recommend them to council and council was responsible for their appointment. That procedure was followed in all cases. I did not change any nominee. So we have had an advisory committee running from about 16 I think up to 19 or 20 throughout the period in between, and we have discussed with that advisory committee all matters such as those that are going to be referred to the advisory committee now, and many other matters as well.
That is the situation in so far as the resolution makes it clear to us. In the speech which was made by the minister in introducing the resolution he referred to certain matters. He pointed out clearly the parity price proposals which had been followed in the United States and which were always under discussion in this house when dealing with parity, I think down to last year, both by the official opposition of that time and the other opposition parties of that time as something we should adopt here.
But the present Prime Minister made his position very clear at the time he moved a motion in this house a year ago, a motion
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization which was somewhat different from that which he had moved upon two previous occasions, as to what his position was. On May 16, while he was in the election campaign, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press, speaking at Carman, he referred to the C.C.F. 100 per cent parity policy and after reading it said: "What nonsense; the people of Canada would not stand for it". Then he went on to deal with the ideas he had in mind to bring in. As one of the hon. members suggested in asking questions a few moments ago, he made definite undertakings as to what he was going to bring in. I am not going to try to repeat those at the moment. I have them all here, but I do not think it is necessary to read them all to the house. The house knows fairly well what those undertakings were.
It is true that he has carried out some of them. Only yesterday he announced as the usual means for delay that he was appointing a royal commission to investigate the price spread between farm consumers and farm producers. All I am going to say about that at the moment is that it is just a resurrection of one more of the devices employed by the government of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett when he was here years ago. He had the Stevens committee or commission of that time that held meetings all over Canada and then had meetings here in Ottawa at which these very problems were discussed fully.
I am not saying they should not be discussed now. I am only going to point out at this stage that there was a constant review of that situation on the part of the department during all the 22 years I was there as minister; that we had a review every month and every day, from day to day if I undertook to have it reviewed; and I did so whenever questions were raised in the house or otherwise about it. Surveys were made constantly in the different cities and various places across the country, through either the economics branch or the prices branch of the department in order to determine what these positions were.
This government are changing to the extent that they are going to have a commission that is outside the department itself, that has on it representation from certain places, that has on it some persons who can spend their time at that work and arrive at conclusions with regard to the matter. However, I do not see that it is going to be any more helpful than what we have had over the years, namely a constant review of that kind of thing.
Then in speaking on May 14, as reported in the Winnipeg Tribune, the Prime Minister said he -was going to stand up to the United
2192	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization States and halt the unjust and unfair dumping of United States surpluses. I have not seen any sign that he is dealing with that matter yet. Nevertheless he has been putting forth some suggestions as to what might be done.
The minister said the difference between this system and what was done in the United States was that these prices were going to be flexible. Unfortunately for the minister and others the United States two years ago, or further back than that, indicated to us that they were paying us the compliment of adopting flexible supports such as those we have had in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One
o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, just before lunch I had mentioned that in introducing the resolution the minister had referred to flexible supports, and I had suggested that the flexible support idea was first brought into being on this continent in 1944 by the Agricultural Prices Support Act which is now on the statute books. It does not set any definite formula, nor does it set any definite price, but it left to the board and to the government, the two of them working together, to establish a floor price which would be suitable to the conditions existing in the country at that time, as a matter of fact very much along the line of what the Prime Minister advocated when he was speaking throughout the country during the election campaign. At Brantford on May 9 he said:
2.	Take action to improve the condition of agriculture so that the farm people may successfully re-establish their rightful position in our economy.
3.	Maintain a flexible support program to ensure an adequate parity for agricultural products based on a fair price cost relationship.
4.	Place a formula in the farm Agricultural Prices Support Act for arriving at support prices. It would allow for variation in production and demand for individual products.
Well, on that last point-a flexible price allowing for variation in production and demand for individual products-that is all provided for by the act as it is. The main provisions of the present act make it possible for such matters to be considered from month to month and from year to year as we go along. Furthermore, that of course is the meaning of the term flexible. We had all that in the agricultural support act of 1944, so there is nothing new in that regard being placed in the bill this resolution suggests. But


I would say that the means by which it is to be arrived at in the present bill does not permit of very much flexibility to be exercised either by the board or the individuals who administer it. To that extent I think it will not be as serviceable as the legislation we already have.
There is one other thing to which reference has been made and which I think we should also consider. When one reads all the election promises made during the campaign one must agree it was, without doubt, anticipated that this act was going to have a much wider application so far as commodities were concerned. In the old act, however, it does provide that all farm commodities except wheat can be brought under the act, and many of them were from time to time, but this one provides that wheat, barley and oats cannot come under the act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, it does not.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, that is what my hon. friend said this morning.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of clarification, wheat, barley and oats are definitely under the act except for those crops which are grown in the wheat board area and handled by the wheat board.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, that is almost all of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is most of it; that grown off the prairies is sold from farmer to farmer or fed on the farm.
These are matters, of course, which will be of interest to members and will be discussed further after we have seen the bill, but I think it is necessary at this time to place on the record the position in connection with agriculture as it now stands. In placing the situation on the record I do not say it is as good as it ought to be or that it could not be improved upon; I am merely pointing out the situation, because there is no doubt in the minds of those who listened to political speeches during the campaign that those who were in opposition to the government of the time did have very definite ideas that they could improve the existing situation.
This, then, is the position as compared with what it was when we came into office. In 1935 the full value of all farm products-


Mr. Rea:: Could we have the source of the right hon. gentleman's information?


James Garfield Gardiner: The statistics branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Sales of all farm products brought in a cash total of $536 million in 1935; the sale of all farm products in 1956 brought in $2,656,000,000. The cash value of exports of farm products

in the year 1936, in round figures, was $200 million and in 1956 was $1,346 million.
Then turning to the capital value of the farmer's land, his building his equipment and livestock-because of course the cash he took in went into the improvement of his capital investment in land equipment and livestock of one kind or another-the farm buildings were valued in 1936 at $3J billion while in 1955 the valuation was $6.8 billion, or just over double. With respect to farm implements the value in 1936 was $475 million and in 1955 it was $1,800,000,000.


An hon. Member:: What about inflation?


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Ah, with that observation the right hon. gentleman makes it plainer; they spent that much on it. But they were different dollars.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, they were different dollars, but they had to pay $155 million for four times as many items which cost them eight times as much, and that is just about double. Yet in spite of all this expenditure the debt carried on farm equipment and plant today is only a fraction of what it was 22 years ago.
As I said earlier this session, and as can be borne out by statistics, the previous government did many things to improve the position of farmers. We did not depend solely on this piece of legislation, though it was important. We tried other things, and one of them was to bring down at the very beginning of the first period of difficulty, at the end of the war, legislation which made it possible for farmers to borrow money to enable them to improve their capital position in connection with land, buildings, implements and everything else. And they did borrow $653 million with which to do that. If the farmers still owed that $653 million today, one could argue that none of the other measures taken had been effective. But I am told the record shows that 99.95 per cent of the debt has been paid back; in other words, scarcely any of this debt is charged against the farmers at the present time.
This is the experience the farmer has been going through, and it stands to reason that after he has spent so much money on changing over from horse-drawn equipment to mechanized equipment, he has not very much cash left with which to do other things, and that he has been experiencing great difficulty. But in spite of that the legislation we placed on the statute books has made it possible for him to improve his position, as the statistics I have quoted will bear me out and in paying for much of it.

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
There is another matter to which I think attention should be called. The minister said he did not expect that this legislation would cure all the farmers' troubles, but there has been a lot said out in the country which would indicate they did expect just that. Nevertheless, the late administration did not place reliance only on price support. We placed many pieces of legislation on the statute books in the past 22 years. The Agricultural Prices Support Act was one, and it dealt with a whole range of farm products, as the official records indicate. Then there was the Agricultural Products Board Act and the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act. Some 130 organizations were set up across Canada which received support under the provisions of this measure. Then there was the Farm Improvement Loans Act and all the activities in connection with P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A. and freight assistance which have been carried on in order to improve the farmers' position. And this list does not exhaust the measures which were enacted to this end.
Now, after having listened to what the minister had to say rather than judging from what is contained in the resolution itself, I have come to the conclusion that unless this bill is materially changed before it comes before this house it is not going to assist the farmer but, instead, is going to put him into greater difficulties.
I can tell the Minister of Agriculture that at this time we are not prepared to say whether or not we are going to support the bill when we see it. As far as I and other hon. members of this group are concerned, we are going to see the bill, and the only way to see it is to pass this resolution and make it possible for us to have a look at it. We are going to do that at least, but in so far as the minister has outlined the bill to us and indicated what it proposes to do, I would not anticipate that the farmers are going to obtain anything which would improve their position. There is the possibility that they may even lose if anything is taken away from them to which they were entitled under previous legislation.
If the government is going to say, "Instead of doing this, you may do something else", I may have to withdraw something of what I am saying, but in so far as the terms of the resolution and what the minister said this morning are concerned, I am inclined to think this legislation is going to be of no considerable help to the farmers of Canada.
We will go on with the discussion of the resolution and we hope that in due course, the sooner the better, we will have the bill in our hands, and at that point we will be

able to discuss the matter in detail. So far as we are concerned, unless there are matters which require an answer and which are brought up in other parts of the house, we are inclined to get this legislation before us as soon as possible so that we may discuss the details and indicate our position on the bill itself.


Mr. Bryson:: Mr. Chairman, I think on all other occasions when the government introduced a resolution on agriculture, and subsequently a bill, it has always been received throughout the country with a tremendous amount of interest, and certainly this resolution which has been on the order paper since October 25 is no exception. As a matter of fact I doubt whether ever in the history of the industry we have seen such a degree of expectancy on the part of farmers or as much concern with regard to the government's explanation of a resolution.
Certainly that is the only conclusion I can reach based on the large number of letters I have received from my constituents and others, and from conversations I have had with representatives of farm organizations who have been visiting here in Ottawa since the beginning of the session. It is understandable, Mr. Chairman, why there should be this degree of expectancy. It is born of despair and desperation; despair because in the past whenever farm delegations presented petitions to the former government their pleas were always shrugged off, and desperation because the plight of agriculture in this country is such that today there can be no thought of further failure.
Ever since the end of the war, and in particular in the last two or three years, in spite of the fact that when visiting Ottawa farm delegations have used the government's own figures to illustrate the plight in which agriculture now finds itself, the government has turned a deaf ear to their representations and pleas.
The three men most responsible in the past paid little or no attention to those pleas. The former minister of finance merely shrugged his shoulders and said, "The farmers never had it so good". The former minister of trade and commerce was of course always anxious to give us the benefit of his wide business experience. He told the farm delegations that if the farmers could not make a go of it on the farm they had better quit and move to town, but he neglected to say what they should do when they moved to town. The former minister of agriculture merely sat and said nothing.
The latter hon. gentleman, of course, had a plan. He knew there was going to be an election shortly and he realized that something

had to be done. He had been diligently working out a plan that he hoped if carried out properly would re-elect a great many western Liberal members to this house. As the election drew closer he would revise his plan. The plight of the farmer gave him great pangs of remorse. Just before the election, after having jealously guarded this plan and nursed it very carefully, he launched his secret weapon. He put a floor price under old hens over five pounds.
That launching, like another launching of recent date, was also a failure; it fizzled out. I can imagine that the minister must have felt pretty sheepish when he returned to Ottawa following the election, because after all he had hit rock bottom.
Of course this is all past history now, and the agricultural producer is looking forward to this new government doing something for him. Certainly he has every reason to be optimistic that this government is going to do something on his behalf in view of what I propose to read from an official publication of the Conservative party, written over the signature of the Prime Minister, which definitely indicates that he understands the problem.
As a matter of fact western Canadian producers do not expect to receive preferential treatment from this government, but they do realize that the three men now most responsible in this connection come from western Canada, and certainly there can be no excuse for their not knowing the problems which confront western agriculturists. I refer, of course, to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture. This is what the Prime Minister said in his booklet with regard to the problem facing the agricultural producer:
The farmer is being squeezed between rising costs of production and falling farm prices. His markets have been lost or diminished because of the ineffective trade policies of the federal government, while, year after year, farm organizations have approached the government with briefs in which the plight of agriculture is set out in detail.
In general, the government has failed to act and has quoted statistics. The farmer's share of the national income has gone down in the last eight years by some 6 per cent and the costs of goods and services that the farmer has to buy have increased by 20 per cent. Furthermore, there has been a continuing reduction in the farmer's share of the consumer dollar, from 59.3 cents of the dollar to approximately 50 cents today.
On the basis of what I have read the farmer realizes that the Prime Minister is well acquainted with current existing conditions in the industry, and he is very optimistic that the government is going to do something in this regard. Further to that I would like to 96698-140
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization read the government's pledge. In this same regard the Prime Minister said to the farmers across the country:
My pledge to farmers in all parts of Canada is:- To assure that the farmer shall receive his fair share of the national income. My objectives will be:-Equality for farmers in Canada's economy. My desire is to correct the social inequity and the inferior economic position into which agriculture has been allowed to fall.
No wonder the farmer has been highly optimistic about the treatment he can expect to receive at the hands of this government; yet after examining this resolution and being both as optimistic and charitable as I can, the very best thing I can say about it is that it falls far short of the producer's expectations in regard to the fair deal he was promised prior to June 10. As far as I can see this resolution represents merely an extension of the present Agricultural Prices Support Act, and I doubt if it is even that good. Even if it were as good, I would point out that that act has been on the statute books since 1944 and has done very little in terms of stabilizing agricultural prices with the possible exception of the price of butter. Furthermore, I would remind hon. members that this act has been roundly condemned on every occasion by those who now form the government.
This morning we listened to the minister make a partial explanation of the resolution. Being as kind as possible to the minister, the best I can say for the explanation he gave is that it is the biggest load of garbage that has ever been dumped on the farmer's doorstep.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is saying a lot.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Yes. Now, what does the
minister hope this proposed legislation is going to do for the farmer? He hopes for a number of things. First of all he hopes it will give some price stability. His second hope is that it will not be an incentive for the farmer to produce agricultural products. His third hope is that it will protect the farmer against drastic declines in prices. He also indicated that when the need is demonstrated possibly other agricultural products will be taken into account in the legislation. The minister was dead sure of one thing; that under this proposed legislation the farmer will continue to starve, but the minister hopes with a little more dignity than he did under the former administration's legislation.
With all sincerity I say that time is running out on this government. If the bill that follows this resolution does not do more than was mentioned in the explanation given by the minister prior to the luncheon adjournment; if it does not attempt to grapple with the basic problems of Canadian agriculture, then

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization the farmer can only conclude that all the promises made by the Conservatives prior to the election were indeed hollow and of little or no value.
What does the resolution propose? We are told it is going to accomplish a number of things but I say it must meet the following four tests. What products are going to be supported? Are these products going to be based on a fair cost-price relationship? Who is going to be supported? Certainly there was nothing in the explanation offered by the minister that would indicate whether the processor or the actual producer is going to be supported. Are these prices forward prices? These prices should be forward prices and certainly the minister gave no explanation as to whether we were going to have a truly forward pricing formula in the proposed legislation. No agricultural legislation can be comprehensive or of value unless it contains satisfactory answers to the four questions I posed.
If we can answer these questions in the affirmative, then surely we are at least halfway to establishing a comprehensive agricultural policy for Canada. Certainly we have to dispose of our wheat surplus and so on, but I maintain that if we have a basic policy such as I have outlined in the four questions I have posed, then we have gone a long way in building an agricultural policy in this country. We have a sort of blind spot with regard to the plight of agriculture relative to the sale of wheat. It is not a question altogether of getting rid of our wheat. If the farmers got rid of all of their wheat at present prices they would still find themselves in a disastrous position. At the wheat pool convention held recently in Regina Mr. J. H. Wesson made this statement:
The farm problem has not arisen primarily from the fact that wheat is not being sold. In the period 1951-56 we sold 168 million bushels more annually than in the previous six year period, but in that period wheat prices dropped 40 cents per bushel or 21 per cent while farm costs rose by 46 per cent.
At the same meeting Mr. George Mclvor had this to say:
Last year alone, because of wider spreads in grade and currency exchange, wheat to the producer dropped 20 cents per bushel.
So it is not just a question of marketing our surplus wheat but a question of price, and that is the important factor. I am not going to attempt to put all the figures on the record, but from 1952 to 1956 farm net income all across Canada fell by 15 per cent. In Alberta it was down 27 per cent and in my own province 31 per cent. Farm prices in Saskatchewan have dropped 28 per cent while farm costs have risen over 49 per cent. 
Last year average farm income in Saskatchewan per individual amounted to around $445. This year it is estimated that it will be almost cut in half and will be somewhere around $225.
That is not brought about by inefficiency but by low prices. We had certainly hoped that in the bill to be based on this resolution that factor would be taken into consideration. The last dominion bureau of statistics figures available show that since 1945 farm machinery has gone up over 94 per cent, other materials over 72 per cent, taxes and interest charges 55 per cent and freight rates 90 per cent. That is why we say we should have a parity price, a price that bears a fair relationship to the costs of production on the one hand and the prices received by agricultural producers on the other.
We also have not been told who is going to be supported under the legislation. Is it going to be the producer or is it going to be the processor? Surely the legislation will provide something better than the present Agricultural Prices Support Act. We know what happened in the case of hogs. When the price of hogs reached the floor the floor was lowered, and so we are looking for something better in this legislation.
I should like to ask the government this question. Has any consideration been given to a two-price system? There again I think many of the farmers' problems could be solved if we were to recognize the importance of introducing a two-price system. I have here a list of products, and out of 14 items there are nine in which we have no surplus whatsoever and two or three others have what is referred to as a manageable surplus. Here is a field in which the government could take action and would have jurisdiction to carry out its program. It would not penalize the consumer.
We should have parity prices for all agricultural products consumed in this country, and it is conceivable that by so doing it would not cost the treasury of the country one nickel. Certainly it would not penalize the consumer, because over the years many farm organizations have produced figures to show that a parity price for wheat, for instance, would simply mean that the increase in the price of a loaf of bread because of the wheat content would only represent 1 cent. I agree that the government would have to take action on the manufacturing level as well as on the producer level under such a program.
We also heard nothing this morning about deficiency payments. I am all in favour of deficiency payments. I realize that in the export field the government has little or no jurisdiction over the prices it receives for

the things that are exported, but I maintain that even in the case of exports the producer should be paid a parity price, and the difference between that price and what the government is able to realize on the export market should be made up to the farmer in the form of a deficiency payment.
When we get the bill we will naturally be able to discuss more fully and intelligently the matters we find in it. With the very brief explanation the minister made this morning and the generalities of the resolution it is rather difficult to deal in detail with the matter. Finally, I simply say that the farmers are going to be keenly disappointed and they are in for a rude awakening if they thought the legislation presented this morning was going to do even a few of the things the government promised it would do prior to June 10.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, at the outset of my remarks I should like to say I was greatly disappointed with the resolution as explained to us by the minister this morning. I look upon the main essential of a support price program as the assuring to farmers of the maintenance of a fair relationship between the prices of farm products and the prices of other commodities. The present proposal appears to ignore that relationship entirely.
What does the legislation actually do? It merely guarantees that the average of the depressed prices of the past three years shall not deteriorate by more than 20 per cent in any one year. That is all it guarantees. It is true the minister stated that the government may decide to set a support price of 105 per cent or 120 per cent of the base price, but there is no guarantee that this will be done. In other words, farmers will have to depend upon the whims of the government in order to get a fair price. Under legislation of that kind you might expect there would be good prices in the year before an election and that the prices would be very poor right after the election. That would be the danger.
What we need is something in the legislation to assure farmers that they will be receiving fair support prices at all times. As to the number of products that will be covered if the legislation remains as it is, I do not think it will make very much difference; but on the other hand I believe the legislation should specify the products that will come under it. I suggest to the minister that the very best thing he could do would be to send a copy of a draft bill to the agriculture committee, call representatives of the farm organizations, let the committee work on a bill, send it back to the house 96698-1401
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization and then introduce it. I do not think he should ask members of the house to give second reading to a bill of this kind merely for the purpose of getting it to the committee. I do not believe he has stated yet that the bill is to be sent to the committee, but I think the government is going to run into very serious criticism from farm organizations if the bill is not submitted to the agriculture committee for their consideration and the calling of witnesses from the various farm organizations.
As I say, all this bill does is guarantee that the average of the prices for the past three years shall not deteriorate by more than 20 per cent in any one year. If the past three years or five years had been good years that might not be too bad a provision; but when you consider that agriculture is a depressed industry-and members on all sides of the house have stressed that fact for a number of years-then to suggest that you are giving farmers adequate protection by assuring them you will not allow this situation to deteriorate by more than another 20 per cent is certainly not even beginning to meet the requirements of the situation.
When you consider that over the past 10 years farmers' costs have risen by 46 per cent while their prices have deteriorated by 7 per cent, it is easy to understand why agriculture today is a depressed industry. You find right across western Canada, and I believe the situation is the same in the east, that the young men are leaving the farms because they are not content to continue to work long hours and take the small remuneration they get as compared with the returns in other industries.
In western Canada you can go into many places and find the farms being operated by old men. The children have left for the city. These farmers find it practically impossible to get labour. This is the situation as we know it in western Canada. I am not saying that some farmers are not prosperous, because some are. There will always be exceptions to the general rule. We believe the immediate need is to introduce legislation that will help stabilize the prices of farm products so they shall bear a fair relationship to the prices of other commodities.
I know there are many people who oppose the idea of supporting farm prices at a fair level on the ground that it will create surpluses. The minister, in referring to the United States support program, said it had built up surpluses; and that is true. However, this was largely due to the fact they did not have a very efficient marketing system. Let the minister note this fact, that since the United States government adopted

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization the surplus disposal program their surpluses are moving out at a taster rate than they are accumulating. The only trouble is they waited too long to adopt a realistic marketing policy. Had this policy been adopted earlier, these surpluses would not have accumulated in the way they have.
I am sure no one would suggest limiting production to the extent that it would merely satisfy our own needs. Any excess of our production should be made available to the nations that need it. Unfortunately that has not been the policy of this government in the past. We have said to other nations, "If you need our products you can have them provided you pay us in dollars. If you cannot, so far as we are concerned you can starve". Our surpluses of wheat are in excess of other nations' ability to buy with dollars, but they are not in excess of the needs of the people of other nations. Even in regard to wheat no one can say that the world surplus is too large. The world surplus of wheat only represents a few months' actual supply, and if the world suffered a series of crop failures we could easily have worldwide famine. Of course the trouble is that Canada holds too large a share of that surplus.
Now, this being the situation we feel that action must be taken to ensure that government agricultural policies encourage and maintain a high level of production of the desired type of products. Provision must be made for storing a reserve of certain farm products to guard against the danger of crop failures, and it is absolutely essential that steps be taken to see that that reserve of food be not allowed to force the prices of farm products below economic levels. Trade policies must be instituted to make it possible for Canada to make these surplus farm products available to nations that are not able to obtain them through the normal channels of trade.
Whenever the question of support prices is raised you will always find some people who criticize the proposal. You invariably find editorials in eastern newspapers, and unfortunately in some of the western newspapers, criticizing a policy of what they call giving the farmer a hand-out. We in this group have always maintained that the farmers have a right to demand support prices for their farm products. It will be recalled that in the latter years of the war the prime minister of that day, the late Mackenzie King, pointed out that at that time farmers were being compelled to accept less than the world price as a result of government policy. He said this was part of a stabilization program and they would guarantee, as part of
[Mr. Quelch.l
the post-war policy, to stabilize the prices of farm products so they maintained a fair relationship with the prices of other commodities.
As a sign of good faith the Agricultural Prices Support Act was introduced. There is one serious deficiency in that act. The Prime Minister had promised to maintain the prices of the main farm products, yet for some reason or other wheat was not covered by the Agricultural Prices Support Act. Wheat is unquestionably one of the main farm products in Canada today. Had wheat been placed under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, and had the formula that has been used under that act been applied to wheat to the full extent, then the price of wheat would have been $2.37 a bushel. That is a figure given by the bureau of statistics.
Let me say a few words about the Agricultural Prices Support Act as we have it at the present time. I have always supported the Agricultural Prices Support Act. I think it is a good act if it is used to the fullest extent possible. I recall that in January, 1951, I think it was, the former minister of agriculture spoke to a convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. He was asked to define the formula for setting prices. I am not using his exact words, but I believe he said it was the intention to maintain the prices of farm products so they would bear the same relationship to the prices of other commodities as existed in the base period 1943 to 1945. Personally I think that was a good formula. My main quarrel with the government is that they have not lived up to that intention to the full extent. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture advocated the base period of 1925 to 1929, but actually the period 1943 to 1945 gives a 1 per cent advantage over 1925 to 1929.
Unfortunately the government have not maintained the prices of farm products today at 100 per cent of parity for the base period 1943-1945. As of January this year the support price on butter was 81 per cent of parity for that period; the support price on hogs was 80 per cent of parity for that period, and the support price on eggs was 54 per cent of parity. What will the new proposal given to us this morning mean? Well, these parity prices I have given are approximately the same for the past three years, so those would be the average prices for the past three years. Instead of the farmers getting 81 per cent of parity on butter they would only get 80 per cent of 81 per cent or only 64 per cent. Instead of getting 80 per cent of parity on hogs they would only get 80 per cent of 80 per cent or only 64 per cent. Instead of getting 54 per cent of parity on

eggs they would get only approximately 43 per cent. So under the new formula the farmers will not be anything like as well off as they are under the present formula.
It is true that the present formula is not written into the act and the formula proposed by the minister is to be written in. But I would prefer to operate under an unwritten formula that is fairly satisfactory than to operate under a formula that is written into the act but that is far from being satisfactory. I suggest to the minister that this act should be sent to the agriculture committee before the house is asked to give it second reading, because when second reading is given members must endorse the principle of the act.
I do not like the principle of the act, because it does not guarantee to the farmers a fair relationship; and unless a support act can guarantee that fair relationship it is practically worthless. It raises the amount of the revolving fund from $200 million to $250 million. That does not appear to be very important, because although we have had a revolving fund of $200 million in the past the total costs up to date amount to $99 million, and $70 million of that amount was in connection with foot-and-mouth disease, so that in the period from 1944 to 1957 only $29 million has been used in so far as support prices are concerned. There is therefore no reason to assume that just because the revolving fund is raised from $200 million to $250 million it will mean that larger amounts will be paid out.
In western Canada many farmers felt that the government had committed a breach of faith on the question of support prices. They had been assured by the former prime minister that if they did not object too strongly to having to have a ceiling on their farm products during the war, they would be assured stabilized prices in the future. They assert, and I think rightly so, that that promise was not lived up to. As a consequence, the last election fairly well liquidated the Liberals in western Canada.
The Conservative party was very critical of the Liberals for failing to enable the farmers to obtain their fair share of the national income. That was one of their main election promises. The Prime Minister has stressed the urgency of raising the farm standard of Living by a program of support prices, expansion of markets and the increasing of terminal storage. I would agree with the Minister of Agriculture that support prices alone cannot rectify the situation. All these three things are necessary. But I should like to draw the attention of the minister to the attitude of
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization the Prime Minister on the question of support prices at the last session of parliament, when he moved a resolution as follows:
In the opinion of this house consideration should be given to introducing during the present session of parliament legislation which will assure farmers support prices for agricultural products based on a fair price-cost relationship.-
And that amendment was then amended by adding the words:
-thereby resulting in agriculture receiving its reasonable share of the national income based on parity.
The Prime Minister supported that resolution and the Conservative party voted in favour of it. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture would not suggest that the present legislation can in any way guarantee what the resolution of the Prime Minister was aimed at achieving.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the individual farm unions recently presented quite valuable briefs, in my opinion, to members of parliament, and in those briefs they have advocated support prices and deficiency payments to agriculture. I believe both these things have their part to play in any agricultural program.
First of all, support prices should be set early in advance of the year in which they are to become effective. This support price should be on the basis of parity so far as the domestic market is concerned. We believe that exports should be sold at the best prices obtainable on the world market, preferably under international agreement. Then to the extent that the aggregate of sales in domestic and export markets fails to provide to farmers their fair share of the national income, deficiency payments should be made.
That, of course, is a two-price system. Whilst it might take a little time to put a two-price system into operation so far as all agricultural products are concerned, it would be a comparatively easy or simple thing to apply the two-price system in so far as wheat is concerned, because all wheat is sold through the wheat board. The wheat sold through the wheat board in the domestic market would be sold at parity, and the rest would be sold at the world market price and the farmers would receive an average of the two in the final payment.
I know some people are critical of the idea of a two-price system, but after all if they are critical of agriculture for asking for the adoption of a two-price system, they should be critical of all the secondary industries which have operated under that system for as long back as I can remember. Secondary industries set their prices internally at a price that will give them the cost of production and a fair return on their investment.
2200	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization Then to the extent that they have surplus products, they are exported abroad at the best price that can be obtained; and very often the prices obtained for the products exported abroad are considerably lower than the prices charged in the domestic market.
Agriculture unfortunately or, I might say, primary industry on the other hand has not been able to carry that policy into effect. As a matter of fact we have found that whilst about 94 per cent of all farm products apart from wheat are consumed in the domestic market, the small percentage of 6 per cent that is exported abroad has set the price for the 94 per cent that is consumed in Canada. In other words we allow the tail to wag the dog.
We believe that the most efficient way in which to operate that two-price system would be through marketing boards; and as I have already pointed out, it would be quite a simple operation in so far as the wheat board is concerned. In so far as marketing boards have been established on a provincial basis, it might be possible to apply the two-price system through those marketing boards, but it may be quite a while before the farmers throughout Canada are prepared to sell all their produce through marketing boards on the same basis as the wheat board. We therefore feel that in the meantime ways and means should be found of applying the two-price system without the operation of marketing boards. There are many ways in which the two-price system can be applied without waiting for marketing boards to be established.
To those people who have the idea that it would not be fair to charge the people in Canada a higher price than is charged externally, may I say this. Let them remember that when the farm organizations advocate a two-price system, and advocate that the price on the domestic market should be at parity, by parity they merely mean a price that bears a fair relationship to the prices of other commodities.
Is any member of this house going to say that the farmers in Canada are not entitled to receive for their products sold in Canada a price that bears a fair relationship to the prices of other commodities? That is all they are asking. Certainly they would like to have a parity price for all their farm products, but we have no control over the export market. We cannot control the prices in the export market, but we can control the price internally.
We are therefore urging upon the government the desirability of establishing a two-price system so that in the domestic market the prices on the different markets


shall be such that it bears a fair relationship to the prices of other commodities, no higher and no less, and then get the best price we can in the world market. Then if at the end of operations for the year we found there was a serious disparity between the national income and the farmers' share of it, deficiency payments could be put into effect in order to remove that disparity.
I am not going to say any more at this time, Mr. Chairman. I think my time is fairly well up. I appreciate that this is not an easy problem to solve. I would therefore urge upon the minister the desirability of sending the bill to the agriculture committee in the form of a draft bill.
There are plenty of precedents for that. Back in 1945, when we drafted the veterans' charter the government sent those bills, before second reading, to the veterans committee and told it to work on those bills and redraft them in whatever shape the committee thought necessary. The committee did that; they made many changes in the bills and then the minister, meeting us in camera, told us to what extent he was prepared to meet the changes we had advocated. He went quite a long way in that regard.
Now that was a new procedure, I believe, at the time but every veteran member who has spoken in this house since then has praised that procedure because, as a result of it, we got a veterans' charter which is probably as good as any to be found in the world. I believe if the Minister of Agriculture would adopt that policy in regard to this bill we might have a bill which would meet and would earn the approval of all the farm organizations in this country.
(Translation):


Mr. Poulin:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about the resolution under discussion at this time which provides for a considerable increase in the amounts appropriated for the administration of the agricultural prices support act.
This morning I followed rather attentively the remarks made by the Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). I must say that I was a little disappointed at the way in which the government plans to go about solving the problem of price support. That is why I hasten to submit a proposal which I believe constructive and which I commend to the minister's earnest attention. Here is what I have in mind. With certain products, it just will not do to announce only twelve months in advance at what level the price will be fixed. On several previous occasions I have pointed out that in so far as butter is concerned, more particularly, the producer should

be able to rely on a fixed price for a long period ahead of time, so as to plan his production and determine how much he should spend on improving his stock, for example, without risking a dead loss.
To my mind that is a basic principle of sound farm management, one which indeed has been recognized in the past, for it was in 1953, I believe,-I did not have time to check-that the government fixed for three years in advance the support price for butter.
There is no doubt that, particularly since the end of 1955, it has been hard going for the farmers of this country. Recently the report of the Department of Agriculture mentioned that their gross income would be greater in 1957 than in 1956. However, their net income will be lower because of higher costs of production. The farmer's immediate prospects are therefore not very rosy.
Then, too, it is now recognized that the welfare of people generally, throughout Canada, is intimately bound up with the welfare of the farmer. In the constituency of Beauce more particularly I think it may safely be said that there is a very close relationship between the position of the farmer and that of the other groups, workers, employees, storekeepers and manufacturers, and that the prosperity of these people is largely dependent upon the revenue of the farmer.
Now, among the sources of revenue of farmers in the constituency of Beauce, the maple sugar industry stands out both in respect of the number of people who are engaged in it-42 per cent approximately-and of the revenue it provides, which equals that secured from all other forest products combined. It must be noted here that for the last two years this industry has been in a very depressed state. May I just say at this point that because this product is marketed largely outside the province that produces it, and especially outside Canada, I believe it is the federal government's duty to help solve the problem of marketing this product.
According to reliable surveys, it costs about 25 or 26 cents to produce a pound of maple syrup. Well, this year, the sale price has ranged between 15 and 22 cents a pound. Last year it was a little higher, but far from satisfactory. The situation is therefore intolerable and it is hardly surprising that, for two years now, many maple sugar producers did not even bother tapping their trees, and some producers even decided to chop them
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization down. In my opinion, it is most undesirable to let an industry die out whose raw material, labour and equipment are distinctly Canadian. I do not believe I am overstating the case when I say that if the maple sugar industry ever disappears from the county of Beauce, nearly half our farmers will quit the farm.
I am glad to be able to say that maple syrup producers have tried and are still trying very hard to put up a solid front to the buyers. Some of them are members of the Societe cooperative des producteurs de sucre (sugar producers' co-operative), an excellent organization. The Catholic Farmers' Union, for its part, has taken on a huge job, for which it deserves congratulations, in developing a joint marketing plan with the cooperation of the provincial marketing board. A new group, still not fully organized, the Syndicat des producteurs de sucre (sugar producers' union), has only recently entered the field but has already achieved creditable results which, though not spectacular, are undeniable.
Last summer, when the Societe cooperative was able to pay 18 to 21 cents a pound, because of a guarantee provided by the federal government with the help of public funds, independent producers had to sell to dealers at 15 cents a pound, or risk having to keep their product indefinitely. I repeat here what I stated during the last electoral campaign: "This procedure constitutes, on the part of the government, serious discrimination against a considerable number of producers". And that is where the support price, to which I will come in a moment, would have provided equal opportunities to all. In the light of these facts, I felt it my duty to do all I could to help those unjustly treated producers by supporting the activity of the new union. They held out so firmly that dealers thought it wise to raise their prices gradually and I can say that, for two or three months, they are paying almost as much as does the Societe cooperative itself. There is no doubt in my mind that this is largely the result of the unremitting efforts of the sugar producers' union.
However, in spite of the work and good will of all concerned, the problem is far from being solved and I urge the government to give us their co-operation.
On March 28 last, as well as before and after that date, through representations to ministers of agriculture, I asked here for the establishment of a support price, just as the

2202	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Landry) did himself in this house on October 18 last. After having his departmental experts study my suggestion, the then minister of agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) advised me that it was not accepted. To be factual, I must say that, at the time, the parties concerned were by no means in perfect agreement.
I may add that for the past few months opinions have changed and that the great majority of producers I have met, and with whom I have discussed the problem, now think that the government should establish price support. The Catholic Farmers' Union itself, at its 33rd annual convention, recommended to the federal government the establishment of a support price of 25 cents a pound for maple syrup. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am on very good ground for renewing my request for a price support which, in my estimation, should be at least 25 cents.
Now then, if I come back now to what the Minister of Agriculture explained to the committee this morning, and if I take the average of prices paid in the last three years, namely 1955, 1956 and 1957, I get an average price of 26J cents. On the other hand, if I take 80 per cent of that 26J cents, the result is 21 cents a pound. And if I should be as optimistic as the minister was this morning, and take 105 per cent of this base price, I obtain a guaranteed price of 27.1 cents a pound. I would hesitate to believe that the minister will always be so enthusiastic and that he will set the base price at 105 per cent which, as I said, would represent, in the case of maple sugar, 26 cents for the three years. I doubt very much that this percentage would be granted the producer. It would set a guaranteed price of 27 cents a pound, which is just about what the producer of maple sugar and the Catholic Farmers' Union have been asking for. Some of those who are against this price support measure have argued that, to all intents and purposes, this support price would become a ceiling price. The answer to this objection is to be found in what has happened with the sale of pork. While the support price of this commodity was set at 23 cents, as hon. members know, its selling price this fall went up to 35 cents and, if I am not mistaken, even to 37 cents a pound.
A few words now on the problem of the price of butcher cattle and calves. In this field, unstable prices are very harmful to producers, and not only to those who specialize in raising this type of cattle, but also to

owners of dairy cattle. Indeed with the increasingly careful selection practised nowadays, every dairy herd includes a large number of heads which are classified as substandard and must be slaughtered. And when you think of how much it costs today for feed -and the same could be said of fertilizers- you will easily understand that the raising of beef cattle is hardly a paying proposition for the dairy owner. It will often eat up any profit he might have made out of his dairy herd. The same is true of the production of butcher calves.
For those reasons, I strongly suggest to the hon. minister that he very carefully consider this problem, and that the experts who will make up the advisory committee, as provided in the resolution also give their most careful and early attention to my proposal of a support price in the case of butcher cattle and calves, as well as maple syrup.
And now I want to say a few words about other products already under a price support which, I feel, should be brought to a higher level. First, as far as butter is concerned, a support price of 58 cents might have been adequate around 1952 and the following years, but is obviously no longer so today, considering the increased costs of production. This problem, however, presents a new aspect which we cannot afford to overlook if not only the producer but the consumer as well are to be protected. Indeed, I believe that, as I have said many times in the past, if the price of butter to the consumer was held for several years at a reasonable level, it is because the government, through price support, has piled up huge stocks. This, I might say, is a constant threat to the speculators who might have been tempted to create an artificial shortage with consequent unjustified and unfair prices to the buyer, and, of course, without any profit to the producer either. Just remember what happened during the winter 1951-52. After just such a scandalous manoeuvre by speculators, the retail price soared to 85 and even 90 cents a pound, while the producer of course got nothing whatever out of this exorbitant increase.
Now, according to the figures given to the house by the hon. Minister of Agriculture on the 5th of this month, butter stocks have been dwindling steadily for the past three years. From 92 million pounds in 1955, they fell to 81 million pounds in 1956 and to 34 million pounds at the end of last November. Without being much of an econbmist, I think we just reached a danger

point and that we are on the threshold of an early and serious shortage, which is bound to touch off an unfair rise of prices at the consumer level. To protect the buyer, butter stocks, in my opinion, should be built up, and I think that the only practical way to make this possible would be to raise tne price support to 63 cents and even to 65 cents a pound.
And there again, if I refer to the hon. minister's report, and take as a basic rate the average price paid to farmers in the last three years, I find that this is not very hard to figure out. We have now 58 cents; if we take 80 per cent of 58 cents, we get a price of 46.4 cents a pound, which, as the hon. member who preceded me just read, is the only real guarantee now given by the hon. gentleman in the introductory resolution. If, on the other hand, you get all excited about the way the Department of Agriculture is going to establish this price, and if the basic rate is raised to 100 or 105 per cent, you get a ceiling price of 60.9 cents a pound. This is indeed far from the floor price requested by the Catholic Farmers' Union at their 33rd annual convention.
Knowing the minister's almost anxious hope that his bill will go through with the shortest possible delay, hon. members will understand that I am summarizing as much as possible a discussion that would call for far more explanations.
And finally, one last word to suggest that the support price for pork be raised at least to the level it had reached over the last few years, that is 26 cents for grade A.
I know that this year the prevailing price has been far above the support price. However, there are signs now of a declining trend and there is a possibility that sooner or later that trend will gain momentum and reach the floor price which, at the present time, is unquestionably inadequate. In the last few weeks, I have talked over this matter with several Beauce farmers, and all of them agree that, considering the cost of labour, of building piggeries, and especially the cost of feed, 23 cents is altogether inadequate.
Against a raise in support prices, it was claimed that too high a price would induce a lot of people to go into hog breeding, who have now no interest whatever in doing it.
As a matter of fact, experience has shown that industrialists, business men, merchants, and even lawyers and doctors have gone into hog raising and, incidentally helped prices to come down by causing a surplus on the market.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
I would have a suggestion to offer to do away with this difficulty, and that would be to limit the number of heads which each breeder would be allowed to deliver to the board in a given period. The limit would be set by experts and could vary from year to year and even from district to district. Hon. members will please note that there would be no question of limiting production, but only the number of heads delivered to the board. This would certainly eliminate breeders who are not bona fide farmers, who do not need to raise hogs to earn a living and who are interested in this type of production only so long as they can organize it on a large scale, to reap considerable profits. This would hardly be possible with the system I am suggesting.
I will close on that remark while at the same time expressing the sincere wish that the measure under discussion may really prove helpful to the Canadian farmer and, at the same time protect the Canadian consumer.
(Text):


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I cannot resist commenting that I could not help but wonder as I looked at the benches opposite which are almost entirely empty with only one minister in his seat until a few minutes ago what must be the attitude of the members of the government toward this proposed legislation.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: There happen to be two ministers present. If you cannot see any better than that you had better have your eyes tested.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are as inaccurate as usual.


Walter Adam Tucker: There are just two ministers present now and until just a few minutes ago, as I said, there was just one minister in his seat and that statement was quite correct. Now there are two.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Until about four minutes ago there were others present. Two ministers just left their seats a few minutes ago.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Oh, do not bother.


Hazen Robert Argue: One cannot blame them for leaving.


Mr. Hodgson:: If that is the only election platform you have, you will be licked the next time, too.


Walter Adam Tucker: If they had left while I was speaking I would not have said anything

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization about it but they were not here even before I started to speak. I could not help but wonder if this was indicative of the attitude of the government towards this resolution. Perhaps they may think there is nothing of significance in this legislation and they should not regard it as being important. If it is really the attitude of the government that this is not important legislation and it is just brought in for no real purpose but to create an effect, that the government is doing something then there is going to be a great deal of disappointment in the country about that.
Before I leave the question of the government paying little or no attention to the deliberations that take place in this chamber -all members of the cabinet and many other members being absent with the exception of the Minister of Agriculture and one other minister-I would remind hon. members of all that we were told about the intention of this government to restore parliament to its ancient glory and to pay more attention to parliament and its rights and all that sort of thing. After all when the government brings in a resolution of this kind which should be considered important and no member of the cabinet is here except the Minister of Agriculture and one other minister to pay attention to what might be said in the discussion at the resolution stage-this indicates to me that the government does not care very much about what may be said in this chamber.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are completely wrong. That is an absolutely unjustifiable statement.


Walter Adam Tucker: If this legislation is considered important, as it should be, I think there should be more of the cabinet here than the two ministers who are present.


Mr. Aiken:: Look around you.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: What, to listen to you?


Walter Adam Tucker: No, I said that if they had left while I was speaking I would not have said anything about it but they have not been here all afternoon.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Have you any idea what they are doing?


Walter Adam Tucker: The present Prime Minister said that the first job confronting the government is to restore the rights of parliament and that the Conservative government would do certain things in this regard. One of the things he said it would do would be to restore the power of parliamentary committees. In the first place the government is apparently taking the attitude that it does not care very much what is said in the House of Commons and there has been no suggestion made that it is going to make use of a parliamentary

committee in this important matter. This is another violation of the promises about which we heard so much and all of which were supposed to be carried out.


Mr. Rowe:: What are you reading from?


Walter Adam Tucker: This is a statement from a speech made by the Prime Minister on May 16, 1957. I am obliged to my hon. old friend across the way for asking me to cite the authority.


William Earl Rowe: How did it get that red cover on it?


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the name of that book?


Walter Adam Tucker: It is quoted from the Winnipeg Tribune which I do not think hon. members would suggest is an unreliable newspaper.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the name of the book you are quoting from?


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, it may look like a big book but it is called-


Hazen Robert Argue: Three pounds of Tory promises.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The Liberal book of knowledge.


Walter Adam Tucker: This appears to be a very large book but I might point out that it contains some of the promises on which you were elected and I do not think you should feel too badly if I refer to it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, if the hon. member proposes to start quoting from a book I suggest he should tell us the title of the book so we will know from what source his quotations come.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is called, "Diefenbaker's Promises-1957". I will hold the book up in plain sight for all to see.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask who is the author of that book?


Walter Adam Tucker: The National Liberal Federation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Oh yes, that is the Liberal interpretation.


Walter Adam Tucker: These are absolutely reliable quotations and hon. members can verify them. Hon. gentlemen opposite instead of being so uneasy about having these promises quoted to them should be glad to hear them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We are not uneasy but we want to know the source.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have given you the source and you can look it up.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Still, that source is not very reliable.


Walter Adam Tucker: The Winnipeg Tribune?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The source of that book is not reliable and I would say the book is not very reliable, either.


Walter Adam Tucker: That quotation was drawn from the Winnipeg Tribune.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that subsection 2 of standing order 59 says that speeches in committees of the whole house must be strictly relevent to the item or clause under consideration.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, I am pointing out that the Prime Minister said he was going to restore parliament by among other things respecting parliamentary committees. Surely the question I am dealing with is appropriate because, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Acadia, one way in which parliament can deal with such a matter effectively, as was also pointed out by the Prime Minister, in the excerpts from the report of his speech in the Winnipeg Tribune which I read, is to have a parliamentary committee given a chance to study the government's proposal. There has been no suggestion that is going to be done. As pointed out by the hon. member for Acadia, this should be one of the most important bills brought before parliament at this session and it should not be treated in the way it is being treated by hon. members opposite. There should be some suggestion that there is going to be some chance to examine it in a parliamentary committee but there has been no such suggestion.
Apparently the attitude is to have only enough people present to man the house, pay no attention to what hon. members say and go ahead as has already been decided by the government regardless of the ideas expressed in parliament. I just draw attention to that, Mr. Chairman.
In the light of the promises made by the Prime Minister when he was seeking the support of the country during the last election the country had a right to expect that worth while changes would be made when the government was elected to office with respect to the position of our farmers. For example, in his opening speech in the campaign the Prime Minister-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Back to the book.


Walter Adam Tucker: -as reported in a Canadian Press dispatch which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle Herald of April 26, 1957, used these words:
A flexible price support program for farm goods to ensure farmers adequate parity based on fair price-cost relationship.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
In the Toronto Globe and Mail of April 26, 1957 the following appeared:
Farmers would get their fair share of the national indome, he added, through a flexible price support program.
Their fair share of the national income. That is exactly the point where the present government and its leader found fault with what had been done by the previous government. The Prime Minister said that the previous government had not assured farmers a fair share of the national income and the Conservatives were going to see that they were assured a fair share of the national income. The country fully expected that when this legislation was brought in it would provide for that. But it is far from providing for it. I have compared what the minister has said the proposed bill will provide with the Agricultural Prices Support Act and actually, if the minister has reported fairly on what the bill is going to do, it does not change the situation in any substantial way for the better.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You have not understood the speech. You had better go and get a copy from Hansard and read it.


Walter Adam Tucker: I followed it very carefully and not only did I understand that the government is doing nothing but I think the country generally and the farmers will understand it. This sort of thing is not going to fool the farmer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the farmers will understand all right.


Walter Adam Tucker: You hoped they would be impressed by your bringing in this bill.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You hope they will be impressed by you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They certainly will not be impressed by the hon. member for Huron.


Walter Adam Tucker: I would hope that if we ever made any promises as explicit as these some attention would be paid to keeping them.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The Liberal party never fulfilled any promises at any time.


Walter Adam Tucker: If you would make a speech some time it would be a good thing.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I will make one right after you.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, I am not at all surprised that hon. members opposite do not want me to bring out the facts.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Why don't you go ahead and make your speech and not indulge in so much of this kind of criticism?

2206	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Walter Adam Tucker: The government is doing practically nothing and I suppose the reason why hon. members opposite do not want to speak and try to prevent others from being he&rd is that they are so ashamed of the legislation that they do not want to say anything in support of it. I would point out to the minister that section 9, subsection 1 of the Agriculture Prices Support Act is in these words:
-the board shall, subject to and in accordance with regulations made by the governor in council, have authority
(a) to prescribe from time to time, with the approval of the governor in council, prices at which the board may purchase agricultural products in the market.
Then, paragraph (c) of that subsection is in these words:
(c) to pay to the producers of an agricultural product directly or through such agent as the board may determine the difference between a price prescribed by the board with the approval of the governor in council for such product and the average price, as determined by the board, at which such product is sold in the market during a specified period if such average price is below such prescribed price.
That gives the right first of all for the government to permit the board to buy at prices which they think are proper under the act. It also gives the right to make deficiency payments directly to the producer. Then, subsection 2 of section 9 provides:
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.
That was the basis on which prices should be set. This act was made permanent in 1950, and in setting the price at which its agents would buy agricultural products-this applied to all products except wheat-the board was to bear in mind that the intention was to see that the farmer got a fair share of the national income and in order to do that the board was even empowered to make payments directly to the producer. A revolving fund of $200 million was to be set up for that purpose.
I followed what the minister said very carefully, and so far as I can see he is giving the board that he is setting up under the proposed bill no more powers than the agricultural prices support board already has.


Edward George McCullough: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Walter Adam Tucker: I would ask the hon. member to wait until I am through; I would like to finish my presentation and I only have 30 minutes. I do not want to ask for any more time because it holds other people back. I do not mind answering questions when I am through and I am not afraid to answer any
IMr. Cardiff.]
questions, as hon. members who have been here before know very well.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is safer here than on television.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am not afraid to appear on television either. I do not mind these interruptions as long as my time is not limited by them, but I would point out that I am not one who tries to prevent others from speaking in the house. That applies particularly to my friends of the C.C.F. and to two or three on the opposite side. Fortunately all members in the house are not like two or three who do not seem to want to make speeches themselves but who try to prevent others from making speeches that present a reasonable argument.
I was pointing out that all the powers the minister is providing for in the bill-if he can say otherwise I wish he would do so- are already included in the Agricultural Prices Support Act. There is an advisory committee operating under that act and the head of that advisory committee is the head of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Now then, in what way is the minister changing the situation?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Read the section of the act about the advisory committee.


Walter Adam Tucker: An advisory committee has been operating under this act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Read the section of the act.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have had one since 1944.


Walter Adam Tucker: My hon. friend wants me to read from this act. I suppose he thinks that while I am reading this I am not saying something else.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, no. You are always so suspicious, apparently.


Walter Adam Tucker: There is the agricultural prices support board, and then it provides that-


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member cannot find it because it is not there.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is much easier to find the board.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member cannot find it because it is not there.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is an advisory committee there, and always has been.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have here a copy of the annual report of the Department of Agriculture, signed by the present Minister of Agriculture. Here is what the report says concerning this advisory committee, and I will just read it:
The board-
That is the board itself.
-met on 30 occasions . . .

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
He goes on to say, at the bottom of page 149:
The general advisory committee to the board, under the chairmanship of H. H. Hannam, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, held regular spring and fall meetings. The committee covered a wide field in its discussions and at the conclusion of each meeting submitted a limited number of carefully considered recommendations.
Here is the report of the Minister of Agriculture, over his own signature, mentioning that this board met over and over again, yet he tries to disrupt my speech by asking a question, is there any board. I would ask him, when he answers, to tell me whether or not there are any greater powers in the proposed bill to help producers than he already has. If he has no more power under the proposed bill than he explained this morning, then have not the people of this country the right to feel very disappointed and to ask why this legislation is being introduced if the government is actually doing nothing in this proposed bill.
The minister said that it was very difficult to fix high support prices to give the farmer a fair share of the national income. He said this would lead to surpluses, as it had in the United States; that it would be difficult to administer; that it would cost a lot of money. There were other reasons that he gave. These reasons applied when he was in opposition and the Liberals were administering the Agricultural Prices Support Act, yet the Conservatives promised, regardless of these difficulties, that they were going to go ahead and do something worth while for the farmer. The Prime Minister actually said, in a press conference, as reported in the Winnipeg Tribune of May 14:
On agriculture, Mr. Diefenbaker promised flexible support prices similar to those instituted in the U.S. by the Eisenhower administration.
This is the basis upon which the members opposite got elected. Then the minister now gets up and tells us we cannot do the same as they did in the United States because of these difficulties.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order; the hon. member has been trying for the last three minutes to put words in my mouth which I did not utter. What I said was that the fixed parity price formula which had been in use in the United States, particularly before any change was made in it, had resulted in the building up of very large and unmanageable surpluses.


Walter Adam Tucker: As the minister knows, that is not a point of order. It is a matter of argument. I am saying the effect of what the minister said was to indicate that the reason he could not follow the policy of the
United States under the Eisenhower administration was because of a lack of flexible-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I must again protest the actions of the hon. member in putting words into my mouth which I did not utter. I particularly read this speech so I would have a defence against this kind of thing. I have a copy right here before me, and I never made any such statement.


Walter Adam Tucker: I wrote down what I heard the minister say, and I have it here in front of me. I am not, and I did not purport to quote from the minister. I said the effect of what he said was such and such, and the minister has no right to raise a point of order on that. I have a right to say what I consider the effect of his speech was. He knows, just as well as I do, that it is a phony point of order just the same as this legislation is phony legislation. I am not surprised-


Douglas Scott Harkness: The only phony thing here is your speech.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am not surprised at all at this. With all the talk that has been put out in the country, on the basis of which the hon. members were elected, and all the hopes held out, and then the introduction of this measure which does not carry the legislation any farther forward than it was before, I am not surprised that they attempt to do everything to prevent these facts being brought out.
Somebody may say, well, you people had this legislation and why did you not raise the income of the farmer so it bore a fair relationship to the income received in other occupations as is provided for in the Agricultural Prices Support Act. One of the difficulties about raising the prices of agricultural products much higher than world prices was that if you did that you had then to impose strict import controls and practically bar the importation of agricultural products into Canada. It was realized, as the Prime Minister stated when he was leader of the opposition, that if you started doing that you were, in spirit in any event, going against the general agreement on tariffs and trade. If you start doing that, you can expect reprisals from other, countries. The farmers themselves have always taken the attitude that we wanted to expand our trade; we did not want to get into a trade war. All our policies in trying to get the farmers' prices up as high as possible were instituted with the fact in mind that we could not start a tariff war.
I have here a copy of a statement of policy issued by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, adopted on January 26, 1956. This

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization statement of policy frankly faces that situation. I am reading from page 7 of this statement of policy:
A country like Canada also has this special problem-that in the case of some commodities it attempts, for sound reasons of national policy, to maintain a domestic level of prices that is above the world level. At the same time it desires to look to the world market to dispose of limited quantities of those commodities that will not be absorbed at home at those higher-than-world levels. The United States also is in this position, with a scale of production and surpluses far in excess of Canada's.
It should be possible for Canada to export these commodities, in fairly limited quantities, in regular world markets and at world prices. But it must be recognized that this type of operation must be carried on with discretion, and with consideration for regular exporters of these products, and for our obligation under GATT.
The situation must also be looked at from the point of view of Canada's position as an actual and potential importer of farm products.
Where it is necessary to support the price of a product, it may sometimes be necessary at the same time to take steps to control imports.
Then, they go on to make recommendations, and two of their recommendations are:
1.	Canada should continue to pursue a national policy aimed at achieving the freest possible flow of trade between nations.
4. The multilateral negotiation of agreements on tariffs and trade practices, as achieved under GATT is in principle sound and should be continued. Some formal organization for the administration of GATT and for facilitating international co-operation on trade problems is also desirable.
This was the attitude of this organized farm organization as they approached this great problem, so I presume it was the attitude of the advisory committee headed by Mr. Hannam. It did tend to keep prices from being raised higher than might otherwise have been the case under the Agricultural Prices Support Act.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture made a submission to the members of the government on July 31 of this year. This problem has come to be realized more and more by everyone including the farm organizations. If you want to expand trade, if you at the same time want to raise prices on farm products high enough to give the farmers a fair share of the national income, you will have to raise them a good deal higher than they actually are in international trade and that would mean that you would have to impose import controls. If you begin to bar out imports, then other countries will begin to bar out our exports. This was finally realized by many people who were thinking about this problem. This is something I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture. I presume that he has studied this submission of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture very carefully. It was as I have said made to the government of which

he is a member on July 31 of this year. I read from this brief because it indicates a realization that something more had to be done than had been done before and it asks for something more to be done. It seems to me that the government which promised to do more than had been done previously, should have paid some attention to this submission which I consider most reasonable. At page 3 of this submission to the government the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said this:
In January of 1955 a statement of policy was adopted by the federation of which the major features were:
1.	That price supports should not create incentives to production which perpetuate surplus production problems and prevent necessary and desirable production adjustments being made. This is the most fundamental principle involved, next to that of providing for the producer due and reasonable safeguards against excessive loss of income.
2.	That price supports should be calculated according to a known formula, embodied in legislation, which could be used as a guide, accepted by all concerned, for negotiating price supports.
3.	That as a general rule between 70 and 85 per cent of a fair relationship or parity level, as calculated by the formula, would provide for a reasonable range of supports, with due regard for flexibility. With supports established at such moderate levels, it is recognized that market prices will usually prevail above support levels and sometimes substantially above them.
4.	That deficiency payments as a method of price supports were not to be recommended in preference to market price supports-except with rapidly perishable products.
That was the position of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture up until practically this year, namely that deficiency payments should not be used and were not desirable except for rapidly perishable products. Then this brief of July 31 last goes on to say this:
The above remain the basic principles of C.F.A. price support policy except with respect to deficiency payments. The arguments against the use of deficiency payments unquestionably have a considerable degree of validity, and in a general way the federation prefers the market support technique where it is practicable. At the same time the advantages of supporting producer returns by means which do not involve maintaining market prices at the full support level are very real and since the beginning of this year a special national committee has been reviewing this particular aspect of price support policy.
Last week the board of directors of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture received the report of that committee-
They say "last week". That would be the last week of July of this year.
-and revised its statement of price support policy. After a thorough review of the question, it was decided that adjustment or deficiency payments as a method of supporting incomes of producers should be applied on individual products to correct income deficiencies under the following circumstances:
Here the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has said that they have changed their

attitude towards deficiency payments and have submitted this new and most reasonable recommendation to the government. I expected that the government meant business when it said it was going to do something about this great problem. Here is what they said: that they should be used
(a)	Where perishable products require this type of support in order to move the product and avoid waste.
(b)	Where market price supports, though put at the best level feasible for this type of support, must be supplemented from the point of view of providing adequate producer returns.


The Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Walter Adam Tucker: I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that in committee I have a right to speak for 30 minutes from the time the last person who took the floor stopped speaking. The minister rose and made a statement in the middle of my speech. I therefore submit that I have a right to speak for 30 minutes from the time he took the floor.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not make a statement. I just rose on a point of order.


Walter Adam Tucker: The minister said what he had said in his speech and undertook to correct my speech. I now point out-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I raised a point of order.


Walter Adam Tucker: It was no point of order. You were correcting my speech. I pointed out at the time that it was not a point of order. The reason why I asked for this consideration in order to conclude is this-


Henri Courtemanche: Order. I would ask the hon. member to assist me in fulfilling my duty. Standing order 59, paragraph (3) reads as follows:
No member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, shall speak for more than thirty minutes at a time in any committee of the whole house.


Walter Adam Tucker: That paragraph states "shall speak for more than thirty minutes at a time". I was interrupted repeatedly. Others took the floor, particularly the minister and Your Honour must realize that he did so and that it was not on a point of order. It was an attempt to correct what I had said he had said in his speech.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was a point of order.


An hon. Member:: What about the rules of parliament?


Walter Adam Tucker: The rules of parliament are something, I submit, we have a right to abide by. The rule certainly states "thirty
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization minutes at a time". Can anyone say that I had had the floor for 30 minutes steadily when the minister took the floor from me?


Henri Courtemanche: I am bound by this standing order. I have no alternative. I must give the floor to another member.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do it the next time around.


Mr. Mandziuk:: Before I proceed with my remarks, Mr. Chairman, please permit me to congratulate Mr. Speaker and you as Deputy Speaker on your election to the important offices you hold. I also wish to commend you both for the kind, courteous and impartial manner in which you have steered the deliberations of this house. I wish to express the same sentiments towards the clerks and those that assist us in the house.
There is one misgiving which I feel I should share with you Mr. Chairman, and hon. members of this house and that is the difficult role I have to fill in representing the constituency of Marquette in Manitoba for the following reasons. My immediate predecessor representing this finest of Manitoba constituencies was Hon. Stuart S. Garson who, for nine years, distinguished himself as minister of justice in the late Liberal government. His predecessor was the late Senator James Allison Glen who for a number of years occupied the chair which you, sir, are now occupying. His predecessor was the late Senator Harry Mullins whom many of the oldtimers must remember. You will now believe me, Mr. Chairman, when I say that the mantle of these outstanding Canadians weighs heavily on my shoulders and I pray to the Almighty for ability, strength and vision to serve Marquette and Canada as ably as did my predecessors.
I want to make the definite statement that we are proud of the proposed legislation, as proud as we are of the legislation we have put on the books to date. I wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on his manner of presenting the principles of the bill to be introduced after the resolution passes, if it does so. He was concise, brief and to the point. He expressed the hope that this legislation would not be unduly delayed, and I share his hope. Consequently I am not going to take up too much time of this house as lengthy speeches will only result in delay. I hope that the bill which will soon be in our hands will contain, if not all at least most of that for which the farmers have been waiting for so many years.
I cannot resist expressing certain opinions and views on the resolution which introduces the price support legislation, which legislation is of such vital importance, not only to
2210	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization the primary producers of my own constituency but those of all other constituencies. Indeed, all the primary producers of Canada have desired price support legislation; the economy of the country requires it and I am sure all groups in this house agree with the principle behind it.
The farmers comprise one-sixth of our population, this one-sixth providing one-quarter of our exports. These are the farmers of Canada, whether they grow grain, raise hogs, poultry or cattle.
Labour, being well organized into unions, has been clamouring for and receiving increases in wages and other benefits while this one-sixth of our population, the men and women on the farms, were until this government came into power the all but forgotten group of this country. When they asked in years past for just such legislation as this they were told it was impossible; it could not be provided; that nature would take care of their surpluses by several years of crop failures and then eventually Canadians would eat up these surpluses.
If this has a familiar ring in the ears of some hon. members 1 hope they will not be too disturbed. The farmer never knows whether or not he will harvest a crop. If he does not harvest a crop he has nothing to sell and therefore has no income in the fall. If he has too big a crop the prices fall and so does his income, a surplus then being created. This situation applies to whatever type of farmer one might consider but even if he can sell his produce prices fluctuate and he can never budget for his needs in advance. For example, there was a fluctuation in hog prices last summer, with a difference of 10 to 12 cents in a period of a few short weeks. These are the reasons why farmers in the whole of Canada have been so anxious for so many years to see this legislation introduced.
Referring again to this one-sixth of our population, taking for the moment the farmer and his wife and leaving aside the children, these people work from dawn to dusk, at times during all hours of the night. Both husband and wife work seven days a week for 365 days a year, with a day extra in leap years. They have no holidays with or without pay. They never know in advance what they will receive for the fruits of their labour and this is why farmers sell out and our farm population is dwindling. The farmer goes into the industrial centre, increasing the labour force, and soon swells the ranks of the unemployed. Therefore, this one-sixth of our population must read with envy our debates in this house on the matter of the minimum wage of one dollar per hour. I submit that if the farmer, anywhere in Canada, billed his farm at the rate of one
[Mr. Mandziuk.l

dollar per hour, at the end of the year he would have a bill to the tune of over $5,000. That is for both himself and his wife and I daresay there is not a farmer in my constituency or, for that matter, in any other constituency who clears that much money for his labour on 365 days a year. I say this because of the unstable prices and the surpluses which exist.
The farmer's wife cannot enjoy the finer things of life; she cannot have clothes as good as those of her sister in the city; she cannot have household appliances such as those owned by her sister in the city and she cannot enjoy all the conveniences enjoyed by her sister in the city, even though that sister may be the wife of a labourer. The farmer himself cannot afford to dress as well as his brother who is a labourer in the city. He wears the same suit for years- probably the suit in which he was married- and he may even be buried in the same suit. His products are priced at a certain figure; his surpluses cannot be sold and he has no ready cash. I therefore believe that the farmer certainly appreciates the cash advance legislation which we have already passed and will likewise appreciate the price support legislation we are about to pass.
The farmer cannot buy as good a car as his labourer brother who lives in the city. Who but the farmer still drives the old flivver of the 1940 or 1945 model? All this, in spite of the fact that they have lived through that great prosperity under the Liberal government. I could point out tens of hundreds of such old model cars in my own constituency. Do you know why we cannot afford to get new ones? Because there is not the money available and these old models are not valuable enough to be used as a trade-in. Now these are efficient farmers and a car in these days is a necessity and not a luxury.
I am just trying to give a picture of the farm situation today and I think all hon. members will understand why this legislation will be appreciated. This uncertainty as to prices is bad for the Canadian worker, although he may not realize it. It is bad for the manufacturer if one-sixth of our population has no buying power. A prosperous agricultural community would provide a substantial market. The implement industry for example has remained in a depressed state since 1949; that started in the good old days of the grand Liberal administration. The crisis in agriculture is also bad for the small town businessman in every constituency in Canada. It is bad for the grocer, the general merchant, the implement agent and the automobile dealer all of whom depend upon local patronage and the buying power

of their customer-the farmer. It is bad for the wholesaler. If the retailer sells less, the wholesaler sells less then the manufacturer must reduce production in his factory and his workers are laid off. Then the hue and cry is raised: "What is the government going to do about it?" The legislation of this government is an important answer to this question.


An hon. Member:: And how!


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I have heard that before- it is doing that which should have been done years ago. The primary producers have cried for such legislation; they have asked for it again and again over the years but their cry was a voice in the wilderness. I feel that the people whom I have the honour to represent will be pleased-no, much more than pleased,-they will be happy at the courage of this government in going ahead with the legislation, going ahead with what others said could not be done. My constituents consist of small farmers, small town businessmen and they will be looking forward to the benefits which are expected from this legislation. They will get those benefits in 1958.
I was glad to note that the government is acting like a servant of the people rather than like a master. I was very pleased with the support which hon. members representing constituencies in the east gave to legislation beneficial to the west alone, that is, to the measure providing for cash advances on farm-stored grain. We who come from the west did not have to convince the eastern representatives that this legislation was worth while; they felt that what was good for any one section of Canada should be supported by the whole of Canada. This government realizes the interdependence of every section of the country and this realization will, I am sure, result in a united and more prosperous Canada.
I promised to make my remarks brief, and I will keep my promise. In closing, I feel sure, sir, that this government will go down in history-


An hon. Member:: Yes, go down.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: -as one which has lived up to its election promises. In the past, Canadians have become accustomed to seeing election promises made just to be broken. This government will go down in history as one of the most progressive governments Canada has ever had, and the name of our beloved leader, the Prime Minister, will go down in history as the father of the bill of rights for the farmer.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Mr. Schulz:: Mr. Chairman, I must admit I am on the spot today perhaps more than I have ever been before. I had prepared a speech for this heavy occasion, this great occasion to which I have been looking forward for years, and now I cannot even use it because it would not fit. I expressed the hope that this would be the day which would save agriculture. And now, after listening to the Minister of Agriculture speak about this incredible and shocking proposal which has been revealed here, this speech of mine would look silly, coming after his.


An hon. Member:: It does anyway.


Jacob Schulz: Just think if I had used my first sentence:
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this resolution which is the forerunner of legislation to bring greater stability to farm prices.
That is what I thought this was going to be. Now what is it? It is nothing. According to the minister's statement, the prices for the year will be based on the prices prevailing during the last three years, which were about-estimated conservatively-80 per cent of parity. Thus, he will base the new prices on 80 per cent of the 80 per cent. A joke. Just think if I were to read another sentence of my proposed speech:
For a long time I have been waiting for this day when a government would recognize the problem of low farm prices and do something to stop this process which is crippling a basic Canadian industry.
Just think how silly that would sound. I do not even know with what to compare, or how to describe this thing which was revealed this morning because my vocabulary is too restricted. Perhaps the only thing I can do is to compare it with the United States sputnik which they tried to launch into the air a few days ago; the size of a cantaloupe, six point four inches in diameter, weighing three point four pounds. Never got off the ground. Exploded in their faces. It fizzled out, but it produced a shock wave right across this country unprecedented in history and this proposal, similarly, will create a feeling in the hearts of farmers of despair and chagrin. And this is what follows all the beautiful promises.
To think I have been one of those who advised my friends to vote for the Conservatives to get rid of the Liberals. Just think what they will do with me when I get home. What a spot a man can get into in life. I do not even know where I go from here. I cannot go on speaking freely; I must use a script, but the script I have prepared does not fit the occasion. If I do not use a script, what will happen to me? What,
2212	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization for example, will the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources do with me?
I never used a script in my life until I came to this house, but I use one now because I know that someone will be out to catch me. But I never thought the minister of northern affairs would do it. But that minister went out and distorted the truth and said I was the man who said that legislation for advance payments was useless. Why did he not read my speech before he made such a statement? Of course he said yesterday that I said it was stupid, and that that was just the same. Yes, it was "stupid" that appeared in Hansard, but I went up the next day and corrected it. When I said I had corrected the proof and did not use that word, what right had he to go out and say I had used it?
I have heard a lot in my time about the present minister of northern affairs. I have heard a lot of his statements, and most of them were so confused that I could make neither head nor tail of them. I have read a lot about him, too, I read an article the other day which, perhaps, fits the occasion, and I should like to quote it. It is taken from the Toronto Star of November 15 and, describing the minister of northern affairs, it says this:
Among the minuses goes Alvin Hamilton from Saskatchewan, minister of northern affairs. This is a pity, since there were high hopes of promise in this freshman minister (who incidentally was just nosed out for a Rhodes scholarship by his own deputy minister, Gordon Robertson). But at question time Alvin Hamilton adopts the manner of a youthful prig-
That is spelled p-r-i-g.
-rebuking his elders. But he is so new to the commons club that he may yet revise his manner and bring forward substantial material. Better hurry, though.
Yes, he had better hurry because if he does not history will count him with the group of people who leave as their footprints in the sands of time only the mark of a heel.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to protect myself against further distortions of the truth by making use of my script. I do it for another purpose as well. It was my main purpose today to describe the present condition of agriculture and perhaps there is still some hope that the Minister of Agriculture will listen to my remarks and go back and think them over. If he does, we will even forgive him his sins. However, I will not leave out, of course, all those hopeful expressions I have used.
During the years farmers have been faced with many problems and even crises which they have managed to overcome but low and unsuitable prices for farm products represent


a problem they have been unable to solve. As a matter of fact, this problem has increased in proportion year after year and has now reached the point where farmers are helplessly caught in the iron jaws of the present rise in costs. It is a problem of such magnitude that it has brought the Canadian agricultural industry to the brink of collapse, something this country can ill afford.
Agriculture not only served this country well but it played an important role in its development. The dynamic expansion of agriculture provided investment opportunities and became a major drawing card of immigration and colonization. With the opening of the western farm region agriculture became the foundation of the Canadian nation. Today this foundation is threatened by falling farm prices and rising production costs which have reduced many farmers to bankruptcy in the midst of prosperity. Consequently Canada's basic industry has become the weak spot in our economy. The reason for this is that the Canadian farmer was not only ignored by those who planned the distribution of this country's wealth but became an object of abuse. While industry was protected by tariff walls and finance was supplied with cheap money the farmer was left as booty for the speculators and manipulators of trade and commerce. While other groups were protected, he was forced to sell his products on the open and unprotected market where he was taken advantage of in the most unscrupulous manner. Looted for years, this builder of yesterday was slowly reduced to the point where today he is becoming the most puzzling and pathetic contemporary figure. The man who had been the backbone of our country, the very prototype of Canada, finds himself at present on the social and economic fringe. While many Canadians prosper, he can scarcely make a living.
Since 1949 the farm price index-basis 1935-1939 equals 100-declined from a high of 255.4 to a low of 224.0 in April 1957, a drop of 31.4 points; but in the same time the composite index of prices of commodities and services used by farmers went up from 204.1 to 258.6, a rise of 54.5 points. Both rise and fall combined represent a total loss to the farmer of 85.9 points in a little more than six years. This is the day when our new Minister of Agriculture has announced that the government will offer price supports. The condition I have described is the product of social chaos and economic lawlessness which produced the imbalance in our economy, prosperity on one side and bankruptcy on the other. This is the way in which the farmers were cheated out of their livelihood. This is the manner in

which this great prosperity of ours was built on the ruins of our basic industry. It is an unprecedented piece of economic chicanery.
If this kind of discrimination had occurred only in the last few years farmers would not be in their present bankrupt position; it takes much more time to bring them to their knees but this is a sort of nightmare the farmers have been living with for years. It would be interesting to know how many years but apparently there are figures available only since 1914. I paid a visit to the parliamentary library and there I found the Searle index of the cost of things prairie farmers have to buy for a living and production, together with some other indices and prices of interest. The index goes back to 1914 and provides a startling comparison for the next 25 years. The period 1913-14 equalling 100 was used as a basis for calculation.
It shows that in the first ten-year period the cost index of things farmers buy increased from 100 in 1914 to 163 in 1924, but in the same ten years the price index of wheat went up to only 124-a difference of 39 points. The index for hogs went down to 94; this is 69 points behind the cost index. The price index for cattle fell from 100 in 1914 to 78 in 1924, which is 85 points below the cost of production index.
Ten years later in 1934, at the time of the depression, the farmer's cost index had fallen to 124, but the price index for wheat went down to 72, close to half of the cost index. The hog index fell to 94, 30 points below the cost, and that of cattle dropped to 47, or 87 points behind the cost of production.
In 1939, the last year shown in the index, the farmer's cost was up to 132, but the price of wheat went down to 64 points, less than half of the farmer's cost. The price index of hogs stood at 105 and that of cattle at 91. That means that in 1935 the combined average price of the three main products which provide approximately 65 per cent of the prairie farmer's income was 45 points below his cost and 13 points lower than in 1914.
The full significance of these figures and the amount the farmers actually lost in those 25 years can only be seen in its full dimension when you compare it with what other groups have gained in the same time. According to the index, the hourly wage rate of industrial workers increased from 100 in 1914 to 188 points in 1935. This means that while farmers' prices went down 13 points in 25 years, industrial wages went up 88 points. It produces an imbalance between the two groups of 101 points. This figure represents
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization the difference in living standards between industrial workers and farmers brought about in 25 years, and the industrial workers as a group by no means have the highest standard of living in this country.
Will the public in general ever recognize the tragedy embodied in these figures? This is an incredible testimony of discrimination and injustice. It should penetrate like a depth bomb into the hearts and souls of those who hear and read this manifestation of fraud. I hope it penetrates into the heart of the Minister of Agriculture. It is a gigantic social upheaval in its own right, covered up by beautiful phrases describing our unprecedented prosperity in the most glowing terms. But when this idol of prosperity is stripped to public gaze and its grisly secrets revealed it becomes a farce of the greatest magnitude.
Under a chaotic economic system, with no resemblance of order or balance, the tiller of the soil has been ravished and deprived of his labour for decades. There is something sinister about this age-old piracy which has left farmers helpless and hopeless. It degrades human dignity and what we have heard today degrades morality.
To stop-perhaps I should leave out this paragraph-this repellent suppression and correct the existing discrepancy, the government is now forced to introduce legislation to guarantee farmers prices by the law of the land. What a law!
Will hon. gentlemen support this new measure? I hope they will not. I have been one of those who tried very hard to give the government a chance. As a matter of fact, sometimes I have even disagreed with my own good friends here because I felt the people of the country expected us to give the government a chance. They have had their chance. I do not feel sorry for those on the treasury benches but I certainly feel sorry for those who sit behind them.


An hon. Member:: You do not need to.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You had better feel sorry for yourself.


Jacob Schulz: Farmers in general are rugged men and know how to stand on their own roughshod feet. Their successful struggle with nature and the task of transforming a wilderness into a productive industry stands out in Canadian history as an epic of determination. They do not expect either a hand-out or something for nothing. All they want is a square deal, and I doubt whether they can ever expect to get it from this government unless the government has a change of heart.
I hope the figures I have produced so far will have some effect but if they do not and there are still some doubting Thomases who
2214	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization are still not quite sure as to the conditions that exist in agriculture today, I have here some more definite figures. A survey conducted by the economics division of the Department of Agriculture in west central Manitoba last year and published in the Economic Annalist of June, 1957, shows that farmers must receive assistance or they will all go bankrupt in the near future. The report states that the area in which the test was conducted reached from Neepawa west and north of Russell. That is the constituency of Marquette represented by the hon. member who spoke just before me. What did he say? He said that he was proud of this legislation.


Mr. Ellis:: He will eat those words.


Jacob Schulz: The area surveyed included 82 farms of 2, 3 or 4 quarter sections. The report states further that the area is generally considered as a mixed farming area and is well suited climatically for common cereals. The average annual yield of wheat is about 25 bushels per acre. The net result of this investigation is contained in the last paragraph which reads as follows:
The returns on two-thirds of these farms fell in the range from about $1,290 to $3,210. The average investment on the two quarter-section grain farms was $18,848 per farm, which at 5 per cent would earn, or cost, $942. This leaves a return of $1,117 for the operator for wages and management, family living expenditures and savings. Farm family living expenses were not enumerated in this survey, but data collected in earlier studies suggest that cash farm family living expenses for families on this size of farm would amount to about $1,550 per farm. On the average, these farm families, on this size of farm, would have to use some of their depreciation allowances, savings, or income from non-farm sources, such as family allowances to meet all costs of farming, including their living costs.
This is the measure of the farmer's plight, a net loss of $433 in one year. It really proves the falsehood of our prosperity, of which some people are so proud, especially when one considers that according to the report livestock products and meat consumed in the home were included as receipts and that the expense figures include cash expenses and depreciation but do not include cash expenses for machinery and equipment.
Furthermore, we must remember that this applies to the year 1955 and that according to a report recently published by the Manitoba department of agriculture the average net income of Manitoba farms in 1956 fell about $1,000 below that of 1955. This brings the total loss per farm to $1,433. Is there anyone anywhere who can tell me how these people can go on without going bankrupt? Can anybody figure out how they live when their expenses are greater than their income? I cannot do it and neither can anyone else.
Will the hon. member for Fort William- I should have said the Minister of Agriculture


this time-be able to understand from now on what we mean when we talk about thousands of bankrupt farmers and ask for assistance? It is not only the farmers but whole communities that have been impoverished by the cost-price squeeze. Toiling under the most impossible conditions farmers and businessmen alike are struggling desperately to keep their heads above water.
Unfortunately, Canadians in general, and I think that applies to this house in general too, as well as some farmers and farm organizations, have so far failed to comprehend the extent of the depression existing in agriculture and the threatening danger it presents to our entire economic structure. While the nation's foundation is crumbling they build their castles in the clouds of prosperity. They have been brainwashed to the point where they really believe in this myth.
The only group really concerned about this problem and which has repeatedly stated so publicly is the Canadian Labour Congress. In the last brief this organization presented to the government it was made quite clear that the congress was alarmed by the drastic fall in farm income as that was bad for the economy in general. They assured the government of their full support for anything the government could do to restore the purchasing power of Canadian farmers.
This is not the first time organized labour has asked the government to recognize the farmers' difficulty and do something about it. Last year they combined their efforts with those of the interprovincial farm union council in a joint representation to the government asking for parity prices. However, there was no response from the former government. They acted like a group of people made of clay and tied in a bag that no one could undo.
But how much will this government do now to correct this situation? This is the $64 question to which farmers want an answer. I hope this government realizes that it was a Conservative government that laid the groundwork for the farmers' present dilemma. Back in 1879, a Conservative government designed the national policy of tariff protection which spelled doom for agriculture from the first day of its existence. The unprotected farmers have been forced for 78 years to compete with a protected home industry. Farmers realize today that they cannot expect any reduction in tariffs from a Conservative government, and therefore they are asking for protection too. Since coming into office this government has demonstrated that it is more interested in raising tariffs than in lowering them. Farmers know that the idea of free trade, promoted

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
by them from the very beginning, is not acceptable to this government. This was proven conclusively when the offer of a free trade area made by Britain was greeted with silence and has been ignored ever since.
The organized farmers of today, therefore, have made up their minds to get equality with others, either by free trade for all or protection for all. They want protection of prices to the point where they have a fair relationship with other prices. They know that this is the only way in which they can get a fair share of the national income as promised in the speech from the throne. They are asking for the establishment of a price support program to ensure an adequate parity for agricultural producers as laid down in the government's national election policy. Farmers want parity prices as promised by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. They are asking for implementation of what they have been promised-no more or no less.
Farmers and farm organizations are looking forward with great expectation to this legislation. As far as they are concerned the government will stand or fall on its context. They want a degree of price protection equal to other prices. This means parity prices. Anything less will be rejected, not only by farmers but by labour and many others who know the difference between right and wrong.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. Stefura:: Mr. Chairman, it was with a certain amount of anxiety and with a great deal of expectation that I, too, have been waiting for the time when we would be able to have a thorough discussion of this farm problem. I, however, was not in the same position as the hon. member who preceded me because I, perhaps, remember too much of the thirties so I only had to throw out about half of my speech when the announcement was made.
The resolution introduced by the Minister of Agriculture today provides an opportunity for the agriculture industry to state its grievances, so far as farm prices are concerned, and to express views upon what they expect to see in the bill when it is introduced. As I mentioned during the throne speech debate, about 90 per cent of the people in my constituency are dependent, either directly or indirectly, on the agricultural industry. It is, therefore, of prime importance to them. The farm holdings are not large ones. The problems that face agriculture are not prevalent only in my constituency, these problems face the entire agricultural industry
throughout this country to a greater or lesser degree. Perhaps at the outset I should state that I do not believe legislation, even though it might be a lot better than the measure proposed this morning, would cure all the ills of the agricultural industry.
I would say that the first thing we need is trade, and we need it badly. However, under the conditions in which farmers are now placed, and until such time as the government sees fit to inaugurate different trade policies, legislation to give support to agricultural prices should be introduced in order that the farmers may survive. I was very much interested when, just before six o'clock last Saturday, December 6, the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that the acceptance of local currencies for wheat may be adopted if it were a solution to getting our surplus to the hungry people of the world who need it.
I was very much interested in that because on October 23 I asked the Minister of Finance whether the government had given consideration to the acceptance of sterling in an effort to increase trade with Britain and other commonwealth countries. The minister answered that no such proposals were made to the Canadian government. There was a significant statement made by him when he was further questioned by other members of this group and by some members of the C.C.F. group. He said then he did not see any reason why we should go out proposing to take sterling; we were interested in a two-way flow of trade and payment by commodities that are being purchased from noncommonwealth sources. In other words, the Minister of Finance is prepared, I believe, to do a bit of bartering.
The sad part of the whole affair is that these statements come from the wrong minister. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is prepared to do business with soft currency countries, and that is the department of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance is prepared to do a little bartering, and that is within the Department of Trade and Commerce, but he will not have anything to do with sterling. If ever I or anyone else has seen a mixed up government I believe this is it.
I shall not go into this subject any further now because I intend to go into it more fully when the trade and commerce estimates are before the committee. I would suggest, however, to the Minister of Agriculture that he should get the two gentlemen together and get the whole matter straightened out. If that fails, perhaps he could convince the Prime Minister to have these gentlemen exchange

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization portfolios. I believe both these ministers have expressed sound ideas, based on good common sense. I believe some of the old Social Credit members must derive some satisfaction from these statements because they have been hammering away at these ideas ever since the Bretton Woods agreement. If the Minister of Agriculture were to recommend that we accept foreign currencies, barter deals, extend credit to foreign countries, that would do more than any one single item of legislation we could possibly pass in this house to aid this farm industry.
Before I go too far with that, I shall come back to the resolution and deal directly with it. The problem that the farm people have of balancing their diminishing returns of income against their ever-increasing expenses is not only causing an endless amount of anxiety to the Canadian farmer but is becoming a subject of study to other groups and occupations.
The Agricultural Prices Support Act of 1944-45 was supposed to have remedied the situation and it is very clearly stated in one of its clauses that the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
This is only fair and just. It is no more than any farm group or any farmer has ever asked for. Farm people do not want handouts but they do want and are entitled to their fair and just share of the national income. Whether it is the fault of the agricultural prices support board or whether it is the fault of the governor in council, I am not prepared to say. However, the blame must lay with those who were given the responsibility of seeing that the act was enforced.
The resolution introduced today calls for guaranteed prices on certain agricultural commodities, and others can be added as named from time to time by the governor in council. The wording may differ slightly. However, the ideas are identical with those we have had in the past. The amount of authorized expenditure from the consolidated revenue fund will be increased to $250 million, an increase of $50 million. We trust that the $50 million increase is not just so much eye-wash or that the government is not merely trying to pull the wool over the farmers' eyes but rather that the government really and sincerely is trying to aid the agricultural industry. I say that with justification.
The following question was placed on the order paper on November 19, 1957 by my colleague, the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose:

1.	How much was paid out of the Agricultural Prices Support Act revolving fund for each of the years from 1946 to 1956 inclusive?
2.	How much was paid out of the Agricultural Prices Support Act revolving fund from January 1, 1957 to October 31, 1957?
3.	What products were supported in each of the years mentioned in 1 and 2, and what was the loss incurred for each of these products for each of these years?
I will not read the detailed reply. You will be able to find that in the December 2 issue of Hansard at page 1756. However, the total in round figures for the ten-year period or the better than ten-year period I believe will be of interest. The total cost up to October 31 since 1946 was $94 million. Of this amount the biggest loss occurred in 1952 when we had the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, slashing returns to the producers. These figures do not take into consideration the value of goods still in storage such as eggs, butter and so on so that the total amount for the ten-year period is much below the $90 million, and much below what some of the former government members try to convince the farm people the aid actually was to the farmers. When we subtract that amount that we paid out in 1952 for the foot-and-mouth disease, it leaves about roughly $24 million for actual farm aid.
I have here the report on the administration of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act as put out by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. The amount of assistance given to that industry is found at page 10 of that booklet:
The amount of money paid to gold mines in respect of the years 1948 to 1956, inclusive, under the provisions of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act is $99,934,837.10 on a production during these years of 28,603,429.035 ounces.
When we consider what we are doing we find that we are digging the gold out of a hole in one place and placing it in a hole in another place, something which is of absolutely no value to the people of this country and for that we paid out $99 million. Yet when we take our farm commodities, what do we find? I am not going to argue the point as to how this was brought about because I was not here when this act was passed. I do not know very much about the gold mining industry and I am not going to say it should not be paid out. But I am just comparing the situations. In the one case we have this gold being taken out of one hole and put in another hole, and we have this amount of money being paid for something that benefits nobody.
Yet when it comes down to the agricultural industry, there is little or practically nothing done. The actual amount spent under the prices support act is about $24 million. The $200 million voted by the previous

administration was nothing more than just a frill to the actual amount needed to carry out the obligations of the board or the actual amount spent. As to adding $50 million to the fund as proposed by this present administration, unless the guaranteed prices shall be such as will use up the money in this fund, and unless the board shall see that the . prices are of benefit to the industry, it shall become nothing more than adding embroidery to the frills.
The previous administration did not carry out its duty in seeing that the prices support act was adhered to. As I mentioned previously, I will not lay blame on any particular body, but I do know that the farm people have the right to expect certain justice. When an act is passed, they expect it to be adhered to. I am not a lawyer so I shall not attempt to argue as to whose fault it was that it was not adhered to. I have no argument with any of the members of the board. I do not know them. I also believe

as the Minister of Agriculture said this morning, or something to this effect-that the men holding positions on this board are qualified and responsible men. However, if it was the fault of the board in not carrying out their responsibility, they should have been asked to apply for unemployment insurance.
I am not saying that is where the fault is. If it was the fault of the governor in council in not issuing a directive to the board members, I believe they should resign because they have not only failed the agricultural industry in that department that they should represent, they have also failed parliament. If the administration itself is at fault it can and will be dealt with as the former administration was dealt with last June. The only drawback is that the people of this country can deal with such injustices far too seldom to prevent a number of their group losing out entirely. I trust that the present administration will bring in this resolution with amendments as suggested by the hon. member for Acadia, and that it will not be just so much eyewash or just so much wool being pulled over the farmers' eyes but that it will contain real meat and be of benefit to the farm people and consequently eventually to the benefit of our entire economy.
It has been known for a long time by our economists that whenever a basic industry in any country becomes depressed it affects every other industry. It is also known that unless the basic industries are in a sound financial position, regardless of what is done to bolster subsidiary industries those measures eventually become futile in trying to stabilize the economy of the country. It is most unfortunate for the farmers of this
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization country that agriculture, being a basic industry, is one of the first to be affected by adverse conditions. Agriculture is in the unfortunate position of most basic industries in a country in that when conditions become adverse it is not only the first to be crippled but is usually the one that bears the brunt of the blow. It is also unfortunate that when conditions improve the agricultural industry is usually the last to receive any benefits of any of these improvements. It therefore should be the aim of any government to see that the basic industries, the very foundation of the economy, should be in a sound financial position.
This however, has not been the position in the agricultural industry of this country. It has not been the position, furthermore, for the past several years. The decline in farm incomes during the period of rising costs has at the present time forced the agricultural industry into an extremely depressed condition. I have at hand letters from different farm people and farm organizations. I do not wish to take up the time of the house by reading them all but it is a similar story everywhere. Now I have letters from farm union locals in the Smoky Lake area, that is to say Barich, Smoky Lake, Victoria north bank, Pakan, Edward, North Kotzman, Wild Deer, South Kotzman and the Ruthenia, locals which resolved as follows:
Resolved that we bring this matter before the House of Commons and bring prices up to a fair value.
The farm union local at Innisfree has this to say:
Whereas the majority of farmers at the present time are operating at a loss and cannot continue to do so much longer, we resolve that some steps be taken to better the financial conditions of the western farmer.
Now I am afraid that the bill, as proposed in this resolution, will not do that. I can only hope that the bill will be amended and will be different from what is contained in this resolution.


An hon. Member:: The bill is different.


Peter Stefura: The bill is different. Well I certainly hope it is, because this resolution certainly does not contain very many prospects.
I have letters from different farm people and it is all basically the same story. They are all similar in nature and it does not matter whether the letters come from one area or another; whether they come from the Myr-nam, Vilna or Redwater areas in the north, whether they come from the Tofield or Mannville areas in the south or whether they are from the Vegreville, Two Hills or Andrew areas in the centre. Some of these people
2218	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization get a little dividend from the Redwater area but it does not seem to help very much. In talking to these people as individuals, the story is very much the same in that we do need some remedial action.
Now this is not peculiar to my own constituency. Nor does it only apply to a particular section of Canada; it applies generally to the industry of the nation as a whole. It is not a situation which has developed overnight, but it has been one of progressive deterioration until, today, we have a primary industry, the resources of which have come to a point which is causing our farm people a great deal of anxiety. It should be given a great deal of consideration by this government.
Perhaps we should have a look at some of the figures. The net farm income for 1951 was $2,155 million. This is a decline to where, in 1954, we see a drop of 48 per cent to $1,125 million.
Now then, according to the brief presented to the former minister of agriculture by the interprovincial farm union council, the picture in western Canada was even worse. In 1951 the net income was $1,227 million; by 1954 it had declined to $376 million, or a drop in the net farm income of 66.6 per cent. The situation has since improved only slightly. Whereas in 1951 the farm people obtained 13.6 per cent of the national income, by 1954 this percentage had dropped to 6.8 per cent and by 1956 had only increased to 6.9 per cent.
Against this farm income there has been an ever-increasing rise in the farm family living costs. Whereas in 1946 the price index was 100, it has since then been rising almost constantly to a point where in 1956 it was 162.2, and it is still rising. The real income in terms of 1946 constant dollars has risen from $1674 in 1955 to $1686 in 1956-a rise of $12 for the average farm family. All the indications are that when the figures are available for 1957 there will be no appreciable change.
Now this resolution which was brought in this morning by the Minister of Agriculture is going to be based on a three year moving average and there is absolutely no hope that I can see where these people can get out of the situation which faces them today. If we take the three previous years, the net farm income, measured in constant dollars, was $1,674, $1,686 and $1,300 in 1954. So we can expect the average is going to be $1,600. Well it will not even be $1,600 for the farm family in agriculture. Now that is what is being proposed as a basis for prices for farm people in Canada today.


With the ever increasing prices and everything else which must be considered, what chance have the farm people? That is why I believe the Minister of Agriculture should give thought to the suggestions of the hon. member for Acadia in bringing this matter before the agricultural committee in order to consider some of these things thoroughly before the second reading of the bill, where . it must be passed in principle.
Farm prices are now and have been over the last several years completely out of balance and unless that balance is restored as between farm prices and farm costs the diminishing buying power of the farmer will be reflected in the entire business life of the country and will contribute to the increasing labour problem to an even far greater degree than is evident today.
We recommended that grain be included among the products covered by the Agricultural Prices Support Act but the minister this morning mentioned that no such thing would be done. We further recommend the full application of section 9 of the present act so as to ensure that the support act will maintain the price of the farm product at a level which bears a fair relationship to the prices of other commodities.
I say this because the farmer today is not competing with the farmers of other lands; the Canadian farmer must compete with the treasuries of practically every other wheat producing country. The Minister of Trade and Commerce mentioned in the house a couple of weeks ago that Canadian wheat was selling for 11 cents a bushel more than was the wheat of any other country. It is interesting to note what our Canadian farmer receives for his superior quality wheat and what the farmers of other countries receive for their wheat. The following figures are extracted from the brief presented to the cabinet on March 9, 1957 by the Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta wheat pools:
Ireland, $2.06: United Kingdom, $2.31; Belgium, $2.56; Japan, $2.59; Austria, $2.63; United States of America approximately $2.08 (it was $2.24); Brazil, $2.85; Germany, $2.73; Italy, $3.05; Norway, $3.43; Switzerland, $4.03.
Those are the prices per bushel. Now with respect to Canada, the price is $1.40 and that is after the farmer has delivered it to Fort William.
Mr. Graham Spry, Saskatchewan's agent general to the United Kingdom, told the delegates of the Saskatchewan farmers union last Wednesday that the subsidy received by the farmers of France was greater than our Canadian sales price. How then can the Canadian farmer compete against such prices in the open market? How can the Canadian

farmer compete against the treasuries of these different countries and against the treasury of the United States, without government support? I hope the minister will see fit to place grains under this act.
We recommend a two-price system; we advocate that support prices be maintained at 100 per cent of parity for farm products sold on the domestic market and that the surplus products be sold abroad for the best price available, preferably under some form of international agreement but covered, in any event, by a price support sufficient to meet the average costs of production.
I believe this has been partially covered by other members of our group but, in view of the fact that 94 per cent of all farm products, excluding wheat, are sold in Canada, it would mean that farmers would receive 100 per cent of parity for 94 per cent of their products, again of course excluding wheat.
In regard to wheat, approximately 80 per cent is sold abroad and 20 per cent in the domestic market. Therefore, 20 per cent at parity of $2.37 per bushel, which I believe was the figure mentioned, and 80 per cent at the ceiling of $1.95 per bushel-under the international wheat agreement-would give the farmer a support price of $2.01.
Those who believe such prices would create surpluses to an even greater degree than we have today-I believe something along this line was mentioned by the minister this morning-entirely miss the problems of agriculture.
The Food and Agricultural Organization, whose meetings the minister himself attended in Rome not too long ago, is on record as holding the opinion-though this statement has been made earlier-that surpluses exist only in relation to purchasing power and not in relation to the actual needs of human beings. The problem was in the distribution of these surpluses. Numerous people have expressed this idea, and if I have read the record correctly, hon. members in this group have done so in the house ever since 1935.
The latest person to express such a view was none other than the Prime Minister himself, as reported in the Wheat Pool Budget of August 16, 1957, when he said:
To those who think that in agriculture we have arrived at a point where we need no longer expand I say to you this:	I learned one lesson at the
commonwealth conference in London. We must expand our agricultural development. With one quarter of the world's population going to bed hungry at night, methods must be found to enable the distribution of our surpluses to the end that happiness will come to the peoples of the world.
These are not the comments of a wheat pool delegate or an Alberta farm union official, they are the words of the present 96698-141
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization Prime Minister spoken to 11,000 people at the opening of the Saskatoon exhibition on July 22.
I should like to turn briefly, now, to a problem in relation to cattle about which I cannot agree with the Minister of Agriculture. On November 14, I addressed the following question to the minister, as recorded in Hansard at page 1106:
In view of the drastic drop in livestock prices, has the government been in consultation with representative farm organizations to arrive at a definite formula for adequate price supports? If so, will such a formula be proposed for enactment this session? Is the minister aware of the urgency of such legislation, and does he intend to introduce such legislation without delay? And being aware that the small producers are planning their next year's production now, is the minister prepared to issue any directive to the farmers of Canada today?
When the minister gave me his answer that day I thought for a while that he was deliberately evading the issue, or maybe he was trying to make me sound a little silly, but after hearing today's resolution I realize that that was not the case.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must advise the hon. member for Vegreville that his time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, some members of the committee will be rather surprised that I should rise to speak on this resolution which has to do with agriculture, because I do not pretend for a moment that agriculture is one of the important industries in my constituency though there are two of the more important agricultural settlements in Newfoundland in my riding. But I assume that the legislation which the Minister of Agriculture is proposing to introduce, based on this resolution, will replace the agricultural prices support legislation which was put on the statue books by the late Mr. Mackenzie King's government in the last years of the war, and I rise primarily to express the surprise of all those hon. members-in all parties, I am sure, though they are mostly, I am glad to say, still in ours-who represent fishing constituencies. Since this resolution was placed on the order paper I asked the Minister of Fisheries whether a similar resolution would appear on the order paper with regard to fisheries, and got the informative answer so characteristic of the present government that this was a matter of government policy which would be announced in due course.


An hon. Member:: Wasn't that always your answer, too?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is quite clear that there is no intention on the part of this
2220	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization government of introducing legislation of a similar character having to do with the oldest of all the industries in Canada.
Mr. Mackenzie King-and I remember this situation very well, because I was one of the members of his staff at the time-insisted when the proposal for agricultural prices support was being considered by the Liberal government during the war that whatever was done for the farmers should be paralleled by something done for the fishermen, if the situation warranted it, and the fisheries prices support legislation was introduced and enacted by parliament at the same time. It is quite astonishing that this legislation should be introduced without that example being followed, or it would be quite astonishing if it did not seem to be rather characteristic of the attitude of the present government toward the fishing industry from the beginning.
I was sorry when I read in the St. John's News on July 8 of this year a report of the Prime Minister's famous, and I think I may say reckless, press conference when he came back from London before he went to see his colleagues, and I am sure some of his colleagues, such as the Minister of Agriculture, must wish he had seen them first. The Prime Minister was talking to the press at that time about the proposed European free trade area and he said according to this report-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. This has nothing to do with the resolution which we are discussing and I respectfully request that you prevent the hon. member from going on to a trade discussion and to a discussion of what the Prime Minister said in connection with trade or other matters of that kind and about the fisheries questions which have no connection with the resolution now before the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, I understand that this resolution is asking the house whether it is expedient-not dictating to the house, though that seems to be the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite-whether we are prepared to go along-hon. members on this side of the house were elected just as hon. members on the other side were elected -and give our approval-


Mr. Maclnnis:: Where did you get elected?


John Whitney Pickersgill: When the hon. gentleman gets 87 votes out of 100 in his constituency he can ask questions like that of me.


Donald MacInnis: Go back home and see what you get there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can tell the hon. member this.-


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Agriculture is quite right. I will come back to the point of order. I should not have let myself be diverted. The point of order raised by the minister was that it is irrelevant to speak about fisheries on this resolution. I say it is not. It is relevant for any member to get up and say that if one particular course is going to be taken in this parliament, when leave is being asked to take that course, it is in order to ask that they should at the same time take another course. But I am willing to leave my argument there, and say it is quite obvious that the government is completely indifferent to the fishing industry.
There is one other thing I have to say about which, I think, the minister will raise no objection on a point of order. I should like to be very brief because I wish to finish before six o'clock.
If this resolution does not mean anything as the hon. member for Rosthern and other hon. members have suggested then there is no point in what I have previously said, but if it does mean anything then it means that something new is going to be done for the farmers that is not being done at the present time.
I am the first to admit that in an economy in which the secondary industries enjoy a considerable measure of protection even today the agricultural industry does deserve, did receive and should continue to receive some similar consideration, but the agricultural industry is only one of the primary industries of the country and I would hope that in any legislation that is brought forward and in the administration of that legislation an effort would be made to give that support in such a fashion that it does not result in putting higher charges upon other sections of the community. I am greatly impressed, in fact, by what the hon. member for Rosthern brought up from the federation of agriculture.
It seems to me that difficult though this suggestion about deficiency payments is it is nevertheless along the right lines because, as the Minister of Agriculture properly pointed out and I agree with him in this, if price supports are too high they do result in a discouragement of consumption and in the accumulation of surpluses for two reasons which I will not enter into now. Then you have overhanging the market these surpluses which tend to depress it.
If on the other hand another technique is used, if the price structure is not interfered with, you avoid two difficulties. I admit that you have a lot of other difficulties but you do avoid the difficulty of sending prices up so that consumption is discouraged

with resulting surpluses and you also avoid the difficulty of having to stop imports because if the market is allowed to determine the price it will be possible to meet the competition from outside.
It seems to me that this is particularly important for those of us who represent constituencies like mine where the whole population depends on exports to world markets at world prices. It is most important that their costs should not be increased further at the expense of someone else. Milk powder is a very good example because there is practically no milk produced or available in my constituency and the only way in which almost everyone in my constituency can obtain milk is in the form of milk powder or canned milk. I recognize that there are times when milk powder does not bring a decent price to the farmers and I do not say that the farmers should have to suffer for it but if you put a price support on, what are you doing? If you send the price artificially high you are making the fishermen of my constituency and the primary producers of many other places who have to sell on the world market pay well above the world price for milk for their children.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Who put this support on? It was you people who put milk under price support.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I admit that and of course we had a lot of other supports but what I am saying is that if, on the other hand, a technique of using deficiency payments could be worked out so that the price of milk is not raised to other primary producers, what is produced will tend to be consumed more rapidly and there will not be the danger of surpluses and the farmer, if the deficiency payment is properly calculated, will be just as well off. It is primarily because of the interests of primary producers-and of course I could have cited forestry workers and other workers who are having a difficult time, some of them with smaller incomes even than the farmers-that I felt it was not inappropriate for me as the representative of a constituency in which there are really only two considerable occupations, fishing and logging, to say something about this resolution.


Mr.   Barnell@: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would permit me to ask a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I would like to ask the hon. member if he could tell us in a word what he thinks is lacking in the present fisheries 96698-141i
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization price support legislation and the lines on which he thinks parliamentary action should be taken at this time?


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The Chair does not think that is a proper question to raise at this point.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Milligan:: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of making a few remarks in favour of this legislation. Many of those who are closely connected with agriculture have been waiting with much interest for this legislation to be presented to the house. I wish to express my appreciation and congratulations to the minister for the able manner in which he presented this legislation today. I think it was done very well. I feel, as many others do, that this is emergency legislation. Those engaged in agriculture find themselves in a squeeze between rising costs of production and lower prices for their products they have to sell and this puts them in a very difficult financial position.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the interprovincial farmers union and many of the commodity groups have been pressing the Minister of Agriculture as well as other members of parliament for greater assistance to agriculture. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture presented a brief to the cabinet in July and again on December 6. The interprovincial farmers union presented a brief in August as did the Ontario federation of agriculture on November 26 with representatives of all commodity groups in Ontario. These agricultural organizations are concerned about the future of the industry. I am sure they are waiting with great anticipation for this legislation.
The legislation we have had in the past, introduced by the former government, did not give us the security that we were looking for, and I am sure that farm people today will feel that a formula will be written into this legislation that will give them some security as to how floor prices are set. It has been my privilege as a member of delegations representing the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to appear before the former minister of agriculture on many occasions to ask for measures to improve conditions in the industry. Others have made presentations in more recent years with no greater results than in former years. I am sorry the hon. member for Melville is not in the
2222	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization house tonight. I have always respected the opinions of the hon. member, for he has always been closely connected with agriculture. I had the feeling that he was aware of the problems of agriculture and knew the measures that were required to correct them, but that without the support of his hon. colleagues he was unable to implement them. I had expected to see a complete change in the hon. gentleman in his approach to agricultural policy. 1 listened with much interest to his remarks this afternoon but most of them were simply the same old speech that I have listened to on so many occasions.


James Garfield Gardiner: I usually say the same thing twice because it is right.


Clarence Adam Milligan: Using gross income figures for agriculture gives a completely different picture from net income figures. When he uses figures indicating the return to agriculture in 1935 compared with 1955 it is most ridiculous because conditions in 1935 following a depression were quite different from 1955. This certainly misleads the public to believe that agriculture is in a very prosperous condition.
I should like to use some more recent figures I have here and I want to compare 1946 with 1956. The net income of farmers in 1946 was $1,139 million while in 1956 it was $1,573 million or an increase of about $400 million. In 1946 the price index was established at 100 but in 1956 the price index for the commodities farmers buy stood at 162.2. In other words, in 1946 the income per farm amounted to $1,677 while in 1956 it was $2,735. Taking the real income as represented by the buying power of the dollar, in 1946 it was $1,677 and in 1956 it was $1,686. So you see that having regard to the buying power of the dollar the return to agriculture has been slipping year by year.
I think the hon. member referred to the increase in the inventory of machinery, which is quite right. We certainly have a greater inventory of machinery today than we had in 1935 because 1935 followed a depression and conditions were quite different then from what they are today.


James Garfield Gardiner: Following a Conservative government, you mean.


Clarence Adam Milligan: Since that time we have been forced to buy implements to do our work because we were unable to compete with other industries in the labour field. The result is that there are fewer people on the farms today. The 1951 census listed 623,091 farms while the 1956 census listed 575,015 farms, a decline of 47,076 farms in that five


year period or approximately equal to the total farm population of the province of Manitoba.
Agriculture is such a diversified industry in Canada that it is very difficult to adopt legislation applicable to all sections of the industry. Some of the better features of this legislation are that its flexible floor prices can be adjusted from time to time as the need for support of the different products becomes apparent.
It is obvious to all that agriculture has been the forgotten industry. Many thousands of farmers have been forced to supplement their incomes by finding jobs in industry. This in turn has taken many jobs away from others not engaged in agriculture and is partially responsible for the unemployment situation at the present time. I think I can safely say that in the province of Ontario 50 per cent of our farmers are supplementing their incomes by working in industry. The Canadian Labour Congress recognized the position of agriculture in their brief to the government, and I want to read one paragraph.
We are alarmed by the drastic fall in farm income. This is bad for the farm people, most of whom are far from rich, and who still make up one-sixth of the Canadian population. It is bad for the economy generally . . . Canadian labour will fully support anything the government can do to restore the purchasing power of Canadian farmers.
This legislation probably is not as strong as many would like to have it but it certainly is the basis of the kind of policy for agriculture that will give the much needed support and security to which the farmers of Canada are so justly entitled. I would appeal to all members of the opposition to allow the legislation to pass the resolution stage as quickly as possible and without too much debate. This to me is emergency legislation. At this time we are not in a position to discuss it intelligently but if we pass the resolution stage we will be in a better position to discuss the very important issue in a much more intelligent manner. I believe this legislation is very important to the whole economy of Canada. I am not going to take any more time now as I hope to be able to take part in the debate at a later stage.


Mr. Campbell (The Balilefords):: Mr. Chairman, the last speaker said he thought this resolution should go through quickly and there should be no debate on it. I feel that is not the case. I think this problem needs a lot more discussion so that the go\ernment will know exactly what the farmers' situation is. The Prime Minister comes from an agricultural province and he promised, during the election campaign and for years before

that, that if he ever got an opportunity the farmers would receive their fair share of the national income. I have carefully read the resolution which is before us, and I could read it again but I do not think that is necessary. It is quite lengthy but I might point out there is not a single word in it which indicates the farmer will get his fair share of the national income under this measure.
The resolution says, in part:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a system of guaranteed prices for certain agricultural commodities-
What does that mean? These guaranteed prices could be away below parity. There is nothing that says they shall be up to the point where they will give the farmer his share of the national prosperity. I, for one, am greatly disappointed. When 1 left home in October to come down here a lot of people in my constituency said to me, "Give the government a chance; give John Diefenbaker a chance". On many occasions I have remained in my seat when I would have liked to take part in the discussion. I have been waiting and hoping that when this legislation, which was mentioned in the speech from the throne, was brought down we would have something that would give to our farmers what they have been looking for for many years. I have been fighting for a square deal for the farmers for 40 years. I fought the Liberals for a good many years. When we got them out of the way I thought we would have some hope with this new government because they would want to make themselves popular out in the country amongst the farming people. We hoped this government would bring forward legislation which would give to the farmers their share of the national income.
I feel very strongly about this. I feel so strongly, in fact, that if the Minister of Agriculture cannot persuade me, between now and the time we have to vote on this resolution, that the measure will be effective I feel inclined to vote against it right now. I cannot see a great deal of improvement in this measure over the old Agricultural Prices Support Act. As I said before, I am disappointed that the government has not seen fit to take steps which would give to our farmers a square deal. The hon. member who preceded me said there was no need for discussion. I might point out that I have lots of figures on my desk, but I am not going to go over them. Surely there have been enough figures put on the record today, during this session and last session and for the past five years, so that every member who has been here for any length of time knows what the problem is.
From 1951 to 1955 there were some 47,000 farmers who were forced to leave their farm
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization homes. Since then there have been probably another 3,000 or 4,000. This means there have been over 50,000 farmers who have had to leave their farms during the last six years. What does that mean to our economy and to our farming districts?
I am more familiar with the situation in Saskatchewan than in the other parts of Canada. I have a very good friend who sits on the government benches, who is a farmer coming from Ontario. I have discussed the farm situation with him a good many times, and he has told me that there is hardly a young man left on the farms in Ontario. I have seen many vacant farms when I have been driving through this province.
There were two reasons why the farmers left the farms during the last six years, and one of them has been the cost-price squeeze. The other reason has been mechanization. The smaller farmers and even the middlesized farmers have been forced out of business. If they had been getting fair prices they would have been in business now. What is the result of all this? Our country schools are closing down. In our own province some thousands of schools have been closed in the rural areas. This situation is spreading into the villages and towns today. There are many villages in my province in which the schools have had to be closed because there have not been enough children to support the schools. The children now are taken by bus 15 or 20 miles to a point where there is a school.
It is not only the farmers who are affected but the businessmen. What is happening to the small businessmen? I wish the Minister of Agriculture would take a little time off and drive through some of the little towns to see what is happening to the small businessmen. They are closing their doors, and there is hardly a village in western Canada today that has not some empty stores in which businesses had operated profitably for years. All at once the population disappears, and they have to go out of business. This is a serious problem. As I said before, I am disappointed that the government has not seen fit to introduce the legislation which they promised would give the farmer his share of the national income. Until the government does this, the government is not going to be supported by the farmers of this country.


Mr. McLeod:: In speaking on this resolution, I am doing so on behalf of a very large agricultural section in my area. We have a district which covers a lot of the aspects of agriculture. We raise some grain, and in fact we raise more grain than is required by the area so we ship it out to different parts of
2224	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization British Columbia. We raise a considerable amount of hay for which, by the way, we have no market this year as the result of a heavy influx of the United States product. We have vegetables and fruit and of course everything that goes to make this one of the finest parts of Canada.
However, these people have their difficulties, and like many other farmers and growers from one side of this country to the other they paid a certain amount of attention to the promises that were made some months ago by those who now sit in the government. They were looking forward with a great deal of hope, and with considerable optimism, feeling secure in the knowledge that some of these promises would be kept. I think, too, the members of this house looked forward with a degree of optimism when we saw this resolution on the order paper and when we had been told continuously by leaders of the government that we should proceed with all haste and not waste the time of the house so that this great piece of legislation, this cure-all for the ailments of the farmer, could be presented. It was presented this morning. I am satisfied that every member of this house, except the most partisan, was keenly disappointed.
We listened to the words of the minister in explaining that resolution. I am going to say that this resolution looked quite good but the more he explained what actually was intended to follow, the worse it seemed to get. He used a couple of phrases that stuck in my mind. One of them was that this is most important in its implications. As far as implications are concerned, I do not think it is going to have any serious implications because it will in no way affect the price of the products and will in no way do what it is supposed to do, namely increase the amount of money which the farmers will receive for their products.
Of course it may have implications in a couple of the things which are proposed. One is a board and the other is an advisory committee. I am one who believes that the less the government interferes in the industrial life of a nation, the better that government is. Whenever I read about boards and advisory committees, I am just a little bit fearful. It reminds me of a statement that was made by a past president of the National Dairy Council of Canada who said that under various guises of assistance we are slowly being led more and more toward socialism and a socialistic state. The only implication which I see in this bill and upon which I look with a certain degree of fear is the appointment of boards and the appointment of advisory committees. Are we to assume that this advisory committee is going to tell the farmers what to


plant, how much to plant and so on? That could be one of the implications. It could mean further regimentation of the farmers and I believe we have too much of that in this country at the present time.
Another thing which he said-and in this I agree with him 100 per cent-was "I do not maintain it is a cure". I do not think it is even a panacea that you could give any credit for in any way whatever or by any stretch of the imagination. Then he mentioned something about the base price for any commodity and he said, "I want to stress that word 'any' ". I note that the minister is not in the house but I should like attention to be given to this question. When he speaks of a base price for any commodity I cannot help but wonder what action would be taken with regard to perishable products that are raised to such a great extent in our area. I am thinking of tomatoes which must be picked at a certain time or else. I am thinking of peaches, cherries, small fruits and the like of that and many vegetables. What is the action of a government board going to be with regard to removing a surplus of those products from the channels of trade and to supporting the price for them? I am just curious. I should like to know how it is going to be worked out.
Then in the case of overproduction-and that is a very ticklish question-what is to happen? There are a great many ideas about overproduction. We hear that there can never be such a thing as overproduction so long as people are going to bed hungry; and of course that is perfectly right. Technically it is sound. But nevertheless I maintain that there is overproduction when you have produced more than the home market can absorb and, on top of that, more than can be sold in the international markets of the world and then more than the people of Canada can afford to finance for the use of those unable to buy their own supplies. When we have reached that stage we have reached overproduction. It is quite possible that such a thing could happen.
These are some of the things that made me wonder what is going to be the result of this legislation that is supposed to cure the farmers' problem. We know that the farmers have a problem. We know that agriculture needs the attention of the government. However, it is not temporary policies that are needed. We have waited for so long for a cure that I think we shall be well advised to take a little bit more time at this period and see that the legislation which is approved by this house is really a cure for the troubles that are facing agriculture today. I maintain that the only way in which that can be done is as has been suggested by so many who have spoken and as

was so ably done by the hon. member lor Acadia this afternoon, and that is to see that this legislation is presented to the committee on agriculture of this house and that that committee is given ample time-not just the time between now and Christmas but all the time that is necessary-to see that proper and thorough consideration is given to any plan that will, we hope, assist agriculture and put it on a sound footing for years to come.
I think we are all in agreement with some few words that I am going to read from a book written by Lauren Soth. It is called "Farm Trouble". It is quite a simple title, is it not? There is certainly a great deal of trouble on the farm and among the farmers of the world today. Lauren Soth was born in Sibley in the United States 47 years ago and studied agricultural journalism at Iowa State College. He has been an associate professor at Iowa State College and editor of The Agricultural Situation in the United States Department of Agriculture and has held various positions in that department. I am telling hon. members that just to give them confidence, as I have, in some of the statements which he has made. In his last paragraph in the book he says this:
Americans-
I think we can substitute "Canadians" and agree 100 per cent with the wording as it is here.
-want farming to be a healthy industry and a satisfactory way of life. They want farmers to be paid by society in proportion to their contribution to society, as urban workers are. The same amount of skill and productivity ought to command the same income whether in farming or in steel making. But Americans do not want to adopt rigid government controls aimed at achieving this equality if these should mean sacrificing the initiative, the independence, and the freedom of the farm family.
With these words, Mr. Chairman, I think we are all in complete agreement. I do not believe that there is in Canada any other class of people or any other individuals who are so proud of their individual initiative and so jealous of their rights as individuals in this free enterprise economy. I am sure that it would be a sorry day whenever any government tried to regiment and to control the farmers of this country in order to give them what they think might be some assistance. The author of this book also has this to say about assistance at page 193:
If farmers are to receive income supplements, beyond what they receive in the market, then those supplements should be direct and unrelated to particular commodities.
After reading that statement, it is my opinion that this man must have made quite a study of Social Credit policy because that sentence is a clear-cut statement agreeing
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization with the whole Social Credit belief on national dividends. It is also a condemnation of direct subsidies and direct assistance in certain commodities that are put on the market for the nation. I am going to read that statement again:
If farmers are to receive income supplements, beyond what they receive in the market, then those supplements should be direct and unrelated to particular commodities.
This whole book is a very thorough review of what has taken place in the United States of America during the past 20 years and the various plans that have been adopted and tried out in order to improve the position of agriculture.
Now we are told after 20 years and after an expenditure of $6 billion that agriculture is in just as serious a position in the United States today. That is the plan to which the minister said this morning he had given such careful consideration-he had found some mistakes which he hoped to rectify. Well that is very good news, but according to this writer, who has made a very careful study of this whole situation, it has been just one series of mistakes after another.


Mr. Zaplilny:: Would the hon. member permit a question at this time. I do not mean to interrupt him when he is developing his point, but did I understand him to state that the Social Credit policy is one which is opposed to direct subsidy on particular commodities?


George William McLeod: I am not saying that. I am agreeing with this, that the better way to give assistance is by means of a national dividend, and that is the only statement I make. I am not going to become involved in a discussion on Social Credit policy, but that is something in which we believe. I would like to say a few more words, however, on this question of the farming troubles at the present time. In the end, it is one way of seeing that those people whose incomes do not reach a certain level are provided with sufficient to guarantee them the necessities of life.
Now we go on to consider what is the duty of the government. I was quite interested in a little booklet the other day, put out by the Canadian chamber of commerce, and on page 4 therein we find this statement:
It believes-
Here it is speaking of the chamber-
-that the role of government in economic affairs should be to stimulate development, to ease the impacts of economic fluctuation and to prohibit anti-social excesses.
Now that is something with which we can thoroughly agree. Of course, we have at the
2226	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization present time a condition in agriculture which does deserve consideration and which results from the impacts of economic fluctuation. We believe the position in agriculture today is due to the policies of this and the preceding governments in not bringing about the proper development of agriculture in this country in comparison with other industries which are developing at the present time.
My memory goes back quite a few years ago to the very first election in Canada of which I was aware, and that was the great reciprocity election of 1911. At that time I was not old enough to vote but I had just finished high school and thought I knew it all. Despite the fact that I had been raised in a very strong Liberal household, on that occasion I disagreed with those policies and felt that the imposition of a tariff was the only way in which we could develop and foster industry in Canada.
That was, as I say, my belief at that time and I know that very serious debates were then taking place regarding trade with England, trade with the United States and so on. In fact, when you see what is going on today there is quite a parallel between that year of 1911 and 1957. Be that as it may, a tariff policy developed in this country over the years which gave support to industries in Canada, with the exception of agriculture. Furthermore, by giving support to these various other industries it also tended to increase the prices of many things which our farmers had to buy in order to carry on their production.
I am just putting this forward as a suggestion; we are all trying to find a solution, but I am just wondering if the mistake did not occur in those years when we gave protection to all other industry in Canada by means of a tariff, but failed to do so in the case of agriculture. I can see no difference between a factory which is turning out a commodity for the retail trade and for the use of the people of Canada and the farmer who is turning out, or manufacturing if you will, commodities also for the use of the people of Canada. We have on the one hand industry protected by tariffs and on the other hand we have the farmer without any such protection.
We are also in agreement with the idea that tariff restriction and trade barriers should be done away with just as quickly as possible, but I still think we have to be realistic about the situation so long as we are living in a nation and in a world where tariff barriers do exist and where they are likely to continue to exist for generations to come. I think this fact must be considered, and I therefore make the suggestion that,


if this problem ever gets before the agricultural committee, would it not be well that this government and this parliament should consider some method by which assistance could be given to agriculture by way of tariff protection.
There are many instances which I could cite right in my own area. For instance, when the influx of soft fruit from across the line gets too serious we then have seasonal tariffs imposed. We deal with the case of vegetables in the same way. I am wondering if it would not be a good idea to have that kind of planning extended to give greater protection to other commodities.
As I said, we have these problems in other parts of the country. There is the question of hay. In my own area, which is the northern part of Okanagan, I understand according to word recently received, that we have 2,000 tons of hay for which the growers cannot find a market. This situation prevails at a time when hay is still coming into our Fraser valley area-the coast area of British Columbia-from the United States. It is being trucked across on large trailers and delivered direct to the farmer. They even have elevators which will put the bales up in the farmer's hay loft, and that hay, after paying a duty of $1.06 per ton is delivered right to the farmer's barn-


An hon. Member:: Not to the barn; they will get there though.


George William McLeod: No we have not got that far yet.	Here is what our growers in the
northern Okanagan area are up against if they try to compete with that. I have the figures here, although I am not going to waste the time of the house by giving them in detail. It is estimated that, including the cost of baling and piling the bales in the barn-that is stored on the home farm or in the field-loading in the car if it is shipped, depreciation on irrigation equipment, and labour with respect to irrigating, land tax per acre, mowing and raking and the freight which is $11.40 per ton-just think of that, $11.40 a ton to take one ton of hay from Okanagan to the Fraser valley-the total cost of production is $25.75. If our growers are going to complete with the Americans and sell their hay for $31 per ton delivered -and that is just on the car; it is not put in the farmer's barn but delivered on a car at the railway station in the Fraser valley- they are going to have $5.25 per ton left. That $5.25 a ton does not include any charge for the farmer's overhead or any charge for the preparation of the land that has been seeded to hay, the cost of the seed and so on.

Then there is no allowance made for bad weather which we sometimes experience in the Okanagan, and so farmers lose their crops. This is what farmers are up against. There is a tariff of $1.06 a ton. Why can that tariff not be raised so that the farmers in the Okanagan can supply hay, and compete with the United States grower in the Fraser valley? I am throwing this suggestion out for consideration when this bill comes before the committee on agriculture.
There has been a lot of discussion about taking land out of production. We maintain that it is not humane to curtail the production of food as long as there is hunger in the world. Nevertheless, I am going to read part of an article I got from a newspaper yesterday. It appears under a Washington dateline, and it reads:
The committee for economic development says more land and people in the United States need to be taken out of farming.
Present price-depressing surpluses and the low level of income of many farmers reflect the existence of too much productive capacity, the CED said yesterday in a report prepared by one of its committees.
And this report goes on to say:
The CED is a private research agency sponsored by 150 leading industrial leaders and educationists. Its declared purpose is to help boost United States productivity and standard of living. CED describes itself as a non-partisan non-profit organization.
There is some doubt with relation to the amount of land which should be under production, and it is the opinion of this committee that it should be curtailed. The problem arises: How are you going to do this and what means are you going to adopt? This is another subject which should be discussed and agreed on by the committee on agriculture before any legislation is presented for adoption.
So, Mr. Chairman, I make a strong plea that these matters should be considered in committee. We are now laying down plans which we hope will be permanent; we hope they will do the job which is necessary, and which it is intended they should do, that is to place the farmers of this country on a par with their neighbouring cousins in towns and cities, and on a par with the industrialists and manufacturers who are doing such a fine job in putting before us the necessities of life which we can produce in such abundance.


Mr. Phillips:: require modifications in the future. Therefore I suggest that the legislation be of a flexible nature.
The fifth point is based on past legislation. A revolving fund was established by the previous government. However, it revolved in such a manner that very little of the fund was left circulating in the farm economy. Numerous requests and submissions were required to get consideration, let alone aid. A few years ago the potato producers of my province and the province of New Brunswick received some slight aid. When the request was again presented the previous government informed the potato producers that they had lost money on. them, and made the new offer of assistance at such a low level that the offer was rejected by the producers. Mr. Chairman, money for assistance to the farmer serves no useful purpose in a showcase; it must be readily available to the farmer.
Farming in my constituency is based largely on the growing of potatoes. This is a perishable crop and cannot be stored and permitted to pile up as wheat has accumulated in the west. Therefore, special consideration for problems arising from the production of crops such as potatoes must be given by the advisory board. I feel a guaranteed substantial payment on limited production, that is, a specified number of bushels, which would leave the farmer free to grow as many potatoes as he wishes for export and home consumption, would be in order. This would provide greater assistance for the smaller farmer, and impose no restrictions on the growers, and it would prevent the accumulation of huge surpluses.
The potato industry is the main source of income in my province, and therefore I would urge the Minister of Agriculture to include a potato producer on the advisory board as provided for in the resolution.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, I am interested in seeing that all segments of our Canadian population receive their proper share of our gross national income.
I listened to the minister very attentively and heard his definitions of moving base prices, floor or support prices and guaranteed prices. I surmise that this government will make use of the floor or support prices, just as they can now under present legislation. I listened to the hon. member who has just taken his seat when he spoke about the higher farm prices. I presume that that can only be done under this legislation by increasing the support prices. If I interpreted the minister rightly, I would think this legislation allows three further things to be done: first, to increase the revolving fund from

$200 million to $250 million; second, to figure out a base price from the average price of farm commodities for the preceding three years; and from this base price establish a guaranteed price, that is, take 80 per cent of this base price and call it a guaranteed price.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


William Hector McMillan: Is that not right? That is my understanding.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It could be any percentage.


William Hector McMillan: I see. In any case, after the bill receives second reading it should be referred to the committee on agriculture.
This evening I want to refer to fruits and vegetables. I come from the Niagara district where many fruits and vegetables are grown. In looking over the former legislation and former discussions in this house back over the years, I see that it has been the concern of many governments. I refer to the marketing troubles of the fruit and vegetable growers. I noticed in reading over old Hansards that the Hon. J. D. Chaplin, who was the member for Lincoln and the minister of trade and commerce in Mr. Meighen's administration, spoke at considerable length on fruit and vegetables. In the main, these producers were generally at a marked disadvantage against competition from similar fruits and vegetables from the United States where the season is always more advanced and consequently the fruits and vegetables from there reach the market sooner than ours.
Hon. Charles Dunning, in introducing his budget on May 1, 1930, said that seasonal tariffs alone were not applicable to Canada because of its extremes of distance, latitude and the climate. After a careful study at that time he decided to put on two duties, an ad valorem and specific duty. He hoped that this combination of duties would meet, first, the urgent need of the producers and help them to establish their prices at a time when they had an acute instability of price and, second, he hoped also that it would at the same time guarantee to the consumers that they would have these products at reasonable prices at all seasons of the year.
This combination of duties was intended to give our fruit and vegetable producers the greatest protection at the time of the harvest of their primary products. The time of application of the double duty was made to correspond with the Canadian harvest of the particular fruit or vegetable on which protection was meant to be given. As an example, if peaches ripened and were harvested over a nine weeks period the seasonal duty applied for nine weeks. This type of 96698-142*
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization protection was given to different fruits and vegetables for a certain definite period for each and the beginning of a period was generally announced in advance by the government after consultation with the growers themselves.
These flexible periods of extra seasonal tariffs do not always work out to the advantage of the growers. We had an example of this last spring. Our asparagus was ready for harvesting before it was expected and much United States asparagus was being imported right up to the time our asparagus was ready for the market. I was told that the former minister of finance, Mr. Harris, made the seasonal tariff period correspond with that asked for by the growers themselves. But we had a particularly warm spell and our asparagus was ready early. Often our growers cannot be expected to foretell the beginning and duration of any particular harvest because of our weather which varies from year to year. For this and other reasons which I can best illustrate with the harvesting of peaches, the duration of the time of application by the government of the various seasonal tariffs on the different fruits and vegetables is not sufficiently long.
As I said earlier, peaches have a seasonal tariff period of nine weeks. This is not long enough, for two reasons. The first one is modern refrigeration. Because of adequate cold storage, peaches can be imported into Canada before ours are ripe and can be kept in cold storage and compete with our early varieties. At the end of the season peaches can be stored in cold storage in the state of New York and those peaches are subsidized. Often when there is a large crop there peaches are brought into Canada right after the seasonal tariff is removed. I have seen this happen. In past years I have seen our canners in the Niagara district canning United States peaches that were admitted into Canada right after our seasonal tariff was removed and our own superior peaches were left to rot on the ground.
Again, in recent years our own peach growers have developed new varieties and the peach crop ripens over a longer period than nine weeks. Cold storage has had the effect of contracting the nine weeks seasonal protection to six or seven weeks, and quite apart from the longer ripening season of the different varieties of peaches this makes the nine week period decided upon years ago seem quite unrealistic today. This same condition applies to some of our other fruits and vegetables.
Another matter that has been brought to my attention in connection with peaches is
2230	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization the question of grade. Our government inspectors at the border do not always seem to insist that the grades of import peaches should meet the requirements of similar grades in Canada. I have noticed lately in the stores in Ottawa that there are many New York state apples on sale and I think they are an inferior grade. They certainly do not seem to come up to the commercial grade as described in the booklet. I do not bring this up to embarrass the minister because I have seen this very thing happen in connection with peaches in the last few years. I certainly should like to see our inspectors at the border pay more attention to the grades of fruits that are admitted into Canada. I know that the question of fruits and vegetables has been referred to the tariff board and that the board has made a report but the matter depends upon action under GATT and on the action of the government.
In Welland county we have many general farmers who are interested in crops other than fruits and vegetables. At the time of the discussion on cash advances to western farmers I expressed the hope that these general farmers would be given consideration at the time this legislation was introduced. However, I do not see anything in it that will give them any further help unless there is something the minister has not disclosed at this time.
There are one or two questions I should like to ask the minister. The first has to do with putting $250 million into a revolving fund. I am not very impressed with that, particularly since there is $170 million in the present revolving fund and when some of our primary producers made application this fall to have support prices put under their products nothing was done by the government. I do not think the government is likely to give them any more consideration because the government has $250 million in such a fund rather than $170 million.
I do not know whether it is proposed to include fall wheat, but I know that in my area last year wheat as it was harvested sold around $1.20 a bushel and by last December the price had gone up to $1.85. However, most of the wheat was sold at the lower price and very little at $1.85. I should like to ask the minister how he would arrive at an average price for Ontario fall wheat last year.
I suppose the government proposes to support the price of butter at 60 cents. If they did not it would be possible under the formula announced for butter to fall to 48 cents, if I understood what the minister said. I know that the government has many problems irrespective of the promises it made. One


promise was made, however, that it has always been hard for me to understand. How can the Canadian farmer enter the European market in order to sell his products?
I know that the Prime Minister said in Wallaceburg that Canada must make an active effort to regain its best markets in the commonwealth and at the same time protect its domestic markets for Canadian producers. It seems to me that in England and other parts of the commonwealth most products are cheaper than they are in Canada. I think our pork prices are the highest in the world. I should like the minister to tell us, for instance, how it would be possible for bacon to be sold on the London market.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, a great number of people in my riding have been waiting for some time for this resolution to be introduced. I think the minister probably gave a fuller explanation of the resolution than is normally done and I am assuming that he has pretty well explained what will be in the bill. A few weeks ago a crack was made about there not being any C.C.F. farm representatives from Ontario. There are three C.C.F. members now from Ontario and I should like to inform those unenlightened members that each of the three members has a large farming area in his constituency.
I represent the riding of Timiskaming. May I say, for the benefit of those who are unaware of the situation, that this riding contains a unique geographical phenomena called the little clay belt. This little clay belt contains about one million acres of farm land. Fifty or sixty years ago this land was covered with timber. The governments of the day put on a drive, as they did in the west, and invited pioneers to come in and homestead. This event occurred about the same time as it did in the west. My father, a very young man at the time, went into northern Ontario by steamer, since there were no roads or railroads. In 1898 these pioneers cleared that land and today there are about 300,000 taxable acres of farm land in Timiskaming.
This clay land is probably as good land as you have anywhere in the country. It is fairly flat, being the bottom of an old lake in an earlier geological age. There are approximately 105,000 acres of this land under active field cultivation, and about 25 per cent of the total area of the clay belt is now cleared. This clay belt is almost entirely in the riding of Timiskaming and it supports some 100,000 people on approximately 1,600 farms according to the last census. There are 400 farm families living on that land. About 1,000 of the farms, like the farms

throughout Ontario and the rest of Canada, are lying idle. There are only 400 of these farms, as I said, that are supporting people who live by farming alone. There are others who are living on the farm and working elsewhere or deriving the majority of their income from other sources. I would suggest that this is an odd situation in a country which has the facility and the people. The people who went into my particular part of the country must have liked farming because they did go to the trouble of clearing the land in order to farm. They came there, worked and pioneered and now they are unable to derive sufficient income. I think it is about time the Canadian people took a look at the situation and wondered why these events have occurred.
We have a problem in Timiskaming that I think is the same as elsewhere. We have probably 25,000 head of cattle and a large beef section which sells between 4,000 and
5,000	head a year. This area supplies a large amount of fluid milk. We have a dairy industry, and the surprising thing about this dairy industry, to those who have never heard of Timiskaming, is that it produces half the amount of the butter that Canada exported last year. I do not say that all the butter that came from my area was exported, but we produced half of the total butter exported. We produced a large amount of cheese. We could easily have supplied all the butter and all the cheese that Canada exported. This is a surprising fact when one considers that it would come from one riding, and from a riding which many people did not know was a farming area. We have four butter factories, one each at Belle Vallee, Englehart, New Liskeard and Earlton. These four factories produce half of the amount exported according to the figures presented by the Ontario government in their statistical report.
We might wonder why people are leaving their farms. Farm organizations are continually making representations to the governments. The governments must be aware there is a farm problem. About 65 per cent of the members of this house are in this house because farmers elected them. It may be true, in fact it is true, that the farm population of Canada is small in numbers. It is true also that this farm population has the means of deciding through their elected representatives, upon the legislation affecting them to be passed by this house. I suggest that this government had better take a very close look at the situation because I do not think the proposed measure offers any solution.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
One of the problems may be the fact that one farm organization, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, is headed by Mr. Hannam who has been president since its inception in 1939. He had previously been the vicepresident of the chamber of agriculture which was formed in 1935. It is surprising, though it may be coincidental, that Mr. Gardiner, the former minister of agriculture, also came into federal politics at that time. It is not a coincidence, however, that these two spokesmen for agriculture over the past years have followed the same program. It is my opinion that neither Mr. Hannam nor the right hon. member for Melville have ever given leadership to the Canadian farmer or ever satisfied the basic needs of our rural population. It is not surprising that the representations made by Mr. Hannam to the present Minister of Agriculture are not satisfactory to any farm representatives or farmers to whom I have talked. I would caution the present Minister of Agriculture that he may have his political throat cut because of the representations that have been made to him. I would suggest that the organizations that comprise the federation have, on numerous occasions and in great numbers, made representations concerning the idea of full parity. This morning the minister mentioned the fact that he did not know what parity meant.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He did not.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It is obvious.


William Arnold Peters: I would like to suggest that anyone who reads this resolution would realize that is a fact because parity prices simply mean equality between the cost of production and the price the producer receives. If we are going to have full parity, that only means that all the costs that go into producing a commodity are paid back to the producer by whoever buys the product.
Perhaps we in Ontario are more fortunate than others, because we have several commodities that are under full parity prices. I am not suggesting that they are satisfactory parity prices, because it all depends on where you set the base for that parity price. Before mentioning these commodities, however, I should like to point out that it was not long ago that the federation asked the Ontario government to set a skim milk powder floor price of from 13 cents to 16 cents. This representation is contained in their brief. It is very surprising that the federal government set a floor price of 17 cents, which was higher than that requested by the organization. I suggest we take a look at some of the representations made.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does that not prove that his

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization previous statement was not correct that the federation and I always agreed?


William Arnold Peters: It may only mean, Mr. Chairman, that one is a little smarter than the other. Frankly, I believe that a good look should be taken at this question of parity prices. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has just presented a document-I do not know whether or not you would call it a brief-addressed to the members of the House of Commons.
I presume it was also presented to the government. They ask for a level of farm supports and they go on to say that "they should not be set at less than 70 per cent of parity, as we calculate it by the formula which we have adopted". They do not include the formula that they adopted. If they did so, it would not make a hoot of difference because why should we take 70 per cent of parity when it means that you are going to have to find 30 per cent some place else in order to finance your operation? Any farmer who goes out and produces anything at any amount less than parity is going to have to subsidize it. How is he going to subsidize it? Is he going to get relief from his municipality? Is he going to have child labour? Is he going to make his kids work for nothing or is he going to work himself for nothing?
I suggest that one of the things the farmer has been doing for a great number of years has been living on his depreciation. He may not have known that he should have put it away but he has certainly been living on it. We can go right back to the hungry thirties and probably up to the time price control came on in 1940, when the farmer had lived on his depreciation. His machinery was falling apart, his buildings were falling down and his house had not had a coat of paint for many years. Times got a little better with price control and times got a little better just after the war, in fact, and continued up until 1951, and the farmer bought more machinery. He did put away a little bit of his depreciation.
But that certainly is not happening now. He has not been putting very much away since 1951 or else the farmer is giving me a poor story. As I understand it, most of them are not putting anything away, have taken out all that they have saved in what they considered to be the good years and it is time that we did something for those farmers. If this government wishes to stay in office, I think it had better do so now because 65 per cent of the members that are here are going to have to answer to those farmers.
There are some things that have been put under parity. I am sure that some of the

members will say it has not been applied. It has been applied in Ontario by the one organization that I know of that has ever been very active on its own, in making its own presentation and making its own way in Ontario,-I refer to the Ontario whole milk producers league-particularly in the fluid milk field. They have a parity formula. I do not necessarily agree with this formula because I do not know whether or not they set their price originally high enough. But they make use of a number of indexes.
I suggest that the minister listen to this and maybe take a pattern off it. They have a wholesale index and that is 20 per cent. They have a weekly wages index and that is 20 per cent. They have a commodities and services used by farmers index and that is 30 per cent; price of butterfat index, 10 per cent; price of condensed products index, 10 per cent; price of cheese index, 10 per cent. These amount to a total of 100 per cent. It is 100 per cent of a number of indexes of the commodities that go to make up the production costs of the fluid milk product. They take this price. They put their base price over 100 times the amount and they come up with a figure. They say that they will use a three months' period for setting their price and if the formula increases, it will increase by 19 cents a hundred, calculated on a three months' period. I am not suggesting that this particular price is the right one. The original base was 1949 to 1952 and the price in Toronto was $4.13; in 1953 it was $4.63; in 1954 I believe it was $4.53; in 1956 it was $4.77. It can therefore be seen that it has some relationship. Whether or not it is the right relationship, it has some relationship to the cost of that product. They have a signed contract yearly, signed by the Ontario whole milk producers' league and by A. P. Clark, the secretary for the government. I suggest that there is no question about it but that this would solve the problem for agriculture.
One of the arguments continually used against using a formula price or a full parity price is the fact that we may have surpluses. Mr. Chairman, we may not have surpluses now but we certainly have a problem. Under the former government we were buying from other countries more than we were selling. I understand that we now have a $1 billion dollar deficit this year already. I suggest that we cannot overproduce all the products that are derived from agriculture. I say that because I have heard on numerous occasions outstanding speakers like C. H. Millard, who is with the I.C.F.T.U., say so. I have heard him on numerous occasions after returning from Asia, Africa and the countries of Europe tell of the need for food commodities in those

countries. He told us of the children who never in their lifetime have ever had a full meal. I always thought we got these stomachs because we ate too much. It may be in some cases because we did not eat enough. Children are being born, are living a lifetime and are dying-very young-never having had a full meal in their lifetime. I suggest that we can do as much for peace by filling their hungry stomachs and bringing them to our way of thinking as we can by stockpiling arms in Canada or building radar units or doing the other silly things that we do for defence.
We have also heard that if we are going to have a decent price for agriculture we are going to end up in the same position as the United States. May I say that I think some of our farmers would be very happy tonight if they thought we were going to end up with as much money from farm products as they have in the United States.


James Garfield Gardiner: We get more for most of them.


William Arnold Peters: The former minister says we get more now for most of them than they do. That may be so but farmers certainly will not tell you that and the figures certainly do not prove it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The figures do prove it.


William Arnold Peters: I do not think we can have a surplus of food products while the world needs food.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have not a surplus except in wheat.


William Arnold Peters: We may not. We can and we should have the Department of Agriculture appointing a number of economic attaches to go out to these countries that need food and sell it. We cannot sit in our seats in the house here and say, "They may come to us to buy our wheat". We had an opportunity to sell wheat to Australia. The minister was given this information very early in the session and he tried to make a joke of our selling wheat to Australia. We should have had an attache down there trying to sell that wheat, taking whatever currency we could get, so that we can eliminate this deficit we have in trade and accumulate a little bit of a surplus. We are not finding our farmers very happy about the situation they have, where the surplus is being carried on their farms. I think it is time that the surplus was carried on the books of the government and used for international trade.
We have heard many times-I hear it from the benches across the aisle-that the people will not stand for this, that prices are going to go up. My hon. friend on the other side of
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization the house tonight quoted from a book, "Memorandum to the Government of Canada" from the Canadian Labour Congress, an organization of which I am proud to be a member, and they had something to do with this in the past. He read a statement. I think that statement should be read again. It is as follows:
We are alarmed by the drastic fall in farm income. This is bad for the farm people, most of whom are far from rich, and who still make up one-sixth of the Canadian population. It is bad for the economy generally, which is still heavily dependent on exports, of which farm products make up about one-quarter.
And I would add that they should be making up about three-quarters.
It is also bad for Canadian workers, for whose products a prosperous agriculture would provide a substantial market.
Then it goes on to say this:
Canadian labour will fully support anything the government can do to restore the purchasing power of Canadian farmers.
Well, now we know exactly what the workers think about increasing the prosperity of the farms, and let me tell you they are not doing it because they are completely unselfish, they are doing it because they know that the farmer is now getting less than 43 per cent of the consumer dollar. They know, furthermore, that sales of automobiles are dropping; that sales of farm machinery are dropping; they know that these problems exist and they are willing to help their friends in the rural areas who are in the agricultural field.
I say that the government, knowing that these people must have at least 2J dependents like everybody else and that they represent a very large part of the economy of Canada, and in view of the fact that they have been given the green light, now have no reason for sitting still and saying that the people might not go for it. We have very many other problems in agriculture, apart from the fact that we have to supply these people who are producing the agricultural products with a decent income. I think that can be done by parity prices. I think we should get straight with regard to this business of parity prices and I do not think we should continually change the name. When I find the meaning of parity prices I am not too happy about the term being changed to deficiency payments and so on-1 am quite sure that this viewpoint is shared by farm organizations and others-because then it means that they have to sit down and find out the meaning of deficiency payments.
However, as I say, there are other problems. For instance we have in my area a number of beef cattle and we ship these cattle to Toronto. I think this government

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization should put in a grading station and an abattoir so that we will be able to supply good beet for the markets in that particular area, which is already consuming much more than we can produce. Yet while our local product is going on the Toronto market it is not going to local markets. Of course, other markets constitute another problem in which I think this government should also get involved. We hear such statements as: "Oh, packinghouses, they are wonderful things; they only make .4 per cent profit", or something of that nature. They make very little profit.
Now when we take one of the largest packinghouses, which incidentally sends me its financial statement, it looks just about as nice as the financial statements of the mining organizations in which I used to work. That was in the gold mining industry and the financial statement to which I have referred reminds me of that. They show shares valued at $1,438,284 and the dividend this year on that .4 per cent which they were supposed to be making was $1,050,000. Now, what we do not know is that the Canadian people have financed this organization to a great extent, because they already have the accumulated capital invested in the way of land, buildings, and so on, assets to the value of $62 million and something. They have another $62 million which they call current assets. Then they point out how you can only make a very little bit of profit in that business.
Now I am sure that we as workers and we as farmers know that this problem has been raised continually. It has been raised by local newspapers on the rural scene which we are sometimes foolish to read and which say the farmer is the enemy of labour and labour is the enemy of the farmer. Well labour, as I said, has said what they think about the farmer. They are willing to cooperate and in some ways they have done so. For instance, in connection with the setting up of the joint economic commission. They have co-operated and are getting along very well.
It is true that when I was a miner and I sent my wife down to the local store with $5, she could buy a very small roast. She would think that the father-in-law had a big farm with a big cow and so there must be a hundred of those $5 roasts in that big cow. So she was of the opinion that the farmer was doing darn good. Then, when it came to talking to-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: -my brother-in-law or-


An hon. Member:: Be quiet for a minute.


An hon. Member:: He did not hear you.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Might I ask this question. Could he explain to me what his conversation has to do with support prices on agricultural products?


William Arnold Peters: I would say it has been said many many times that one of the reasons why we cannot do anything about giving the farmer a fair deal is because the consumer will not pay for it, the consumer objects. I think the consumer has already paid for it.
I also know that when my wife bought that $5 roast the farmer did not get $5; he did not get $3. He got on an average for his expenditure of labour less than 43 per cent, so I think that he certainly was not getting value.
We should set up this committee which we have been kicking around for quite a while now and put on it some people who are representatives; we should include some workers and some farmers. Then throw in somebody from the agricultural colleges to handle the fine points of the law and such other things. We should make sure there are not more of those people than there are of the people who are going to be interested in this business.
We have heard that the Canadian Labour Congress, when they took a large size freezer around to the fall fairs-which are patronized, I might say, very heavily by the farmers in both northern and southern Ontario-asked of the people how much labour went into this particular freezer. I should explain that it was a big piece of equipment for frozen foods costing something in the neighbourhood of $470. This was the total labour cost, because obviously it is labour which is kicking the price of all our commodities up to a higher level. This was taken around and the farm people believed, because they had been told by their local politicians that this was so, that the labour was proportionately high. Hon. members may be surprised at the guesses which went as high as $375 for a $475 product. The woman who won the competition made a guess which was very close to $84 which was the actual total cost of cutting the lumber used in the manufacturing processes, the mining done to make the steel and the metal and all the other processes which went into the manufacture of the article. It all came to about $84, so labour was not getting such a lot out of it.
The Financial Times pointed out the other day that the labour production costs-that is not total cost but production cost-on an automobile selling for $2700 were about $75. In other words the workers of that plant who put it together got $75-


Henri Courtemanche: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, we have had a very wide and general range of debate on agriculture today. I doubt whether a good deal of it was in order in a discussion of this resolution. However, I did not raise a point of order except when hon. members got onto fisheries or something along that line. However, we have heard speeches here today in connection with the question of tariffs, in connection with the financial setup of a certain company and in connection with all kinds of individual agricultural problems in particular areas or constituencies. A great deal of the content of the speeches has been concerned with the difficulties which exist in agriculture and with which farmers find themselves faced. Now I do not think there is any need for us to continue hearing speaker after speaker reiterating the difficult situation in agriculture today. I think most of us realize and have realized the situation for a considerable time, and one thing I can assure all hon. members of this house is that nobody realizes the situation as well as I do.


Mr. Lewry:: Well then do something about it.


An hon. Member:: Give us a chance.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In the five or six months since I have been Minister of Agriculture I have had delegations from, I think, practically every producer group of any size and most of the smaller ones in this country. They have all come to me and told me their troubles, and as a result of that and of I do not know how many hundreds or thousands of letters from individuals and every conceivable organization, I think I do realize the situation in agriculture today and the difficulties involved, as to the industry on the whole right across Canada and as far as particular segments are concerned, as well as anybody else in this house.
Now the legislation which is presently before us is designed to try to improve that situation to some extent. When I spoke first this morning in introducing this resolution I tried to make it plain-and I should like to state again what I said then-that I did not look upon this as a cure-all for the many difficulties from which agriculture is suffering. I said at that time:
I do not maintain that it is a cure-all for all the difficulties under which agriculture has laboured for the past several years. No one piece of legislation can be expected, at one stroke, to transform a complex industry, such as agriculture, from a depressed state to one of full and abounding health.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
I realize the situation in this regard as well as anybody else does, but unfortunately most of the speeches we have heard here today have been along the line that by passing some piece of legislation we are going to wave a magic wand over the agricultural industry, and that as a result of waving this wand all the difficulties which confront it are going to disappear. That essentially has been the complaint of hon. members in the C.C.F. group and of some other hon. members who have spoken today. This legislation is not a cure-all. Nobody ever said it would be a cure-all, and nobody with any sense of realism as far as agriculture is concerned in this country can ever expect that any one piece of legislation would be a cure-all.
Mr. Chairman, in order to put agriculture on a sound basis and in order to give our farmers a reasonable standard of living we have to move forward on a considerable number of fronts. We are not confining action to this front alone.


An hon. Member:: You are standing still now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We in this government are making every effort possible to move forward on a considerable number of fronts. I would just like to indicate some of the things we are engaged in doing which are necessary to restore agriculture to a sound position. First of all, we have to dispose of the big surplus of wheat which is hanging like a blanket over the price of agricultural products of all kinds in this country. That is one of the things, particularly, which has to be done before the agricultural industry in this country can be put on a sound basis, whether it is wheat raising or some type of agriculture in the maritimes. We are making every effort possible to dispose of this surplus of grain and, as indicated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day, and as I can assure hon. members now, we are making some progress in that regard and we hope to reduce this surplus to at least a reasonable extent during the coming six months.
The second way in which we are trying to attack this problem is through the royal commission on price spreads which was announced here yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If you had paid any attention to what the hon. member of your party, who has just sat down said, you would not be laughing. He was making quite a point of the fact that the farmer was not getting anything like the proportion of the consumer dollar which he should have.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker-

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Douglas Scott Harkness: Just wait until I have finished. As soon as I have finished you can ask questions.


Hazen Robert Argue: Put some farmers on the royal commission.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I trust that the result of the royal commission on price spreads will be to give the farmer a greater proportion of the consumer dollar than he is getting. That is the second way in which we are attempting to attack this problem.
The third front on which we have to move forward is in the matter of soil and water conservation measures. The South Saskatchewan dam is an example in this regard and we hope to proceed with it.


An hon. Member:: When?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yet another is improved credit facilities for farmers. This is another front on which we hope to be able to make some advance and improve the situation. Considerable studies have been made with regard to this matter, and also with regard to another way in which we think help could be extended to farmers, that is with regard to a crop insurance plan.
These aTe only some of the ways in which progress has to be made before agriculture can be put on a reasonable basis. We realize that there are many other things to be done in addition to this before we can get this industry into the situation we would like to see it in, and in which, I know, every hon. member in this house would like to see it.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, of all the criticism which has been put forward here today, hardly any of it was constructive. All we have heard from speaker after speaker was the terrible situation the farmer is in. We know the situation has been bad, but scarcely one speaker has made any suggestion as to how it could be improved.
All those hon. gentlemen did was make general statements that we should have full parity of prices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They made statements along that line, but was there any suggestion as to how anything along this line was to be accomplished, or as to what they meant by this? These were just general statements; in other words merely destructive criticism which meant very little or nothing.
Further, Mr. Chairman, I would say that on the basis of most of the speeches I have heard from the other side of the house today a great majority of the people who spoke did not understand the legislation; they just have not grasped what it is going to do.


Walter Adam Tucker: They understand it too well.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have not time to go over all the points which were made by the various speakers on the other side of the house, but I will attempt to deal with a few of them. First, the right hon. member for Melville: most of what he said was a defence of what the Liberal administration, of which he was a member, had done in the past. I do not blame him a bit for that; I think it is quite natural. But there is one statement he made to which I must take exception, and that is there is not much difference between this legislation and the legislation which he sponsored-the resolution of 1944, as he called it, setting up the prices support board. There are very many material differences between that legislation and this legislation which is projected, and I should like to outline briefly what some of them are.
First, this legislation provides for a definite formula to be used in the fixing of guaranteed and floor prices. Secondly, it provides under the legislation for an advisory committee which must be set up representing farmer organizations for the purpose of giving advice to the minister and the government in regard to what commodities should be under price support and the level of support which should be provided for them.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will you put any farmers on that committee?


Douglas Scott Harkness: We shall put some farmers on, not pseudo-farmers.
The third difference is that this legislation provides for guaranteed prices on any agricultural products, which are set for a year in advance. In other words this meets the demand for forward pricing. Some people have said the measure contains nothing about forward pricing. This legislation provides for a price to be set, and it is to be in effect for a year from that time. Also, this legislation provides for floor prices guaranteed by the legislation itself.


An hon. Member:: Twenty per cent under the Liberals.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The uninformed cries coming from the C.C.F. party indicate that they just do not understand the legislation. All that they are concerned with is to try to howl the legislation down and howl me down for political advantage when I am trying to explain it. I have sufficient confidence in the farmers of this country to believe that when they see what this legislation is they will think it is a good, honest effort to assist them and to put them in a better position than they have ever been in before.
The right hon. member for Melville tried to maintain that farmers will not be as well

off under this legislation as under the old scheme, the one we are under now, namely the prices support legislation; that they may lose money by it. There is not anything they could possibly lose by it, as a matter of fact.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will tell you after a while.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They never had very much under it.


James Garfield Gardiner: They had $1,164 million.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for
Rosthern said there were no more powers under this act than there were under the old act, and so forth. I might say it is not only a matter of the powers that are there. I admit that there were sufficient powers under the old act to have done a great deal more than was done. What is required and what is necessary and what I am sure the farmers of Canada have confidence in, is that this government has the will and the determination to put guaranteed prices under the farm products where that is necessary in order to give them a reasonable standard of living.
As far as the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort is concerned and the hon. member for Springfield, a good deal of what they said was in the way of what might be called general abuse. Therefore, I do not think it is worth while trying to say anything about what either of them said. The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort did have something to say about the two-price system, and two or three members of the Social Credit party also brought up the matter of a two-price system. Of course, that is a different question altogether from price support legislation, and it is not a question which I think one should try to introduce and mix up with this particular legislation which is designed to provide for guaranteed farm prices and for floor prices.


Alfred Claude Ellis: You said you wanted suggestions.


An hon. Member:: Would it help to call it ten o'clock?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Acadia said that the legislation ignores the relationship between the cost of goods bought and the prices received for agricultural products. That is absolutely not correct. I think the hon. member just did not understand the explanation that I gave, or he did not pay any attention to it. The bill is drawn up and the procedure as outlined is designed specifically so that the relationship between the cost of the goods bought by farmers and the farmers cost of production will be related to the guaranteed prices he will receive. These
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization factors will be given due consideration and an attempt made to reach something reasonable in that regard.
I see that the time is going on, Mr. Chairman. There are a considerable number of other points that I should have liked to touch on but I have not the time to do it now. However, I would urge the members of the committee to let this resolution pass tonight so that the bill may be distributed and put into the hands of hon. members. After that has been done I feel quite sure that they will be in a much better position to discuss this measure on second reading and in the committee of the whole and that there will not be nearly the waste of time that we have had today which, I am convinced, has come about because people did not understand what they were talking about in many instances.
Furthermore, I might point out that unless this is done it just means further delay as far as getting ahead with this legislation and getting it through are concerned. As the house leader indicated last night and before, I think we are not going to be able to go ahead with this same legislation tomorrow, and I do think it would be a considerable advantage if we could pass the resolution and get the bill in hon. members hands and give them some time to study it.


Henri Courtemanche: Order. Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Harrison:: Will you call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Lionel Chevrier: Ten o'clock.


Henri Courtemanche: With the consent of the house, shall I call it ten o'clock?


Lionel Chevrier: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Hornby Harrison: Mr. Chairman, I think somebody on the government side said, "Talk it out." There is about one minute to go, therefore it will not be too hard to do even by somebody who talks as little as I do. However, this is a rather important piece of legislation designed to do a very important job, and it affects my part of the country quite a lot. I have been waiting to get a chance to speak on this all day, and I do not make any apologies for speaking on it now. I hope I shall be able to conclude in a normal manner tomorrow.
In introducing the resolution this morning, my genial friend, the Minister of Agriculture, made one interesting remark that intrigued me more than anything else in his remarks.
2238	HOUSE OF
Business of the House
That remark was that there would be no incentive supports supplied by this piece of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


John Hornby Harrison: I will go on with that further tomorrow. Another remark from the government benches by, I think, the hon. member for Marquette, was to the effect that this legislation made him proud. Well, I hope that the results make him a prophet in his own constituency, and I wish the government the best in that regard.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Henri Courtemanche: Order. Shall I rise and report progress?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: What is the business for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall commence with item No. 1 on today's order paper, the house in committee of the whole on an act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. Then we shall take item No. 10, which is the second reading of a bill respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company; then item No. 12,-


Hazen Robert Argue: All emergency measures.


Howard Charles Green: -which is an act to amend the Excise Tax Act; then, item No. 13, an act to amend the Income Tax Act; then, item No. 17, which is a resolution preceding a bill to provide for loans to the province of New

Brunswick; and item No. 11, second reading of an act to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the house leader able to indicate what the business will be for the rest of the week?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give that tonight; I hope to have a better idea tomorrow.


Lionel Chevrier: Can he say what will be done on Friday?


Howard Charles Green: No, I cannot say that. Friday is only the day after tomorrow. I will let the house know just as soon as possible.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the leader of the house give any indication as to when this resolution will be before the house again?


Howard Charles Green: We will get it on at the earliest possible date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister not say whether Friday will be devoted to estimates or legislation?


Howard Charles Green: No, I cannot say that tonight, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
there anything the minister can say?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have been spoiling the three opposition parties. I have given them the plans much farther ahead than any house leader has ever given them before.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on December 2, 1957.

[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. Stewart (Winnipeg: North):
1.	Is a progressive lay-off taking place in the Canadian National Railways shops in Winnipeg?
2.	If so, how many men have been laid off by months since May 1, 1957?
3.	Was there an undertaking by the government that a works program would be instituted by the Canadian National Railways to protect those threatened by unemployment?
4.	If so, what is the present situation regarding this program?
Answer by: Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	In a statement made in the house on behalf of the Canadian National Railways on November 4, 1957, at page 704 of Hansard in reply to questions by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and other hon. members, the management dealt fully with the matter of adjustments in the number of employees on the system as a whole, and this statement is explanatory of the situation at Winnipeg.
2.	The average level of employment in the Winnipeg area from May to September was
as follows:
May	 3,054
June	 3,050
July	 3,048
August	 2,964
September	 2,926
3.	The government undertook to finance the cost of a special program of car repairs and other shop work as outlined in a press announcement issued from Ottawa by the Minister of Transport under date of July 12, 1957. The announcement also indicated that the Canadian National management would open conversations with union leaders to explore the adjustments in the existing seniority rules of the working groups affected which would be required to make the special program effective.
Questions
4.	Under date of August 26, 1957, the following press release was issued in Montreal: "The special work program aimed at minimizing the effect of lay-offs in C.N.R. shops, and announced by the Minister of Transport on July 12, has not been put into effect, the railway said today. A company statement explained: Following discussions with representatives of the unions it was found that transfers of workers between shop groups could not be provided for under the seniority rules that are part of the wage agreements".


WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES AND PENSIONS
Mr. Hahn: 1.	How many individuals are in receipt of war veterans allowance?
2.	How many receive a war veterans pension?
3.	What was the total amount paid in each instance for 1956?
Answer by: Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of
Veterans Affairs):
1.	Awards to veterans, widows and orphans at September 30, 1957, 57,238.
2.	Awards in respect of disability and of death at September 30, 1957, 192,144.
3.	Paid during fiscal year 1956-57 as war veterans allowance, $41,259,184.75; as pension, $130,307,562.02.


DUTY ON CATTLE EXPORTS TO U.S.
Mr. Olson: 1.	How much is the duty paid on cattle entering United States within the quarterly quotas?
2.	How much is the duty when we exceed the quarterly quota on cattle over 700 pounds?
3.	How much is the duty, if any, on cattle under 700 pounds?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister
of Trade and Commerce):
1.	1J cents per lb.
2.	2J cents per lb.
3.	Cattle weighing each: Under 200 pounds -1| cents per lb. for not over 200,000 head entered in the 12-month period beginning April 1; 2J cents per lb. for imports above the quota.
200 or more, but under 700 pounds-2| cents per lb. on all imports.

Thursday, December 12, 1957


RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES
[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of standing committee on railways, canals, and telegraph lines.-Mr. Fraser.