1957-12-20

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House,
Ottawa, December 20, 1957
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 20th December, at 12.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief announcement in connection with stamps. The previous administration decided early this year to eliminate certain identifying marks known as plate numbers on the corner of each sheet of postage stamps sold. While this action was designed to avoid confusion and delays in the public sale of stamps by those collectors who desired special selections to be made by post office clerks, it had the unfortunate effect of denying to those same people the opportunity of pursuing their hobby of collecting corner plate blocks of stamps.
I have been impressed by the representations from these collectors and others, and in accordance with the government's policy of operating as efficiently as possible while still giving due weight to the interests of those who are affected by government action, I have decided on an amendment to the decision of the previous government in this matter.
Therefore, while plate numbers will no longer appear on those sheets of stamps sold at post offices throughout the country, thus eliminating a cause of annoyance and delay to those purchasing stamps for ordinary use, sheets bearing such a designation will be available for sale to any interested collector, at the face value of the stamps, through the philatelic section of the Post Office Department at Ottawa.
96698-168i
Since stamps are designed and printed a considerable time in advance of their issue, it will not be possible to apply this new treatment to certain issues designed by the previous administration which were too far advanced in production for it to be applied. However, the new system will enable all collectors who are interested in this branch of the philatelic hobby to continue their collections as in the past, and is yet another indication of the desire of the Post Office Department to offer satisfactory service to every Canadian.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Comiois (Minisier of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make the following statement:
Requests have been made by some hon. members of the house for a public inquiry to be made on the stranding of our hydrographic ship Baffin, which accident happened in July last off the coast of Nova Scotia. A similar request has been made by correspondence to my colleague the Minister of Transport.
In view of these circumstances I wish to inform the house that I have requested my colleague the Minister of Transport to take the necessary steps to conduct a formal investigation under the Canada Shipping Act into the circumstances surrounding the accident.
I Later:]


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will this formal investigation into the bad day at Black rock be a public investigation or a public inquiry?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the house that the Canadian National Railways today announced an accelerated works project involving an expenditure of $3,500,000. The work being undertaken will be included in the Canadian National Railways 1958 budget. The government has given advance
2646	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry approval to these projects in order that the work may provide winter employment.
The accelerated works program includes equipment conversion work to be carried out in the railway shops at Moncton, New Brunswick; London, Ontario; Calder, Alberta; and Port Mann, British Columbia; enlargement of railway yards at Corner Brook, Newfoundland, and Moncton, New Brunswick; railway spur construction at Atikokan, Ontario; and the construction of portable railway dwellings. This program will provide approximately 1,062,000 man hours of work for approximately 600 men during the winter months.
I should also like to inform the house that a request has been forwarded to the Department of Public Works to proceed as early as possible to call for tenders for the construction of a new marine agency building at Halifax, and also for the second stage in the wharf construction program in the Saint John, New Brunswick agency.


Hon. George C. Marler (St. Antoine-West-mounl):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. He spoke earlier of the special projects being undertaken by Canadian National Railways. In view of the fact there are some 38,000 unemployed in Montreal, is it the intention of the railway company to proceed more rapidly with the construction program at the Cote de Liesse yard and other works in the Montreal area?


George Harris Hees: That is a question, the answer to which I do not think the hon. member would expect me to have at my finger tips. I shall make inquiries of the management of Canadian National and answer as soon as possible.
[Later:l


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: The other day the Minister of Transport was kind enough to give us a review of some projects he was carrying on in his department, and he did so again this morning. Would he give consideration now to whether or not it is possible to carry out the program he has in mind for the Windsor airport at once, at a time when it may provide some work? I do not know whether or not that can be done, but I would ask the minister if he would mind looking into this and giving me a reply tomorrow.


George Harris Hees: Yes, I shall be glad to look into the matter and give an answer soon.


Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National


Resources. Under the policy as announced yesterday by the minister for providing work for the unemployed, is it the intention of the government to set up these work camps for unemployed persons in central Canada as well as in the west and north?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the projects that I announced yesterday are not work camps; they are simply moving forward in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources those projects that we ordinarily do in the national parks, with one exception, the Mackenzie highway, which I described separately. Therefore, it is a question of taking ordinary work and moving it forward. As the hon. member knows, we have not too many national parks in the central provinces.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twil-lingate):: May I ask a supplementary question. Has the minister any estimate as to the number of jobs there will be in the Terra Nova park?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Terra Nova project comes under several headings on my plan sheet. Therefore I shall have to speak subject to correction. However, I do not think the error will be serious. I would say roughly on the one project at Terra Nova there will be about 75 men. There is another project here under "roads and trails" which might add something to that number, but I would say that 75 would be about the estimate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I congratulate the minister.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question also. Is there any mention of Fundy national park there?


Mr. Chevrier:: Next sitting of the house.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to get all this attention. There are several projects in Fundy. One project will take 150 men and another project about 20 men. I do not know how many will come under "miscellaneous projects". That gives a total of approximately 170 in that area.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, of which I gave him oral notice, following the statement he made earlier today as to the welcome decision of Canadian National Railways to go in for

certain special projects. In view of the lay-offs that have taken place during the fall and winter at the Fort Rouge and Transcona shops of the Canadian National Railways, why did this statement not include the announcement of some special projects for those two shops as well?


George Harris Hees: This was an announcement made by Canadian National Railways today, and I simply repeated it in the house. I shall be glad to communicate with the management of Canadian National Railways to see if something can be done in Winnipeg.



MISSION TO UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but first let me tell him that we are happy to see him back in the house and to welcome him here-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lionel Chevrier: -after what appears to have been a successful trip. I do hope the mission is more successful in fact than in appearance, but I listened with care to the news report broadcast this morning wherein I thought I understood the minister to state, among other things, that he did not think purchases made in the United Kingdom were going to take business away from Canadian firms. In view of that statement I would like to ask this question. Has the minister any estimate of the amount of trade which has already been diverted from the United States to the United Kingdom because of the trade mission?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Laurier for his kind welcome back to the house and for his complimentary remarks on a mission which achieved a success in Great Britain beyond all expectation.
I am unable to give him the information he is now seeking because we have not assembled the full information from the members of the mission who were over there. A certain number of orders were placed and others are being contemplated, but what those amount to in the diversion of orders from the United States to the United Kingdom will have to be determined later.
We stressed throughout the course of the mission that we were aiming at long-term results, and that we could not assess the success of the mission merely on what orders might be placed this month or next.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for the answer the minister is able to give, but as I followed the results of the mission there were, it appeared to me, three orders which were of consequence by way of purchases from the United Kingdom, that of the HydroElectric Power Commission of Ontario, that of the Canadian National Railways and that of the B.C. Packers, the latter for tin plate. I would like to ask the minister if he can assure the house that this tin plate order could not have been produced in Hamilton.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the particulars of the order the hon. member has mentioned, and I have no information on that particular subject at this moment.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: May
I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand that an office is to be established in the city of Ottawa to encourage British sales in Canada? The question I have in mind is this. Will this office also promote orders for sales to the United Kingdom or encourage two-way trade? Is this merely an office to promote the sales of British goods in Canada, or is it a reciprocal arrangement which will also promote the sale of Canadian goods in Britain?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the establishment of an office in Ottawa, which I announced when we landed at Dor-val yesterday, is to complete the work of the mission. The members of the mission are preparing reports which will be sent in to this office, and those reports will be analysed and summarized. A general report of the work of the mission in its entirety will be published, and all that will take some time.
In order to make an immediate start I thought it wise to set up an office in the building now occupied by the Department of Trade and Commerce, No. 1 building on Wellington street. I have placed in charge of that office Mr. Peter Stursberg, who rendered invaluable assistance to the mission while it was in the United Kingdom. He, along with Mr. Parlour of the trade and commerce department who acted as secretary of the mission while it was overseas, will maintain contact with the members of the mission and with their counterparts in the United Kingdom, and in the course of four to six weeks will assemble all the information, which will then be incorporated in the report. At the same time that office will provide any immediate information which may be required' by people in the United Kingdom. I did not conceive it as being a permanent office, as: one of the articles in one of the papers indicated. It is for the purpose of completing the task of the mission.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister will remember that before he went to England I asked him whether he was going to take advantage of his visit not only to head the official trade mission, but more particularly-and I think the house will regard this as more important-whether he was going to discuss with the British government its proposal for freer trade arrangements between Canada and the United Kingdom, and whether or not he was going to take advantage of his visit to give more precise information about the Canadian proposal made by the Prime Minister for the transfer of purchases from one country to another.
Can the minister say now whether or not he has had discussions about these two important proposals with members of the British government, and can he give the Canadian people some information as a result of those discussions?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I think everyone appreciates the interest of the hon. member for Essex East in stimulating trade. I did not have the opportunity which he thought perhaps I might have to discuss with the United Kingdom government these important and weighty problems. The mission had two distinct objectives. One was to investigate thoroughly the productive capacity of British industry, and the second was to draw to the attention of the people in the United Kingdom the great advantages that lie ahead for Canada.
We visited 100 manufacturing establishments in the United Kingdom; we travelled about 1,500 miles through England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Our time was fully occupied in making that investigation, in discussing with British businessmen their problems and pointing out to them the advantages that lie ahead in this country. When you consider that more than 1,200 British firms asked permission to meet and talk with members of our mission you will fully appreciate that we did not have much time for any other activities.
Hundreds of those who asked to see the members of our mission were accommodated in London, in Manchester, in Glasgow and in Leeds, and sat down and talked in small conference groups or face to face with members of our mission. I participated in some of these conferences; but with all this activity going on-and the hon. member for Essex East has been on various missions abroad himself-he will fully appreciate that there was not an opportunity to discuss at great length, as would be necessary, the problems

involved in his question with regard to trade with the United Kingdom along the lines he was suggesting.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further supplementary question. I thank the minister for his statement in which he said he discussed trade problems with officials of the British government and with private individuals. May I ask him whether he is in a position now to say whether the government is giving serious consideration to the British proposal, which I understand is the only way by which the proposal made by the Prime Minister could be validated under GATT?


Mr. Green:: Well, that is a speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What did we have from the minister?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not object to commenting at length on any of these questions if that is desired.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; I think it is good.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have not had an opportunity to confer with my colleagues, as the hon. member for Essex East well knows, due to a considerable absence from Ottawa, and I am not at this moment in a position to give an answer to his question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Laurier has asked for restrictions on purchases abroad and the hon. member for Essex East has asked for free trade, can the Minister of Trade and Commerce say just what it is he is being expected to reply to?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman from Winnipeg North Centre obviously did not listen to my questions. There is no doubt where I stand as to the desirability of freer trade, but that was not the question I asked. The question I asked was what is the government's policy with regard to this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is hardly a point of order.


Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I should like to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could he advise the house as to the cost of this buying mission to the Canadian government?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker, not at the present time. That will come later.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All bills do.

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil- of goods to this country because there is an lingale):	A supplementary question, Mr. imbalance in our trade as far as they are
Speaker. Could I ask the Minister of Trade concerned. They buy $2 worth of goods for and Commerce if he does not think that, in every $1 that we spend in the United King-view of the fact that this office he is setting dom. Naturally in the course of these con-up here in Ottawa is for the purpose of versations people discussed the expansion diverting trade, it would have been more of Canada's trade with the United Kingdom, appropriate to have put a businessman at its and I think that is precisely what Mr. head rather than a publicity man?	Ouimet was dealing with.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think not, Mr. Speaker. We have made considerable contacts with very experienced businessmen, all of whom, the hon. member will discover, were very much impressed with the activities of the mission in England and thought it was an excellent idea. Mr. Stursberg is well acquainted with these businessmen and has their entire confidence.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce another question arising out of the mission to Britain. I hold in my hand a copy of La Presse for Thursday evening which reports a statement made by Mr. Ouimet, one of the members of the mission and a person whom I know very well, in which he pays some tribute to the mission. Perhaps I could just preface my question with what is said. Mr. Ouimet is reported as saying:
(Translation):
The month-long journey in British territory by the 58 members of the mission was very successful and interesting in more than one respect.
The mission, stated Mr. Ouimet, "really sold Canada, a land with a great future, which ranks among the world's largest importers."
(Text):
This is the question, which I shall read in French and then translate:
Le but principal du voyage n'etait pas d'acheter de la marchandise mais plutfit de rencontrer des industriels britanniques et leur faire part du besoin de notre pays d'exporter.
"The principal object of the trip was not to buy merchandise or commodities, but rather to meet British industrialists and to advise them of the needs of our country to export." Does this statement meet with the minister's understanding of the objective of the mission to the United Kingdom?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, of course I shall have to check the original to see whether the hon. member's translation is accurate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Ouimet was a very distinguished and competent member of our mission and was of great assistance to us during the course of our tour. I think perhaps he has not been quoted in full because, as was stated time and time again, we were urging the people in the United Kingdom to take a more active part in the exporting


George Carlyle Marler: I think the minister needs to read the paper again.



BASE METALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a question to that industrious minister whose modest use of the words, "devotion", duty, destiny and dedication" we all appreciate, the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Has the government recently received any representations from representatives of employers or employees in the base metal mining industry urging retaliatory measures against the United States threat to increase tariffs on non-ferrous metals? If so, is the government giving consideration to such proposals?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member caught me off guard, because I did not recognize that his introduction could possibly apply to me. I have not had time to check all the material that has reached the office in my absence, and I am not sure whether such representations have been made.



IMPORT PERMITS FOR COMMODITIES UNDER FLOOR PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Ont.):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I appreciate the fact that the minister has been absent from the house, but the question might be answered by the Minister of Agriculture because it affects his department as well. Has any import permit been issued by the government for the importation of any commodity or commodities that have established floor prices?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what period the hon. member refers. I would think if he tied his question to a certain period we would be in a better position to answer it. I do not recall any import permits having been issued within the last short period, though there may have been.


Edward Blake Huffman: I meant since June 21, under the present government.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is the sort of question that might very well be put on the order paper, because it is just for general information.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS WITH SPAIN AND POLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Peter Stefura (Vegreville):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. For the last two weeks or so we have had trade delegations from Spain and Poland in our country who desire to buy our Canadian wheat. Can the minister tell us what negotiations, if any, have been completed and what was the nature of those negotiations?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I think no public announcement should be made with regard to negotiations such as these until they are complete. I have nothing to report to the hon. member at the moment.


Peter Stefura: On December 7 the minister stated that he might consider the acceptance of soft currency from these different countries. Is that being considered in these cases?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I certainly expressed it as "might" and did not express it as "will", as I noticed it in press reports. I said that the acceptance of soft currency to me was equivalent to a loan, and what I was saying in those remarks was that the question of loans might have to be seriously considered in negotiations with certain countries which have not been in the past cash customers for Canadian wheat.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. Has the Acting Prime Minister considered the petition dated December 11 addressed to the Prime Minister regarding the settlers in the Bow river project, Hays area, Alberta? If so, will the minister assure the house that steps will be taken immediately to allow these farmers to obtain economic farm units? If not, would the minister look into the matter as soon as possible?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture will deal with that question.
[Mr. Huffman.)


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have not the
particular petition referred to. I will be glad to look into the matter when and if I receive it. However, I think the matter referred to is one which was contained in a long letter addressed to the Prime Minister and forwarded to me containing numerous but confused complaints with regard to the difficulty of a certain family group at Hays. I might say that those complaints were investigated by the local of the Alberta farm union at Hays, and the local did not seem to think there was very much in them.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The petition to which I am referring is not a family affair. It is signed by 104 farmers in that area.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Probably it is a different matter, and I shall be very glad indeed to look into it.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lomer Brisson (Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the statement made yesterday by the minister that the Canadian National Railways is studying a proposal for the construction of a railway line between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts, will the minister give consideration to the construction of a railway line on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, east from Murray Bay, extending through Baie Comeau and Seven Islands, which is required because of the tremendous development of natural resources in that area?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, this government is willing to consider any sensible proposition that is put forward to it, and if the people of that area present a brief, urging study of such a project, the government will be glad to study it when it is received.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask
a supplementary question. May I remind the minister that this railway to which the hon. member has reference was brought to the attention of the Gordon commission and representations were made on that occasion. Therefore I think the minister can get a detailed statement of the proposal there.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the former minister what was the attitude of the former government toward that proposal?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.

Inquiries of the Ministry TELEVISION


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: I will be delighted to answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I must declare the question out of order. It is no longer the responsibility of the former minister.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has a public inquiry been held into the disaster which occurred to the Maritime Airways plane some time ago in the province of Quebec? If so, will the report be tabled in the house?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, that inquiry will be conducted, but it has been held up due to the fact that this was an accident in which there was practically nothing left that could form reasonable evidence from which the reason for the crash could be deduced. It has been necessary to bring out from England a specialist to examine what evidence has been brought forward so far, and it is expected that the public inquiry will start some time soon after the new year. I can assure the hon. member and the house that it is the desire of my department and the board of inquiry that is to sit on this question to have the matter examined just as soon as possible.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister able to confirm or deny the report that nuclear weapons are being transported by Canadian or foreign aircraft over Canadian territory? If such is the case, is this being done with the agreement and consent of the Canadian government?


Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Acting Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question should be answered by the minister himself when he returns. Although I am in a position to give an answer I would prefer that it be dealt with by the minister, in view of the fact that he will be back within the next few hours.



CORNER BROOK, NFLD.  REQUEST FOR COVERAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Can the Minister of National Revenue give any information concerning what provision is being made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for television coverage in the city of Corner Brook, Newfoundland?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is conducting surveys and making preliminary plans for the extension of television in various centres of the country, including the area to which the hon. member has referred. No specific commitment can be made until the corporation's appropriations have been approved by parliament for the forthcoming year.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the Minister of Transport could tell the house what progress has been made by his department in arranging for the transformation of the Newfoundland railway to standard gauge, as was promised by the Prime Minister in St. John's before the election?


Howard Charles Green: Why did you not do it?


George Carlyle Marler: We never promised it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We did not promise it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me, with all due respect to the hon. gentleman and his interest in this matter, that it is not urgent. It has been under consideration for some time and possibly will be for some further time. I think it might go on the order paper.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I defer to you, sir.



STATEMENT AS TO DISTRIBUTION OF PARLIAMENTARY GUIDE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Verdun asked a question with regard to the distribution of the Parliamentary Guide. As hon. members are probably aware, this is published by a private individual. We have made inquiries, and find it will probably be ready for distribution toward the end of January.

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL REVENUE



REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN SHIPS STORES REGULATIONS RESPECTING TOBACCO AND CIGARETTES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister give consideration to extending the ships stores regulations to include tobacco and cigarettes for deep sea fishermen who spend more than 10 days at sea on any one voyage?


George Clyde Nowlan: The regulations are being amended at the moment, and I am making a submission to council in that respect. I am prepared to recommend that the regulations be amended with respect to cigarettes, tobacco and cigars for fishermen who spend more than 10 days at sea.



DISABLED PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Have the regulations under the Disabled Persons Act, which I believe were amended just before the former government went out of office, been revised or amended since the act itself was amended? If not, is this matter under consideration with the provinces?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minisier of National Health and Welfare):: I think I had better take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I cannot give the hon. member a direct answer at the moment.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on October 29 the Minister of Transport stated that his department was considering lengthening the runways at the Medicine Hat airport. Can the minister say what action has now been taken to have this work done as soon as possible?


George Harris Hees: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The construction program for next year is being reviewed to see what projects could be speeded up by an earlier start, but no decision has yet been reached with regard to Medicine Hat.
[Mrs. Fairclough.l



AGRICULTURE


Douglas Scott Harkness: the second reading of Bill No. 237, for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the stage at which the general principle of the legislation before the house is debated. For this bill the principle is to establish a flexible agricultural price support program which will provide a guaranteed yearly price for any-and I should like to stress the word "any"-agricultural commodity for which such a guaranteed price may be required; and further, to provide an ultimate security feature which will ensure that, as far as nine key agricultural commodities are concerned, a mandatory floor will be in effect at all times. Both these levels of support are to be related to a moving average formula.
The guarantees provided to Canadian farmers by this bill are much greater than anything they have ever had before, and these guarantees are implicit in the bill. However, concern has been expressed by members of parliament of this party representing rural constituencies and by officials of farm organizations that these guarantees are not spelled out in sufficient detail in the bill, and that this omission has led to misunderstanding as to what the bill can and will do for our farmers.
In order to remove any doubts as to what is intended I am quite willing to spell out the guarantees which are implicit in the bill. To this end I have consulted officials of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and of the farm unions, and have asked them for their opinions and recommendations as to how they think the legislation can be improved within the general principle of the bill of providing a flexible price support system.
Having held these various consultations, I am prepared at the committee of the whole stage to move, or rather I should say to have moved, amendments along the following lines. First, the inclusion of a preamble in these words:
Whereas it is expedient to enact a measure for the purpose of stabilizing the prices of agricultural commodities in order to assist the industry of agriculture to realize fair returns for its labour and investment, and to maintain a fair relationship between prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods and services that they buy: Therefore-
And then comes the usual enactment phrase. This preamble has been put in so it will serve to indicate clearly the nature and purpose of the act, to the end that there

will be no ambiguity whatever as to what is intended by the act and what its purpose is.
Second, to add a new subsection to section 2 to read:
(2) In prescribing a percentage of the base price of an agricultural commodity under subparagraph (i) or (ii) of paragraph (e) of subsection (1), the governor in council shall have regard to the estimated average cost of production of the commodity, and such other factors as the governor in council considers to be relevant.
The addition of this new subsection will make it clear that the cost of production is the most important factor to be taken into consideration in setting the guaranteed annual price.
Third, in connection with the make-up of the advisory committee, I have been informed that some doubt existed because of the wording there, as to whether the members of that committee would be all farmers or representative of farm organizations. To remove any doubt along that line the proposal is to strike out the words "include representation from" and make the clause read:
5. (1) The minister shall appoint an advisory committee, consisting of a chairman and at least six, but not more than nine, other members, composed of farmers and representatives of farm organizations.
As I said, that change is in order to make it absolutely clear that the advisory committee will be made up of farmers or their representatives from farm organizations.
Fourth, to add to subclause (1) of clause 7 in order to make it read:
The board shall from time to time in accordance with this act take such action as is necessary to stabilize the prices of agricultural commodities at their respective prescribed prices-
And this is the part which is added:
-and shall take such action and make such recommendations as are necessary to ensure that the prescribed prices for an agricultural commodity in effect from time to time shall bear a fair relationship to the base price for such commodity.
This wording has been added in order to ensure that the guaranteed yearly prices will be at an adequate level.
In addition to the representations that the guarantees in regard to the annual guaranteed prices were not spelled out sufficiently, the advice I have received is that the use of the three-year moving average as the means of determining the base price is viewed with disfavour at the present time because the prices during the past three years have not been satisfactory. As far as the general principle of this bill is concerned, it does not matter whether the formula used is the three-year moving average, a five-year moving average, or a ten-year moving average. I personally favour the three-year moving average formula, as I believe that over the
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization long term it would prove more satisfactory and provide greater assistance to farmers than a five or ten-year base period.
However, in view of the recommendations of the farm organizations, and because the use of a 10-year moving average will now include five years of the highest prices which farmers have received-that is the period from 1948 to 1952-the government is prepared to amend the bill to provide for the use of a 10-year moving average as the base period rather than the three-year moving average. All that is required to do is to substitute the word "ten" for the word "three" where it appears in section 8 of the bill.
I think it is apparent that the willingness we have shown to consult with farm organizations and to make amendments to improve the bill in line with their thinking shows that this government takes no hard and fast take it or leave it attitude in regard to this very important matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It demonstrates that we are prepared to go to any possible limit to meet the needs and desires of farmers within the general principle of putting into effect a flexible support system which will be practical and workable.
The general position taken by the right hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) and the Liberal party at the resolution stage of this legislation was that it does no more for the farmers than the Agricultural Prices Support Act which they introduced, and is probably not as good. I do not think any farmer who studies this legislation will agree with that contention.
There are, in particular, four very important differences between this legislation and the legislation we have had in effect so far. First of all, this legislation provides a formula to serve as a basis for setting support prices, and it will be possible to get some system into the type of support prices and the level of those support prices which have been set. Under the present legislation the comparatively small number of products which were put under price support were put on the level provided for them on an entirely ad hoc basis, and those supports were put on one level for one commodity which bore no relationship whatever to that put on for another commodity.
Second, this legislation provides quite definitely for an advisory committee, composed and representative of farmers, for the specific purpose of advising as to what commodities should be under price support and
2654	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization the level of the guaranteed yearly price to be provided for them. The old legislation did contain provision for the board to appoint an advisory committee, and there was in fact an advisory committee. That committee was not, however, for the specific purpose of advising the board in regard to price support legislation, but was a carry-over from an advisory committee which had existed during the war. It was under the price support board, apparently only for what you might call a lack of any other place to put it.
The committee which has been in existence consisted of the deputy ministers of agriculture of the various provinces and some representatives of farm organizations. It met twice a year as a rule, though sometimes only once a year. It met for two days, gave advice on general agricultural questions, discussed general agricultural problems, and then made certain recommendations to the government; but as I say, it was not a committee for the specific purpose of advising in regard to the commodities which should be under price support and the levels of those supports.
The third main difference between this legislation and what we have had previously is that it provides for a guaranteed yearly price to be set one year in advance. Once they are set they are to remain in effect for the following 12 months. The old legislation contained no such provision, and nothing along that line is really done under it. Very frequently a price support was set for two or three months or something along that line; otherwise it was just set and there was no term provided, and it could be cut off at any moment.
There has been a very strong demand on the part of the farmers that the level of price supports should be known to them; that they should know when the supports are going to be in effect and what the levels are going to be during that period so that they as farmers may plan their operations accordingly. This legislation makes that provision.
The fourth main difference is that this legislation provides an ultimate security feature. It provides for a mandatory floor at all times on nine key commodities. The old legislation provided for no mandatory floors at all, and was not comparable to or in line with this in any way whatsoever.
The C.C.F. and Social Credit groups at the resolution stage criticized this bill because it has no rigid formula. That, in effect, is what most of their criticism boiled down to. An examination of what has happened in the
[Mr. Harkness.l

countries where a rigid formula has been tried is a sufficient answer to that. I would just like to quote a little in regard to what has happened in the United States under a rigid price support formula to give to the house some indication of how very badly this has worked out. This particular document in my hand is a copy of a speech delivered by the secretary of agriculture for the United States, Mr. Benson, before an agricultural banquet at Iowa state college on December 5 of this year, just a short time ago. The first page is a summary and the rest is his speech itself. He states:
The only way in which price support by rigid-


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The minister is now proceeding to discuss a bill which in some important particulars will not be the bill which will be finally passed, and I would refer you to Beauchesne's third edition, page 231, citation 666, which reads as follows:
It may become necessary, before the second reading of a bill, to make considerable changes in its provisions, which can only be accomplished, at this stage, by discharging the order for the second reading and withdrawing the bill.
It strikes me that the very consequential amendments which the minister indicates will be moved are changes in the bill which are so substantial that hon. members of this house will be discussing, when the minister sits down, a bill which is not the bill that the government now recommends and which we are going to finally pass. Consequently it seems to me that in order to facilitate the business of the house the only thing to do is to withdraw the bill, discharge it, and introduce a new bill which will give hon. members an opportunity of discussing the matter intelligently.
Member after member will rise in this house and discuss a bill which has been distributed and which, Mr. Speaker, according to the statement of the minister this morning, will not be the bill that will go into committee, let alone come out of it, because he has already told us that in certain important particulars the bill will not be the same. Consequently at second reading we can scarcely discuss a bill which is to be amended so fundamentally and which will no longer be the bill we are going to discuss this morning.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you would like to discuss this matter now, but I am raising it at this time in order that the matter may be considered.


Mr. Speaker:: Before another hon. member speaks, may I ask the minister whether he

has any intention, when he finishes his remarks, of substituting another bill at this stage. What is his plan of procedure?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker. Speaking on the point of order, I think none of the objections which the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar has taken apply. As I stated in the earlier part of my speech, I was merely indicating that I was prepared to move amendments which would spell out the guarantees which are implicit in the bill, and I put considerable emphasis, you will perhaps remember, Mr. Speaker, on that point. I indicated also that the change from the three-year moving average to the ten-year moving average makes no change in the principle of the bill whatever. As far as the principle of the bill is concerned, which is to introduce a flexible price support system, whether you use a three, four, five, six, or ten-year moving average makes no difference.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Do you want to hold it up?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The result is, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments which I indicated the government is quite prepared to move have no effect on the general principle of the bill and there is no necessity for a new bill. This is merely a matter of writing in in more explicit terms the guarantees which are already there, and which are implicit in the bill, and of substituting one year-period for a different period.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I point out one or two things in connection with this point of order which has been raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar? It is the accepted practice in this house for the government to move amendments to a government bill while it is in the committee stage. Last evening the Minister of Veterans Affairs introduced several amendments to the bill which was amending the Pension Act, and those amendments were moved at the committee stage. This is done time after time, and I really am puzzled about the objective of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar when he raises a point of order of this kind on this particular bill.
The Minister of Agriculture need not have mentioned that there would be any amendments at all during this second reading stage of the debate; he could have waited until we were in committee, but in order to be absolutely fair to the hon. members of the house and tell them what he had in mind by way of amendments, at the opening of
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization his remarks he said very frankly exactly what he is proposing to do. That was done many times by the former government, and it is a practice adopted so as to be fair to opposition parties.
For that reason the Minister of Agriculture has followed this same procedure today; and I do submit, Mr. Speaker, that for the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to take that courtesy shown to the house as a foundation for an argument that the bill should now be withdrawn is really going very much further than any of the rules of the house have ever contemplated.
I suggest that what the Minister of Agriculture is now doing is the sensible and fair thing. He is perfectly in order in carrying on with his speech, just as the members of all three opposition parties would be in order in carrying on and debating the bill and at the same time dealing with the proposals he has mentioned.


Mr. Louis Denisei (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, it would be easier at least if we could have copies of these proposed amendments made available immediately so we would know what we are talking about; and possibly the minister would agree to adjourn the debate until later on in the day in order that hon. members may have a chance to study these amendments.


Howard Charles Green: We never give copies in advance of amendments to be moved in committee. The government did not have to say one word about these amendments until second reading was over.


An hon. Member:: But they did.


Lionel Chevrier: On the
point of order, Mr. Speaker, I object to what the hon. gentleman has just said, and particularly to the manner in which he has said it. Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture- I should like to be allowed to proceed, Mr. Speaker, but if there are others over there who want to obstruct me, then it is all right.


Mr. Speaker:: I should appreciate it if all hon. members would direct their remarks to the point of order which is before the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Speaking to the point of order I should like to say this; that yesterday the hon. member for Melville asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture dealing with a press report in the Montreal Gazette in which it was announced in advance what is being done this morning. The details now being discussed were contained in the newspaper article. The hon. minister at that time answered this:
Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman knows that any announcements with regard to government decisions or policies will be made in the
2656	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization house in due course, and not as a consequence of confirming or denying speculative reports in newspapers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well?


Lionel Chevrier: That sounded pretty well, but in effect what is happening, what has been stated this morning, is a confirmation of what we read in the press yesterday, which is in entire contradiction to what the leader of the house says now.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is straying from the point of order. He is discussing something that was done yesterday. The question before the house is whether the amendments which have been proposed, or rather the amendments which it is the intention of the Minister of Agriculture to propose, make such changes in the character or the principle of the bill that it would not be fair to debate the principle without having those amendments before the house.
I do not believe I can make a decision at the moment on that point, but perhaps I could give my preliminary thoughts on the matter. I know hon. members do not wish to delay the consideration of this legislation because of a technical objection. If there is an objection of substance we must, of course, deal with it so the house may have a fair opportunity to consider the bill. But I wonder whether the proposed amendments, which seem to me to be fairly precise-as I recall it there were five points in a bill of 17 sections- could be reduced to writing and distributed to the house before the debate resumes after lunch. It may be, as has been suggested by the minister, that they are not of such a novel character as to change the principle of the bill, and the debate could then proceed without any unfairness.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, [ think the point raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was well taken. At the present time we have the bill before us. The minister has referred to certain amendments, and these amendments are not before rs at the present time. But we are supposed :o debate the bill as it is, not as it may be, and I think the suggestion made by Your Honour is a good one. If these amendments could be printed and distributed to us and the debate then resumed I think most of the objections could be overcome, but I certainly think it is a mistake to continue to debate this bill until such time as these amendments are before us.


Major James William Coldwell: I think that would be more satisfactory than anything else.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I was not in the house when this point of order was first raised but I


do know, and this is within the recollection of many hon, members, of numerous occasions when bills have been introduced and after their introduction, at this stage, the minister in charge has given notice of amendments which he proposes to ask one of his colleagues to move in committee.
It seems to be an eminently sensible arrangement, a much fairer thing to do at this stage than to wait until we are in committee and do it then.
The point of order therefore seems to be solely whether the proposed amendments are of such a character that they take the bill outside the scope of the preliminary resolution; and I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, that they do not have that effect and that they are perfectly in order.
All that is being done now is that as a matter of courtesy the minister is giving notice of his intention to move amendments in committee. If he had not given such notice we would later be accused of taking* the house by surprise, and of being unfair to parliament. It seems to me that the sensible thing to do is to proceed with the debate. I am quite certain that my colleague the Minister of Agriculture will be willing to prepare copies of the proposed amendments so they will. be in the hands of party leaders and spokesmen within a matter of a very few minutes. Surely the sensible course to follow is to accept the notice now and go on with the debate.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to what you had to say a few moments ago I am inclined to think that we should have the amendments in our hands as soon as possible, indicating exactly what is being suggested by way of those changes. I do not wish at this time to be a party to holding up the discussion or stopping it. As a matter of fact the action I took yesterday in asking questions was in order to avoid that very thing. We all know what the rule is, and it is purely a question as to whether or not the principle of the bill has been changed in what is being suggested. I am inclined to think it has, but that is a matter which will be settled by Mr. Speaker himself when he looks into the matter fully; therefore I am not going to argue that question further.
My object yesterday in asking the question was to have the bill distributed in its new form before we reached this point at all. If that had been done the question would not have been raised by anyone. I still think the answer given yesterday was not in accordance with what has turned up today, and therefore I suggest that probably, as you have suggested, it is the proper thing for the minister

to go on and finish his speech. I had intended to follow him. I do not know whether I should be expected to do that before I see the terms of the new measure.


An hon. Member:: You should not be.


James Garfield Gardiner: But whatever your ruling is on the matter, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to follow it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might make a suggestion. I agree with Your Honour's contention that what has to be determined is whether or not the changes proposed by the Minister of Agriculture are substantial. I suggest that if in your opinion they are substantial you will have to have regard to the point of order raised on the basis of citation 666 of Beauchesne's third edition. If they are not substantial, then I think Your Honour will agree that as a matter of courtesy the amendments the minister proposed to have made in committee should be reduced to some sort of written form and placed in the hands of hon. members before they are asked to proceed with the debate.
The point raised by my leader may be construed as an attempt to delay debate. May I make it clear that the citation which he read from Beauchesne's third edition is taken from pages 388 and 389 of May's thirteenth edition, where May says:
It may become necessary, before the second reading of a bill, to make considerable changes in its provisions, which can only be accomplished, at this stage, by discharging the order for the second reading and withdrawing the bill.
Let me read on in this paragraph:
If a change of title be necessary, the practice is to order the bill to be withdrawn, and to move subsequently for leave to bring in another bill: but where the bill is withdrawn, for the purpose of making numerous amendments, without any change of title, a simpler form of proceeding is adopted. Upon the withdrawal of the first bill, a motion is made forthwith that leave be given "to present another bill instead thereof".
I wish to make it clear that if my leader's point of order was sustained that would not mean we would have to conduct a brand new debate at the resolution stage. It would simply mean the simple process of withdrawing this bill and asking leave of the house to present, in the words of May, "another bill instead thereof."
As I say, I agree thoroughly with your position that the decision you make will turn upon your view as to whether or not the changes are substantial. If they are substantial I suggest that May will have to be followed. If they are not substantial, then all that is needed is the courtesy of a written statement as to what are the changes the government propose.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, on this point I do not think your attention should be directed to the word "substantial". Reading from Beauchesne's third edition, citation 347 at page 138, the words used there are "to the granting or enacting". I think these are the important words and not the word "substantial" which has been referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, if I may
speak again on the point of order, I think the material and important thing here is that these amendments which I have indicated we are ready to move in committee of the whole do not change the principle of the bill in any particular whatever. The principle of the bill remains exactly the same.
There are two types of amendments, or perhaps I should say the amendments seek to do two things. The first group of amendments which I said we were willing to have moved are designed to spell out in explicit terms the guarantees which I say are absolutely implicit in the bill in any event, and are merely for the purpose of removing any doubt or ambiguity which may exist as to what is the purpose of the bill. The second amendment is merely a matter of changing in the bill the word "three" to the word "ten" so the base period of the formula contained in the bill will be on a ten-year moving average rather than a three-year moving average.
As I pointed out, as far as putting into effect a flexible price support system is concerned it makes no difference whatever what particular period of years you take as the base period for your moving average.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, just one word before you make your ruling. I certainly would not want to hold up the discussion of the bill, but I think we have to take under very careful consideration what has been cited from Beauchesne's third edition in citation 666. This citation does not refer in any way to the principle of the bill or changes in the principle of the bill. The citation makes reference to considerable changes in the provisions of the bill. All the discussion thus far on the part of hon. members of the government has centred around whether or not there are changes in the principle of this bill. I simply point out to you, sir, that the citation is worded as follows:
It may become necessary, before the second reading of a bill, to make considerable changes in its provisions, which can only be accomplished, at this stage, by discharging the order for the second reading and withdrawing the bill.

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
I contend that the amendments proposed by the minister constitute considerable changes in the bill. To refer to only one he suggested, I think as the second amendment he is prepared to propose a new subsection, and that new subsection refers to a "having regard" provision to the estimated average cost of production, which was not contained in the old bill at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Either it is a change or it is not.


Solon Earl Low: Either it is a substantial change or it is not. As far as I am concerned it is substantial enough to warrant asking the minister to provide the members with a written statement of the changes he proposes before we have to debate the principle of the bill.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have already asked my colleague to take out the notes I have and get the changes which are proposed mimeographed so they will be ready for distribution as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the assistance I have had from all sides of the house on this point. I think it is an important point. I am not disposed to rule the minister out of order in this debate on second reading, though I think he comes pretty close to being out of order in discussing particular sections of the bill which it is necessary for him to do in giving a forecast of his amendments.
However, I am not prepared to deal with the ruling at this moment. With the leave of the house I should like to defer that question until after luncheon and allow the minister to proceed with his address. As the house knows, we are to have royal assent at a quarter to one. Perhaps the right hon. member for Melville may not have to begin before that time. I shall reserve my decision and give it right after the noon adjournment.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: When the minister prepares the amendments for distribution will he make enough copies so that all members can have one, because if just the leaders get them other hon. members will not know what they contain.


Mr. Speaker:: He will do the best he can, and we shall consider the position we have before us at that time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: At the time I was interrupted I was just going to quote certain statements made by the secretary of agriculture of the United States to indicate what great difficulties their rigid support system has got them into, and the desire which exists

in that country to get away from a rigid price support system. The quotation I just started to read is as follows:
The only way in which price support by rigid formula can be made to work-even in the short run-is by effective control over production, so that gluts in the market are rather quickly removed and supply is rapidly adjusted to what the market will take. We have no such control over production today.
That is in spite of the fact that they had very considerable controls as far as acreage quotas were concerned, and things of that sort. I do not think there is any farmer in this country who wants us to put into effect a system under which he is told how many acres of barley or any other commodity he can plant, or how much livestock he can raise of a particular kind. To put into effect and even attempt to make work a rigid system of price support, something along that line is necessary.
Mr. Benson went on and said:
Price supports "used in a manner that fits today's conditions" have an important function in agriculture, but that he does not believe in supports which price products out of markets, build up unmanageable surpluses and force controls on farmers which make their farms inefficient.
Stating that many people "have the false impression that most agricultural prices and incomes are government supported", he points out that items from "only 13 crops, plus dairy products and wool, are in government inventory-out of about 250 commodities that farmers produce". He adds that wheat and cotton account for over 48 per cent of price support costs. "Is it good for agriculture", he asks, "that more than four-fifths (82.2 per cent) of these price support costs should go to the producers of four commodities? Is it good for agriculture as a whole that nearly four-fifths (79 per cent) of these price support costs should go to about one-fourth of our farms?"
That is one of the further difficulties so far as a rigid price support system is concerned. You have a rigid formula which is laid down by law. You cannot alter it, and you get all kinds of anomalies. The way in which it has worked out over there, as he indicates, is that four-fifths of the money paid out for price supports has gone to only one-fourth of their farmers. Mr. Benson summarizes these various difficulties in two short statements, one of which appears on page 5 and the other a little later. These are his words in summarizing really the disadvantages of a rigid price support system:
I say again that price supports-used in a manner that fits today's conditions-do have an important function in agriculture.
We believe that, and that is why we have this bill before us at the present time. He goes on:
But I do not believe in price supports set at levels which price our products out of markets that farmers must have.
I do not believe in price supports which build up unmanageable surpluses that depress prices and cost millions to store.

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
No, I do not believe in price supports which force controls upon farmers, making their farms inefficient, and which chase acres out of one crop only to dump both the acres and surplus problems on other crops.
I can quite understand that the C.C.F. party does believe in this control. They are a party who believe in a socialized country and a socialized industry, and I can quite understand that they would like to have a socialized agriculture, and to have controls of all sorts as far as agriculture is concerned. But I do not think very many farmers in this country believe in it, and I am quite sure very few if any farmers would agree to acreage controls and to be told what they could plant, how much of it, and so forth.


Mr. Ellis:: Tell the whole story.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Furthermore, Mr. Benson
goes on in his speech and says:
Farmers must have freedom to plant, freedom to market, agriculture is dynamic. It cannot be dynamic in a price support straitjacket.
The type of price support system which the hon. members in that corner of the house are advocating is a support straitjacket.


An hon. Member:: Very good for the
farmer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is a rigid type of support system which would get this country into unbelievable difficulties.


Alfred Claude Ellis: What do the farmers think of Mr. Benson?


Mr. Castleden:: What difficulties are the farmers in now?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is one other statement in this speech which I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members, and it is found on page 9. Mr. Benson says:
I know how the human mind longs for panaceas. Nobody would welcome an honest to goodness genuine agricultural panacea more warmly than I- but there just isn't any such animal.
Well, I would most sincerely re-echo those words. There is nobody who would welcome a real panacea for agriculture any more than I would, but there just is no such thing. As I pointed out when we were dealing with this particular bill at the resolution stage, no one bill can be a cure-all for all of the difficulties which beset agriculture in this country and in other countries at the present time; but this bill is, I think, a big step forward in order to assist farmers along the road to the place where agriculture will be in a healthy situation.
I noticed that somebody down in that corner was asking what the farmers think of Mr. Benson, and so on and so forth. I should like to just read something in connection
with what the farm bureau, which is the biggest farm organization in the United States, has to say in connection with these matters. This is a quotation from a newspaper dated December 12, and reads as follows:
A farm bureau scheme which would scrap parity as a "fair" yardstick for pegging the level at which the U.S. supports farm prices, and let market prices seek their own level, with government price props geared to stay 10 per cent below the market average of the previous three years.
In other words, the farm bureau over there now is talking of a three-year moving average formula instead of the rigid formula which they have had.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Would the minister permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will when I have finished. I should like to finish what I have to say at the moment.
Then this report goes on:
Although the farm bureau helped push the administration's present farm program through congress, it's "a demonstrated failure", concedes Charles B. Shuman, bureau president. His organization, which represents 1.6 million farmers and claims to be the country's largest farm group, wants an "entirely new concept of price supports," he said.
Then it goes on further:
One proposal is to set the support level at 90 per cent of the preceding three-year average market price of each type of crop.
I believe these few quotations as to what the thinking is at the present time in the United States, where they have had a rigid price support program in existence for many years, serve a useful purpose. The farmers of the United States have seen what such a program accomplishes; they have found out what are its disadvantages. They have found it is unworkable, and they have found it piles up terrific surpluses. They have found particularly, that it does not do the job it was intended to do, and that is the greatest disadvantage. Under these circumstances I think the situation there speaks for itself.
I should like to point out particularly, Mr. Speaker, that a rigid system can only support a limited number of commodities. This has been the experience in every country where such a program has been tried. In the United States they support 13 commodities plus dairy products and wool out of a total of 250 farm commodities produced. A flexible system, such as the one proposed in this bill, makes it possible to support any commodity for which support is required. This is one of the outstanding advantages of a flexible system as compared with a rigid type of system which the members of the C.C.F. particularly are advocating.
I cannot come to any other conclusion but this, Mr. Speaker; that no one with any real
2660	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization desire to help our farmers and put agriculture in a healthy economic position, and no one with any sense of responsibility, would even contemplate putting into effect in Canada a system like that of the United States.
The ultimate security feature of this legislation has been completely misrepresented by some hon. members in this house.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Is that why you changed the bill?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Their irresponsible statements in regard to it have been printed in the newspapers and have resulted in a misconception throughout the country. What is the minimum guaranteed in the bill has been represented as the maximum. The provision that for nine key commodities a mandatory floor in effect at all times of 80 per cent of the base price has been represented as all that the bill provides for the very opposite is true. The main thing provided in this bill is guaranteed yearly prices set each year and guaranteed to be in effect for the following 12 months.
This was the point I stated and restated during the resolution stage, and those guarantees that are implicit in the bill have always been there. The amendments are proposed in order to spell these out so there will be no ambiguity about them, no question that they are there.
There has been further criticism, so far as the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties are concerned, that this bill is a denial and repudiation of this party's election pledges.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely untrue. I have here the election pledges, and I will read them in a moment and demonstrate that this legislation carries out those election pledges to the letter. This is what we promised so far as this matter is concerned. I am reading from a booklet put out at the time of the last election and which deals with agriculture. This booklet says:
To this end, we will:
1.	Maintain a flexible price support program-
We did not say we would maintain a rigid price support program; we said we would maintain a flexible price support program.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Distress prices.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I continue:
-to ensure an adequate parity for agricultural producers-


An hon. Member:: Where did that one go?


Douglas Scott Harkness: -based on a fair price-cost relationship.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: Where did that one go?


An hon. Member:: What about that?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This bill provides the perfect vehicle for doing that, because of the fact that these guaranteed yearly prices can be set at any percentage of the base price which is necessary each year to provide an adequate support price. The pledge that we have given to ensure an adequate parity for agricultural producers based on a fair price-cost relationship can be met better by a provision of that sort than it could possibly be met by a rigid type of support system for which my hon. friends over there are asking. The legislation makes it possible, and is intended to make it possible, to carry out that election pledge.
The second pledge was:
2.	Include a definite formula in the Agricultural Prices Support Act for arriving at support prices, such formula to allow for variation in production and demand for individual products.
We have included a definite formula, a formula that is based on a moving average. This is the only formula of which I know that makes possible the implementation of the latter part of that pledge, the allowance for variation in production and demand in the individual product.
The third of our pledges was:
3.	The formula and support prices will be established in consultation with representative farm organizations, and will be announced each year well in advance of the production period, as required.
The bill makes complete provision for that. We have set up an advisory committee to be drawn from farmers and representatives of farm organizations, and we have provided that these guaranteed prices will be set for a year in advance and will be in effect for 12 months after they have been set. I believe it is quite clear from that, Mr. Speaker, that we have carried out or we will carry out to the letter our election pledges in regard to support prices, once this bill has been passed and put into operation.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say this. The success of any program depends to a great extent on the will and determination of the people in charge to make it work. I think it has been made clear to the people of Canada, particularly to the Canadian farmers, that during the six months we have been in office-it will not be six months until tomorrow, as a matter of fact-we have made a determined effort to improve the position of agriculture. We have taken definite steps which have accomplished that improvement in regard to some particular commodities. We have made a start in several other directions in which improvements have to be made in order to put agriculture in a truly healthy position.
I am sure that every agricultural delegation which has made representations to the present

government, and there have been many of them, has been struck by the fact that we are glad to hear what their problems are and are anxious to take any steps we can to improve their situation. We are making an honest and wholehearted effort to improve the position of agriculture. This bill is one of the means we are taking to accomplish that end. I would hope that it might get second reading before the Christmas recess, and that we might complete it early in the new year, so the benefits it will provide may be available to Canadian farmers early in 1958.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, is it your desire that I should proceed now? It is within a minute of quarter to one.


An hon. Member:: Call it one o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the right hon. gentleman should proceed. We have an uncertain length of time to wait until the message comes from the Senate.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the argument which has been put forth within the last 15 minutes impels me to recall the point of order that was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when we were on this bill previously. He got to his feet and asked whether or not there was something wrong with the loudspeaker system, and suggested that the voice, while it was coming from the other side of the house, seemed to be an expression of what had been said by myself when I was minister of agriculture.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
voice of Jacob but the hand of Esau.


James Garfield Gardiner: Having listened to a review of what Mr. Benson has said, I would refer the present Minister of Agriculture back to Hansard to find a considerable part of it already there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is probably where he got his speech.


James Garfield Gardiner: Even where I was not referring to Mr. Benson I referred to other United States organizations, some of which were quoted a few moments ago, to the effect that the United States system of price support known as parity prices would not be suitable to this country. In so far as he has given expression to that point of view it is in accordance with the point of view which we took.
I was a little surprised this morning when the minister suggested that such considerable changes were going to be made in the legislation which had been introduced by way of resolution a few days ago. But one
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization has only to call attention to the title of the old act and that of the new bill in order to see what the real difference is intended to be. In the act as we now have it, the Agricultural Prices Support Act, the title is as follows:
An act for the support of the prices of agricultural products during the transition from war to peace.
There could be a question raised as to whether we are already through that period. At the time the legislation was brought in it was argued that it might run for 18 or 20 years after the war, but there could be an argument as to whether that period has ceased to exist. But that is not the important feature which has been changed in the title of the new bill, which is:
An act to provide for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities.
What is the difference between "supporting" and "stabilizing"? "Stabilizing" is keeping them as they are and "supporting" is doing whatever is necessary in order to improve them. Hence, as I say, one does not need to go beyond the title of the bill in order to indicate that not as much is being provided in this legislation, if it abides by the principle of the title, as there was in the legislation we had previously.
But in so far as the discussion at the moment is concerned, I want to turn to another feature of the speech to which we have just listened. It was largely addressed to our friends over in the corner, the C.C.F. I want to point out that this is a rather new attitude on the part of the government party of today. The present government while in opposition joined with the C.C.F. in a number of activities. The one which was most spectacular was in their opposition to the pipe line; and one, of course, can understand the attitude taken with regard to that matter.
That, however, was only the final act in a well planned effort to defeat Liberalism. The co-operation was first evident in Saskatchewan following the election of 1940, when the Conservative provincial leader was elected to the House of Commons. The common practice was to join the C.C.F. in attacks upon the Liberals, both federally and provincially, and then on nomination day to withdraw most of their candidates and leave those opposed to the Liberals with only one choice. That was the plan of operation.
After they had met with considerable success as a result of these tactics in Saskatchewan, the idea was introduced into their plans to oust the Liberals from power in Ottawa. Because of the fact that agriculture is the basic industry of the prairies they both naturally made their attack upon agricultural policy. The first year the then hon. member
2662	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization for Lake Centre was in the house of Commons, on a motion to go into supply-which made it a want of confidence motion-he moved an amendment in favour of parity prices as they then existed in the United States. We have been listening to a review of parity prices as they then existed in the United States. The resolution read as follows, as recorded on page 2280 of Hansard, April 8, 1941:
-it be resolved that the government should take immediate steps to create a parity of prices as between agricultural and other products-
He was supported on this occasion by all the C.C.F. members from Saskatchewan and Manitoba not only in speeches but in any votes that were cast in the house following that discussion. On each occasion that my estimates were before the house from then on the present Prime Minister renewed his suggestion that the one solution for farm problems was parity prices. On each occasion he was strongly supported by the western C.C.F. members or, if they introduced the subject, he strongly supported them.
In 1953 the then hon. member for Lake Centre moved another amendment to the motion to go into supply in the following words, as recorded in Hansard, March 23, 1953, page 3208:
-in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to provide floor prices for agricultural products at such levels as to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship.
Hon. members who were in the house at that time will recall that when the resolution came to a vote there was a scurrying from this section of the house in which they were then sitting to the curtains behind in order to avoid voting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just like last Friday.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says, "Just like last Friday". I am recalling their attention to the fact that that is an old device which they used. From 1953 until 1956, on every occasion upon which there was any excuse for renewing the attack upon government agricultural policy, the allies joined their forces until on March 12, 1956, the hon. member for Prince Albert, again on a motion to go into supply, moved an amendment in these words, as reported on page 2024 of Hansard, March 12, 1956:
-in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to create a parity of prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship.


It will be noted that the wording of this resolution calls for parity prices by law, the most definite kind of parity prices. The C.C.F. members went along and gave their enthusiastic support, just as they are still doing, to the idea. But the Conservative convention was held in December of 1956, and the ardent advocate of parity prices, as they existed in the United States, became the leader of the Conservative party. There must have been some hitch in the understanding between the two allies. When the address in reply to the speech from the throne was under discussion the member for Yorkton moved an amendment as recorded in Hansard-



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of Marguerite Downie Malo.
An act for the relief of Irene Patricia Heffernan Brown.
An act for the relief of Catherine Ann Naylor Couture.
An act for the relief of Antonio Bucci.
An act for the relief of Maurice Robert.
An act for the relief of Frances Dorothy Denen-berg Bloomfield.
An act for the relief of Theodore Elbert Holtham.
An act for the relief of Claude Murray Kirk.
An act for the relief of John Alfred Crease.
An act for the relief of Catherine Rita Marian Laker.
An act for the relief of Jacqueline Marchand Cote.
An act for the relief of Pola Baron Brisebois.
An act for the relief of Graziella Bernier Murray.
An act for the relief of Claus ElstorpfT.
An act for the relief of Denis LeBlanc.
An act for the relief of Patricia Mary Gorman Walsh.
An act for the relief of Madeline Audrey Booth Hibbard.
An act for the relief of Lily Sklar Titleman.
An act for the relief of Alice Florence Chaisson Boychuk.
An act for the relief of Cecile Chagnon Tremblay.
An act for the relief of Roger Albert Bersier.
An act for the relief of Herman Rayvals.
An act for the relief of Helen Frances Knight Koomas.
An act for the relief of Marie Cecile Philomene Gilberte Pregent Bouchard.
An act for the relief of Joyce Eugenie Swanburg Millette.
An act for the relief of Evelyn Mahaffy Major.
An act for the relief of Ruth Mary Ledden Wallace.

An act for the relief of Catherine Lammie Graham McLean.
An act for the relief of Irene Tinkoff Goldmann.
An act for the relief of Joseph Fishman.
An act for the relief of Lucille Therrien Deguise.
An act for the relief of Doris Rose May Cook Thomas.
An act for the relief of Olive Clara Benson
Pitman.
An act for the relief of Mildred Irene Mitchell Gauthier.
An act for the relief of Laurette Racine Pollender.
An act for the relief of George Wilkinson Pridmore.
An act for the relief of Kathleen Mary Hicks Rainville.
An act for the relief of Violet June Bockus Good.
An act for the relief of Ethel Rappaport Lomon.
An act for the relief of William Newell.
An act for the relief of Sally Ruth Pall Gold.
An act for the relief of Nicholas Vlahos.
An act for the relief of Stefan Weber.
An act for the relief of Mary Russell Leclaire.
An act for the relief of Joseph Roland Langevin.
An act for the relief of Eileen Hannah Thompson Scott.
An act for the relief of Miriam Jurist Stern.
An act for the relief of Bernice Edith Knights Blake.
An act for the relief of Michael Francis McTigue.
An act for the relief of Zygmunt Habdank Bielinski.
An act for the relief of Daphne Louisa Ruby Burrows Newland.
An act for the relief of Reine Isabel Charles Bisson.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Cave Collyer DuBoyce.
An act for the relief of Elvi Russak Urb.
An act for the relief of Norma Rose Cohen Freeman.
An act for the relief of Shirley Janet Whitton Ladds.
An act for the relief of Venise Gosselin Hotte.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Bertha Wexler Azeman.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Emilia Shutko Suranow.
An act for the relief of Amy Isabel Wonham Saunderson.
An act for the relief of Marie Anna Eliza Labrecque Ladouceur.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Donald Stewart Walker.An	act	for	the	relief	of	John Joseph Sebaski.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Gwen Horne Segal.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Gwendolyn Alice Wilson
Hermann.
An act for the relief of Agnes Traiton Rathburn.
An act for the relief of Loueisa Knutton Roberge.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Miriam Skinner Stuckey.
An act for the relief of Albert Renaud.
An act for the relief of David St. Clair Wilson.
An act for the relief of Omer Arthur Menard.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Nettie Clarke Hay.
An act for the relief of Frederick William Hovermann.
An act for the relief of Bertha Viola Beatrice Good Malcolm.
An act for the relief of Mabel Florence Adams Hadden.
An act for the relief of Marie Marthe Moreau Roy.
An act for the relief of Pierrette Picard Gagnon.
An act for the relief of Marcelle Richard Deschambault.
An act for the relief of Florence Irene Burness Williams.
An act for the relief of Jean Paul Pelletier.
An act for the relief of Mildred Mabel Desmarais Demers Joly.
An act for the relief of Leonne Liane Andree Belanger Botham.
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Shirley Alma Lawson Wilson.
An act for the relief of Sarah Yampolsky Pinsky.
An act for the relief of Karina Mercs Bunte.
An act for the relief of William Garnet Mills.
An act for the relief of Violet Pitman Proulx.
An act respecting Ottawa and New York Railway Company.
An act to amend an act respecting the Buffalo and Port Erie Public Bridge Company.
An act respecting St. Mary's River Bridge Company.
An act respecting Alaska-Yukon Pipelines Ltd.
An act to amend the Excise Tax Act.
An act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act.
An act to amend the Income Tax Act.
An act to amend the Canadian Vessel Construction Act.
An act to amend the National Housing Act.
An act to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
An act respecting the construction of a line of railway by Canadian National Railway Company from Optic lake to Chisel lake, and the purchase by Canadian National Railway Company from The International Nickel Company of Canada, Limited, of a line of railway from Sipiwesk to a point on Burntwood river near Mystery lake, all in the province of Manitoba.
An act respecting the Hamilton harbour commissioners.
An act to amend the Unemployment Assistance Act.
An act to amend the Pension Act.
Mr. Speaker:: Upon the resumption of the sitting the house will proceed with the business which was interrupted by the message from the other place.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Harkness for the second reading of Bill No. 237, for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before asking the right hon. gentleman to resume I think I should say a word about the point of order which was raised when the Minister of Agriculture was speaking on the second reading of this bill. He announced his intention to move certain specific amendments at the committee stage of the bill, but of course no motion was made at the time, as the house was at the second reading stage and the debate was continuing at that stage.
I could see that some problems might arise for the minister in achieving his objective of making these amendments, and I suggested that the house might consider expediting the
2664	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization bill by having the amendments distributed and if they saw fit to do so incorporating them in the first reading of the bill at this time by unanimous consent.
That would be one solution of the difficulty. Otherwise we are on second reading, and would of course have to proceed through second reading and through the committee stage before the point of order raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar would really be a point of order. We are anticipating a difficulty now which would only arise at the committee stage. So it seems to me it is a matter for the house to determine whether the suggestion made this morning is one which it wishes to adopt or whether we shall just proceed with the debate and allow the question of these amendments to come forward when they are proposed at the committee stage, because we have nothing before us now except the second reading of the bill. Perhaps the minister or some hon. members might have something to say about that.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, we do not want to hold up this measure because it is a very important one, but I raised a point of order which I thought was the proper thing to do at the time. We now have the amendments before us in mimeographed form, and I think what you have suggested would be quite satisfactory. I might say that had the government consulted the farm organizations before the bill was introduced instead of afterwards perhaps we should not have found ourselves in this position.


Mr. Speaker:: My suggestion, and I put it forward now to the house, is whether or not the house would be prepared by unanimous consent to permit the reprinting of the bill as at first reading with the proposed changes which have been circulated in mimeographed form; that the first copies of the bill which have been already distributed be withdrawn, and that we continue at the present stage of the bill, that is second reading, all by unanimous consent. What we would have in effect would be a reprint of the bill incorporating these amendments, and we would proceed with the debate on second reading with that bill before the house rather than the one which was first printed.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, may I make it clear that this should establish no precedent for the future.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned that is perfectly satisfactory. I have no objection whatever to proceeding along that line.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, might I just ask a question with regard to the proposed amendments, mimeographed copies of which have been handed to us. I have looked through them rather hurriedly, I admit, and I have not had time to read them carefully; but during the minute or two I spent looking them over I have not been able to find the provision for increasing the base period from a three-year average to a ten-year average. Does that provision appear here?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It should. I have not looked it over myself.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, it is not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe it has been dropped.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that in the process of having the proposed amendments mimeographed that particular part has been left out. It could be added quite readily. It is simply a matter of changing the word "three" to the word "ten" where it appears in clause 8.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is intended in discussing it on second reading to include that in the bill?


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one observation. I think I am prepared to say I would be agreeable to the course of action that has been suggested and would give unanimous consent if the minister could give us his assurance that the principle of the bill has not been changed in any way.


Douglas Scott Harkness: All right.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the amendments will speak for themselves. If the house gives consent it will have a bill as reprinted with the proposed changes. I would rather call them changes than amendments at this stage. The debate will then be on the bill as reprinted which we will have by combining the circulated bill and the mimeographed amendments plus the addition of the change of "three" to "ten". Do I understand, then, that the house is prepared to give unanimous consent?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if I understood him correctly this morning that it was intended to have the second reading of the bill and then leave it until we return after the Christmas recess for consideration in committee, so the bill could be reprinted in the meantime and when we get to the committee stage it would be in the form in which it would be deemed to have originally received first reading? I assume it could be reprinted

so that hon. members could have the reprints to take away with them over the recess, in order that when they returned they would be prepared to discuss the clauses as they will then appear in the reprint.
I note with satisfaction, because of the traditional respect that is accorded to the practices of the past and to the rules of procedure, that the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar wishes to make it quite clear that this will not be deemed to be a precedent, and that it is done because of the special conditions of this session and the fact that we are about to leave for the Christmas recess. I feel that all hon. members would like to have the reprint and have the days of the Christmas recess during which they could consider the reprinted bill and thereby be better prepared to deal with it when they come back after the recess. I would wish to add my statement that I do hope this will not be taken as a precedent that can be resorted to too frequently.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, may I just give the assurance for which the right hon. gentleman asked, that the committee stage of this bill will not be proceeded with until after the recess.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one question just for the purpose of clarification. If we proceed in this way do I understand that the bill we have before us at the present time will not be the bill we will be considering but the bill with these amendments inserted in it?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. I think I can assure the house that there will be no delay in having the reprints made. The reprint will be distinguished by being marked as a reprint of the first reading of the first bill No. 237 in accordance with unanimous consent, or in some way as to distinguish it from the first form of the bill. It will then be circulated incorporating these amendments and the one which has been inadvertently omitted and we shall proceed with the debate on second reading, all by unanimous consent and without creating any precedent because it is something we could not do without unanimous consent. I appreciate the attitude taken by the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I was placing on Hansard the relationship of the different groups in the house toward proposals that had been made from time to time to accept parity prices. I had just stated that the Conservative convention was held in December, 1956, and the ardent advocate of parity prices as they had them in the United States became leader of the Conservative party. There must have been some hitch at that time in the understanding between those
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization who had been allies previously, namely the Conservative party and the C.C.F.


Major James William Coldwell: There was no understanding, ever.


James Garfield Gardiner: When the address in reply to the speech from the throne was under discussion the hon. member for Yorkton moved an amendment in these words, as reported at page 582 of Hansard of January 23, 1957:
We regret, however, that Your Excellency's advisers seem to favour a flexible price support program . . .
Of course it is obvious that His Excellency's advisers at that time were the Liberal government:
We regret, however, that Your Excellency's advisers seem to favour a flexible price support program, the effect of which is to leave the agricultural industry in a state of uncertainty and insecurity; we also regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to take the necessary steps to establish a system of parity prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure 100 per cent parity of income for agricultural producers.
It will be noted that two points were raised there. The first was intended to condemn flexible price support, and the second was to support 100 per cent of parity. When the vote was taken every Conservative who was in the house, including the leader of the official opposition, the then member for Prince Albert, voted against the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So
did every Liberal in the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I am coming to that. It should be noted here that when previous votes had been recorded there was a tendency for some persons not to be present at the time the vote was taken, but on this occasion most of those who had previously been absent were present, as the vote will show. On this occasion the official opposition were present to vote with the government, not with the C.C.F. In other words the position which had been taken on previous occasions had been altered, in that there was a direct vote. I presume if you can take a vote against an amendment to be in favour of something, there was a vote in favour of the flexible price which the government of the day had been putting into effect and there was, in the same way, a vote against 100 per cent of parity, which was a new position for one of the parties to have taken.
This gave rise to considerable cross-firing between the official opposition and the C.C.F. group which would be interesting if I had time to record it. I might say, however, one is not required to quote much to prove the position taken then by the present Prime Minister. He summarized the position in his speech on the amendment to the motion to
2666	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization go into supply in 1956, as reported at pages 2021 to 2023 of Hansard* He said:
The squeeze which the farmer suffers results from the disparity In the relationship between the prices of farm products and the prices the farmer has to pay. When they are in proper relationship parity is established, and it is parity that the farm organizations across this country are asking for today.
Later on the hon. member for Prince Albert said:
I know of no better definition of parity than that which appeared in yesterday's New York Times. I have made the necessary changes in the definition to meet the situation in this country. It is as follows:
"Parity prices are the dollars and cents prices that give to farm products the same buying or purchasing power they had in a selected base period when prices received by and prices paid by farmers were regarded as in good balance.
He illustrated by saying one should be able to buy the same quantity of necessities with a load of barley in each of those periods. The hon. member for Prince Albert again went on to say:
It goes on to point out-
He was referring to the article in the New York Times.
-the difference between rigid price supports which have not proved successful and flexible price supports which have proved successful in the experience of the United States.
He then continued to point out the number of times he had advocated parity prices, and he went back over the record which I have placed on Hansard today and said this, as reported at page 2023 of Hansard:
One of the earliest occasions was in 1941, during the war. The last occasion when we moved an amendment regarding this question of parity prices was on March 23, 1953.
I refer to that to come back to the statement I made earlier, namely that the words "parity prices" were not in that resolution moved at that time, but the present Prime Minister said later on, when reviewing it, that it was a motion in favour of parity prices. Then he said:
At that time I moved this amendment.
The amendment, as I have pointed out, does not have the words "parity prices" in it. The amendment reads:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
Since I have already put this resolution on the record I will not do it again. The present Prime Minister then argued that the Conservative platform of 1948 was intended to support parity prices. The present Prime Minister moved, seconded by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton), the following motion, as reported at page 2024 of Hansard of 1956:


That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to create a parity of prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship.
In speaking to the amendment the hon. member for Prince Albert said, as reported at page 2026 of Hansard of March 12, 1956:
The trend referred to in the amendment moved in 1953 has continued. Canadian agriculture today would not be in its present precarious position if action had been taken at that time on the basis of the experience of our neighbour to the south and also on the basis of the demands of farmers generally.
There can be no question, then, that what the present Prime Minister had in mind when he was playing along with the C.C.F. was parity prices as they had them in the United States down to 1953. On each occasion when the hon. member for Prince Albert moved such an amendment to the motion to go into supply I rose and said we had two reasons for opposing it. First, we were opposed to the United States system of parity price support and, second, it was a trick motion to put our candidates in wrong in agricultural constituencies.
We were not surprised when in January, 1957, the C.C.F. called their hand, and we found the Conservative party had so acted as to cause their leader to follow Conservative rather than C.C.F. doctrine.
But what happened when the Prime Minister got into the election campaign? He was naturally speaking in the larger centres and always through the larger dailies to the people who were opposed to 100 per cent parity prices which had been attempted in the United States. He was reported in the Winnipeg Free Press as having said on May 14:
The price support system advanced by the Conservatives would feature a flexible formula. Critics of support prices said they would create huge surpluses such as those which had developed in the United States from the support system there. The difference was, Mr. Diefenbaker said, that the program proposed by his party would be based on a flexible formula, the United States surpluses had developed because of a fixed formula.
The following day in the Winnipeg Free Press and other dailies he was reported to have said:
The C.C.F. in the last session of parliament had called for 100 per cent parity price support for agriculture. "What nonsense". Did anyone believe that the people of Canada would permit the taxation necessary to give farmers their full pay regardless of production?
He went on to use an illustration following that, and asked if a labourer should be paid

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
full prices when he came under unemployment insurance. Should he be given his full pay, and therefore should the farmer be given his full pay?
A few days later, on May 18, he is reported in the Regina Leader-Post as saying:
I urged a system of parity prices in 1941 in a resolution in the house, and asked for it two other times. But every Liberal voted against it. This year I moved a resolution for a price support program to allow a fair cost relationship. That's what the farmers want, not the 100 per cent parity prices the C.C.F. asks which I voted against because I knew it was a trick motion. The Liberals voted my motion down again.
As I pointed out, every one of those resolutions except one was on a motion to go into supply and therefore a trick motion. The one which was not on a motion to go into supply was on the address. The recorded vote on the one on the address is in Hansard to be looked at by anyone to corroborate what I have been saying. During the campaign, in speaking to the audiences I have mentioned, the Prime Minister made the statements to which I have referred. At least he is reported to have made them, and I presume the reports are correct; I have not heard of them being corrected.
Then what was being said throughout the rural press of western Ontario? Candidates were carrying advertisements based on the Prime Minister's previous statement in the house claiming that he was for 100 per cent parity. If anyone doubts that, though I am sure there are members on the other side of the house who know it is correct, all they need to do is look at the advertisements. I have one of them here. What does that advertisement say? It was issued on June 5, 1957 in the Chatham Daily News. It says:
Mr. Consumer says: "Our cost of living continues to rise with lower farm prices". What is the answer?
I may say there is something just as interesting in the upper part of this advertisement, but I am not going to take time to read it because it does not strictly refer to the question under discussion.
What is the answer? John Diefenbaker and Albert Jolley say 100 per cent parity support prices. Protection from American subsidized surpluses. Regain foreign markets. Diefenbaker tax policy. Diefenbaker monetary policy. A vote for Albert Jolley is a vote for John Diefenbaker.
The only point to which I wish to draw attention at the moment is that the very first item mentioned in that advertisement is 100 per cent parity support prices. I can quite understand, Mr. Speaker, why there have been some changes in the legislation as it was first brought down. I can understand why some members from the rural areas of Ontario, who were elected on the strength
of these advertisements, were insisting on some changes being made in the bill as it was first brought before this house.
I want to say to those members that the amendments which have been made, and which have been introduced today, are not sufficient to meet the criticism they are going to receive when they go back home after this session as a result of having appealed for votes and succeeded on the basis of these advertisements. I understand these advertisements were placed generally all through agricultural sections of the east and some of them, probably not quite so strong as that, in some of the newspapers in the west.
What did the Minister of Agriculture say about this when speaking on the resolution? The minister spoke on Wednesday, December 11, 1957, and at page 2186 of Hansard we find this:
However, what was generally in mind was some sort of system such as that in effect in the United States-
That is, when people were talking about parity prices that was what most of them had in their minds.
-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 Strates parity price system had led to difficulties of various kinds.
Apparently the leader of the Conservative party of that day had not made any studies, because on several occasions and right until he became leader of the Conservative party he had advocated the adoption of that particular system. The Minister of Agriculture went on to say:
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.
I think it was about at that point that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rose on a point of order to ascertain whether or not his system was working properly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not
my system, the loud speaker system.


James Garfield Gardiner: I continue reading from the Minister of Agriculture:
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.
I am not too sure that even the system of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization has been working correctly, because the minister has been saying some rather peculiar things outside as well as inside the house on this same question. I continue to read from the Minister of Agriculture's speech:
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.
Now, I just refer back to the resolution which was put on the record to the effect that the C.C.F. party did not believe in flexibility. They apparently do not believe in flexibility even now, judging from what we have heard during the discussion of this question. I can quite understand why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre thought there was something wrong with the loudspeaker system. Up to this point the speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture could have been quoted from my speeches when I was trying to keep his leader on the right track on other occasions. I would not have been surprised if the minister had said at that point, "We have therefore decided to continue on the statute books the most flexible plan ever devised, that is the present Agricultural Prices Support Act."
Instead, he proceeded to suggest changes, every one of which I suggest rendered the new plan less flexible than the old one. Everything which can be done under this measure could be done under the old act. We did select a group of commodities under which we placed supports. The act was so flexible that it was possible to deal with cattle while the foot-and-mouth disease was prevalent and take them out again when it would have done harm to deal with them any longer.
In other words, there is nothing in the act which said we were going to deal with foot-and-mouth disease under this legislation. No one had any idea that foot-and-mouth disease was going to develop, but this legislation is sufficiently flexible that we were able to step in and deal with the problems which resulted from the fact that there had been foot-and-mouth disease in this country, and when it became necessary to get rid of beef and pork products. There was more flexibility under the old legislation relating to cattle than there is in the new. Then the act was so flexible that we were able actually to raise the price of butter to the producer when we decided to support the price. Later we were able to make deficiency payments on butter, and

thus maintain a lower price to the consumer without lowering the price to the producer.
The act has all these possibilities in it and many more. Deficiency payments are provided for in the act, and deficiency payments were made in connection with a number of products. That matter in itself having to do with butter was a deficiency payment. When you say to the producer, "We are going to take butter from you at 58 cents a pound", and then turn around and say, "We are going to give the butter to the wholesaler at 58 cents a pound" resulting in the consumer getting his butter at 2 to 3 cents less a pound with the government paying the carrying charges in between, that is a deficiency payment. There are dozens of ways of making deficiency payments. The law we have now makes it possible to do it in any one of those ways.
In putting this legislation before the house my hon. friend said he had examined very carefully into five different ways of putting a formula into the act, and he had decided that the one providing for a three-year base, in order to establish a basic price, was the best of all. Today he has come along and said that some people think a ten-year base is better.
With regard to that matter I am only going to say that the other day when he mentioned the matter the hon. member for Moose Mountain put in his comment and said this ten-year average was a silly proposal. I just remind the member for Moose Mountain of the fact that the first man from whom I ever heard about a ten-year average was an hon. member over in that corner of the house who is sitting looking at me now. I refer to the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schulz).


Mr. Schulz:: But not the same years.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; a ten-year moving basis, which would not be the same years all the time. That was the submission made to the previous government, namely a ten-year basis. We gave the same answer to all those who came along with these proposals; "It does not make any difference what proposal you bring in, our act is so flexible that it is possible to utilize the suggestions in arriving at a decision as to what the support price should be".
In connection with that matter, I recall that the other day the Minister of Agriculture enumerated all the considerations which would be taken into account in putting into effect even the three-year average, and he left out what I consider to be the most important one. If I was listening carefully enough to hear all the suggestions he made, it seemed

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
to me that he did not suggest the possible importation of products into this country from outside. When we were setting support prices under the Agricultural Prices Support Act that was always one of the most important factors to be taken under consideration, and it will still remain one.
As I recall it there is only one piece of legislation that is available at the present time in order to deal with situations of that kind if you want to go further than the support act can go in dealing with them, and that is the Export and Import Permits Act. If I remember correctly that is the act upon which the official opposition of that day first decided to put on a filibuster. When that legislation was brought down following the end of the war, when it became necessary to get rid of all the proposals that had been made under the War Measures Act, we had a battle that went on for days. They did not want that legislation at all.
There are certain things which have been done since this government came into office which I do not think could have been done without the assistance of that act. It is being utilized in connection with some of these matters. In other words, the price at which you can ship products into Canada must be considered when you are putting on supports in this country.
The one with which I can illustrate the point best was dealt with effectively by the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture a year ago at the December conference. At that time he dealt with this matter of support prices, particularly parity prices, and he used the term "parity of income" instead of "parity prices". Then he went on to deal with the suggestion which had been made by the interprovincial farm union to the effect that there should be a price on hogs established at 100 per cent of parity basis of some $33, and that there should be a price of some $23 provided on cattle.
The president of the farm federation at that time-and he is still president-illustrated the point in his discussion at the dominion-provincial conference in December a year ago, when he said that if you were to put in that particular price as the support price in Canada, the market would be flooded in a short time by United States beef. So that question always had to be discussed or considered when supports on these products were being dealt with.
The legislation as it is made it possible for us to consider the three-year basis. As a matter of fact the three-year basis is fundamental to that legislation. We set as the basis from which we were to figure the last three
96698-169J
years of the war, namely 1943, 1944 and 1945, and we took that as the basis because farmers were fairly well satisfied at the time. We put right in the act the authority for comparing any support price that was brought in later on with the conditions in those three years.
Naturally it was in the middle of the three-year period that the legislation was put on the statute books, namely in 1944, and it was anticipated it would not come into effect until after the war was over. It was first applied in 1946, and so the years that were considered then were the preceding three years, 1943, 1944 and 1945. As we moved up year by year we compared three years with the last three years of the war.
I heard one of my friends back here a little while ago say, "But we never did get up to 100 per cent parity". We were supported in that, too, by farm organizations of the day. The federation said finally, after giving the matter full consideration, that the support should not be higher than 85 per cent of parity and it should not be lower than 65 per cent of parity. At a later date they changed the lower figure from 65 per cent to 70 per cent; nevertheless the fact is that on every occasion that we set a support price from that time on we checked it with the formula that had been established by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
There was nothing in the act that said we were compelled to do so. There was nothing in the act that said we could not do so. There was nothing in the act that said we had to abide by a three-year basis. There was nothing in the act which said we had to abide by a ten-year basis. I therefore say again that to the extent that this act says either three years or ten years, and binds anyone by it, it is not as flexible as the act that is already on the statute books, and so does not meet the conditions that may exist so well as the Agricultural Prices Support Act.
Having said that about the general statements that have been made with regard to the system which is proposed in this bill, and in view of the fact that the minister has dealt with some of the clauses seriatim, I think I should not be required to stick too closely to the rules, though I know that one of the important rules is that you do not deal with sections seriatim when you are dealing with second reading of a bill.
They could, of course, be dealt with when we are putting them through the committee, and I do not think I need say that I am not urging that anyone should not feel free to do so. But when we get into committee I suggest we can move amendments to some of these sections which are referred to. I know there will be some, and I have one in mind

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization particularly which is very important, and which has already been discussed at great length by the minister at the resolution stage, at which time I might say that none of us knew exactly what was in the bill. They were discussed again this morning on second reading. I referred to one of them when I first got to my feet, and that was the title of the bill.
The long title of the act as it now stands on the statute books is "An act for the support of the price of agricultural products during the transition from war to peace". There is a similar title to the bill which is now before the house, namely "An act to provide for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities". Those two titles are intended to indicate the difference in principle between the two bills, a difference which makes it necessary to bring down a new bill.
Well, stabilization is keeping things just as much as possible where they are at the moment, and support means adding to whatever you have got. So I think if that is intended to be the difference, then the statement I made when we were discussing this at the resolution stage was quite correct and does describe the two measures quite fully.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the right hon. member knows quite well that is not intended to be the difference, and it never was.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I always take the indication from the English language that expresses it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You had better look up the meaning of the word "support" in the dictionary.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, I think we all know the meaning of the word "support". It is doing something to help, but you do not help by putting the price down, as may be in this case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: And I think also the word "stabilization" is pretty well understood. The fact is that farmers do not want prices rushing up to an unusual height.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


James Garfield Gardiner: And they do not want them rushing down to unusual levels either. They want stabilized prices which would stay pretty much on the same level, so they can understand what is going to happen in a year from now or two years from now, as my hon. friend said when he was discussing stabilization. That is the intention of the word "stabilization", and so I say there is a difference between the two measures in that regard.

There has been considerable discussion of the advisory committee to be set up under the board. Under the old act, as was stated by the minister the other day after he had had another look at it, such a committee is provided for under section 9, subclause (j); it does state that the board has authority to appoint a committee or committees. We could have appointed more than one to assist the board in an advisory capacity. In the new bill this has been thought important enough to be set up in a separate clause, and that clause states certain things. I can quite understand why some of the critics of the bill wanted it changed and I notice that there had been changes made in it. However, the changes suggested do not cover all the points which I would suggest should be covered.
In the old legislation, as has been stated by the minister, we utilized a committee which was already in existence. It was put there for the purpose of assisting in price support measures during the war, after the war action was taken under subclause "j" to name the same persons to a committee to advise the agricultural prices support board.
The board was constituted almost entirely of persons who could be appointed under this present bill with one exception, that there is no representation of the provincial departments of agriculture under this bill.
The minister has stated "Well, there were only deputy ministers from the provincial governments on that committee". That is not true in all cases. In many cases it was not a deputy at all; as a matter of fact in some cases the provincial governments nominated representatives from farm organizations who were not in the employ of the governments at all, and that was particularly true in the early stages of the existence of that committee.
The board had authority under that act to appoint a committee, and they did appoint a committee. That committee did not remain the same year after year; whenever farm organizations wanted a change made-either because some person who had been on it changed his mind and joined some other farm organization, or for some other reason-they came along and nominated some other representative. We accepted those nominations in every case and had the one man replaced with another. So that committee was kept up to date right along.
There is one other thing which should be stated here with respect to the committee. We never at any time suggested to the committee on what they should advise us. We never at any time asked the committee to advise us on certain things. They came here of their own volition. They asked for a date

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
to be set, and we set a date which was satisfactory both to them and to ourselves; we met them and they made their recommendations. Now what does this bill say?
The minister shall appoint an advisory committee. to include representation from farm organizations, consisting of a chairman and at least six, but not more than nine, other members.
As I remember the committee as at present constituted, it has a membership of about 19, and when you take off the 10 provincial representatives you are left with nine. None of those nine were nominated by the provinces but were nominated by the farm organizations. Even some of those nominated by the provinces under the act had been nominated from farm organizations. Then it goes on:
The advisory committee established under subsection (1) shall advise the minister and the board with respect to such matters relating to the stabilization of prices of agricultural commodities under this act as are referred to it by the minister or the board.
I assume that is still in the amended clause as we now have it. In other words the only matters on which this committee is going to advise are those matters referred to it by the minister or by the board. They are not going to advise on matters referred to them by their own organizations when they are told to come here. And then it goes on to say that the members of the advisory committee may be paid for their services such remuneration and expenses as are fixed by the governor in council.
Well, I think that is the same as it was in the old act; at least the provision is the same, whether it is in the same wording I do not know. At least we had the authority to do it under either measure. When we were considering the matter of an advisory committee and of whom that advisory committee should be composed, we called in the presidents of the farm organizations and the officials who were concerned and I personally asked them this question: "Do you want to be put in the same position as the heads of the wheat board?" When they were appointed they were members of one or other of the wheat pools which are known to be farm organizations and nothing but farm organizations, but before they were on the board for two years people were referring to them in this house and outside as no longer being dirt farmers, saying they had no right to be on a board representing farmers but should be replaced by somebody else 'who did represent the dirt farmers.
I said to them, "Do you wish your representative to be paid a salary and put in that same position later on, or do you wish whoever happens to be nominated by your organization, and no matter who he is, to
come here to advise the government from time to time as a representative of that organization?" Well, the presidents at that time took that question back to their organizations and reported to me later that the organizations had unanimously decided that they did not wish the government to pay their representatives. They wanted to pay their own, and the only amounts they hoped would be supplied by the government were the expenses of their trips to Ottawa from time to time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can assure the hon. member there is no intention to force payment on anybody who does not want it.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not the question. The question is are you going to make him a paid official, appointed and paid by the government no matter whether he wants it or not, or are you going to leave the advisers still the spokesmen for the farm organizations which pay them their salaries? That is the important question. This legislation makes it possible to get men who are going to advise as they are asked to advise by the minister or the board, and only on the things about which they are asked to advise by the minister or the board. I think the supporters of the government on the back benches ought to tell their leaders there are some further changes which must be made in this measure before it can become as flexible or as effective as the act already on the statute books.
There is one other thing in these amendments which have been brought in about which I should like to say a word. We are going to have a preamble, it seems. In discussions in this house while we were in the government we were condemned in season and out of season for putting preambles in bills which, our opponents said, were intended to mean this, that and the other. When I was speaking on the introduction of the Agricultural Prices Support Act I was even accused by an hon. member sitting on the other side of the house of putting a preamble into that measure which meant something the bill did not provide for.
I excused that hon. gentleman for having thought there was a preamble by saying that probably the title was so long that it had caused him to become confused on the point -"an act for the support of prices of agricultural products during the transition from war to peace". I said this was not a preamble but merely the title of the bill. But the opposition did not want a preamble, that was clear. Now, apparently, someone in the same party on the opposite side of the house does want a preamble, and thus we
2672	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization have one brought down in the second copy of the bill submitted to this house for second reading:
Whereas it is expedient to enact a measure for the purpose of stabilizing the prices of agricultural commodities in order to assist the industry of agriculture to realize fair returns for its labour and investment, and to maintain a fair relationship between prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods and services that they buy:
Where did they get that, Mr. Speaker? That in substance is the wording that was in subsection 2 of section 9 of the Agricultural Prices Support Act. In other words even they have found that there is not so much in this bill as there was in that act, and they have gone back to it and have had a second look at it and taken out some of the things that were in it and put them into this preamble so that on second reading the measure might have a better chance of getting through.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can assure the hon. gentleman that was not the case.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not want to read the other act, but since the minister doubts whether this is the case maybe I had better do so. Section 9, subsection 2 on page 4 of the act reads:
In prescribing prices under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection 1 the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting an 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.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the same idea that is now being put into this new bill by way of a preamble. Every farm organization, every hon. member who took steps to put out advertisements such as I mentioned a few moments ago, knew what was the intention of this act, and when they found that a statement of that kind was not in the bill as given to this house we had an amendment brought down today. They were so ashamed-I guess that is the right word- of what they had been compelled to do that they would not even tell us about it, and when we tried to get them out of trouble by suggesting that they should reprint the bill as they intended to have it they tried to put us off by saying that the bill was before the house. A bill was before the house, but it was not the bill we are discussing now. There have been considerable changes made in it.
So I say you can go through this bill from one end to the other, and if you do not find all that was in section 3 of the old act, the Agricultural Prices Support Act, then turn to the new one and take sections 3 and 4 and you will find practically all of it in the two sections. And if you do not find what is in section 5 in the new bill you will find it in


a subsection of the old act. You can go right through it, and when you have come to the end you will find that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was absolutely correct when he said that you would think the present Minister of Agriculture was reciting the very same things that had been said by the previous minister of agriculture. So what I say to the minister at the moment is that so far as I am concerned I do not know how he is going to expect me to vote against this bill.


George Clyde Nowlan: We were sure you wouldn't.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We felt confident about that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The minister seems to have overcome the opinions of his own leader, the Prime Minister, in getting a bill before this house which did not have 100 per cent parity in it.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Are you going to claim parentage?


James Garfield Gardiner: I don't know just what the hon. gentleman means by that. Any parentage I have will be in the Liberal party and not in the Tory party.
In other words, we have a measure before the house which does not do all the things that could have been done under the old measure, yet there is not a single thing in it that could not have been done under the old measure without any change whatsoever excepting an additional $50 million, and it will take a lot of demonstrating to indicate that since they could not settle one problem when there was $170 million in the fund with which to settle it, they will be any more able to settle similar problems when there is $250 million there, because it will not take that much in connection with any particular project and, as I say, it could have been dealt with under the old measure.
I want to sum up by saying this. The legislation already on the statute books is the most flexible of any legislation on the statute books of any country having to do with price support, and our friends in the United States did us the honour of saying they were going to pay us the compliment of following our practice. After they had copied the idea of flexibility, our hon. friends opposite look down to the United States and say well, we guess we are in favour of flexible prices, too.
The new legislation is less flexible, but it appears to be too flexible for the C.C.F. group. They do not like flexibility in legislation of this kind, and to the extent that the Minister of Agriculture is twitting the C.C.F. with being opposed to flexible prices I am pretty much in agreement with him. We think flexible prices are appropriate to legislation

enacted for the purpose of stabilizing the return for farm products. But there is less flexibility in this act.
With regard to products, we could take in any groups of products whatsoever. We could classify them, as they are classified under the new bill, divide them into different groups and say, "We are going to deal with this one for a few months at present, and not with the other". The minister says that flexibility to this extent is a bad thing, and he is stating today he is taking it out of the act. He says we should not be in a position to put support prices on for only a few months; we should not be in a position to say, when we put a support price on hogs, that we are going to take it off in a few months' time.
Our support price on hogs is not limited to any period of a few months or to any one year. It was simply put there and it has remained there ever since the taking off of the foot-and-mouth embargo at $23 and every farmer has known it is there at $23. It is true that for the first year after the foot-and-mouth disease we did put a limit of time on it but when we dealt with it later on we took out that limit. It runs on continuously. Then, in addition to that, the act that is now on the statute books was declared in 1950 to be continuous. There is nothing limited about it. It goes right on until some other government takes it off and I am sorry to see that the some other government which is taking it off is the Conservative government whose members tell us believes in flexible prices. They propose taking off the statute books legislation that provides for the most flexible method of setting prices that has been provided anywhere. In this bill there is not so much flexibility for products and there is not so much flexibility in placing price supports as under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. My friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) took butter as an example in order to illustrate how the act works. He said that they propose to take the average price for the last three years which would be 60 cents and put a permanent basis of 80 per cent under butter and that would be 48 cents.
What I want to say to him, and I am sure every farmer in this house will agree with me when I say it, is that when you set up in a piece of legislation a set price-call it anything you like-you give an indication to someone, usually some trader dealing with the farmer, that that is the price the government thinks ought to be paid for the commodity and the tendency will be to gravitate toward that price. For that reason we never did put a price of this kind in our supports
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization during the time we were in power and I do not think it is a good thing to put such a price in.
When you go back to the time when we put a support under butter what do you find? You find that we took into consideration all of the facts including the price of dairy products in the United States, and the price in Britain, New Zealand, Australia and everywhere. Then we worked out under the formula which was then set up what the price might be, or ought to be, here in Canada to bring 100 per cent parity. And after we worked that out we then determined what price could be put in here without finding this market flooded with commodities from somewhere else in the world and that served as the established price. It was a higher price than we had been obtaining on an average the year before. We did not say it was an average of this, that or something else. We thought the farmer needed that much in order to carry on in dairy farming and so we set it at 58 cents. Every farm organization at some time or other during the period in which that has been in effect has said that it served the farmers and served them well.
The present measure is less flexible with regard to products and prices and supports and is less flexible in its provisions with relation to the advisory committee. These were the main things mentioned by the minister when he was speaking of the act itself and the principle underlying it. Because the act that is presently on the statute books is more flexible in all three respects than the provision now before the house I am going to say again that the present act is the most flexible legislation that has ever been put on the statute books of any country to deal with price supports. Any change that is made in it in order to meet conditions will tend to make it less flexible than it had been before.
I said a few moments ago that as far as I am concerned I am voting for the measure which has been brought in. If I had an opportunity to vote for the act which presently exists I would vote for it because it is of greater benefit to the farmer. Since it has been decided by the government to repeal the present measure and bring this new bill forward I can only say there is nothing in it I would be particularly opposed to although I must comment that it does not do as much as the existing act does and I am opposed to it on that basis. But since this bill represents all this government thinks it ought to do for the farmers-and after all it said it was going to do this is what it feels is worth while doing-I am prepared to see it go on the statute books and deal with the govern-
2674	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization ment in light of developments when it goes to the country, whenever that might be.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us to provide for the stabilization of agricultural commodities is one which to my knowledge has received more publicity than any measure which has been enacted since I have been a member of this house. It has been heralded as the main plank of the Conservative farm program; indeed, it has been described as the bill of rights for the farmer.
Right at the very outset, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have considered this bill and I think it is a fiasco, a monstrosity and the product of political ineptitude. I believe that one could call it a Jekyll and Hyde bill. After months of delay the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) brought into this house a measure which was supposed to be the Conservatives' key legislation to provide justice for the farmer and after bringing it in late in the dying days of the session we find that the minister is not too sure of it. In his explanation at the resolution stage the minister attempted to indicate that his officials have investigated many price formulas and supports in other countries. The events of the last week seem strange to me. After the introduction of the bill when farm organizations started to take exception to it and when members of the opposition parties expressed strong disapproval of it apparently this opposition to the proposed measure caused the backbenchers of the Tory party to do some second thinking.
I would like to ask those members sitting on the back benches in the Tory party why they did not review this proposed legislation in caucus before it was presented to the house.
More particularly I want to point out to the Minister of Agriculture that one of the firm commitments members of this party made as a political party in regard to farm policy was that the farm organizations would be called in for discussion and consultation before farm legislation with regard to farm support prices would be presented to this house. The government utterly failed to do that. Only this morning did I understand that after the bill was proposed to the house the Minister of Agriculture who was so sure of himself when he introduced the resolution decided to ask representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other farm organizations to come to Ottawa, sit down with members of the government and talk it over. Of course there was little these leaders of the farm organizations could suggest within the scope of this bill.
In the discussion that took place this morning when the minister tried to bring in
IMr. Gardiner.]

amendments to this bill he said that they did not change the principle of the bill and I think I must fully agree with him in that regard because it is a non-principle bill. There is not much principle in it and so it is pretty hard to change.
After the bill was introduced the minister, in the face of the opposition that had been voiced, decided to call in representatives of the farm organizations to try and doctor it up for the government. You can readily see the stupidity of this method of operation. I called it silly the other day and of course it is both silly and stupid. I want to warn the government that it is going to see more opposition, even with these new amendments to the bill, than any government has ever seen from farm organizations in Canada. At this moment in western Canada farm organizations are calling mass meetings with respect to this legislation. Members of this house are receiving telegrams and letters daily from farmers and farm organizations appealing to them to try to do something and asking them not to support this legislation. This proposal represents an affront to the people of Canada. Many people have lost faith in this new government which they voted for last June 10. Some things could have been done under the Agricultural Prices Support Act but with the exception of butter only on one occasion did the former government step in and do something in a real way since 1944 and that was under an emergency.
While prices of everything that the farmer had to buy were going up and the price of everything that he had to sell were going down the last Liberal government stood idly by and did nothing about it. It was not strange to me to hear the hon. member for Melville, the former minister of agriculture in the Liberal government, a party which at one time had a lot of prestige in Canada, say what he did. I am convinced that when the right hon. member said that he could do nothing but support the present legislation he truly admitted that they were bedfellows and that they agreed with the Conservative policy.


James Garfield Gardiner: We do not have any bedfellows. You tried that and they kicked you out.


Edward George McCullough: If the minister who is bringing down the suggested amendments thinks that he is fooling the backbenchers in his own party-I cannot say, that is up to them-I want to say to him that he is not fooling the farm organizations. I talked to one of the leading farm organization officials this morning and he said to me: "This legislation makes me sick". It is not going to fool the western farmer; it is not going to fool

the man on the land, the man who for the past number of years has been doing a real job to feed the people of this country and the hungry people of the world. It is not going to fool the farmers. They know. They know the past Liberal government had promised to give them justice in the promises they made when the Agricultural Prices Support Act was enacted, but the government failed to do so. Under the new amendments there is nothing but pious hopes.
I want to deal briefly with the Agricultural Prices Support Act. The hon. member for Melville, of course, went into that act quite completely and I do not think I should spend too much time on it. However, I do want to say that under that legislation the former government, with the help of the revolving fund, could have supported agricultural prices so that the farmer would have received his fair share of the national income. I wish to quote from the act. This act received royal assent on August 15, 1944, and an amendment in 1950 made it continuous from April 1, 1950. The agricultural prices support board was set up under the act to:
Endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture . . . and to endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
These are noble sentiments, Mr. Speaker. There is a real meaning to these words if they are taken literally by any government and I can only say that the past government must have looked on this in the same way as this government appears to look on it, namely that the man on the farm should be a second-rate citizen; that he is not entitled to parity, that he is not entitled to justice as a reward for his efforts in producing foodstuffs for this country.
Of course, under the former Agricultural Prices Support Act there was an advisory board. Under the proposed act the minister is saying that they are going to have an advisory committee. The suggestion is that they will be called in and perhaps their suggestions will be listened to in formulating price support levels for the farmers. But, if past history means anything, Mr. Speaker, what assurance have we that this government, which has brought in this bill without any guarantee of a floor price in relation to parity, is going to listen to the farm organizations? What assurance have we when they have already practically ignored the farm organizations when they were drafting this bill? How can we be sure that their representations are going to be listened to? I think this bill is infamous, and it will become 96698-170
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization more infamous for the things that it leaves out than the things it contains. In no way is it a guarantee to the farmer.
I listened very carefully, and I have gone over many times, to what the Minister of Agriculture said when he introduced this bill on December 11. He used a lot of strange words. First, he said, as reported at page 2186 of Hansard:
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.
Well, these are pious hopes, Mr. Speaker, because, when we discuss, as I should like to do this afternoon, the mechanics of this act, I am sure that everybody will agree it is even worse than the act we had before.
Then, the minister goes on to say that many parity price systems have been examined and that the United States price support program had been found to have many flaws. That may well be. I think almost any system of support prices or any farm program would have some flaws but let it not be forgotten that in the United States the farmers over the years have had a support price and they have had prosperity. It may well be that they have had some surpluses, but I can say that five members of the C.C.F. group went to Washington. We spent five days in the capital city and we had the good fortune to meet with many of the farm leaders of the farm bureau, and particularly of the national farmers' union of the United States, and they told us that the support prices then in force in the United States had brought prosperity to the farmers and at that time the national farmers' union was resisting the attempt of the Eisenhower government to try to break the stable price supports they had down there. Where they had brought in low flexible support prices, such as for dairy products, the support went down to 65 per cent and many dairy people were quitting the dairy industry and leaving the farm.
I am not this afternoon trying to defend what has been done under the United States prices support program but I wish to say that the prosperity of the farmer in the United States has certainly exceeded that of the Canadian farmer.
The minister tried to make a lot out of the fact that this bill has a base price based on a three year moving average. He did not say, of course, that the base price was going to be paid to the farmer. Later on in his speech he indicated that the minimum under the key commodities would be 80 per cent of the base

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization price. I have gone a little farther than the illustration which he gave to the house. In respect of butter, I have taken the period from where he left off. He took the three years on the moving average and arrived at the position where the farmer would get 48 cents in the third year under the 80 per cent formula. Now, Mr. Speaker, following that through if, in a subsequent year, butter went down 18 cents the farmer, under the 80 per cent guarantee formula, would get 43.2 cents. In the subsequent year, if it went down another 12 cents, he would get under this formula a guarantee of only 35.2 cents. Therefore, the house can see that there is really no guarantee of an adequate return so far as the price support is concerned.
These are some of the other key things which the minister indicated he hoped this bill would do. He said, as reported at page 2187 of Hansard:
First, he wants prices for his products which will cover his cost of production and leave him enough to live on;
Well, of course, this bill does nothing of the kind, Mr. Speaker. It only guarantees him at the best, under a moving average, 80 per cent of the average for the previous three years.
There is no resemblance whatever to the cost of production. Then, he says:
The farmer-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.
Again, this bill fails utterly to do that very thing. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that if the government ever had the intention of introducing an adequate price support bill for agriculture, they must have completely capitulated from that stand. If the minister had taken the opportunity to call in farm organizations we would not have had this inocuous bill before us.
For the benefit of the members of this house I want first to show the reaction of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to the proposals in this bill. This is what the federation said in making its statement on the apparent guarantees under the proposed price support bill, expressed in terms of parity as calculated by the C.F.A. formula. The average parity position of farm commodities for the past three years has been as follows: 1955, 85 per cent; 1956, 84 per cent; 1957, 82 per cent. This results in an average of 83.6 per cent. Now, 80 per cent of this three-year percentage of parity is 66.8 per cent; that is what the farmer would be guaranteed under the minister's proposal. For 1958, the guaranteed floors under the

new bill would seem to be-I am going to illustrate this by citing some of the farm products:
Per cent of Parity (C.F.A. Formula) Amount
B-l hogs, Toronto ....	$21.56	64 per centButter, Montreal	
47.7c	66 per centGood steers, Toronto . 15.3c	61 per cent
In only one case, Mr. Speaker, and that is the case of No. 1 cheese at Toronto where the amount is 27.8 cents and the percentage of parity would be 72.6 per cent, would the percentage of parity be over 70 per cent. Then, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture formula prices for 1958, percentages of parity, are as follows:
100 per cent 70 per cent
B-l hogs, Toronto	 $33.58	$23.50
In other words, under the bill which was introduced by the minister, the approved floor price would be $21.56, whereas under the C.F.A. formula of 70 per cent of parity, which is the minimum they suggest, the price would be $23.50 or 50 cents over the present support price under the Agricultural Prices Support Act.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, the time has come for political parties to stop fooling the Canadian public, particularly the Canadian farmer. This talk about no one knowing what parity prices are and not knowing how we could work out a reasonable formula having regard to parity prices should be taken out of the books because here we have in the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, 38 of the top Canadian economists, suggesting a price formula which they have put before the different governments since 1948. I feel this matter is so important I am going to put on the record their most recent recommendations regarding price support. They are as follows:
1.	Support prices should be established according to a known formula.
2.	A modernized formula for the calculation of fair relationship prices, which may be accepted as the best presently known, and which is, therefore, recommended as a guide to the setting of price supports, requires;
(a)	Calculating prices for farm products which would give them the same purchasing power per unit as in the base period 1925-29, and then-
(b)	Adjusting these individual prices so that they will have the same relationship to each other as they have had on the average during the most recent ten years.
There is your flexibility, Mr. Speaker. I continue:
These two steps should provide a set of fair relationship prices, in sound relationship to one another, but with a unit purchasing power on the average equal to the purchasing power of farm products in 1925-29.
3.	It is recommended that a formula, for use in the setting of farm price supports, be embodied in price support legislation.

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
4.	Support prices for the following commodities-[DOT] cheese, butter, concentrated milk products, eggs, poultry meats, bacon hogs, and wheat grown in areas outside the jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board should be required by the price support legislation to be in effect at all times. Grains marketed by the Canadian wheat board should be supported as is suggested for the above key commodities, except that they should be administered through the agency of the wheat board.
5.	All other farm commodities should be subject to price supports as conditions may make this desirable.
6.	Support prices should not be established at less than 70 per cent of fair relationship prices and only in exceptional cases should supports be set at such a low level.
7.	Market price supports and deficiency payments should be applied on a national basis as a general rule, but regional supports, under some circumstances, should not be ruled out.
8.	Support prices to the producer must be known, and where support operations are carried on at a processing or wholesale level, producers must be assured the full benefit of such supports.
9.	The deficiency payment method of supporting incomes of producers should be applied on individual products to correct income deficiencies:
(a)	For perishable products requiring this type of support.
(b)	To supplement market price supports.
(c)	To correct income deficiencies after the product has been marketed where prices for a commodity have fallen to an unreasonably low level each year for two years; or to meet conditions such as inability to deliver production, or other special circumstances.
(d)	To be used as a guaranteed support level where the interests of consumers, continuity of supply or other special marketing problems require it.
10.	Price supports should not create incentives to production which perpetuate surplus production problems and prevent necessary and desirable production adjustments being made.
I am not going to read into the record the steps in calculating the fair relationship price, but they are here. I should think the minister should give consideration to the fact that here we have one of the leading farm organizations which has a flexible formula for parity on a basis which meets the needs of the farmers today. I am not saying I fully support it, but certainly it is something which should have been looked at before, as I say, this inocuous bill we have before us was introduced.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the other main farm organization, the interprovincial farm union council, has asked that any legislation concerning support prices be effective so that the producer would receive his fair share of the national income. I want to read into the record their submission of recent date to the government. It is this:
We appreciate that provision has been made for a federal system of price supports, but regret that it has been of little direct benefit to the producers. We believe that in order to make this policy effective, the following principles should be incorporated:
1. Price supports should be maintained at parity levels, in order that agriculture may obtain its fair share of the national income.
That is the recommendation of the interprovincial farm union council concerning its request for adequate price support.
I now want to deal with some of the statements which have been made by various members of this government. I think the time has come that this government be called before the bar of public opinion. These statements made by Conservative members in the past now require, in my opinion, to be put before this house. I want to say in particular that I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself should be called before the bar of public opinion. I recognize that ordinarily in a court of law people are not called to testify against themselves. But in this case the Prime Minister has willingly done so. He has done so by speeches in the house and he has done so by speeches outside the house. I should like to read into the record some of the statements made by the Prime Minister. Speaking in 1944 on the address in regard to agricultural support prices, as recorded at page 102 of Hansard of that year the Prime Minister said this:
Reference has been made in the speech from the throne to agriculture but time does not permit my discussing that today except to say that I believe in the principle of floor prices, but like hon. members who have already spoken I ask the government what level is to be set. Is it to be a price level in accordance with present prices and subsidies? Is it to be a level that will ensure the cost of production and a reasonable profit? If it is not, it will be a denial of the farmers' due.
Those were brave words in 1944. As found at page 2023 of Hansard of March 12, 1956, the present Prime Minister of Canada said this:
The parity situation has been very thoroughly canvassed during recent years. We, in the Progressive Conservative party, tried to get some action on this matter on several occasions, but without success. One of the earliest occasions was in 1941, during the war. The last occasion when we moved an amendment regarding this question of parity prices was on March 23, 1953.
Later on he said this:
At that time I moved this amendment:
"That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
'in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to provide floor prices for agricultural products at such levels as to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship.' "
As found at page 2024 of Hansard of March 12, 1956 in a declaration of Conservative policy, the Prime Minister said this:
"(d) The floor price formula will be arrived at in consultation with representative producers.
2678	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
We will establish a board of livestock commissioners similar to the board of grain commissioners.
We will give every legitimate encouragement to co-operative agencies whether relating to purchase, sale or credit."
As found on the same page, the Prime Minister said this:
I intend to move, sir, seconded by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton):
"That all the words after 'that' be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
'in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to create a parity of prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship.' "


Charles Edward Johnston: When was that?


Edward George McCullough: That was on March 12, 1956, as found at page 2024 of Hansard.
Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal more to say but I notice that I have spoken at some length already. However, I think I have brought to the attention of the house the very fact that there should be a reconsideration of this whole bill. At this moment I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny), the following amendment:
That Bill No. 237 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
I should like to continue with the Prime Minister, as I was, before the bar of public opinion on his basic principles. I want to add that, as found at page 2026 of Hansard of March 12, 1956, the Prime Minister said this:
The trend referred to in the amendment moved in 1953 has continued. Canadian agriculture today would not be in its present precarious position if action had been taken at that time on the basis of the experience of our neighbour to the south and also on the basis of the demands of farmers generally.
Again, Mr. Speaker, as found at page 2021 of Hansard of March 12, 1956, the Prime Minister said this:
The squeeze which the farmer suffers results from the disparity in the relationship between the prices of farm products and the prices the farmer has to pay. When they are in proper relationship parity is established, and it is parity that the farm organizations across this country are asking for today. Not charity but parity. When one looks at the general price relationship one begins to realize how far in recent years that desirable end has been departed from. As far as parity is concerned, it must be related to a basic period which is regarded as one in which prices and costs are in approximate equivalence one to the other.
Then further, on January 13, 1956, as recorded in Hansard at page 78, speaking about problems regarding farm income and the sale of wheat, the Prime Minister said this:


The handling of this problem is a tragedy of errors; it is a chronic and tragic record of selfdeception, optimism and arrogance. It is an attitude on the part of the government that constitutes a mockery of the public demand for action.
Also during the election campaign when he was trying to get votes the Prime Minister had occasion to come down near my home constituency. Speaking at Kipling, where he was outlining part of the agricultural farm policy of the Conservative party, he said this:
The only answer the Liberals had made to these proposals,-
He was then speaking of the proposals made by himself in the house.
-he said, was to vote against them. . .
He had, he said, presented resolutions in the House of Commons since 1941 asking for price supports to ensure farmers a fair relationship between prices and costs.
But what a far cry from what we are getting today. I therefore say, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister, the man who has the highest elective honour in this land, stands before the court of public opinion in this country. Surely, in his own words, the farmer is not asking for charity but simply for parity.
I should now like to bring forward further witnesses to what I am saying this afternoon. I do not think I need to repeat anything further of what the Prime Minister himself has said. He is a western member. The Minister of Agriculture is a western member. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is a western member in this new government. There can be no excuse that they do not know the situation. But at this moment I am going to call as witnesses of the need of some assistance to the man on the land some of the people whom I know personally. The first I am going to call to testify is a young man who won the D.F.C. during the last war. He came back to our community, built himself a little house on the farm, bought himself a tractor and equipment under D.V.A. and for five or six years tried to make a living for his wife whom he had brought over from the old country and for his children. In the last two years he has had to leave his farm. He is a truck driver today.
Another person whom I want to call to testify that something must be done for the man on the land is another veteran, a man whom I know very well. He was five years in the service. He fought during the roughest fighting overseas in order to try to save democracy for the world. He has come back. What has he today after 12 years of work? He does not own a car. He is not able to put electrical power into his home. He told me he was not able to get married because he

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
did not feel it was fair to bring a wife to a farm where he did not have modern conveniences.
Another witness I want to bring forward is another person who was wounded severely overseas, who has come back and tried to make a living for his wife and three little girls. Year by year it is just a question how long they can stay on the farm. If it were not for his disability pension he would not be able to stay there.
Another person whom I know very well is a young lad who went into the service almost as a boy, spent five years, fought during the roughest fighting in Germany, came back, bought equipment under D.V.A. and tried to farm under this cost-price squeeze facing the western people today. In the past three years he has been going to the city of Regina taking construction work. His wife leaves the farm too and, as she is a registered nurse, she works as a nurse and then comes back to try and maintain their little home, both of them fighting against the cost-price inflation which we have in Canada today.
I also want to call as a witness a young man, a very able young man, who was a veteran of almost the full length of the last war and who came up while I was away from home to see me and told my wife that he would like to tell us his story and to see if I could help him. This veteran had married a young Scottish girl while overseas and had brought her back to Canada, moving in just south of where I live, and has farmed there since the end of the war. He said "I have tried time and time again at the end of the year to make plans for the spring and each year it seems to be getting worse and worse. For the last two years my wife has worked in the local hospital." The last time he came to see me they had had a big rain in his area and he had not finished combining. He said "It does not seem to matter how much I grow because the things I have to buy take all my money. Taxes and other things are eating up every bit of my income. My wife who has been working as a nurse is now also ready to quit."
Mr. Speaker, I call these people as witnesses before this parliament. Surely this government, at a time when they have billions for defence, when they have millions for landing fields, millions for this and for that, will recognize that the time has come for us to see some action on their part, rather than the mockery indicated in this bill.
I therefore close at this time in the hope that this government will take this bill from the floor of the house, will call in organized agriculture and will give us a bill which will meet the needs of Canadian agriculture.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, when the leader of the house this morning intervened he suggested that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) had announced the amendment which he proposed to move later on, as a courtesy to the house. Well I do not think he can fool anybody by that suggestion. After all, the government is a minority and they know very well they could never have got the bill through this house in its original form. Apparently they did not desire to go to the country with that bill as the issue, because they would have been defeated in every agricultural constituency in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Victor Quelch: The Minister of Agriculture when he was speaking this afternoon criticized the idea of parity on a fixed base period plan. He says no one with any sense of responsibility would support such a proposal. He bitterly criticized members of the opposition for suggesting such a thing, but let me remind the hon. minister that when he says nobody with a sense of responsibility would support a fixed based formula-when he criticizes members for doing that-he is criticizing the Prime Minister, (Mr. Diefen-baker) his own leader, and calling him irresponsible because for-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Nonsense. I said that nobody with any sense of responsibility would advocate a system such as they have had in the United States for the past several years.


Victor Quelch: Which is a fixed base parity. He has been very critical of the idea of having a fixed formula inserted in the bill. Now several references have already been made to the stand taken by the Prime Minister of this country. On April 9, 1957 the Prime Minister was quite upset because certain farm organizations were criticizing him for the stand he took on a certain amendment that had been made to the speech from the throne and he stated on page 3305 of Hansard:
Throughout the years we in this party have advocated that action be taken on behalf of the farmer, and I am going to set out in detail some of the suggestions we have made and the motions we have moved in order to answer the propaganda that is sometimes spread that the Conservative party has no interest in the welfare of the farmer.
And then he quotes a number of motions and amendments that he or his party had moved since 1941 and in every case they had advocated either a parity price or a fair price-cost relationship. And then, on March 12, 1956 at page 2021 of Hansard he defined exactly what he means by parity. I will only

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization quote a few of his words because his statement has already been referred to, but he says:
As far as parity is concerned, it must be related to a basic period which is regarded as one in which prices and costs are in approximate equivalence one to the other.
That is something of which the present Minister of Agriculture is very critical. Apparently he cannot see eye to eye with his own leader on this question. I believe in the absolute soundness of the statement made by the Prime Minister at that time, but apparently the Minister of Agriculture does not agree with him, otherwise he would never have brought into the house the insidious type of bill before us. It still seems to me that he is referring to the Prime Minister as being irresponsible in bringing such a suggestion before the country.
Now 1 think it is quite easy to understand why the Minister of Agriculture does not want a fixed formula in the bill because if we have a fixed formula for parity in the bill, then we will have a support price fixed by law, and the government would then have to pay that support price on the basis of parity. But under the bill that we have before us, even with the amendment, it is of such a general character that there would be absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that the farmers would receive a parity of price. It says that the governor in council will have regard to the cost of production but also will have regard to other things and among the other things which the Minister of Agriculture listed was the supply and demand situation. No doubt, if there was a fairly large supply of any commodity then they would consider they would be perfectly justified in refusing to maintain a price that would give the farmers their whole cost of production and that is why the farm organizations have insisted from time to time that a parity formula should be written into the act so that support prices would not depend upon the whims of the minister whom we have today, or the minister who may follow him at some later date.
Now the Minister of Agriculture at the resolution stage stated, as reported at page 2393 of Hansard, that he opposed the parity price on a fixed formula. He said:
Any price support program which attempts to use as its formula a base period in the past and apply an index to it, and so forth, immediately gets you into a rigid formula. I think the experiences of all countries in the world demonstrate the fact that a rigid formula just does not work.
And then he went on to explain that we should have a prescribed price based upon the average price for the past three years. But when he was discussing the resolution he said that altogether too much emphasis

was being placed upon this three-year period, and he had this to say at page 2396:
I should like to make the point that the base price is arrived at by taking the average of prices for three years previous and is used the same as a foot rule is used in measuring length. In other words, it is a measuring device to a large extent and therefore one should not try to put a great deal of emphasis on the particular type of measuring device.
The minister expects parliament to accept that as a measuring device even after it was agreed that it was not a satisfactory period to have chosen. Thus, he is asking the farmers to accept a measuring stick which is not satisfactory. How would you like to buy so many yards of cloth using a measuring stick which had only eleven inches to the foot? Would you be satisfied with that kind of measuring stick? That is exactly the same as the kind of measuring stick the farmers are asked to accept. It has been admitted that in the past three years the average prices have not been satisfactory as far as many farmers are concerned, yet the minister expects farmers to be satisfied to use that period as a measuring stick.
When I spoke on the resolution I criticized the government for failing to embody in the act a parity or fair price-cost relationship. On page 2197, I say:
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.
Well, when the minister replied, he had this to say:
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.
Well, I challenge the minister to show anywhere in the bill as we have it where there was any mention of a fair cost relationship or a parity price. These words do not occur anywhere in that bill. And I think the fact that the minister has now felt obliged to bring down these amendments placing these words in the bill proves that he himself at that time either did not understand the implication of his own bill or, if he did understand them, that he was misleading the house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That relationship was, as I have said a dozen times, implicit in the whole bill and still is.


Victor Quelch: It may have been implicit in the mind of the minister, but nowhere in the bill was it even implied. On the contrary there was every reason to believe that the

minister was going to base the price upon something other than a fair price relationship, because when he defined the different things that would affect the prescribed rates, one of the things listed was the law of supply and demand.
We all know what happens under this so-called law of supply and demand. When you have over-production or a surplus, you either reduce production or you reduce the price in order to discourage production, and I have no doubt that the intention of the minister at that time-and, very likely it is the intention of the minister still-was that if production of any commodity began to increase, then the government would take steps to reduce the price of that commodity, even though they said they would have some regard to the cost of production; if the condition of the law of supply required it, in his own mind, he would allow the law of supply and demand to out weigh the cost of production feature.
The minister and the government still show a great deal of concern regarding the supply situation. They are afraid that maintaining floor support prices may result in an expansion of production and the consequent building up of surpluses. It is quite apparent that the government has little faith in its own marketing or trade policy. Instead of finding ways and means of distributing possible surpluses, they consider it would be better to take action to reduce production rather than to try to find ways and means of getting this surplus food to the people who need it. There is no doubt that in Canada today there is still a tremendous potential market for many of our farm commodities among the low income groups, and there are many steps which could be taken to help increase the sale of agricultural products.
I think the government might well give consideration to a plan they had in the United States many years ago known as the stamp plan, in view of the situation developing in many parts of Canada today where there is quite a serious unemployment problem and many families are going to find it extremely difficult to get enough food to maintain themselves at even a minimum standard of living. The government might give very careful consideration to this stamp plan, because this would be one way, and quite an efficient way, of expanding the sale of farm products on the home market; and, of course, anybody in the lower income groups could be helped by certain social measures in this regard.
I think that when we are considering farm surpluses we must keep the world situation in mind at all times. I was glad to see that
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization the Prime Minister, speaking at the NATO meeting, had expressed support for the setting up of a world food bank. Some international organization of this kind is essential to deal with agricultural surpluses, and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the international federation of agriculture have done exceptionally fine work in this regard. We recall how they were largely responsible for the formation of the plan known as the international commodity clearing house, which unfortunately was turned down. But I am continually running into people who say: this idea that there is starvation in the world just because in some countries a few people are undernourished is over-played, and there is no reason why we should say that there is a serious situation in the world. But I am going to quote a few passages which I have quoted before in this house, though not this session or last session, from a statement made by Mr. Gove Hambidge, the North American regional representative of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations when he appeared before the Senate standing committee on Canadian trade relations in 1955. This is on page 10 of the report of that standing committee. He said:
Over against this prosperous group of countries blessed with plenty of food and so many of the good things of life, you have another group still far down the scale of economic and physical wellbeing. They include half the people of the world or more, and they are still poor and undernourished, many of them living in bleak hovels, without enough clothing, illiterate and uneducated, dying young, lacking the modern tools and equipment necessary for good production, and often without enough physical vigor to do what we would call a really good day's work even though they work as hard as they can. But better living and greater abundance are possible for these great masses of mankind, and they are becoming more and more sharply aware that their lives and the lives of their children can be better.
This is the paragraph I want the house to take special notice of.
It is this possibility of better times, opened up by modern scientific developments but not yet reaching down to all the levels of mankind, that creates much of the tension among nations and within nations today. When people see something they want very badly and think they can have it and are entitled to it, they are likely to try to get it by violent means if more peaceful ones don't seem to work. And there are plenty of troublemakers around to encourage them to use violence.
I think we would all agree that there can be no justification for large surpluses in some countries whilst we have millions of people on the verge of starvation in others. We should at the present time be devoting far more time and energy to ways and means by which we can get our surplus to the nations that need it instead of talking about ways and means about reducing production. This statement
2682	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization says that because these people know there is an ample supply of food they are not prepared to peaceably submit to this situation. What appears to be the answer of the minister? It would appear that the minister thinks that so as not to aggravate these people by letting them see the surpluses it would be better to reduce production so there would be no surpluses and people could starve peaceably without the irritation of seeing quantities of surplus food available in some parts of the world. Of course we all know that this is not the solution. We have to face up to the problem and find ways and means of getting this surplus food to the peoples that need it.
If the nations had adopted the international commodity clearing house idea I believe this problem would have been solved by now. Unfortunately it was turned down by the member nations and the problem of surpluses has been left on the doorstep of each individual nation. There is only one nation that has tried to face up to that responsibility and that is the United States of America. When the problem of surpluses was left on its doorstep it adopted certain proposals such as its food disposal policy making it possible for that country to get this surplus food to nations which are not able to obtain it through the normal channels of trade by the acceptance of their currency, by barter or by gift. Instead of Canada criticizing the United States for that policy, which after all is a humanitarian policy, we should consider ways and means by which we might do the same thing. I am not suggesting that we should go as far as that country has gone but certainly we could go much further than we have up to the present time.


Charles Edward Johnston: And at the same time pay the farmers a fair price for that food.


Victor Quelch: As the hon. member for Bow River just said, while we are doing that we should pay the farmer a fair price for his food and make it available to the nations that need it.
I want to discuss the question of a sound parity formula.
I believe it was in 1943 when farm products were under price ceilings the prime minister of that day promised that if farmers would be satisfied to sell their products under a ceiling the government would guarantee to stabilize the price on farm products at a fair level in the post-war period as compensation and to stabilize the price of all the main farm products. I ask you to remember that word "main".
But for some strange reason, in spite of the government of that day, having said it would stabilize the price of all the main farm products at a level that would give the farmer a fair price relationship, they have never


supported the price of wheat in any shape or form. The farm organizations have continually asked for a support price formula to be inserted in the act. The old Agricultural Prices Support Act was supported by farm organizations as quite a good act but they were continually urging the government to insert into that act a formula that would set the price on farm products at a parity level. The principle of parity was contained in section 9 subsection 2 of the act but unfortunately the former government did not live up to the full implications of that section and so during the past several years we have had many commodities not supported at all and we have had other commodities supported in some cases at 80 per cent of parity and in the case of eggs only about 54 per cent of parity.
The present Prime Minister criticized the former government for not living up to the principle of the Agricultural Prices Support Act and that principle as embodied in section 9 was a fair price relationship. And then, strangely enough, after criticizing the former government for not living up to that principle which was embodied into the act he-I was going to say "he" but I should say the Prime Minister allowed his minister, the Minister of Agriculture-to bring a bill into this house that does not even mention the words "parity" or "fair price relationship" from the beginning to the end of the entire bill.
We now have in our possession certain amendments that are going to be moved. I believe these amendments will improve the bill but they still fall far short of giving the farmer a guarantee of a parity price because there still will be no formula in the act under which support prices will be paid automatically and it will continue to depend on the whims of the Minister of Agriculture as to the level at which these support prices should be set. It is also quite possible that this could become a kind of political football under which there would be a fairly high support price in the year before an election and afterwards it might possibly be lower.
The price provided for in the bill is not a parity price of course and it is merely based on the last three-year average. The last three years happen to have been extremely unsatisfactory years. The farmer is guaranteed only 80 per cent of that. The minister told us at the resolution stage about a number of things that would help to guide the government as to the level at which support prices should be set if it is decided to set them above 80 per cent of the base period and, as I have already mentioned, one of those is the question of supply and demand. Although the amended bill does use the words "relationship

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
to cost of production", it also mentions that these other things will be taken into consideration at the same time. One cannot help wondering, therefore, which will win the battle, the cost of production on the one hand or the law of supply and demand on the other. After listening to the Minister of Agriculture warn of the tremendous danger of having a price that might encourage farmers to raise too much, one cannot help feeling he will pay far more consideration to the law of supply and demand than he will to the cost of production.
The question I have never been able to answer satisfactorily, and I have been asked it many times on the platform, is "Why did the former government not include grains under the Agricultural Prices Support Act?" As I already mentioned, the former prime minister promised that all the main products would be supported and yet wheat, which is one of the main products, has never had support under the act since the end of the war. The price of wheat the farmer receives is the world market price.
It is interesting to note that if wheat had been under the Agricultural Prices Support Act and if the support price under wheat had been governed to the full extent by the formula that the government used,-that is using the years 1943-45 as the base period- then the support price for wheat would have been $2.37 a bushel,-I got these prices this spring from the bureau of statistics-and yet the farmers are getting only around $1.19 a bushel, only about half of a parity price.
The old Agricultural Prices Support Act left wheat out of the act. Today the Minister of Agriculture goes a step farther and also excludes oats and barley. At different times the farm organizations have asked that grain should be placed under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, and at other times they have asked that at least wheat or grain be sold under a two-price system; that is, the price for wheat in the domestic market should be governed by parity and the world price, the best possible. In view of the fact that farmers have had to sell their grains at very low prices in the past, at world market prices, farm organizations are asking today that a deficiency payment should be made on wheat to compensate for those losses, and I think that is a very reasonable demand.
When the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) spoke earlier he referred to the brief of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and therefore I am not going to quote in again. However, I do want to refer to certain paragraphs that have been criticized at times in the past. I should like to refer
to section 6 on paragraph 11. This brief, by the way, is dated July 24, 1957. The paragraph reads:
A range of from 70 to 85 per cent of the fair-relationship prices would, for the key commodities mentioned, appear to leave the price support program with the maximum of flexibility consistent with protection of the interests of the farmer.
Personally, I have always been somewhat critical of that for the simple reason that if you selected a base period during which there was a fair cost-price relationship I do not see why the parity price should be at less than 100 per cent. In that case a base period is only giving the farmers a fair cost-price relationship. No one would suggest that in 1943-45 the price of farm products was higher than the price of other commodities because we were still under a price ceiling. Therefore, I have always felt that when we use the base period 1943-45 the farmers are entitled to 100 per cent of that. It gives them only a price that will bear a fair relationship to the price of other commodities. Why should anybody expect the farmers of this country to accept a price which is less than a fair price relationship?
I know that all other forms of society would object very much if they were chosen as the one body in the country that should receive less than their fair share of the national income. I am not critical any more of this declaration of the federation because they have now added something to their program that, in my opinion, fully covers the situation. I say that because section 10 says:
The deficiency payment method of supporting incomes of producers should be applied on individual products to correct income deficiencies:
(a)	for perishable products requiring this type of support.
(b)	to supplement market price supports.
If you are going to have deficiency payments in addition to your support prices, then it is no longer so important that your support prices should be at 100 per cent of the parity price, that is of the fair cost-price relationship, because at the end of the year, or at the end of two years, when you have assessed the relationship between farm income and total income and you find that the farm income is down, the deficiency payment can be made to compensate for the deficiency in income of the farmer.
When the Minister of Agriculture is so critical of a fixed base period he should keep in mind the recommendations of the federation of agriculture because whilst it is true that they use a fixed period of 1925 to 1929 they also use the last 10 years for the purpose of ensuring that a fair relationship exist as between the product of one industry and the product of another. In other words, their
2884	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization formula is a very flexible one; but the minister seems to be so strongly prejudiced against the idea of a base period that he classifies them all as being rigid and ones that would have a disastrous result in spite of the fact that his own Prime Minister has declared that a parity price must have a fixed base period.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would say that the bill as it is brought before the house is, in our opinion, an insidious one. It is all very well for the Minister of Agriculture to try to make us believe that it was meant to embody a parity price principle. The fact of the matter is there is no mention of parity or fair price relationship anywhere in the bill. It may have been in the mind of the minister. I am still convinced, after listening to him for the last few years, that he is one of those great supporters of the so-called law of supply and demand. I think the motion moved by the C.C.F. is a good one. As a matter of fact, I had a similar amendment all ready written out, ready to move if the C.C.F. had not moved it. I think the logical thing to do is to refer the subject matter of this bill to a committee, where a thorough discussion and investigation could be had, so that we could call representatives of the various farm organizations and take the time to draft a satisfactory bill. There is no rush. The Agricultural Prices Support Act is still with us. We can carry on with that until such time as we get a new bill.
If the government wants to increase support prices at the present time there is nothing to prevent them from doing so under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. They did it with sugar beet and they can do it with a lot of other commodities. Therefore, I say they cannot use the argument that we have to rush this thing because we want to give the benefit of it to the farmers. Any benefit that they want to give to the farmers they can give under the present legislation. Let us do a worth-while job on it. Let us send the subject matter of this bill to the agriculture committee and let us make a thorough investigation of the whole act.


Charles Edward Johnston: And get something worth while.


Victor Quelch: The minister does not seem to like the idea and somebody said, "of course not". I can quite understand that. He knows very well that if the subject matter of this bill is sent to the agriculture committee a very different kind of bill will come back, if the committee is given a free hand. At least, the recommendation will be very different


from the amendments he gave us today. These amendments do not begin to deal with the situation of distressed agriculture today.
(Translation):


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have carefully gone over the various sections of this bill: An act to provide for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities, and I have checked it against the Agricultural Prices Support Act, enacted by the Liberal government in 1944 and put in operation in 1946. On the basis of this comparison, I do not see any useful purpose being served by this new bill. It does or allows nothing which was not already possible under the old act, one which was flexible enough to meet the wishes and recommendations of our various Canadian agricultural organizations, from year to year. Let me refer to the fiery statement made by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), on December 11 last. He then said:
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.
And he went on:
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.
Well, Mr. Speaker, as far as the farmers of the province of Quebec are concerned, we can say that they are getting used to such bombastic statements. Let us have no more of this posing as the emancipator of the agricultural community. Legislation should be introduced which can really improve, at its very basis, the agricultural situation. The government of Quebec has also long claimed to have pulled farmers out of depressed conditions.
The preamble to this bill sets out the statements which made headlines when it was decided that a further $50 million would go into the fund provided by the act, giving farmers the impression that the federal government, the Conservative government, was presenting them with a gift of $50 million, which is not correct. Well, that legislation, with its additional $50 million, has the same value as the statements of the minister when he claims that he will settle all of the Canadian farmers' problems.
A moment ago, Mr. Speaker, I stated that, because of its flexibility, the previous legislation was such as to meet the requests and

representations of the various agricultural bodies of this country. We had an example of this when the last government stabilized the price of butter on the basis of representations made by the producers. The government went so far as to announce that butter would be supported at 58 cents a pound for two years. That was one of the steps which the previous government was able to take as a result of the flexibility of legislation whose repeal is now sought.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I note that this bill provides for the setting up of a board called "Agricultural Stabilization Board". I wonder in what respects this board can be different from the previous one.
To my mind the government of Canada, responsible for the national policy regarding agricultural products, should deal primarily with products of concern to farmers in all of the provinces. Now national interest is not necessarily a matter of geography, and when a fairly large group of farmers in a particular province are engaged in producing a certain commodity, this commodity should be rated as of national interest and should therefore be included in the items listed in paragraph (i), subsection A, section 2 of this bill.
In fact, the bill should set out the conditions under which a product could be covered by the act.
I have in mind particularly maple products, which are a source of revenue for a considerable number of farmers in an important area of the province of Quebec and I can see why my colleague from Beauce, (Mr. Poulin), put a question to the Minister of Agriculture in this regard the other day.
Granting that 90 per cent of the maple sugar is produced in the province of Quebec, its importance to a great number of Quebec farmers, the value of the product, its large market and its genuine export quality make it a product of national importance.
Personally, I think that the bill does not touch the basic problem of economic agricultural rehabilitation in several areas of Quebec. Before deciding on the price stabilization of agricultural products, it is necessary to know whether or not production itself in all branches could not be improved.
That is why I asked the Minister of Agriculture last Tuesday if the Senate committee on land use, established by the former government, specially in eastern Canada, would continue to function and I was very glad to learn that it would.
Private Bills-Divorce
I am very glad of the action taken by the former government in establishing this committee which, to my mind, deals with the very fundamentals of the required development and improvement of economic conditions for a great number of our farmers, specially in the areas of Quebec and the Maritimes.
When this committee was established, the then prime minister had stated: "Everyone knows that the Senate has been called upon to inquire into the best possible ways of utilizing our land. I know that there are still some ways to increase production and the income of our primary producers."
Mr. Speaker, the farmers of my area are deeply interested in the work of this committee which has already received advice from several experts and briefs from various parts of this country.
I wish to call the attention of the house to two briefs in particular which were submitted to the members of the Senate committee, one by the assistant deputy minister of agriculture (Mr. Chagnon), which was included in the proceedings of this committee on February 21, 1957, and one by Mr. J. P. Lemoine, president of the Catholic Farmer's Union, which was submitted on February 28, 1957.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Five o'clock. (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consider private and public bills, the former having precedence.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Pierre Rothe. -Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Vasyl Dudka. -Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of John Francis Bernard Deegan.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Jean Guy Joseph Desparois.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of John Howard Cooper Thompson.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Romeo Raymond.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Annette Allard Huint.-Mr. Rea.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Vera Dziedzic Volkman.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of William Toulouse.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Frances Maud Mercer Barter.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 210, for the relief of Florence Bloomfield Cichella.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Carmen Baron Matucha.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Martine Rol-land Badeaux.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Gertrude Laurence Delisle Laplante.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 214, for the relief of Viola Carmela Starnino Dizazzo.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Ludek Peter Rubina.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Bernhard Wilhelm Michael.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Paul-Emile Bedard.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Michael Todascu.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Iris Dorothy Birks Yates.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 221, for the relief of Marion Gloria Ewart Balleine.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Yvonne Florence Kee Brien, otherwise known as Yvonne Florence Kee Durocher.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Christine Mary Mackay Leavitt.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of William Lucien Proulx.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Lionel Houde. -Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Gilberte Hen-riette Marie Harchoux Vuillaume.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Catherine Maitland Moenting Johnstone.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 228, for the relief of Maria Torossi Chartrand.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Judith Sidney Browne Stein.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Florence Wedge Whitlock.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Jean-Baptiste Gagnon.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Christine Sil-verson Manchur.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Joseph Napoleon Leon Prosper Brault.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Kaarlo Kustaa Loikkanen.-Mr. Rea.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, November 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) for the second reading of Bill No. 2, to provide for annual vacations with pay for employees.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some humility that I rise to discuss this bill. It appears that it is the government's intention to introduce legislation involving the same principles. It appears to me that on this question there is now considerable variation in the thinking of industry and labour who many times, left to themselves, work out their problems around the conference table. This is done in most cases to the mutual satisfaction of both parties. These holidays in almost all cases are for a week or longer; and a week, let me say, Mr. Speaker, is almost universal while it is not uncommon in a great many cases to have two weeks and even longer. In some cases they extend to even three and four weeks. In most cases the length of the vacation with pay is directly related to the length of service. It will be found that office workers generally get two weeks.
The provinces across Canada vary in their regulations. It might well be that the matter should be left to the labour unions to negotiate or the provinces, as conditions vary so widely from the Atlantic to the Pacific. For example, for some workers a longer holiday might be of distinct value, for example in construction work; and I am sure that many hon. members in this house can think of many other occupations as well. We have made a great deal of progress in this field. The impact of this legislation proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will affect roughly between
4,000	to 5,000 workers who now get only one week. The legislation which the government has in mind I believe will serve this purpose better than the bill proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I would submit that I would have to go along with our legislation.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: In principle, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the bill which is now before the house. It is also in principle the same as the bill brought in by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) which is now before the house as Bill No. 16 and which is on the order paper for second reading.

I have taken the opportunity of comparing the two bills which are before the house. I am quite well aware of the fact that it is contrary to the rules of the house to deal seriatim with these bills on second reading because basically we are discussing the principle of the bill. But in view of the fact that the principle of this bill is similar to that of the one introduced by the Minister of Labour, I feel it is necessary to discuss some of the differences; and only by referring to different sections can the differences become apparent. I will make every effort possible to avoid contravening any rules of the house.
Section 3 of this bill defining the application of the act is identical with section 2, subsection (a) of Bill No. 16. It is also the same as the application of another bill brought forward with reference to statutory holidays. From this I can only assume that the wording of the various bills is derived from some source of well settled precedents which are designed to keep this bill clearly within federal jurisdiction. But since they are similar and since I intend to support Bill No. 16, I see no objection whatever in connection with this particular section.
There is just one other principle in connection with the bill that I should like to mention, namely section 4 of this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to press a point of order too severely, particularly with my hon. friend who is a new member of the house. But where do we get if we begin discussing the individual clauses of these bills when we are at the debate on second reading? Is it not required by the rules that the discussion at this stage be with respect to the principle of the bill? I realize the difficulty created by the fact that there are these two bills; but if the hon. member is going to spend his time in comparing the clauses of two bills, it seems to me we are contravening the rules.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: When I rose, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member addressing himself to the point of order?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, Mr. Speaker. When I rose to speak I attempted to indicate that that would be my effort, to keep the two bills separate. But as I recall it, when this bill was originally brought in, on first reading there was some discussion then as to whether it was in order because it was so similar in principle to Bill No. 16, which the Minister of Labour had placed on the order paper. The resolutions also appeared to be quite similar.
At the time the argument was put forward, as I recall it, that although the bills were similar there were differences and so there
Industrial Relations
would be no real objection to bringing forward the bill of the hon. member of Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). That is the history, according to my recollection of the case, and therefore we are discussing two bills before the house, similar in principle but different in detail. I therefore submit that it would only be by discussing the differences between the two bills that we could talk intelligently about them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, might I suggest to the hon. member that he could make the kind of speech which I gather he wishes to make and yet stay within the rules if, for example, he would address his remarks to the fact that one bill asks for two weeks after one year and the other bill asks for two weeks after two years. He could discuss that difference in principle without picking out the particular clauses and comparing them word by word.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is the only avenue which the hon. member could follow. It is quite clear that on second reading the principles involved in the bill are before the house for discussion and in so far as he can bring out the differences in principle by reference to the provisions of the bill, without reference to or quoting sections, and by describing the principles in general terms as the differences appear from the reading of the bills, I think he could proceed although, perhaps, not in the way in which he is attempting to proceed.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. Is this not the result of the fact that we have these two bills on the order paper at the same time. With deference, I realize we are proceeding with the discussion of this bill of the private member, but surely in connection with your interpretation of speaking on the principle, when we have two items of legislation before us, the member is talking about principles when he speaks, quite definitely, on the differences which exist between specific clauses in the bills and sections in the two acts. I would suggest, sir, that this is something different from the ordinary course of arguing the principle involved which has been put forward by my friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and that at this stage it is going to be very difficult to actually discuss the principle of the bills unless there can be pretty specific reference to what is involved in each of these pieces of legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Well I have already ruled on the question of whether this bill is properly before the house. What we have before us at the moment is one bill only and my ruling,

Industrial Relations
as I remember it, was that until the house had taken some action on either of these bills it did not preclude discussion on the other, but the house is now getting into discussion of this particular bill on second reading and if it is desired to make comparisons with the other bill there is no difficulty about that and I do not intend to exclude comparisons. They should, however, be comparisons of principle. It is perhaps rather a fine line to draw when you have bills which are so closely parallel. If there are differences they could be pointed out, I think, in general terms rather than by reading the clauses of this bill.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would agree with me when I say there is no objection to reading the clauses of another bill which is not before the house.


Howard Charles Green: Is this not a very strange procedure, Mr. Speaker? After all, last night we had a debate on second reading of Bill No. 16, the last business with which we were concerned when the house adjourned at ten o'clock was the debating of Bill No. 16. Now while it is true that there are some differences in the terms of these two bills, they deal entirely with the same subject and I do suggest to Your Honour that it might be well for you to consider whether or not this debate today is in order.
We have a measure sponsored by the government which is actually under debate and it does seem to me to be quite ridiculous that the house can debate a government measure one day and then the next day debate a private bill which deals with exactly the same thing. That, surely, does not make sense under our rules or anything else and I am very doubtful as to whether it is in order for the house to proceed with this debate today.
If this is proper, then on any government bill which does not involve the expenditure of funds a private member can put in a private member's bill which deals with the same subject, perhaps in a slightly different way, and then you have two debates. It does seem to me that that is a waste of the time of the house and if you can have two debates, why can you not have three or four or five, or six? Why could not another private member bring in another bill dealing with the same subject which might vary in the days or the weeks or other little differences in the terms, which is the position here in so far as these two bills are concerned? I think the house has got itself into an impossible situation on this debate which of course is highlighted by the fact that last night the government measure was actually 
under debate and then this afternoon we are asked to debate the same subject under a private members bill.
Now I do not believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can find anything in the rules that would justify a procedure of this kind being followed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, not only can I produce items in the rules, but I can quote Your Honour. This point was raised on the 29th of October and Your Honour made a ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out to the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) that this matter is not open to debate. I did rule on this matter before. Now it may seem an absurd thing for the house to debate two bills concurrently but it does have it within its own power to deal with the situation if it does not wish to debate two measures. It can take the appropriate action to defer one in favour of the other.
I did come to the conclusion before that there was no priority as between the bill standing in the name of the minister and the bill standing in the name of the private member and that until the house comes to a decision debate on one does not preclude debate on the other. Having made that decision I cannot very well change it. I am always glad to reconsider decisions, and I may make errors in my rulings, but that is the position we are in at the present time.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask Your Honour to reconsider this ruling because perhaps at the time when the previous point of order was discussed it was not fully realized just where this kind of situation might lead, and I doubt that Your Honour had any lengthy arguments placed before you. I do, however, suggest that if Your Honour should allow a precedent of this kind to stand it would not be in the best interests of efficient parliamentary procedure and I submit, with due deference sir, that this point is of sufficient importance to justify further consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: I did give full consideration to the matter at the time I made the ruling and I do not feel I can change my mind in the middle of the debate. I do not think the hon. members should ask me to do so. I am afraid we must proceed on the basis of the former decision and the hon. member who has the floor will have to do the best he can with the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I wonder if I may be permitted to correct just one statement which the Minister of Public Works

(Mr. Green) made? I am not going to argue with him about the ruling, because it was made by Your Honour after arguments had been addressed to you from both sides of the house and it must stand. But the Minister of Public Works, the leader of the house, said a moment or two ago that my bill was presented to the house after the government's bill was presented. He asked what is going to prevent private members time and time again from bringing in bills similar to government bills? Well, so far as this particular bill is concerned, it was on the order paper before the government's bill, and this was one of the factors which was taken into consideration at the time the point of order was under debate.
The Minister of Public Works will recall that there was some debate on this matter in which members on both the government side and the opposition side took part. The Speaker gave the matter consideration, read a number of citations and delivered a ruling on the point. I do not wish to get into an argument about the validity of the two bills being on the order paper at the same time, for that validity was settled by Your Honour, but I think it should be made clear that my bill was on the order paper first.
Putting the words used by the Minister of Public Works in reverse, it could equally well be argued that the government could come along at any time and get rid of a private member's bill by bringing in its own bill.


Howard Charles Green: On that point, I submit that is exactly what the government can do. When the government sees fit to bring in a bill it can do so, and it cannot be stopped by a private member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree, but it works both ways.


Howard Charles Green: It could not be stopped by a private member putting on a bill a day or two before. That would be another ridiculous situation.


Mr. Speaker:: As I said, this matter has been settled and I think we are not spending time profitably in discussing it further.


John Borden Hamilton: Could I have one word?


Mr. Speaker:: No, I will not permit my ruling to be discussed further. I have made my ruling and I will not consider the matter further. However, if there is another point of order-


John Borden Hamilton: It is not exactly on the same point of order. It was only
Industrial Relations
about the difficulty of dealing with the matter of principle. Perhaps the hon. member could stay within the rule if he simply refrained from referring to the number of the specific sections he is speaking about.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The point of order which was originally raised, I believe, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has become diverted, and I will, in deference to Your Honour's ruling, attempt to proceed with the provisions of this bill without references to the clauses of the same but merely to differences in principle between the two bills as presented.
It is my understanding that the rules of the house prevent dealing with the clauses seriatim which I understand to mean taking them in sequence, one, two, three, four, five and so forth, and I wish to assure the hon. member that I do not intend to proceed on that basis.
Now there is one other provision in the bill presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which differs from that presented by the Minister of Labour in Bill No. 16. The basic difference is that in the bill we are now discussing there is provision for an annual vacation with pay of two weeks for each year of employment with any employer and this two-week period begins after one year of service with that employer. Bill No. 16, however, provides only one week's vacation after the first year of employment. Now I think the limitation imposed by Bill 16 presented by the government is a fair limitation, and I should like to put forward two reasons for thinking this is the case. In the first place, it is well known that any employee entering on a new occupation or employment requires a period of time in which to become familiar with the work he is doing. The first year of employment might well be considered a training period during which the value of the services rendered to the employer is, perhaps, not as great as it would be in subsequent years.
An engineer employed in one of the services of the government might be extremely well trained in his own profession, he might have extensive experience in the type of work in which he has been engaged, but he might find that the work for which he has been employed is different in its character and surroundings from that which he has done before. Even with his extensive training it would take him some time to adjust himself to the routine of his new work. I might also mention the example of a stenographer taking up a new position. She might be able to type well, to take shorthand and to file, but in order to become familiar with the surroundings of her employment, the

Industrial Relations
people with whom she has to work and the different circumstances under which she works, she does require a period of acclimatization or training. For this reason I would suggest that the first year of employment with one particular employer might not justify the full amount of vacation which might otherwise be given. The first year is fully justified, I believe, on this ground.
A further reason in its favour is that it would provide greater stability in employment. If an employee could move from one position to another within the government service, or an allied service, freely, or move freely from one type of employment to another and still secure each year the same amount of vacation or vacation pay, there would be no reason for that employee staying in any one place, and I think the provision in the other bill would make the stability of employment much less than it ought to be. For these two reasons I think the limitation which has been placed in the bill by the Minister of Labour is justified. That is all I want to say about this particular difference.
There is one more difference between the two bills to which I would like to call attention. Bill No. 2 is somewhat more complicated in its wording and application than the bill subsequently presented as Bill No. 16. The bill we are now considering contains some 25 paragraphs to which it is obvious a great deal of effort and thought have been given. I wish to refer in particular to clause 15 which sets up the principle of a vacation book system and which does provide in my opinion a more detailed and difficult accounting system than does Bill No. 2.
The provisions of the bill we are considering would involve a good deal more accounting, inspection and paper work-red tape, if you would have it that way-than the provisions of Bill No. 16. Those are the three main differences in principle to which I want to draw attention. I think the bills are similar in purpose, namely providing two weeks vacation with pay in respect of every year of service. The government has a bill before the house which seeks to give effect to this principle and I think I can safely say that in principle I am in favour of both bills.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have an opportunity to say a few words in connection with the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I believe in reasonable annual vacations and they are generally accepted in our society today. However, since there are now two bills before the house this situation
places hon. members on this side of the chamber in an awkward position.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I give my friend full marks for honesty.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I am coming to that. If the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is accepted it does constitute to some degree want of confidence in the government. I do not know how you can avoid that implication. Therefore, although hon. members on this side of the house may agree with the principle of the bill we are now debating, since the government is sponsoring a bill which gives effect to the same principle-and especially since this legislation would have the effect of requiring the expenditure of government moneys indirectly if not directly 

our acceptance on this side of the house of a private member's bill from the opposition side of the house would constitute want of confidence. As far as I am personally concerned as a private member on this side of the house I see no alternative but to oppose the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question. I wonder if he is aware of the fact that in 1956 when my bill in identical form was before the house eleven hon. members who are now members of the cabinet voted for it and therefore would he not be voting confidence in those eleven hon. gentlemen, who are after all a majority of the cabinet, if he voted today the same way they voted in 1956?


An hon. Member:: What do you expect, logic?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: It is quite easy to ask questions which put one in an awkward position, I recognize that. Nevertheless I still think I am on sound ground when I say it does constitute or at least implies a lack of confidence in the government for myself as a private member on the government side of the house to support a motion which comes from an hon. member of the opposition and replaces a bill which is being sponsored by the government.


Mr. Barneit:: Which bill was on the order paper first?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I do not
know which bill came first but the fact remains that the two bills are now before this house. I presume that under the rules of the house I can argue the merits of the bill which I am placed in the position of having to support and for that reason I am

going to refer to Bill No. 16. Up to this point the Speaker has not intimated that this is wrong so I will proceed.
Bill No. 16 seeks to provide for annual vacations with pay for employees in federal works, undertakings and businesses. Clause 2 sets out interpretations some of which I will place on the record:
2. In this act,
(a) "federal works, undertakings or businesses" means (i) works, undertakings or businesses operated or carried on for or in connection with navigation and shipping, whether inland or maritime, including the operation of ships and transportation by ship anywhere in Canada; (ii) railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of a province; (iii) lines of steam and other ships connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of a province; (iv) ferries between any province and any other province or between any province and any country other than Canada; (v) aerodromes, aircraft and lines of air transportation; (vi) radio broadcasting stations; (vii) banks and banking;
There are a great many people who are engaged in these various so-called federal works, undertakings and businesses who already have the advantage of vacations with pay. The interpretation clause goes on to provide: (viii) such works or undertakings as, although wholly situate within a province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces; and (ix) any work, undertaking or business outside the exclusive legislative authority of the legislature of any province, and all other works, undertakings or businesses that are within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, but not including any works undertakings or businesses of a local or private nature in the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories;
Perhaps there is not much point in reading the rest of these interpretation items but the interpretation of "vacation pay" might be of interest. Subclause (c) of clause 2 provides that:
(c) "vacation pay" means
(i) four per cent of the wages of an employee during the year of employment in respect of which he is entitled to the vacation, if he is entitled to a vacation of two weeks, and (ii) two per cent of the wages of an employee during the year of employment in respect of which he is entitled to the vacation, if he is entitled to a vacation of one week;


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member agree with that last subclause of the other bill?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I am not at
liberty to discuss the section of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member agree with the sub-clause he has just read? Perhaps he would like to look at it and see what it means?
Industrial Relations


Mr. Maloney:: That is cross-examination.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I would like to answer the hon. gentleman's question. In general, yes, I agree with that principle. There is this to be said in connection with this definition. It implies that where an employee does not take his holidays, or ceases to be employed after the end of one or two years, and if between the end of this first year of employment and the end of his second year of employment he severs his connection he would receive 2 per cent of his annual wages by way of vacation pay. If he had completed two years of employment thereafter and severed his employment he would receive 4 per cent of his annual pay. To that extent it does not provide for a vacation but it provides for vacation pay.
I am not too familiar with the usages and customs as outlined in labour-management contracts, but I should like to make this point. Any time that wages are interfered with, any time that we pass such legislation as this, increasing costs-and that is what it amounts to-we affect the whole economy to a greater or a lesser extent. It has the effect of raising costs somewhere. Now, the public are interested, and have the right to be interested, when anything of this kind is done or any such action as is contemplated is taken. I think that by and large the public are in favour of this legislation. It is a matter of transferring some advantages from one group in our economy to another group. Still, I think the public are in favour of it.
I represent for the most part a rural constituency. Most of the people in our area are farmers and I should take the opportunity to get in a plug for the farming interests. There is legislation before the house which we were discussing just before we began this discussion which purports to improve the position of the farmer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Purports" is right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member will find anything in Bill No. 2 which relates to farming.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I was simply undertaking in the statement I was making to prove that such action on the part of the government would in fact have some effect on the farmers and I was going to say to those who are supporting this legislation for the benefit of the wage earners that certainly the farmers have a right to expect that the farm matters which are under consideration will also receive sympathetic support. Maybe that is out of order.
Let me get back to the government legislation which is proposed. Subject to this act,

Industrial Relations
every employee would be entitled to a vacation of at least two weeks with vacation pay in respect of every completed year of employment. There is something wrong there. I had better go back. I read:
This act applies to and in respect of (a) employment upon or in connection with any federal works, undertakings or businesses;-


An hon. Member:: What bill is that?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Bill No. 16.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is returning to Bill No. 16, may I say to him I allowed him a fair amount of latitude in dealing with Bill No. 16 a while ago, hoping that he would somehow relate it to the bill under discussion, but I do not think I should permit him to return to Bill No. 16 unless he has some purpose in mind in connection with the bill which is now before us.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to show why it is necessary for me to vote against the bill as proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. There is an alternative bill before the house and therefore I should support the alternative bill. At any rate, this bill is sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And supported last year by the Conservatives.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: As I understand it, the principle of the bill is supported by the Conservative element in this house and, as I said, the principle is largely supported by the population all across the country; but unfortunately, it is introduced in such a way that we cannot vote for it without indicating a measure of lack of confidence in the government. Therefore, we have to praise it and let it go.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just like the Liberals during this session, barking but not biting.


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex Wesi):: And at an
opportune time enact legislation which will serve the purposes intended to be served by the bill now before the house. The opposition members who are sponsoring this bill have done a great deal of promotion in the way of legislation for the working people. I would point out that they are not the only ones who have promoted legislation of this kind. I would point out that the record of the present administration in bringing forward legislation to help the working people, and to help the farmers of this country, is not to be surpassed by any government which has been in power in this country since 1867. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Here is the official talker-outer.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -the hon. member who has preceded me in this discussion has not left much time for the contribution that I wished to make. I say that quite seriously. The interjection of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with reference to myself indicated that I was the official talker-outer. This remark will indicate that there is a certain amount of professional jealousy between him and me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
is the old school tie.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is precisely the point I was going to make. I want to take part in this discussion this afternoon because on the bill before us I can agree almost completely with a fellow graduate from my own alma mater. It is not always that we see eye to eye on matters in this house.
There was only one small criticism I wanted to make, however. The principle of Bill No. 2, as well as of Bill No. 16, is a very commendable one. I should like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member sponsoring the bill does not practice what he preaches. He is the only man in this house who never takes a vacation. If you look down the list on the order paper, I am sure it would demonstrate that fact.
I do not believe any hon. member in this chamber would be against the idea that is being sponsored here this afternoon. It is an idea which is perhaps more firmly established in private industry than it is in public business, that every working man deserves a reasonable period of holidays. I think the principle has come about for entirely practical reasons. I should like to approach it from two standpoints. First of all, if you give an employee a reasonable period for vacation it makes him a much more effective employee. This principle perhaps applies today more than it ever did before because so much of the work in this age of mechanization is of a routine and administrative nature. Secondly, in the kind of world in which we live today it is to an increasing extent becoming obvious that more leisure time is at the disposal of the working man. The hours of work are decreasing and the amount of leisure time available is on the increase.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does he not believe that both of these principles apply just as well to the first year of employment as to the second year of employment?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Quite; the first year of employment should certainly allow for a reasonable period of vacation. My time has almost expired, and I had intended to deal with this point before concluding my remarks. Now that the question has been raised by the hon. member, I should like to make a reasonable appeal to him. I will put it in the form of a question. Does he not think that any employee should establish a reasonable degree of competence and also indicate by his attitude towards his job that he has a reasonable degree of dedication and seriousness of purpose to his occupation?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member like an answer?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaks now he will close the debate.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It seems-


Mr. Cardiff:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: May I proceed without further interruption? It seems to me that this is the only point of difference between Bill No. 2 and Bill No. 16. I have the utmost confidence in the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) who is sponsoring Bill No. 16. I have read his bill along with that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and it seems to me that all the available information on this problem has been gathered together by the Minister of Labour. He has taken these important principles into consideration. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will adjust his thinking in this slight respect, this difference between one week for the first year as against two weeks for the first year, he will find it possible to support Bill No. 16. Then, we will move more rapidly to a very desirable goal and I think we will avoid considerable-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
a vacation with pay a reward or a right?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is a bit of both, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is where we differ.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It could be both.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time for consideration
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization of public and private bills having expired, the house will resume, when it resumes, consideration of the matter which was under discussion at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Harkness for the second reading of Bill No. 237, for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities.
(Translation):
Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned, at five o'clock, I was discussing Bill No. 237 and I had mentioned the work done by the important Senate committee on the use of land in Canada. Quoting from a brief submitted by the assistant deputy minister of agriculture, Mr. Chagnon. Here is what he said before the committee on Thursday, February 21, 1957:
"Farming as now practised in Eastern Canada does not seem to provide for a substantial proportion of our farmers and their families, a standard of living comparable to the average standard prevailing in Canada at the present time. A common explanation for this is that farms are too small, labour costs too high, farm prices too low, and so on."
Mr. Chagnon, whose experience and knowledge of Canadian agriculture are very wide, then deals in this brief with the problem of the economic recovery of a certain portion of Eastern farmers, and highlights a solution which he found very successful, the fertilization of grazing land in areas where farming requires too much work for the returns it has to offer.
Quebec agriculture in particular owes much to the work and knowledge of Mr. Chagnon. May I, incidentally, point out that he has rendered numerous services to the Quebec farmers, especially before he was called into the federal Department of Agriculture where he is continuing his admirable work.
2694	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilisation
It should be noted, however, that the remedy proposed by the assistant deputy minister of agriculture necessarily requires a transformation of the agricultural methods used in less fertile areas.
One factor which must necessarily be considered is the fact that on many small farms too much money is being spent on farming machinery.
Nobody, of course, can blame a farmer for wanting to mechanize his farm, but in many cases farmers have to spend $5, $10, $15 and even $20,000 on farming machinery which serves only four months a year. The cost of these machines, their normal depreciation and their uselessness during too great a part of the year, are a heavy load on the budget of many farmers and constitute, I think, a capital expenditure which does not give sufficient return, if not a pure loss.
The pooling by a number of farmers of the machinery necessary to proper farming should be practised more efficiently than it is at the proper time. Now let me turn to the brief presented by the president of the U.C.C., Mr. Lemoine, to the same committee on Thursday, February 28, 1957. I would like to call the attention of the house to the figures submitted by him to point to the complexity of the problem. According to Mr. Lemoine's survey, in 1956 46.2 per cent of Quebec farmers lived on farming alone. The percentage for the whole of Canada, including Quebec that same year was 38 per cent. Therefore, 54 per cent of our farmers have to work outside the farm for part at least of their livelihood. In Quebec, as a matter of fact, 32 per cent derive income from logging and 22 per cent from industry. When I mention the percentage of those who must find some revenue through working in the bush, I believe that this demonstrates the necessity for farmers-especially Quebec farmers-to be assured of a minimum price for pulpwood. This request was often presented by groups belonging to the U.C.C. and the authorities concerned should see to it that a favourable conclusion in this regard be arrived at since this is a matter which involves at least 32 per cent of farmers.
Moreover, in the province of Quebec, there are 18 per cent of farmers whose income from sources outside farming is greater than from farming itself. In his brief Mr. Lemoine also deals with the matter of fertilizing grazing land in areas where raising crops is extremely difficult. In this regard also he went
[Mr. Laflamme.l

on record as approving the opinion expressed by the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Chagnon.
Taking up then the matter of pasture land in these districts, and that of markets for agricultural products, Mr. Lemoine refers to that part of the Gordon Commission report where it is predicted that in 1980 or thereabouts Canada will have 26,000,000 people. Mr. Lemoine states that the expected increase in population as well as the increase in income will make for a stronger consumer demand, with an increasingly pronounced preference for food of the best quality.
This means of course that the development of our agriculture is closely tied to the increase in the population. That is obvious in the case of farmers whose farms are situated close to large centres where they have natural outlets for their products, practically on their doorstep.
In any event, agriculture in those areas should, as much as possible, be directed in such a way that the greatest possible number of farms may provide our farmers with an income comparable to that of other Canadian workers.
The Conservative government merely changed the title and introduced complications in eleven year old Liberal legislation. If the Minister of Agriculture meant to play Santa Claus to the Canadian farmer, he will soon find out that the agricultural class is greatly disappointed by a political party which has promised it everything in that field.
The problems of agriculture are not new. In his brief, Mr. Chagnon states: "I have known the technical aspects of agriculture for the past 30 years and I can say that the problem of inadequate income on the farm is not new. I heard of it even when I was young".
Personally, I am far from approving the formula, which I would describe as one-sided, proposed by the C.C.F. party and I do not like the lack of objectivity of their basically demagogical statements, with regards the best means of increasing farm income.
(Text):


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the applause from my friends on both sides of the house. As this is the first time that I have risen this session I might be permitted to congratulate you, and to say that I am happy to see so many of my old friends in parliament and I am especially

happy to see so many new friends in parliament. I think probably both are an improvement.
I have listened to the debate on this particular bill with some interest and some concern. I believe it is the most important agricultural bill that has ever been brought before this parliament. I can quite appreciate the attitude of those who sit to your left, Mr. Speaker, especially that of my genial friend the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) for whom I have always had a very high regard, whether he believes it or not, when it is suggested that this was an election issue or an election dodge. The reason, Mr. Speaker, is probably- as he has emphasized so fluently-that it is the same bill that he proposed in 1944, just before the 1945 election. In fact he did very well with it at that time but now he comes back with the attitude of scorn it but still adorn it, because he has seen it work twice. It served his purpose very well in 1944; it elected him. He thought so much of it, Mr. Speaker, that he decided he would not use it and now he comes back and sees it is better than it was, and now he condemns it. I sometimes wonder just where we farmers come in here. My hon. friend laughs but I have been a farmer-


An hon. Member:: You still are.


William Earl Rowe: -and I am still a farmer and I am still responsible for the management of a lot of acres. My right hon. friend, the former minister of agriculture, in a facetious mood, when somebody said one day that I was a dirt farmer, replied maybe I was a dirty farmer. Well, Mr. Speaker, he and I both know how difficult it is to keep a farm clean; our farms might be cleaner were it not that we are in parliament. But I will remind him, and he will recall it very well, that a very great friend of his and of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider), said that the right hon. former minister of agriculture was one of the greatest politicians ever to be the minister of agriculture. He said-in a very facetious mood because I did not agree with it and I know my right hon. friend did not agree with it either-that when the right hon. gentleman went home after he had been talking politics for so long and he ground up some of his surplus wheat and wanted to feed it to a hog, the hog backed up and said "You have fooled so many people, I do not believe I will try to eat it."
However, Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the right hon. the former minister of agriculture this afternoon and I could not help but think of how regretful he must have been that he had not used that mediocre bill more
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization than he did. There was nobody to your left, Mr. Speaker, who could have done more to help re-elect the previous government than the right hon. gentleman. I would not like to say that he was the most responsible for their defeat but he could have been the most responsible for their remaining in power had he then used a little more of the powers he had under that bill. I know that he had opposition in his cabinet; I know that he was not able to do all the things he wanted to do and perhaps he and I are both in the twilight of our careers so I would hesitate to say the things I used to say about him-


James Garfield Gardiner: Go right ahead.


William Earl Rowe: I know he likes this bill. I know he knows it is an improvement on his bill. I know when he speaks about hesitating to support it that he has no intention of opposing it, because he would rather risk the fortunes of the farmers than risk the next election on this issue-


James Garfield Gardiner: Try me.


William Earl Rowe: I know if I was in his position I would too. Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill. This bill has been improved.
The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hark-ness) today is a very fortunate choice as the Minister of Agriculture at this time. No man in Canada on our side of the house- and certainly with their reputation there is no one over there one would want to pick now-could have been picked who would have made a finer minister of agriculture than the present minister. He is one of those down to earth men, he is a farmer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh,
do not be so modest.


William Earl Rowe: He is a lot better minister than you would have made. There is no one, Mr. Speaker, in this house who talks so long on so many things of such very little interest to anyone as the hon. gentleman who has just interrupted. Just compare the two, Mr. Speaker; just compare the two. God help the Canadian farmer if the member for Winnipeg North Centre had been minister of agriculture. He would not know a dairy cow from a beef steer.
Mr. Speaker, we have a practical man; we have a man who does not split hairs; a man who does not waste a lot of the time of parliament. I have been sitting here and you may have thought that I have not been thinking about what has been going on, but I have been counting up what has been going on here in parliament. The right hon. the former prime minister of this dominion, a most distinguished Canadian-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
2696	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


William Earl Rowe: -is a man who, next to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) is the most responsible man in parliament, as you will all agree. Now, I have checked in Hansard and I find my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has used just eight times as many pages as the right hon. the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition in this house. May I remind my hon. friend, because I always have to be an economist in order to pay my hotel bills here, that every hour of this parliament costs our taxpayers $1,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Closure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is this one worth it?


William Earl Rowe: Since last fall he has cost the country about $10,000 in the hours he has spent speaking in this parliament while the right hon. the Leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition has cost this country about $800. In fact he is worth that much to the country and I would have paid his expenses myself. Perhaps his silence is due to his years of experience and his tolerance in listening, as he and I have had to do, to a lot of things that have been of little help to either the farmers or the industrialists or business generally.


An hon. Member:: Not much help is right.


William Earl Rowe: And as for my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg North Centre, I have great admiration for him too. He knows the rules so well and emphasizes them so much that I sometimes wonder if he is a theorist who would almost make parliament look ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, there are 100 members in this house who have not taken up as much time during this session as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Perhaps the wagon that makes the most noise needs the most grease, but I must say I have seen more men talk themselves out of parliament than I have ever seen talk themselves into it. I have heard more nonsense from those who talk the most than from those who talk the least. I listened to the hon. members in the far corner discussing this bill and then moving the amendment that Bill No. 237 be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. My congenial friend, the former minister of agriculture, would not have moved a motion like that, because he would see that this casts the die for another election and would put them further into oblivion than ever before. It needs Spartans to make a motion like that -people like the hon. members in the far corner to make a motion that Bill 237 be not read the second time.


Mr. Speaker, with all your technicalities and rules can you imagine what that means? It would mean the end of this bill. It would mean that these great champions who want to give the farmers 100 per cent parity are saying to the farmers of Canada that we are here in parliament to see that the bill should end entirely. The former minister of agriculture says he does not like it. I think he made an excellent speech; in fact, I have never heard him when he did not make a good speech. I never heard a man who could speak louder when his case was weaker. I have always enjoyed his speeches, because I enjoy the sporty style he has, but he would never be so stupid as to move a motion which would eliminate the bill. He gives quiet acquiescence to it rather than go to the country. He says: it is just a little bit better than the one I brought in that won an election for us.
My hon. friends in the far corner who never hope to have responsibility can champion $100 for old age pensions and 100 per cent parity and not even know what parity means. These champions of agriculture, knowing they will never have an opportunity to come into power, will suggest anything. They would find the former minister of agriculture and myself probably both voting against some of the wild ideas they have. Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me like the last swan song of a party which has seen two other parties get very close in competition; of a party which has no hope; almost like those who have very little pride of ancestry politically and no hope of posterity in the future. My hon. friends in the far corner will not have a corporal's guard here after the next election.
I am amazed at the hon. members to my right who, tonight, would move a motion in the terms I have mentioned with the guaranteed support of those sitting in turn on their right. Neither one would have had the courage, Mr. Speaker, to make such a motion if they thought the other great historic party would support such nonsense. They can be champions, they can hurl, they can move the hell from the blue in their speeches provided they know that the former minister of agriculture and those who follow his good political judgment are not going to be carried down the wild garden path with them.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You are both rowing in the same boat.


William Earl Rowe: I would never want you to row in my boat because I know it would be sure to sink. A man who has had the Conservative inclination you have and who has rowed with the group you have been rowing with for years could not row a thing politically.

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
The Minister of Agriculture has shown me in the short time he has been Minister of Agriculture in this dominion that history will recall him as the best minister of agriculture we have had since confederation. I have great regard for the former minister of agriculture. I have a keen regard for him. He knows I have. I have a keen regard, too, for the old historic Liberal party. I say to my hon. friend from Essex East (Mr. Martin) than I do not want to show him any partiality because I do not know which way he would take it if I did, but I do say to him and to the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) and to whoever else might be a candidate for the leadership of the great historic Liberal party in Canada, that I hope, and I say this with all sincerity, the Liberal party will select a good leader. They have had an excellent leader in the right hon. gentleman, the member for Quebec East (Mr. St. Laurent). He is a gentleman, a great Canadian, a great statesman and a man who will go down in history as having been the prime minister of this dominion for many years without one finger pointing at him. So I hope that whoever is named will be a good leader, because I am confident that if democracy is going to continue in this country it will go on with a two-party system. I am satisfied-and I am more confident than ever after listening to the debate on the motion which has been moved today-that there is no room in this house for more than a yes or no to any question, and that does not need more than two parties.
Mr. Speaker, I am, as probably you know, a champion-or I am trying to be a champion; I am not much of a champion-of free enterprise. I am a subscriber, at least, to private enterprise, and I am confident that no man merits his place in this country who does not burn the midnight oil. You will see that whoever is chosen leader of the Liberal party will burn the most midnight oil in Canada between now and the time the hon. member for Quebec East retires.
I do not believe in regimentation. That is why I can quite understand that hon. members to my right would not subscribe to this bill because it would not guarantee 100 per cent parity, in other words it would not guarantee over-payments for over-production and guarantee surpluses which would put us in a worse mess than the United States is in today. Mr. Speaker, stop and think. Have any responsible people in Canada been suggesting that we should go out for 100 per cent parity. Why, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Benson in the United States today is almost smothered with his surpluses which are now worth $10 billion. A few years ago it cost $1,300
million to handle the surpluses of the United States. Last year it cost $3,300 million. If they are going on as they are going on at present in this great new land and produce much more of what they do not need it may well be that the cost in future will be greater than $10 billion.
The former minister of agriculture says this bill is not much better than it was before.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not quite as good.


William Earl Rowe: Well, then, if you think it is not quite as good I cannot figure out in my limited experience why you do not vote against it. Probably you can, and you will tell me on the side.
Mr. Speaker, the former legislation which the Liberal administration brought in emphasized the uncertainty of the farmers' prices. The bill which the Minister of Agriculture has brought in now emphasizes stability. You did not have a 12 months guarantee. You could do as you like with it, which you did, and that is why the farmers of Canada voted against you. They had lost confidence in your administration of the act, though they believed there was some merit in it. In all fairness, you did not even take what merit there was in the act out of it, and yet you are criticizing the present Minister of Agriculture who has improved it and who has suggested it will give at least a 12 months guarantee.
The flexibility has been criticized. I know the former minister of agriculture tried to emphasize today-and I ask his pardon because I was called out to the telephone; in fact, I expected to leave on the 4.15 plane; I went out to the airport, but the plane was grounded; I cannot blame either the opposition or the government for this-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Lost in the fog.


William Earl Rowe: I heard the hon. member waxing eloquent and speaking loudly and with all due regard for him I must say that every time I hear him speaking loudly I know that his case is almost lost. The hon. member knew that this bill was an improvement on his. He realized that it meant stability. As a farmer he knows there is nothing the Canadian farmers need more than stability.
I have farmed all my life as did my parents and grandparents and I think I farm with relative efficiency. I am not going to say that I farm as efficiently as I would like to but I am still farming a lot of acres and I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions. If I were too inefficient in my operations I would lose acres. My farming experience has taught me that there is nothing as important to the farmer as stability of prices. When
2698	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization a farmer has his stock ready for market and learns that the price has dropped 50 per cent it is a heartbreaking experience. When the taxes are due and the buyers come in and offer him five cents a pound less for beef or some other product it is a soul-sickening ordeal for both the farmer and his wife.
What is being proposed now is that the farmer will have at least an 80 per cent guarantee as a minimum. The maximum can be 100 per cent or it can be more. The former minister of agriculture knows as well as he knows he is a prominent member of the Liberal party that you cannot have a sound agricultural policy without flexibility such as is provided in this bill. He emphasized the flexibility existing in 1944. My hon. friends to his left would recklessly suggest that we should have 100 per cent guaranteed parity. I have heard my hon. friends to my right and my hon. friends in the far corner on the other side of the house say that the Prime Minister had at some time in the past talked about parity. Certainly he talked about parity but at no time did he say that he stood for 100 per cent parity as a fixed principle.


Edward George McCullough: Be careful.


William Earl Rowe: The provisions of the bill before us might very well mean 125 per cent parity. The rigidity of 100 per cent parity would be a most dangerous precedent for any party to put into force and the only ones who suggest it are those who know they have no hope of ever being in power.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


William Earl Rowe: Surely.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did I understand the hon. member to suggest that his leader has no fixed principles?


William Earl Rowe: I think the hon. member made that comment in a facetious way and therefore I will not repeat what my good friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twiilingate (Mr. Pickersgill) said the other day to the effect that there were no principles down in his riding. I am sure there are but I am sorry he does not recognize any in other places. I shall only say that I think he phrased that question rather facetiously.
The leader of our party has said on repeated occasions that he believed in a principle of parity that would bear a fair relationship to the cost of production and farm prices and I believe he has stood on that principle. I know that my friend, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twiilingate, has at least enough principles to recognize that that


is the principle. I do not believe that any party should follow the principle of rigid parity.
I am not going to suggest that this bill is a cure-all for the entire agricultural industry. Agriculture is a unique industry and it is considered the basic industry. It is not many years ago that 80 per cent of the people in Canada were involved in agricultural production and dependent for their livelihood upon it. Today only about 15 or 18 per cent are in this position because the machine age and all that it implies has changed the situation. I am convinced that no government in Canada is doing its duty toward this young dominion if it neglects agriculture. In saying that I am not suggesting that any government should assist agriculture with a view to winning the farmer's vote. We have been through two great wars within the last few years and we know that if the agricultural industry in Canada should fall down our armies would fall down. The high prices that were paid for agricultural commodities during periods of war are an indication that agriculture is not only indigenous to Canada in peace but is of paramount importance in time of war.
If we are worthy of the place we hold in parliament we should keep agriculture in a reasonably prosperous position. I do not believe we should be expected to build up supports to the extent of pap-feeding the production of agricultural products of which we have a surplus but I do believe that agriculture generally should be taken into account. We have unemployment insurance for the labourer when he is out of a job but to date we have had very little that would assist the farmer when his prices drop and he has to sell his goods at a price less than his cost of production or even the cost of the labour involved in his production in some cases.
I do not believe we can put a set, fixed and rigid price on agricultural commodities to the extent that we are going to encourage the production of something that nobody wants. I have great regard for the Minister of Agriculture. With all due respect for the former minister of agriculture I would express my belief that the present Minister of Agriculture is one of the best ministers of agriculture that Canada has had since confederation. I do not want to see him follow the policies my hon. friends down to the left who know very little about agriculture advocate in their wild and impetuous suggestions which they can never hope or expect to put in practice. If he did, I think some day he would be wiping rotten eggs off his hat like Mr. Benson in the

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
United States. Mr. Benson is a great gentleman but he got hold of a policy like the Irishman who had hold of a wildcat by the tail; he was afraid to let go and he was terrified to hang on. Mr. Benson under this policy has built up surpluses that neither the present nor the former minister of agriculture could have possibly tolerated. I will say that while the former minister of agriculture did not do everything he might have done for the farmers of Canada-and many farmers thought so-and although he lost an election he did not put Canada into the position that he might have put it into had he followed the policies he almost indicated today we should follow.
I am glad we have a Minister of Agriculture today who is responsible, practical and who is also a free enterpriser.
Probably it would suit my hon. friends down in the far corner better to establish surpluses for which eventually they would have to provide controls and take over and tell the farmer whether he is going to produce soybeans or beef cattle, or whether he is going to produce seed corn or jersey cattle. I have heard them wax eloquent and I have read their manifestos over many years past. They do not believe in free enterprise and the farmer is the greatest free enterpriser in the world. If they can establish those unsound policies there is no need to have anything, Mr. Speaker, except totalitarian controls. If you are going to give the farmer more money than the product will bring on the world market and increase the world surplus, then there is nothing left to do but to curtail his acreage and get the control that they would expect to have over every industry, every enterprise and every vocation in Canada. '


Peter Stefura: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Earl Rowe: Go ahead, if you wish.


Peter Stefura: I should like to know what agricultural commodity is in a surplus position so far as the world is concerned?


William Earl Rowe: Since the question comes from the hon. member, I do not know why I should have to answer it.


Peter Stefura: I did not hear that.


Mr. Hahn:: I thought you were going to tell us.


William Earl Rowe: I thought you should know, that is why you asked me. I do know this. Many years ago, not only now, we had more wheat than we could sell in Canada. Before the hon. member was a member of the House of Commons I was a member here when the party that sits to Mr. Speaker's left left 96698-171
office and left every elevator in Canada bursting with unsold wheat in 1929, just as they left every lumber yard filled with lumber that had not been burned.
I have heard the former minister of agriculture wax eloquent about the Bennett buggies. I tell him that nobody built the Bennett buggies more than the Liberal regime that started in 1921 and ran to 1930. More big institutions were built in those years than ever before and the farmers of Canada were buying Danish bacon over the counters in Regina in the province of Saskatchewan to feed their own people. The minister was talking about mixed farming in those days. I have lived long enough, Mr. Speaker, to see, in the slang of the street, the chickens come home to roost.
I hear my hon. friends to your left, Mr. Speaker, harping about the fact that we might buy a few manufactured products. I have been in this house when I have heard them say that we should buy wherever we could get goods cheaper; that the only way we can sell our wheat and manufactured products is to have people buy our farm products. Well, they bought $1,400,000,000 worth of goods from the United States of America last year more than we sold them. How much wheat did you sell to them? How much bacon did you sell to them? How much cheese did you sell to them? People do not buy from us because we buy from them. They buy from us because they need our products. They buy our raw products because they have exhausted their raw products. We sell the wheat because they need our farm products. When I hear these gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, I wonder. I look over at the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider), and I wonder whether the old dusty scales of free trade have dropped off his eyes yet because I realize, Mr. Speaker, that he knows about the industries in that county, he knows that if he followed the policies of the Liberal party he would never have been elected, let alone re-elected to parliament.
The greatest market for agricultural products, Mr. Speaker, is the home market. I believe in free trade but I believe in fair trade. I believe in equalizatiqp of conditions. I believe that when we pay three times the wages that are paid in some other countries and our employees work only two-thirds of the time that should be taken into account when you sit down around a table rather than the theoretical and philosophical ideas we have from people over there in one breath and government control in another.
I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that the bill that is before the house at this time will do more to stabilize agricultural conditions than

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization anything in the past has done. I should like to give a word of encouragement to our new Minister of Agriculture. I believe, Mr. Speaker-I do not know yet; he has not told me; he may not tell me until after the next election-that the right hon. former minister of agriculture knows in his heart of hearts, as he is getting in the twilight of his career which has been an outstanding one, that the present minister is one of the finest ministers of agriculture this country has ever had.
I believe his policy is sound. I am glad that he does not allow himself to be twisted or turned by the fantastic suggestions which are made by my hon. friends to the left.
Oh, I listened to the boys the other day. When they were not laughing they were jeering; when they were not jeering they were jibing, trying to knock this legislation. My hon. friends over there moved an amendment-you are not going to support it. If you support it it will be the climax of your folly:
That Bill No. 237 be not now read-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apparently you have not read it.


William Earl Rowe: Oh, I have read it. While you were talking I was reading. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seems to have such ecclesiastical pride that he thinks nobody listens even when he is talking nonsense. He suggests:
That Bill No. 237 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
As the great champion of parliamentary rights he knows, as the former minister of agriculture knows, that this does not mean giving the bill a six-months hoist but ending it entirely. I hope the farmers know that this great champion of the agricultural industry would know nothing about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe does not realize that time passes very quickly when he is on his feet. His time has expired.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who preceded me seemed to feel it wise'that he should chide the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for taking up a great deal of the time of this house. I think it can be left to the judgment of the house and of the Canadian people as to which one of those two hon. members uses the time of this house more usefully. This evening the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), according to his own calculations, used up about $800 worth of time, and although he did provide us with some entertainment he

certainly did not say anything about the bill.
I will have to pass by most of what he said since it had nothing to do with the legislation before us, but I cannot resist the temptation to refer to at least one of his statements.
He made quite a thing of free enterprise.
I think he should know from his wide experience in this house, and certainly the members of the party to which he belongs must know, that it was the leader of their own party, the first prime minister of Canada as a matter of fact, who struck a blow at free enterprise from which it has never recovered.
It was he who introduced the tariff system in this country. No member can stand up in this house and talk about free enterprise and at the same time endorse a tariff system such as we had in the days of the late R. B. Bennett, which practically ruined this country. It was the antithesis of free enterprise. Certainly it was the most damaging kind of control that could have been introduced.
However, this evening I should like to deal with the legislation which is before us. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that what we are doing now in debating this bill is a continuation of something which has become an historical struggle in this country that is the struggle of agriculture to obtain its fair share of the national income. This struggle has been going on for many, many years. I should like to pay tribute to the many members, particularly those from western Canada and not all of the same political persuasion, who have from time to time championed the cause of agriculture and have made some progress. I take some pride and satisfaction in the fact that if we go over the records containing the history of this question we will find that many of the leaders of the movement to which I belong, some of whom are no longer with us, took a very active and valuable part in continuing that struggle for a fair share of the national income for agriculture.
After all, that is the central and main issue. The government may make all the excuses they want to make, the government can try to pretend that they are changing this bill in any way they want, but the central issue and the issue which farm organizations are placing before this parliament is a fair share of the national income for agriculture. Unless the government faces this issue of whether or not this legislation is designed to, and will have the effect of, providing agriculture with a fair share of the national income, then 1 say they are not fulfilling the objectives for which farm organizations and various members of the House of Commons from the west have fought all during these years.

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe repeated several times that the amendment now before us, which I seconded and support, would have the effect of killing the bill. He made a very obvious attempt to try to frighten the opposition with that statement. He knows, if he was in the house this morning, that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hark-ness) has already killed the bill. The minister tried to drag in certain amendments in order to change the bill but ended up by saying that the bill would have to be redrafted. As a matter of fact, therefore, the original bill which came before the house has already met its demise at the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. I am glad my colleague, the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) moved the motion he did. We are trying to play fair with the farm organizations of this country. We are trying to keep faith with the people whom we represent. When I say "we" I mean not only the members in this group but the members who represent agriculture generally in this house.
During the election campaign the former government took a certain stand on agriculture. Whether that stand was the right one or the wrong one is not the question at issue at this time. I have my opinion on that and I have expressed it many times before. The former government took its stand on this question, and the three other opposition parties took an opposite stand. The Liberal government was not in favour of a parity price system. While I often disagree with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) I must express a certain amount of admiration for the fact that tonight he said substantially what he has been saying in this house for the last 22 years so far as agriculture is concerned. On the other hand, we had the Progressive Conservative party, the C.C.F. and the Social Credit who went out on the hustings in the last election and advocated parity prices for farm products. I am proud to be able to say that my colleagues in the C.C.F. are living up to that promise. We are keeping faith with our electors. I can give the same credit to my Social Credit friends. I cannot put any blame upon my Liberal friends because they took the opposite stand and are still taking the opposite stand. However, I cannot condone or forgive the attitude of the Conservative party or their leader who went out at election time and prate to the farmers about parity prices from one end of the country to the other. At that time every Conservative candidate seemed to know what parity prices meant and had no hesitation in talking about them. Today one of their elder members, a former minister in the second last Conservative government we had in this 96698-171}
country, has the temerity to get up and say nobody knows what parity prices are. Let me say to him that if he does not know I would suggest he consult his own Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) because his own Prime Minister seemed to know a few months ago. I shall have occasion to refer to that again later.
I said that the historic fight of agriculture in this country has been an honourable one. The farmers of this country have never come to parliament asking for something which was not their due. If anything, they have been guilty of modesty. They have a perfect right to claim that agriculture is still the basic industry of Canada. It is still the backbone of our economy, and it is still an industry which, unless it prospers, is going to bring down with it all the rest of our economy. I shall give you, Mr. Speaker, five reasons why I believe agriculture has a good case for asking for its fair share of the national income.
First of all, agriculture is the only source of food and fibre in this country. This is true not only of this country, but the Canadian farm has been traditionally the breadbasket of the world. We will never forget-I am sure the members of the government do not forget-that in the first and second world wars-perhaps to a greater extent in the second world war-the farmers of Canada provided food enough not only to feed the population of this country but to send food to Great Britain, France and our allies. I believe that to a marked extent they were instrumental in helping to win that war.
Agriculture is the source, and the only source of food and fibre in this country, without which there could be nothing else. We can talk about our manufacturing industries, important as they may be, our processing industries, our professions and everything else, but without the food and fibre upon which mankind depends there could be none of these other good things of life. Secondly, agriculture is the basis for many of our secondary industries. I sometimes feel resentful when I hear people who are interested primarily in the secondary industries, manufacturing and processing treating agriculture as if it were something unimportant. They should realize that without agriculture probably anywhere from 40 to 50 per cent of our secondary industries would not exist because they are built around what is produced on the land. The people who find employment in these industries would have no income.
Thirdly, farming is a way of life; it is more than a way of making a living. Agriculture, traditionally and historically, has been a way
2702	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization of life and one of the finest ways of life. Those of us who were fortunate enough to have been brought up on a farm realize that there are certain advantages in it. It is true there are certain disadvantages as well, but there are certain innate advantages in living close to the land. You get benefits there which you do not get anywhere else. It would be a good thing for this country if there were more people living on the land, getting the feel of the soil and living close to nature. I believe it would eliminate a great many of the problems we are facing in our lives today.
Fourth, agriculture is an important part of our national defence system. I have referred already to that in one context, but even at the present time, when we are in so-called peace, the role that Canada could play, whether through NATO or the United Nations or any other system of collective security, would be to guarantee a large and secure supply of food which could be made available in case of a world conflict. When we look at the matter from that point of view, how ridiculous and how petty is all this talk about this unmanageable surplus, about this huge world surplus. At what point does a surplus become unmanageable. I say to the Minister of Agriculture that it becomes unmanageable at the point when the leaders of the government have not the imagination to know how to manage it.
When you look at it in the context of the defence of the western world, you ask yourself what our best possible contribution would be. Do we have guided missiles? Do we have other armaments that amount to anything compared with the great military giants of the world? What would be our best contribution? It would be the secure availability of a food supply. If we had some real sense about this matter we would be providing a food bank on a national basis, to begin with, and integrating that bank with an international food bank which would be the greatest contribution any national defence scheme of this country could make to the world.
Fifth, another reason why agriculture deserves and has a perfect right to demand its fair share of the national income is that it is the one industry in which the Canadian people really excel. I do not think there is another nation in the world where, per man or per man hour or per man day, as much is produced in the way of food and fibre as is produced in Canada. In other words, we are the most efficient producers of food and fibre of any country in the world. We excel in that production. It is a matter of national
[Mr. Zaplitny.l

pride. It is our national emblem. That is the one thing that we can do better than any other country in the world. We fall behind some other nations in the scientific field and we certainly cannot ever hope to compete in the military field. We may fall behind in some other fields. But there is no nation in the world that can out-produce Canada, man for man. Here is something in which we can take a feeling of national pride. Here is something we can do better than anyone else in the world. We should have the sincerity to back that feeling up with something more solid than this kind of trick bill which this minister is trying to pawn off on the farmers of Canada.
The whole objection of the members of the government, including the hon. member who preceded me, to the setting up of a parity price system is the matter of what it would cost the taxpayers. I have not heard of any valid reason which they produced other than that. Certainly it is not a matter of producing too much. The only argument they have used that is understandable is that it may cost the national treasury from time to time some money to maintain a system of support prices based on parity. However, none of them, including the Minister of Agriculture, has to date placed on the record any figures or any estimate whatsoever as to what it may cost the treasury of this country if we were to establish a system of price support based on parity over a period of years. Surely the officials of his department-and if he has not economists there he might borrow a few from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming); there should be a supply in that department-should be able to sit down and give him at least a rough estimate of what may be the cost under various conditions to the treasury of this country.
A good reason why neither the Minister of Agriculture nor any other minister has produced such figures is this. If they did so, I think they or at least the people of Canada would find that this whole business of what it may cost the treasury has been grossly exaggerated out of all proportion. I think what he would find is this. The hon. member for Melville gave us a very good lead in this matter when he spoke today and when he made what I thought was the most important statement in his speech. He said that the market price for food products tends to gravitate to the floor price. That was an extremely important statement from an hon. member who for 22 years was Minister of Agriculture in this country. I want to repeat that statement. He said that the market price has a tendency to gravitate

to the floor price. In other words, when a floor price is set with the backing of the treasury and it becomes a national policy that that shall be the price for that particular commodity, that fact in itself-the very setting up of that floor price-has a strong tendency to bring the market price to that level.
The former minister of agriculture when he made that statement did not make it off the cuff. It was a well considered statement and he knew exactly what he was saying. If that is true-and I believe it is true-then the only way in which we can hope to bring the market price up to the parity level is to set a proper floor price to begin with. If we did that and if it did turn out that the market price did gravitate to the floor price, and if it stayed at that level, it would not cost the treasury of this country five cents to maintain this parity price system.
But suppose that, under certain conditions, the market price did not reach that particular level and it was necessary then, under a system of deficiency payments or subsidies or whatever term you want to use, to pay some money out of the treasury in order to subsidize certain food products. What would it cost? I have not the figures. I have not the facilities to be able to make even a rough guess. But whatever the sum of money may be-and I have a suspicion that it would be a great deal less than we are led to believe- the question arises: is it worth it? Is that industry important enough to Canada that we should be prepared to take a few million dollars or a few hundred million dollars, as the case may be, in order to subsidize certain food products.
Let me point out to the Minister of Agriculture that in the last ten years the people of Canada have paid approximately $4 billion in the form of duties as a result of our tariff structure. I am not asserting that the farmers of Canada have paid all that money, but the consumers of Canada have paid that amount of money, namely $4 billion, as a subsidy-indirectly, but it is still a subsidy- to the manufacturing industry of this country. They have paid $4 billion in the last ten years. That averages to $400 million a year. I am sure that a fraction of that amount- half of it or less-would be sufficient to cover any of the deficiency payments or any of the subsidies that may be required to maintain all our food products at the parity level. Is there any reason why the taxpayers and the consumers-because after all the taxpayers and the consumers in this country are one and the same people-should not contribute to agriculture a fraction of what they are contributing and have been contributing
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization practically since Confederation to the manufacturing industry of this country. On that basis alone that money could be found.
But let us look at the matter from another point of view. Let us compare the value of our agricultural industry with some of the things we are doing for our so-called national defence. If a war were declared, or if we were in the misfortune of becoming involved in a world war within the next few days, instead of the approximately $2 billion which we are paying for national defence at the present time, it is quite likely that we would be paying anywhere from $5 billion to $6 billion or maybe $10 or $12 billion a year. No one knows where the limit may be. As a matter of fact, once we were in it there would be no limit. We would spend as much as would be necessary to maintain our war effort. We found that out in 1939, when the C.C.F. members of the house, as in 1936, 1937 and 1938, asked for a floor price. There was apprehension and we were told, if you do that the country will go bankrupt. Our whole budget in 1938 amounted to $600 million, including national defence. By the end of the war we were spending about $5 billion a year and the country was never in better economic shape than it was at that time.
That means that if the will is there the resources are there. We are capable of providing the money once this parliament makes up its mind that this is an industry which deserves that kind of support and which is going to get that as a matter of principle and as a matter of right.
We could stabilize and support a parity price system for our products for about the cost of one sputnik, half the cost of a D.E.W. line or about the cost of one fleet of modern jets. Now there is a comparison of what we could do for agriculture if we put our minds to it and if we decided it was just as important to this nation and to the world as these national defence armaments on which we are spending so much money.
Now I would like to say a word or two about the actual provisions of the bill itself. I think there are four points in particular to which the farmers of this country took strong exception when they saw the original bill. In the first place, in spite of what the Minister of Agriculture has said-in two speeches now-there is still no basis for parity in this bill. There is nothing in the bill he has introduced, which will include the amendments which he has proposed which provides a base for parity. The best one can say for the base that he is prepared to place under price supports, is that it will be something like 80 per cent of 80 per cent of the three poorest years the farmers ever had.
2704	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
Secondly, there is no formula upon which such a base can be calculated. All of the power, all of the discretion is left to the Minister of Agriculture who is asking parliament for a blank cheque-


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. My hon. friend is doubtless talking about the bill but should he not be talking about the amendment?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need to comment on that. It is only a waste of time and I am sure the hon. member will find out for himself what are the rules of this house.
I was saying that in this bill the Minister of Agriculture is asking for a blank cheque. He is asking the people of Canada and the farmers of this country to agree that he should be the one to decide when there should be a certain price support or when he should place a certain commodity under a support. Is that not exactly what the farmers objected to most strenuously in the old legislation, the Agricultural Prices Support Act? That is one of the reasons why the Liberal administration was defeated, because the farmers had the feeling that the former administration or the former minister of agriculture was using the Agricultural Prices Support Act merely as a political instrument to play around with and for the purpose of influencing people before an election. I am surprised that the present Minister of Agriculture, who himself-and certainly his leader on many occasions in the past has done this- pointed out in rather vivid language in this house, and out of it, that very point which I have made, should now have fallen into exactly the same trap. He is asking this parliament to give him a blank cheque in order that he can fill in the figures a few days before the next election and then tear it up and throw it away the day after the election. That is exactly what he is asking for.
Thirdly, the so-called stabilization board which is provided for under the bill is given absolutely no power and therefore becomes meaningless. When one examines this bill one finds there are certain powers and duties provided for in the bill which the stabilization board "shall exercise" but another part of this bill states in plain language that the stabilization board shall do-and I am only paraphrasing it now-exactly what the Minister of Agriculture tells it to do. In other words, the members have no discretionary power of their own; they have no power whatsoever to administer the act without direction from the Minister of Agriculture. In other words he has decapitated the stabilization board even before he has established it. He has made it completely meaningless under the act.


Fourthly, and this is again one of the chief objections that the farmers had in relation to the Agricultural Prices Support Act, there is nothing in this bill whatsoever to guarantee that the producer shall receive the benefit of price supports that are put into this legislation. There are some pious expressions in the bill -most of them are put there as an afterthought either in the preamble or attached to some clause as a subsection-in which it is hoped that whoever gets the benefit of these price supports will pass them on to the producer, but there is nothing in the bill and there is nothing in the law which states that the producer is entitled to get a certain price support. There is nothing in the administration to say that the producer is entitled to a certain support on any commodity. There is nothing in this bill to indicate that the minister intends that the producer will get the benefit of even those support prices which may be found in the bill.
These are the chief weaknesses and this is the reason why we have received a storm of protests from organized agriculture since this bill came before the house. I can bring to the attention of the minister a whole sheaf of telegrams from various farm union locals, in addition to letters, which set out in no uncertain language what they think of this bill. As a matter of fact I want to give some advice to my colleagues, particularly from the province of Manitoba, who are of the Progressive Conservative party. It is somewhat along the lines of the advice I offered to my Liberal colleagues about a year ago when we were discussing the question of cash advances in this house. My colleagues from Manitoba who represented rural areas were not only not assisting us in trying to get cash advances, but were actually placing stumbling blocks before us. I gave them a friendly warning; I told them that if they did not change their tactics and if they did not get in on the side of the farmers there would not be one of them returned to this House of Commons after the election in 1957. Now they laughed at that; they thought it was a good joke and as a matter of fact they told me they would be here long after I was gone. Well, that is exactly what happened; not one Liberal member from Manitoba came back. The lonesome one who is here is a new member who could not be blamed for what took place before and he just squeezed in.
Now I am going to give that same advice to my Progressive Conservative friends. We have eight members from the province of Manitoba and most of them represent rural areas. Let me say to them that unless they get up on the floor of this house and put themselves solidly on the side of support

prices based on parity they will be taking the grave risk of facing the wrath of the electors in those constituencies and they may meet the same fate as was met by their Liberal opponents.
I think the farmers have now reached the stage where they will not stand for any more broken promises. They have been kidded for so many years and they have been fooled so many times by the previous administration that they are going to give this government just one chance. They are going to give them an opportunity to fulfil the promises which the Prime Minister made. Oh, when he went across this country what rolling phrases he used when he talked about parity prices. I can almost see him today! They are not going to forget that. He made a very vivid impression, perhaps too vivid for his own good, because he is going to live long in the memory of those farmers. As a matter of fact they seem to be remembering it right now.
I can remember an episode about a year and a half ago when the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) who was trying to defend the agricultural policy of his government on television became involved in a shot that was heard all across Canada. I am sure the gentleman who loosed that shot decided to vote Conservative and, after having voted Conservative in the last election and after having seen this bill, he decided to write a little verse. So that there can be no question of a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I will take full responsibility for this verse. It is entitled "A Farmer's Lament" and it goes like this:
A fair share of the nation's wealth For food to guard the nation's health The Tories promised they would give If I would vote Conservative!
With eloquence and clarity John spoke to us of parity His soft soap was superlative Who would not vote Conservative?
I did-and got the Harkness Bill And there it is: a nasty pill As full of loopholes as a sieve For this I turned Conservative?
Well, this is it: This is the end They've really gone around the bend A hundred years if I should live I'll never vote Conservative?


Edward Blake Huffman: Mr. Speaker, no doubt the minister realizes by this time that his predecessor in office may have had some uncomfortable times in dealing with the complex problems of agriculture. I did not speak on the resolution. I was one of those who over the period of the past six or seven weeks have been looking to the
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization early introduction of the bill which is now before us. It was my hope that if the bill was going to do all it was expected to do, and all it was intended to do, for agriculture, it would be debated as soon as possible. I was prepared to forego any comment at the resolution stage in the hope, as I say, that an early implementation of its proposals would assist in solving some of the difficulties facing the agricultural industry. I did prepare some notes in readiness to take part in the debate on the resolution stage. Those notes were discarded. Then, on the introduction of the bill some further notes were prepared, but with the amendments the minister announced at the beginning of this sitting I thought I had better hear all the speeches from all parts of the house and then speak currently in case there might be further amendments before I had a chance to do so.
Mr. Speaker, we seem to be moving from precedent to precedent. First, we had a budget that was not a budget; then we had a ruling in this house that made a precedent as well, and now we have a bill that is not a bill. Nonetheless, I should like to congratulate the members of the farm organizations who have very effectively presented their thinking to the government and to hon. members in all parts of the house. This has resulted in changes being made to the bill, and I think the minister will be able to detect that further representations and requests will be made before the bill is passed in whatever form it may finally appear for approval.
This afternoon we heard the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) say there was really no hurry about passing this bill because the government could do anything it might want to do under the bill now in effect, namely the Agricultural Prices Support Act, and that for this reason he thought his party would support the amendment which is before the house at this time.
I was always concerned about the provisions of the Agricultural Support Act, I think hon. members opposite will recall when I sat just further down on this side of the house-I have never sat on the other side of the house-I told the government of which I was a supporter that there were some problems with regard to agriculture, and I did make some recommendations to the previous government, so anything I say at this time will not be different from what I said on previous occasions.
We have heard a great deal said today about flexible prices, parity prices and so on. I should just like to refer to the remarks which were made by the Prime Minister

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization (Mr. Diefenbaker) on one occasion. I cannot find the exact quotation at the moment, but the Prime Minister's words were reported in the Ottawa Journal. He was speaking about what proposals the new administration would make for agriculture and his remarks contained reference to three proposals. One was that they would restore the markets for farm products, the second was that they would provide security, and the third that they would give assurance to the farmers, and all of this would be based on the relationship between the cost of the things the farmer had to buy and the price at which he had to sell.
Now, I should like to refer to three words in that reference, the word "restore", the word "guarantee" and the word "assure". It was very interesting to hear the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) speak, because always when he spoke in this house on previous occasions he spoke about our lost markets in the United Kingdom. Well, he did not go so far tonight, I am sure everyone will agree on that. I was able to get some figures as to the price at which beef is being provided to the United Kingdom at this time by Australia-hind quarters, grade A, $17.60. Everyone knows that live beef is selling in this country at that price and higher, so it would be impossible for Canadian producers, unless the government was prepared to subsidize the production of beef very substantially, to recapture this market which we have been accused of losing. Again, I notice that Denmark is supplying bacon to the United Kingdom at 33 cents a pound, and I think everyone knows that the price of bacon in this country is a great deal higher than that, so again it would have to be subsidization at a level which few people in this country would be prepared to accept. But this phrase about recapturing lost markets was a good phrase to go around the country with, and I think it was quite effective. Nonetheless it was not one which had a real practical application.
The other word I referred to was "security". I listened when the Minister of Agriculture was presenting the resolution preceding this bill and I recall a reference he made to butter which was put forward as a very simple example on the basis of which he hoped everyone would understand the intent, proposal and formula of this bill. With regard to butter, he said, we would take an easy figure of 60 cents, and he added: we will assure the Canadian people that the price will not fall below 80 per cent of that figure, namely 48 cents.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said that the guaranteed price would be better than 60 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: You said what he said too.


Edward Blake Huffman: I also recall that the minister said this as well: you take the base period and you can fix a price at 105 per cent of the base, or 120 per cent of the base but that the assured price would not be less.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is not assured price, that is the absolute mandatory floor which is always there under the legislation. It is not the price set for a year ahead.


Edward Blake Huffman: You said the guaranteed price would not be less than 80 per cent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, that is not the guaranteed price. That is the mandatory floor price.


Edward Blake Huffman: The minister in his own words mentioned 120 per cent. That was the figure he used as a maximum.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, I did not. I said it could be anything.


Edward Blake Huffman: You said it could be 120 per cent or it could be this other figure.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That was used as an illustration. I did not say it was the maximum.


Edward Blake Huffman: All right, we will take your illustration but there was a difference of 40 per cent between your illustration of 120 per cent on the one hand and 80 per cent on the other hand. I cannot see where the people of Canada could believe that there will be a great deal of security with a fluctuation of 40 per cent in the commodity that the minister used by way of example. I was only using the example the minister used so I thought I would be perfectly safe in so doing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On the contrary you are trying to misrepresent the figures. You are attempting to convey the impression that the 80 per cent mandatory floor price was all that there was.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. Since the beginning of this debate the minister has been interrupting and talking out of turn. I believe he should remain in his seat and wait until his turn comes again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is correct. The minister should not interrupt.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have been doing very little interrupting but I have often been strongly tempted.


Edward Blake Huffman: If the statement I have made concerning my understanding of the minister's statement can be so misunderstood in

this house then I can only conclude that his statement will be misunderstood outside the house as well.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And is.


Edward Blake Huffman: Another point to which I wish to refer might also cause some misunderstanding. This afternoon the former minister of agriculture indicated that there were candidates in the last election who went about advocating 100 per cent of parity and he referred to an advertisement that appeared in the Chatham Daily News on June 5. This was a rather difficult campaign in which to be engaged because this advertisement contains the following words:
Farmers Income:
Grains	 Down 30 per cent
Beef Cattle	 Down 40 per cent
Chickens	 Down 33 per cent
Turkeys	 Down 30 per cent
Eggs	 Down 35 per cent
It then goes on to say:
Mr. Consumer says:
"Our cost of living continues to rise with lower farm prices."
What is the answer?
John Diefenbaker and Albert Jolley say 100 per cent parity support prices.
Anybody with $1,000 worth of any of the commodities listed in that advertisement would assume from this wording that instead of receiving $1,000 for their commodities they could expect to receive $1,400 under a Conservative administration and so on all down the list of the commodities as indicated. What has been the effect of this kind of advertisement? The Conservative government came to office and has proceeded to introduce certain measures but there has also been introduced a certain unfortunate attitude expressed in words such as those which can be found at page 2405 of Hansard of December 14 and on other occasions. On December 14 the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) was speaking and reminding the government of what had been said in the way of promises by Conservative candidates in the election campaign. An unidentified hon. member is reported on this occasion as saying:
It worked did it not?
On the occasion when the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) was speaking about the budget proposals brought in by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and concerning the Conservative charge to the effect that there had been overtaxation to the extent of $500 million an hon. member also said, "It worked". I feel that is an unfortunate attitude that has permeated this house. I found it was difficult to combat policies and promises in the election campaign such as those stated in print in the 96698-172
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization press of this country. The principle of 100 per cent of parity must have been the view of Conservative candidates and I presume as a result of advertisements of this kind many people felt that the policy of the present government would be for 100 per cent of parity.
Shortly after the present government took office information came to us that many people were coming to Ottawa to make representations to the government on behalf of the agricultural industry to the effect that something should be done immediately for this industry. It was reported in the press that the government did not plan to do anything at the present time because it would not do it by order in council. I know that some of the things that have been done since that time for the agricultural industry must have been done by order in council. If the orders in council are properly presented to the people of this country they will be able to assess whether or not it was in the best interests of this country to do what was done by order in council. I know every government must pass orders in council from time to time.
There is one other thing that disturbs me. If the government places a floor of 120 per cent of the base price and the floor is above the price in a country that has such commodities to export, what will the government do to prevent supporting a foreign commodity. If the government uses the export-import regulations indiscriminately many people will ask where this will lead us. An article published in the Family Herald of October 3, 1957 entitled "Canadian Farmers Must Still Export" contains some interesting figures. I note that in 1956 Canada exported $1,009 million of agricultural products but in the same period we imported $690 million of agricultural products. Of that $690 million of imports $335 million were commodities not obtainable in Canada. I think it is clear that we are bound to export many of the agricultural commodities that we produce. Our export of agricultural products amounts to approximately 25 per cent of our total exports. I hope that when the government is considering all the implications of this bill as it presently stands it will take into account all that is involved in the export and import of our agricultural commodities.
In this morning's Globe and Mail there appeared a headline reading, "Ontario Plans to Give Up Farm Marketing Controls". I know that that headline will certainly cause a great deal of concern among those who over the years have developed what has been a sound basis for selling commodities

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization that are produced within a province and those products are sold in all the provinces of Canada or outside of Canada.
The article refers to too much pressure. I do not know whether it is right to assume that if too much pressure is exercised on a government, that government will abandon the legislation and turn all the problems over to the farm organizations. If that is so, then I am convinced that it would be a retrograde step for any government to take because so much goes into interprovincial and export trade. I think wTe should do everything we can to try to maintain the best relationships between governments and the agricultural industry. Since we export so much, I think there is every good reason why the government should be concerned with the problems of the industry.
The agricultural problem is not an insoluble one. It is necessary for every hon. member, no matter where he sits in this house, to work toward a solution that will bring stability to a worthy occupation, one that has contributed a great deal to Canada. The whole economic structure of Canada is moving toward a specific goal, namely that of security. We have social services: we have retirement pension plans and hospitalization proposals. The primary producers, whatever their line of production, are moving toward the same goal. The minister has asked for an early adoption of this bill. Since we have waited this long, let us examine the bill thoroughly so that there will be no misunderstanding before the bill passes or after it is passed.


Mr. J. W. Baskin (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the first time to address this house and to take part in this extremely important debate. May I first of all congratulate you, sir, upon your election to the high office of Speaker of this house. I would like to join with those who have extended congratulations to my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith), who so ably moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne and also to my seat-mate, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault), who so ably seconded the address.
The legislation before us, Mr. Speaker, is a matter of great interest to the rural people of Canada, the people who are the backbone of this country. The farm voters on June 10 went on record across our country as supporting this government and its election promise to establish a firm but flexible price support program for farm products. Failure of rigid or fixed price supports has already been experienced in the United States of America. Surely we can benefit from the

mistakes of our United States neighbours and avoid the pitfalls of rigid price-fixing as advocated by some hon. members in the opposition party.
As recently as the 12th day of this month
2,000	American farm men and women gathered in Chicago and discussed their farm problems. Their chosen leader, President Charles B. Shuman, of the American farm bureau federation, representing a farm organization of 1,500,000 farm families, was reported by the Christian Science Monitor correspondent as follows:
As talking the way most farmers like to hear a man talk, soundly, and without resorting to emotional appeal, relying on what they call common sense.
He urged a conservative approach to the problem of farm surpluses. President Shuman said in part:
Change in agriculture is inevitable and continuous. Government policies should be such as to facilitate rather than retard the needed changes in production and marketing practices.
Price fixing and acreage controls have encouraged farmers to find ways of expanding output of farm commodities beyond market needs instead of making adjustments in production.
Farther on in his address he offered a seven-point program designed to end government purchases of farm commodities and to take steps to liquidate present holdings. He advocated-and I emphasize this-the use of price supports only as a floor and not as a price fixing device. Here we have the advice of a top farm leader, Mr. Speaker, a genuine farmer and a highly qualified agronomist and economist, who states that a fixed price farm program is not the answer.
This bill now before the house provides a sound and flexible price support program. And, of course, Mr. Speaker, although agricultural production does not play as great a part in our national economy as it did a number of years ago, nevertheless it is still a fact that there is no sound prosperity in Canada when the rural areas are depressed.
The problem that I want to bring to the attention of the house is a general one to many farmers in my constituency of Renfrew -South, and to farmers generally in eastern Canada. Therefore, my riding is no exception. However, Renfrew South, which I represent, is the riding I know best. In this great constituency are located many splendid and excellent dairy farms, also numerous and good mixed farming activities. I am strongly in support of the effort that is being made through this bill by our government and presented by our capable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). I am confident that the proposed measure will give much needed stability to the livestock and dairy production industry, as well as to fruits and vegetables and other

products which are perhaps the basic features of a sound agricultural economy. However, Mr. Speaker, I think I am in order in drawing to the attention of this house, and more especially to the Minister of Agriculture, a somewhat forgotten branch of our great agricultural industry.
The older residents of my riding will recall with no small degree of pride the great native forest wealth of our picturesque Ottawa valley, the great white pines that meant so much in the early development of this country as they were shipped in great volume to Great Britain and to other countries beyond the seas. These facts are only a pleasant memory today. I might add, however, that we still have, even though more limited, high quality white pine and other species of timber. This, Mr. Speaker, does not exactly involve what I wanted to bring to the attention of the department, but many may have overlooked the fact that a rich forest area does not always necessarily mean that a rich agricultural area should follow. The nature of the soil, the rigours of the climate that affect successful forestry are not always conducive to equally successful agriculture. Nevertheless I know many enterprising farmers who amaze me with their unique genius for making marginal soils produce and who supplement their income by cutting pulpwood off the balance of their farm. They look upon their wood lot as just another field, and with long-range policy anticipate a reasonable income for generations yet to come.
Indeed, we are a very young country. However, we are at least old enough to learn that in countries such as Sweden and Norway, where by sound management, similar incomes from forestry production have been perpetuated for 500 years on farms that have been providing livestock and other food products for their people and still providing wood fibre from parts of their farms. In Sweden, for instance, one is almost ostracized from society if he harvests this great product of the soil in a manner that would jeopardize the chances of future generations benefiting from this great heritage.
The annual harvest of a pulpwood crop will not be of much interest to our many prairie friends. I suggest to my sincere wheat growers from western Canada, however, that while we in Renfrew South can grow some wheat and we are interested in the great problems of wheat sales, and while it may take a few months to grow a crop of wheat on your soil, it takes our people up to 60 years to grow a crop of trees suitable for pulpwood. We in Renfrew South love our trees; indeed, they are part of our national pride. May I suggest to the Minister of 96698-1724
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization Agriculture that while I am supporting this bill 100 per cent I should like to see consideration given in the future to the many farmers who annually depend on a reasonable sale price for this great agricultural crop of pulpwood.
Mr. Speaker, I and my family have been in the lumber business for many years. I feel I know the problems of the farmers who produce pulpwood. I can remember as a young boy accompanying my father and learning firsthand the problems of those for whom I speak. In many cases their farms are located on the back concessions of townships throughout the various constituencies in eastern Canada. They are the people who live in little houses away in off the roads. I learned at an early age that their problems are as real, and as important, as their neighbours' living in the rich farming belts. I realize also the importance of pulp companies securing their raw products at a reasonable price. However, I do not believe that when consideration is being given that is long overdue to the price structure of farm products, that a careful consideration and indeed a thorough investigation should be made at this time and initiated by the Department of Agriculture to ascertain why our farmers to whom I have referred should be forced to sell this valuable soil production so often at less than half what the companies pay for pulpwood cut from crown lands. The company's cost includes ground rent, fire tax and crown dues paid to our respective provincial governments. The government of Canada derives great revenues from the pulp and paper industry. Over 80 per cent of the pulpwood produced each year in Canada is produced in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes.
Farmers generally, on whose behalf I speak, have supplied to that industry during the year just past over two million cords of pulpwood at ridiculously low prices; indeed, at almost one-half the price paid by the companies for wood coming from their own limits. In spite of this, the cash income for forest products sold off farms in Canada in 1952 was over $87,464,000; in 1953, $83,637,000; in 1954, $83,336,000. Figures for 1955 and 1956 are not available. This has brought into our national economy about $130 million of United States capital.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member suggest that pulpwood comes under the bill? I have been looking at the bill, and while it might be called an agricultural product, I was wondering whether or not he did consider the bill related to pulpwood.


James William Baskin: Yes.
2710	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


William Earl Rowe: On a point of order, I would suggest that it is grown from the soil. In many districts in Canada it is part of the crop on marginal farms. Many farmers in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec make more money out of pulpwood than they do from their dairy herds.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not want to divert the hon. member because it is his maiden speech, but it is approximately ten o'clock, and I thought he might consider that point before he resumes.


James William Baskin: I can finish in about two more minutes. Much of this has gone to the national revenue of Canada, and 75 per cent of it has gone to workmen other than farmers.


Charles Edward Johnston: Just hand it to the Hansard reporter and he will put it on the record.


James William Baskin: You will not be here next time to give anything to the Hansard reporter. Indirectly, this forgotten branch of Canadian farmland production has contributed much to the economy of this great country. Mr. Speaker, I shall not burden you longer but I must say that we have had a change in government. I know we have had a change of heart. Canada now has a government that is vitally concerned with the problems of the ordinary citizen, and has shown its determination to help him. I know that the minister, realizing these facts, will give some thought and consideration to this little

publicized phase of agriculture which is so important and so vital, not only to my own constituency but to many others throughout this land. I know this is a government that is striving, and will continue to strive, to give a square deal to all.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the government leader what is the business for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall commence with the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare; then, take the estimates of the Department of Justice; then, national revenue and then trade and commerce.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if the leader would not give some indication this evening as to what the business of the house is likely to be when we reconvene.


Howard Charles Green: When we meet again on January 3 we shall start with interim supply and then go into the estimates of the departments of national defence and finance.


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